as as, Cornell Gaw School Library Cornell University Library KF 9619.B62 1896 iii’ 3 1924 020 200 766 law BISHOPS NEW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE VOL. II. SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS NEW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OR NEW COMMENTARIES ON THE LAW OF PLEADING AND EVIDENCE AND THE PRACTICE IN CRIMINAL CASES By JOEL PRENTISS BISHOP, LL.D. an Fourta Epirion BEING A NEW WORK BASED ON FORMER EDITIONS VOL. II. SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS CHICAGO T. H. FLOOD AND COMPANY Baw Publishers 1896 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1866, by JOEL PRENTIsS BISHOP, In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1872, by JoEL PRENTISs BisHop, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1880, by JOEL PRENTISs BiIsHoP, the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. Copyright, 1896, By JoEL PRENTIss BisHoP. UNIVERSITY Press: JoHN Witsqn anp Son, CAMBRIDGE. PREFACE TO VOLUME II. Tuis volume is sufficiently explained in the Preface to the first. The number of new cases cited is less than in that volume, but they are very numerous, and they bring the decided law down as near to the date of publication as was consistent with thorough work. To count the cases in these two finished volumes would be a needless labor. But one may approximate the result by counting those on several pages of the Index to the Cases Cited, taken at random, to ascertain the average per page ; then multiply by 252, the number of pages in that Index. There will thus appear to be over twenty-seven thousand cases, many of which are cited from two to a half-dozen times. : It is not probable I shall ever personally revise this book for a new edition. So I commit it to the kind keep- ing of the profession for whose benefit I have spent a long life of authorship. It is for the future to reveal whether or not I have labored in vain. CamuRIDGE, May, 1896. CONTENTS OF VOLUME II. BOOK XII. SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. CHAPTER SEcTION I. Tur Accessory AND THE LIKE. ...... 1-15 § 1. Introduction. 2-11. The Pleading. 12-15. The Evidence. TT. sABRRAY Gok ws ame we we we GS ee we «= 80 III. Arson anp OTHER Like Burnines .... . 31-53 § 31,32. Introduction. 83-49. Indictment. 50-58. Evidence. IV. Assautt anp BarTery. . ...... . . 5404 § 54. Introduction. 55-62. Indictment for the Simple Offence. 63-64. For Aggravated Assaults and Batteries. 65-70 a. The Evidence. V. GATPEMPT 03) Gy Gye Ge a Ge Ge we ce a Se ET § 71-73. Introduction. 74-76. Solicitations to Crime. 77-85. Committing Lower Crime, intending Higher. 86-93. Other Acts, intending a Particular Crime. 94-97. The Evidence. VI. BarratRy ..... ee ee ew ee ew ew) 98-108 VII. Bawpy-Housz. ....... . +4. + . 104122 § 104. Introduction. 105-111. The Indictment. 112-118. The Evidence. 119-122. Letting House for Bawdry. VIII. BuasPpHEMY AND PROFANENESS . .... . . 123-125 IX. Bripery . . . . 2. - 1 1 2 © «© © «@ © ~ 126,127 vill CONTENTS OF VOLUME II. CHAPTER SECTION X. Burepary AND OTHER LIKE BREAKINGS . . . 128-153 § 128. Introduction. 129-130 a. In General of the Indictment. 131-184. Allegation and Proof of Time. 135,136. Allegation and Proof of Place. 187-189. Allegation and Proof of Ownership. 140,141. Same of the Breaking and Entering. 142-150. Same of the Intent. 151-153. Further of the Evidence. XI. CuHAmpERTY AND MAINTENANCE. . .. . . . 154-156 XII. CHrats anp Fatse Prerences. ... . . . 157-198 § 157. Introduction. 158-161. Indictment for Common-law Cheat. 162-186. Same for Statutory False Pretences. 187-193. The Evidence. 194-196. Procedure for the Attempt. 197, 198. Questions of Practice. XIII. Common Sconp. .......... . + 199-201 XIV. Consprracy . 2. 1 ee ee ee ee we we 6202-245 § 202, 208. Introduction. 204-226. In General of the Indictment. 227-236. The Evidence. 237-239. Questions of Practice. 240-245. In Some Particular Forms of Conspiracy. XV. CouNTERFEITING AND THE LIKE as TOCoIN. . 246-271 § 246,247. Introduction. 248-256. Counterfeiting the Coin. 257-262. Passing Counterfeit Coin. 268, 264. Uttering having Other in Possession. 265-268. Possession with Intent to Pass. 269,270. Possessing or Making the Instruments. 271. Some Remaining Questions. XVI. Disorperty House ........ . . 272-283 § 272. Introduction. 273-277. The Indictment. 278-282. The Evidence. 283. The Verdict. XVII. Disturpine MEETINGS .... § 284. Introduction. 285-288. In General and at Common Law. 289-301. Statutory Disturbances. soe ee « 6284-301 XVIII Dvuetning . . . 2. ew ew ew ew wl ew st 6802-811 CONTENTS OF VOLUME II. CHAPTER. XIX. EAVESDROPPING . .... .. 6 « « KX. EMpBezzbeEMENT, . . . . 1 we we ew § 314. Introduction. 815-330. In General. 831-343. In Particular Cases. XXJ. Empracery .........8 684 XXIT. Enerossine . . . . .. ee XXIII. Exposure or Person . ato 93 XXIV. Extortion ..... XXV. Fause ImprisonMENT. . . .... XXVI. Forcisre Entry anp DETAINER. .. § 369, 370. Introduction. 871-873. Under English Common Law. 374-377. Under Old English Statutes. 878-388. The Modern Procedure with Us. XXVII. Forcrnur TREspass . . . . . 1 ew XXVIII. Forestatitine XXIX. Forcery or Writines anp its KINDRED OFFENCES . . 1. 1 6 1 sw ew ew § 398. Introduction. 399-426. In General of Indictment. 427-436. In General of the Evidence. 437-474, In Particular Forms of Offending and Law. 475-486. Questions of Practice. XXX. Gaminc-Hovs—E....... 6.6. 6. P § 487. Introduction. 488, 489. Common-law Offence. 490-494. Statutory Forms of the Offence, XXXI. Homicrpr, 4s To THE ALLEGATIONS Common TO MANSLAUGHTER AND MurRDER. .. °. § 495,496. Introduction. 497-500. Historical and General View. 501-505. Indictment in Outline. 506-536. Specific Questions. 687-538 a. Where no Assault or Battery. 639. Statutory Changes of Rules XXXII. Homicipz, as to tHE ALLEGATIONS Dis- TINGUISHING Common-LAW MuRDER FROM MANSLAUGHTER. . 6 1 1 ee et ee ix Srction 812, 313 314-343 344-347 3848-350 351-355 356-364 365-368 369-388 389-395 396, 397 398-486 487-494 495-539 540-559 x CONTENTS OF VOLUME II. CHAPTER SECTION XXXIII. Homicrpz, as to THE INDICTMENT AND VERDICT FOR MuRDER UNDER STATUTES Divipine 12 Into Decrers .. . . . 560-596 § 560. Introduction. 561-589. The Indictment. 590-596. The Verdict. XXXIV. Homrcrpr, as To tHe Evipenck. . . . . 597-6387 § 597. Introduction. 698-608. Presumptions and Burden of Proof. 609-627. Character, Conduct, and Utterances of Deceased. 628-630. Same of Defendant and his Relations with Deceased. 631,632. Expert Testimony. 633-637. Other Questions of Evidence. XXXV. Homrcrpz, As To QUESTIONS oF PRACTICE . 638-642 XXXVI. Homicrpr, as To THE ATTEMPT . . . . . 643-663 § 648. Introduction. 644-650. By Poisoning. 651-663. By Violence. XXXVII. Insaniry In DEFencE . ..... . . 664-6870 § 664,665. Introduction. 666-668. Practice on Preliminary Inquiry. 669-675. Presumptions and Burden of Proof on Main Issue. 676-687 b. Witnesses, their Testimony, and other Evidence. XXXVIII. Kipnappineg. ........ . . . 688-695 XXXIX. Larceny, as to THE INDICTMENT . ... . 696-738 § 696. Introduction. 697-698 b. Indictment in General. 699-712. Description of Stolen Property. 7138-717. Allegation of Value. 718-726. Allegation of Ownership. 727-729. Stolen Goods conveyed to Another Jurisdiction. 780-738. Indictment upon Statutes. XL. Larceny, As TO THE EVIDENCE. § 788 a. Introduction. 739-747. Presumption from Possession. 748-754. Other Questions of Evidence. - . « 138 a-T54 XLI. Larceny, as To Questions or Practice . 754a~-770 § 754 a. Introduction. 755-763. Restitution of the Stolen Goods. 764-769. The Verdict. 770. Other Questions. CONTENTS OF VOLUME IL. xi CHAPTER SEcTION XLII. Larceny, Compounp. . .... .. . 71-780 § 771. Introduction. 772-774. General Doctrine. 775-776 a. Larcenies by Particular Classes. 777-179. From Particular Places. 780. From the Person. XLII. Lisen anp SuanpER . . woe oe we). 6781-811 § 781, 782. Introduction. 783-794. Indictment generally and for libelling Individuals. 794 a-798. Indictment specially as to other Libels. 799-804. The Evidence. 805-806 a. Questions of Practice. 807-811. Oral Words. XLIV. Lorp’s Day. . Gh cde ste ce XLV. Manreasasnce anp Non-FEASANCE IN OFFICE. . . . 1 1 ew ew ee ee 819-836 § 819. Introduction. 820, 821. Refusal to accept Office. 822-836. Corruption in Office. 812-818 XLVI. Maticrous Miscuier . soe ew ee) 6887-850 § 837. Introduction. 838-844. Indictment generally and at Common Law. 845, 846. Specially of Indictment on Statutes. 847-850. The Evidence. XLVII. Maynem anp Statutory Matms .. . . 850a-859 § 850 a. Introduction. 851-854. Common-law Proceeding. 855-859. Proceeding upon Statutes. XLVIII. Nuisance ........ =... . 860-878 § 860. Introduction. 861-867. Indictment generally and at Common Law. 868,869. Indictment specially upon Statutes. 869 a-874. Evidence and Practice. 874 a-878. Particular Nuisances not elsewhere considered. XLIX. Oszstructine Justice AND GOVERNMENT . 879-898 § 879,880. Introduction. 881-895. Assaulting or Resisting Officer. 896-898. Other Obstructions. L. Pergury. . . . 1. 1 ee we we es 6899-989 § 899,900. Introduction. 901-926. The Indictment. 927-935 a. The Evidence. 936, 937. Questions of Practice. 988, 939. Attempts. xii CONTENTS OF VOLUME II. CHAPTER SECTION LI. Prison Breacu, Rescuz, anp Escape . . 940-946 § 940. Introduction. 941,942. Escape suffered by Officer. 948,944. Prison Breaches and Escapes by Prisoner. 945, 946. Rescues and Helps to escape from Third Persons. LI]. Rape... we 2 te we we we ew ew ew) =QGAF-979 § 947. Introduction. 948-960. Indictment. 961-974. Evidence. 975. Questions of Practice. 976-979. Attempts. LITI. Recetvine Stoten Goops ... . . 979a-991a § 979 a. Introduction. 980. Procedure for Accessorial Offence. 981-988. Indictment for Substantive Offence. 989 a-991 a. The Evidence. LIV; -Rrot® «@ 6% e @ w@ «© kw es Rw YL 992-1000 LV. Roppery ........ . . . 1001-1008 a LVI. SeputturE. ....... .. . 1009-1012 LVII. Sopomy ..........~. 1013-1018 a LVIII. Susornarion or Pergury . . . . . 1019-1023 LIX. Tureateninc LETTERS AND OTHER THREATS... 1 we ew ew ew . «1024-1029 8 LX. Treason. ......... . . 1030-1041 § 1030. Introduction. 1031-1035. Indictment. 1036-1039. The Evidence. 1040, 1041. Questions of Practice. LXI. Way... .. . . 1. . . . .)) 1042-1057 § 1042. Introduction. 1043-1049. Indictment and Pleadings for Non-repair. 1050-1058. Indictment for Obstructing. 1054, 1055. The Evidence. 1056, 1057. Questions of Practice. Pacn InpEx TO THE Cases CITED IN BoTH VotuMES . .. . . 479 Inpex or SuBJECTS IN BOTH VoLUMES ....,..,.... 731 NEW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. BOOK XII. SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. For ABDUCTION OF WOMEN, as to both law and procedure, see Stat. Crimes. And see Sepuction or Women in Stat. Crimes. ABORTION, as to both law and procedure, see Stat. Crimes. CHAPTER I. THE ACCESSORY AND THE LIKE, § 1. Introduction. 2-11. The Pleading. 12-15. The Evidence. Consult, —for the law of this subject, New Crim. Law, I. § 644-708. For the forms and the like, Dir. & F. § 113-118, And see the Indexes to New Crim. Law and to this work for various connected questions. § 1. 1. In this Chapter — we include with accessories proper, as technically known in felony, persons in the like relation to the direct doer in treason, petit larceny, and misdemeanor. 2. The Principle —on which the subject of this chapter pro- ceeds was explained in the first volume; namely, that whenever one person’s evil intent and another’s criminal act combine, the allegation against the former may be either direct, that he did the thing, according to its legal effect, or indirect, that he insti- gated or procured the other to do it, according to its outward form, and he did it. Whichever method is used in the aver- ment, the proof may be that the defendant employed his per- sonal volition, or that he instigated another who did the act, as VOL. II, —~1 1 § 2 may be the more convenient to the practitioner. The exception is that in felony by instigation the instigator must be charged as an accessory before the fact, if he was absent, or not actually or constructively present, at the doing, —a rule which in many of our States has been abrogated by statutes.} 3, How divided. — Assuming the law of the subject as explained in “New Criminal Law” to be understood by the reader, we shall consider, I. The Pleading; IJ. The Evidence. SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [Book XII. I. The Pleading. » §2. 1. Two Classes.—To make the distinctions of this sub-title plain, we need separate the offences only into two classes,?— First. In Treason, Petit Larceny, and Misdemeanor : — 2. Relations of Doer and Procurer.-— One who does a thing on procurement of another is, in civil jurisprudence, termed the agent, and the procurer the principal. But in the criminal law, agency never excuses an act;8 therefore the agent is known and holden as principal equally with him who proceeds self-ioved. The procurer is a principal also if the thing is treason, petit larceny, or misdemeanor; and — 3. Blection of Methods. — In these classes of criminal cases, procurers and doers may be joined in one indictment, or they may be indicted separately, at the election of the prosecuting power. And a procurer may be charged as doer, precisely as though his own volition had executed the criminal act; or, at such election, the act of the doer may be set out, and then it may be added that he caused and procured the doing. “But— 4, Accessory After. — “Where,” says Starkie, “a person becomes a traitor by harboring 1 Vol. I. § 332-334, 468 (3), 488d, 488e. See also New Crim. Law, I. § 648, 649, 653, 656, 663, 670, 673, 675, 682, 685; S.v. Pat- terson, 52 Kan. 335; Everett v. 8. 33 Fla. 661; Albritton v. S. 32 Fla. 858; C. v. Hollister, 157 Pa. 18; Hpghesv. 8. 75 Ala. 31; Morrow v. 8.14 Lea, 475; Phillips v. S. 26 Tex. Ap. 228, 8 Am. St. 471; San- ders v. S. 74 Ga. 82; Heard v. 8.9 Tex. Ap. 1; Troutman v. 8. 20 Vroom, 33; Smith v. S. 37 Ark. 274; Campbell v. C. 84 Pa, 187; P. v. Bliven, 112 N. Y. 79,8 Am. St. 701; S. v. Rucker, 93 Mo. 88; Walrath v. S. 8 Neb. 80; S. v. Jordan, 110 2 and receiving another who has N. C. 491 ; Hronek v. P. 134 Ill. 139, 28 Am. St. 652, 656. 2 See, for the law of the subject of this chapter, New Crim. Law, I. § 644-708. 8 New Crim. Law, I. § 355 (1), 658. 4 Vol. I. § 332, 333, and other places cited ante, §1 (2); New Crim. Law, I. § 679- 689; 1 Stark. Crim. Pl. 8d ed. 81; Baker v. 8. 12 Ohio St. 214; Dunman v. 8.1 Tex. Ap. 593; Clifton v. S. 53 Ga. 241; Scully v.S. 39 Ala. 240. See also C. v. Gannett, 1 Allen, 7,79 Am. D, 693; Thompson vx. S. 5 Humph. 138; Hartshorn v. 8. 29 Ohio St. 635 ; S. e. Clayton, 11 Rich. 581, ' CHAP, 1] ACCESSORY AND THE LIKE. § 3 committed treason, the indictment must be specially framed for the receipt, and not for the principal treason.” 1 Not always in misdemeanor is such help indictable; when it is, the allegation must be in like form.? § 3. Secondly. In Felony other than Petit Larceny : — 1. First and Second Degrees. — Even in these offences, where the procurer of a criminal act which is done in his absence is not a principal, but an accessory before the fact, the law does not distinguish between principals of the first and second degrees. Hence, — 2. Illustrations. — Says Starkie,‘ “Where A and B are present, and A commits an offence in which B aids and assists him, the indictment may either allege the matter according to the fact, or charge them both as principals in the first degree;® for the act of one is the act of the other.6 And upon such an indictment, B, who was present aiding and abetting, may be convicted, though Ais acquitted.? So A and B, if present aiding and abetting, may be convicted, though C, a person not named in the indict- ment, committed the act.2 Again, if an indictment for murder 11 Stark. Crim. Pl. 2d ed. 81, refer- the view taken by Mr. Bishop.” The ring to Foster, 345. See New Crim. Law, I. § 701-704. 2 New Crim. Law, I. § 705-708. And see McCoy v. S. 52 Ga. 287. 8 New Crim. Law, I. § 648. 4 1 Stark. Crim. Pl. 2d ed. 81. 5 Foster, 351, 425; 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 23, § 76; 2 Hale P. C. 344. § 2 Hawk. P. C.c. 23, § 76; Young v. Rex, 3 T. R. 98, 105. 7 Foster, 351; 1 Hale P. C. 487, 463; 2 Hale P. C. 185, 292, 344, 345; 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 46, § 185; Mackalley’s Case, 9 Co. 65, 67; S. v. Phillips, 24 Mo. 475. 5 Rex v. Borthwick, 1 Doug. 207; Rex v. Plummer, J. Kel. 109. The case of Mulligan v. C. 84 Ky. 229, not well con- sidered, seems contrary to this doctrine. Bennett, J. at p. 236 observes: “In Mr. Bishop’s Criminal Procedure, vol. 2, p. 3, he states that the aider and abettor may be indicted and tried without naming the principal in the indictment. He refers to but one case to support that view, to wit: Rex v. Borthwick, 1 Doug. 207. That case does not treat of the question at all, but by inference it is an authority against reader will observe, what the learned judge overlooked, that the authority to which Bishop here refers, is not Rex t. Borthwick, but the treatise of Starkie, which is always regarded as sufficient au- thority for anything. Bishop does not rely on Rex v. Borthwick, or on Rex v. Plummer, both of which Starkie cites, and I felt it just to Starkie to retain his cita- tions. But it is immaterial whether or not these cases sustain his text; since no author’s text is wrong simply if it is not supported by what he cites, as it may rest on other authority or on irrefragable rea- son. And Starkie is an authority of him- self. Still, if what he sets down here is not abundantly supported bythe authorities which I have given in the preceding para- graphs of this chapter, nothing in the law has the support of authority. If, as it is held in all pleadings civil and criminal, you may allege a thing according to its legal effect instead of its outward form unless something special forbids, you may charge as doer one who is such only be- cause his mind contributed to another’s do- ing, you are not obliged to name the other, 3 g 4 charge that A gave the mortal stroke, and that B was present aiding and abetting, both A and B may be convicted, though it turn out that B struck the blow, and that A was present aiding and abetting.! To go one step further, upon a similar indict- ment, charging A as a principal in the first degree, and B as present aiding and abetting, B may be convicted though A be acquitted.”? And, — § 4. Accessory before, under Statutes. — As already seen,® the statutes in some of our States, by their terms or by construction, make the accessory before the fact in felony a principal; thus, he “shall be deemed and considered as principal, and punished accordingly.” Under which provision, the proof against one charged as principal may be that he was an accessory before the fact; or the pleader may state the offence in its outward form; “as,” said the court, “it is in an indictment against an acces- sory before or at the fact;” concluding, however, in a murder case, “as for murder, for that is really the offence of which the party is guilty, if atall.”4 This sort of provision differs some- what in the States which have adopted it, therefore its effect, while it may be the same as the above, though its terms are not, will not be alike in all. Therefore it is the safe course for a SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [Book XII. or in any way tonotice him. Such isan al- legation after the legal effect, The readcr will observe that we are here considering the form of charge against the principal of the second degree, not against the acces- sory before the fact in felony, which is alto- gether a different thing. And see Dir. & F. § 115, 116; P. v. Bliven, 112 N. Y. 79, 8 Am. St. 701; Albritton v. §. 32 Fla, 358; S. v. Patterson, 52 Kan. 335, 1 Benson v. Offley, 2 Show. 510, 3 Mod, 121; Foster, 351; 1 Hale P. C. 437, 463; 2 Hale P. C. 344, 345, 2 Reg. v. Wallis, 1 Salk. 334; 1 Hawk, P.C. 6th ed, u..81, § 46, note; Rex v. Taylor, 1 Leach, 360. See New Crim, Law, I. § 648; P. v. Bearss, 10 Cal. 68; S. v. Davis, 29 Mo. 391; Reg. v. Downing, 1 Den. C. C. 52, 1 Cox C. C. 156, 2 Car. & K. 382; Rex v. Culkin, 5 Car, & P. 121; Kessler v. C. 12 Bush, 18; S. v. Cook, 20 La. An. 145; Clay v.S. 40 Tex. 67 ; Coates v. P. 72 Ill. 803, 804; Hansford v. S. 54 Ga 55; C. v. Fortune, 105 Mass. 592; Reg. v. O'Brian, 1 Den. C. C. 9,2 Car. & K. 4 115; S.v, Jenkins, 14 Rich. 215, 94 Am. D. 132; S. v. Thompson, 13 La. An. 515; S. v. Hollenscheit, 61 Mo. 302. See, and query, Reg. v. Tyler, 8 Car. & P. 616. 3 Ante, § 1 (2). * Baxter v. P. 3 Gilman, 368, 381, 382; reaffirmed, Dempsey v. P. 47 Ill. 323; Yoe v. P. 49 Ill. 410; Coates v. P. 72 Dll. 303. 5 P, v. Davidson, 5 Cal. 133; Bonsell v. U. S. 1 Greene, Iowa, 111; P. v. Trim, 39 Cal. 75; S. v. Zeibart, 40 Iowa, 169; S. v. Chapman, 6 Nev, 320; S. v. Cassady, 12 Kan. 550; Wicks v. S. 44 Ala. 398; Tully v. C. 11 Bush, 154; Thompson v. C. 1 Met. Ky. 13; Josephine v. S, 39 Missis. 613; Shannon v. P. 5 Mich. 71, 86, 88; S. v. Ricker, 29 Me. 84; S. v. Jordan, 110 N. C.491; P. v. Bliven, 112 N.Y. 79, 8 Am. St. 701 ; Campbell v. C. 84 Pa. 187; Smith v. 8. 37 Ark. 274; Williams v. S. 41 Ark. 173; Hughes v. 8. 75 Ala. 31; 8. ve. Whitt, 113 N.C. 716; Usselton v. P, 149 Tl. 612; S. v. Patterson, 52 Kan. 335; Reg. v. Manning, 2 Car. & K. 887, 903, note. CHAP. 1] ACCESSORY AND THE LIKE. § 5 pleader, in a State where the decisions have not spoken, to draw his indictment on the special facts, and in the statutory words. } § 5. 1. Principal of Second Degree, Outward Fact. — Where the pleader elects to charge the principal of the second degree accord- ing to the outward fact, he sets out the offence of the principal of the first degree as though he alone were concerned in it, and adds that the principal of the second degree “then and there feloniously was present, aiding, abetting, and assisting the said,” &c. of the first degree; adding the same ordinary conclusion * as when the count is against any other joint offenders.® 1 Vol. I. § 612, 623. 2 Vol. I. § 429, 647 et seq; Dir. & F. 115; Montague v. 8. 17 Fla. 662. 8 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 13th ed. 797; 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 4,5. It is safer to lay the time and place by the words “then and there ” than by repeating the date and venue. Vol. I § 412. The indictment in Chitty, ut sup., in a case of Homicide, — is well, though the form differs from some others. It first names both defendants ; then charges that they, “then and there being, feloniously and wilfully and of their malice aforethought did make an assault ;” next, it sets out the acts of the principal of the first degree, as against him alone; lastly, it proceeds: “of which said mortal wound the said A. B. did then and there instantly die; and that the said E. F. [the principal of the second degree], then and there, feloniously,wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, was present, aiding, help- ing, abetting, comforting, assisting, and maintaining the said C. D. [the principal of the first degree] in the felony and mur- der aforesaid, in manner and form afore- said, todo and commit. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say that the said C. D. and E. F. him the said A. B., in manner and form aforesaid, feloniously, wilfully, and of their malice aforesaid, did kill and murder, against the peace,” &e See also S.v. Pile, 5 Ala. 72; Parker’s Case, 2 Dy. 186 a. Where the averment of aiding was without mention of place, but time and place were alleged to the stroke and death, it being added that the prisoners were then present aid- ing and abetting, the allegation of venue was held sufficient. §,v. Taylor, 21 Mo. 477. According to Heydon’s Case, 4 Co. 41 a, if the allegation is that the principal of the first degree gave the mortal blow on a day named, and death followed on asub- sequent day named, then that on the for- mer day the principals of the second degree were present at the “felony and murder,” the indictment as to these prin- cipals is “repugnant and insufficient,” “for no felony was committed till the death, and none shall be adjudged a felon by relation.” And the judges said “ they had often adjudged indictments insufficient when the stroke is one day and the death another, and the jury concluded the mur- der or homicide to be committed the first day ; but they said that in the case at bar the indictment should be that the said presentes et abettantes fucrunt presentes, auxiliantes, &c., ad feloniam et murdrum pred, in forma pred. faciend.” There may be doubt whether all courts at the present day would hold thus. See Vol. I. § 51, 52; New Crim. Law, I. § 113-116. In an English case before Patteson, J., the indictment for manslaughter charged that A gave, at P., in the county of M, mortal blows to the deceased, who lan- guished and died at D., in the county of K.; and that the prisoner was then and there aiding. ‘This was ruled to be good; the word being referred to P., in the county of M. Rex v. Hargrave, 5 Car. & P. 170. And where the allegation was that A on a day named gave a mortal wound to one who died on a subsequent day named, and that B on the first afore- said day was present aiding, &c.,a con- viction of both was sustained. Reg. v. O’Brian, 1 Den. C. C. 9, 2 Car. & K. 115. 5 87 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BooK XIL 2, All One Count. —In these cases, and those wherein, under ’ a like form, the accessory whether before or after the fact is indicted with the principal, the whole allegation constitutes only one count, with one conclusion, not two.! And so may be even an indictment for misdemeanor.? § 6. Presence. — Since one to be a principal in the second degree must be actually or constructively “present” at the commission of the offence,? the indictment must allege such presence. § 6 a. Impossible — (Rape — Aggravated Assault), — To aver what is neither legally nor physically possible is, of course, not good. But in reason, it is not ill to charge the principal of the second degree with what he cannot do alone, where he can incur the legal guilt by aiding the principal of the first degree; as, that a man and woman, two defendants, ravished another woman.® Yet practically it will be better to put the allegation, in a case of this sort, according to the outward fact, not the legal; since then certainly the jury will not be perplexed.® Still the aver- ment was adjudged sufficient that three defendants did, with a stick of wood which each severally had and held in their several right hands, inflict a mortal wound; the learned judge observing that “there is no physical impossibility in the act charged, however improbable it may be.” And even were this not so, “our statute,” he continued, “makes all accessories at or before the fact principals, and provides that they shall be punished accordingly,” 7— a provision which, as to principals of the second degree, merely affirms the common law. § 7. The Accessory at Common Law : — Joinder with Principal. — “It is both usual and proper,” says Chitty,® to include the accessory and principal “in the same indictment.® In this case, if the principal plead the general issue, the accessory will be required to plead also; and if he 1 Vol. I. § 449, 467,468; Rex v. Har- 2 Lewin, 271; Reg. v. Ramsden, 1 Cox tall, 7 Car. & P. 475; Rex v. Haynes, 4 M. C. C. 37. & S. 214, 221; S. v. Atkinson, 40 S. C. 5 Russ. Crimes, ut sup. 363, 42 Am. St. 877, 882, 883. ; 6 Vol. I. § 333, 334. 2 Rex v. Nelmes, 6 Car. & P. 347, ™ Coates v. P. 72 Ill, 803. And see 8 New Crim. Law, I. § 653. post, § 59, 89, 515-517, 41 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 164; 8 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 271, 272. Heydon’s Case, 4 Co. 41a, 42b; P. uv. ® Foster, 365; 1 Hale P. C. 623; Burn Schwartz, 82 Cal.160. See Raffety’sCase, Just. Accessories, IV.; Williams, Just, Accessory, V.; Com. Dig. Justices, T. 3, 6 CHAP. 1] ACCESSORY AND THE LIKE. § 8 plead the same plea, both may be tried by the same inquest, but the principal must be first convicted; and the. jury will .be charged, if they find the former not guilty, that the latter must also be acquitted.” ! § 8. 1. Form of Indictment — (Accessory before). — The course is, he continues, for the indictment “first to state the guilt of the principal as if he alone had been concerned ;* and then, in case of accessories before the fact, to aver that ‘C. D. late of, &c. [the procurer], before the committing of the said felony and murder [or burglary, as the case is] in form aforesaid, to wit, on, &c., at, &c., with force and arms, &c., did maliciously and feloni- ously incite, move, procure, aid, and abet [or counsel, hire and command] the said A. B. [the principal felon] to do and commit the said felony, in manner aforesaid, against the peace, é&c.’ 8 And — 2. Form against Accessory after. — “ Where a man is indicted as an accessory after the fact together with his principal, the original felony is to be stated in the same way, and the conclusion must aver that the accessory ‘ did receive, harbor, and maintain,’ &c., the principal felon, ‘ well knowing’ that he had committed the felony. The averment of knowledge is indispensably requi- site; because, without it, the guilt does not manifestly appear.‘ But — 3. Averring Means, &c,— “It is in no case necessary to use the word ‘ accessory’ in the indictment,® or to set forth the means by which the accessory before the fact incited the prin- cipal to commit the felony, or the accessory after received, concealed, or comforted him; for it is perfectly immaterial in what way the purpose of the one was effected, or the har- boring of the other secured; and as the means are frequently of a complicated nature, it would lead to great inconvenience § and perplexity if they were always to be described upon the record.” 7 1 1 Hale P. C, 624; 2 Hale P. C. 222, 223; 2 Hawk P.C. c. 29, § 47; Com. Dig. Justices, T. 3; Burn Just. Accessory, IV.; Williams Just. Accessory, V. 4 See ante, § 5 (1). 8 And see C. v. Adams, 127 Mass. 15. 4 1 Hale P. C. 622; Com. Dig. Justices, T. 2; 2 Hawk. P.C. c. 29, § 33; Burn Just. Indictment, III. ; 2 Hawk. P.C. ¢. 25, § 67; Rex v. Thompson, 2 Lev. 208 ; Wade v, 8. 71 Ind. 535. 5 Rex v. Burridge, 3 P. Wms. 489, 477, 6 See the chapter in Vol. I. commen- cing at § 493. 7 Co. Ent. 56, 57; Rast. Ent. 48, 51, 52; Sanchar’s Case, 9 Co. 114; 2 Hawk. F.C c. 29, § 17. 7 § 11 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BooK XII. § 9, Charge to be Special — Not as Principal. — The accessory, whether before or after the fact, while he may be joined with the principal,! and in the same count,? cannot under the common- law rules be convicted on an allegation in form as though he were principal;? but the charge must be special. Nor will proof that one was principal sustain a charge that he was acces- sory.° Even — § 10. 1. Accessory After, under Statutes.— Though some modern statutes permit the accessory before the fact to be indicted as principal,® the accessory after must still be specially charged.?. And — : 2. Full —In all cases the indictment against the accessory must set out a complete offence, as fully as against the princi- pal. Nor should it be left equivocal whether the party is charged as principal or as accessory.® § 11. Accessory indicted separately. — The accessory, if the pleader chooses, may be indicted separately from the principal, 1 Ante, § 7; Hartshorn v. S, 29 Ohio St. 635; S. v. Carver, 49 Me. 588, 77 Am- D. 275; Redman v.'S.1 Blackf. 429; Reg. v. Richards, 2 Q. B. D. 311; Reg. v. Fisher, 3 Cox C. C. 68; Keech v. S, 15 Fla. 591; Loyd wv. 8. 45 Ga, 57. 2 Ante, § 5; Rex v. Hartall,7 Car. & P. 475; P. v. Valencia, 43 Cal. 552. See Redman v. S.1 Blackf. 429; Rex v. Aus- tin, 7 Car. & P. 796. 8 New Crim. Law, I. § 663 (2), 803 (2); S.v. Allen, 37 La. An. 685; Phillips v. S. 26 Tex. Ap. 228, 8 Am. St. 471; P. v. Keefer, 65 Cal. 232; Reynolds». P. 83 Ill. 479,25 Am. R. 410; Wade v. 8.71 Ind. 535; Walrath v. S. 8 Neb. 80. 4 Pp. v. Trim, 39 Cal. 75; Reg. v. Fal- lon, Leigh & C. 217, 9 Cox C. C. 242. Former Jeopardy. — There are old au- thorities holding, at least, that one ac- quitted as principal cannot afterward be indicted as accessory before the fact. See, for avery full collection of them, and as apparently following them, Rex v. Foy, Vern. & S. 540. But this doctrine is equally repugnant to good sense and to the established law of the present day. S. v. Larkin, 49 N. H. 36, 6 Am. R. 456; Morrow v. S. 14 Lea, 475; Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 19th ed. 143., 5 Rex v. Gordon, 1 Leach, 515, 519. 8 As to the procedure in Georgia, see Bul- loch v. 8S. 10 Ga. 47, 54 Am. D. 369; Me- Coy v. 8. 52 Ga, 287, In Ohio, Brown v. 8.18 Ohio St. 496; Hartshorn v. S. 29 Ohio St. 635; Noland v. 8. 19 Ohio 131. See also S. v. Smith, 24 Tex. 285; S. v. Rose, 20 La. An. 143; U.S. xv. How- ard, 3 Wash. C. C. 340; S. v. Crank, 2 Bailey, 66, 23 Am. D. 117; S.v. Sims, 2 Bailey, 29; S. v. York, 37 N. H. 175. The conviction of the principal need not be averred, but his guilt must be. Holmes v. C. 25 Pa, 221; Ulmer v. S. 14 Ind. 52. And see P. ». Thrall, 50 Cal. 415; Tally v. C. 11 Bush, 154. See further as to the form, Sampson v. C.5 Watts & S. 385; Stoops v.C.7 8. & R. 491,10 Am. D. 482; 8S. v. Seran, 4 Dutcher, 519. ® Ante, § 4; Reg. v. Manning, 2 Car. & K. 887, 1 Den. C. C. 467; Reg. v. Chad- wick, 1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 176, T Ante, § 2 (4); S. v. Wyckoff, 2 Vroom, 65; Reg. v. Fallon, Leigh & C. 217, 9 Cox C. C. 242; McCoy v. 8, 52 Ga. 287; S. x. Larkin, 49 N. H. 39; Reynolds v. P. 83 Ill. 479, 25 Am. R. 410 (overruling dictum in Yoe v. P. 49 Ill. 410); P. v. Trim, 39 Cal. 75; P. vo, Gassaway, 28 Cal. 404. 8 P. v. Thrall, 50 Cal. 415; P.v. Cren- shaw, 46 Cal. 65; Tully v.C.11 Bush. 154, ® P. v. Schwartz, 32 Cal. 160. And see CHAP. I.] ACCESSORY AND THE LIKE. § 13 either before or after the latter’s conviction.’ If before, the indictment must aver the principal’s guilt ;? if after, it need only allege his conviction, “because the court,” says Chitty,? “will presume everything on the former occasion to have been rightly and properly transacted.” 4 Still it is competent for the defend- ant to disprove the guilt of the principal; and if he does, he “is entitled to an acquittal.” > Il. The Evidence. ' $12. Principal’s Guilt — Record. — In evidence of the guilt of the principal, without which the accessory cannot be guilty,® the record of his conviction, if it has transpired, is, therefore, admissible, and prima facie adequate.’ Nor, where the common- law rules prevail, can this record be dispensed with.® It appears that the mere verdict will not suffice; but judgment must have been rendered thereon.® § 13. 1. No Record. — Where the principal and accessory are tried together, or the trial of the latter is by statutory permis- sion in advance of: the former’s, so that there is no record of conviction, but the principal’s guilt must be otherwise shown,” in general “whatever is evidence against the principal is prima facie evidence of the principal felony as against the accessory.” !! Thus, — Reg. v. Munday, 2 Fost. & F.170; Rex ». Thompson, 2 Lev. 208, 3 Keb. 674; Reg. v. Butterfield, 1 Cox'C. C. 39. 1 New Crim. Law, I. § 667. 2 Ante, § 9, note. 8 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 273. * Morgan v. Luckup, cited 7 T. R. 465 ; Foster, 365; Com. Dig. Justices, T. 3. 5 McDaniel’s Case, Foster, 121, 365; Rex v. Baldwin, 3 Camp. 265 ; Com. Dig. Justices, T.3;4 Bl. Com. 324. See Loyd v. 8. 45 Ga. 57; New Crim. Law, I. § 667. 6 New Crim. Law, I. 666, 667; Leeper v. 8. 29 Tex. Ap. 154; Poston v. §. 12 Tex. Ap. 408; Lynes v. S. 36 Missis. 617; 8. x. Ross, 29 Mo. 32; Clinton v. Estes, 20 Ark. 216; West v. S. 27 Tex. Ap. 472, ' 7 New Crim. Law, I. 667 (3), 669; 1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 183; Rex v. Smith, 1 Leach, 288; Rex v. Pros- ser, 1 Leach, 290, note; C. v, Knapp, 10 Pick. 477, 20 Am. D. 534; Baxter v. P. 2 Gilman, 578; Studstill v. S.7 Ga. 2; S. v. Crank, 2 Bailey, 66, 28 Am. D. 117; S. v. Sims, 2 Bailey, 29; S. v. Duncan, 6 Ire. 236; Keithler v. S. 10 Sm. & M. 192. And see Anderson v. S. 63 Ga. 675. 8 §. v, Crank, supra. 9 New Crim. Law, I. § 667, 668; S. v. Duncan, 6 Ire. 98, See P. v. Gray, 25 Wend. 465. 1 Ogden v. 8. 12 Wis. 532, 78 Am. D. 754; P. v. Campbell, 40 Cal. 129; S. v. Jones, 7 Nev. 408; P. v. Outeveras, 48 Cal. 19; P. v. Shepardson, 48 Cal. 189; Buck v, C. 107 Pa, 486. The reader will note some distinctions in these cases, which are apparently not quite alike in doctrine. 11 Bosanquet, J., in Rex v. Blick, 4 Car. & P. 377; Moody v. 8. 27 Tex. Ap. 287. See Brown v. 8. 28 Ga. 199; Dunn v, 8. 2 Pike, 229, 35 Am. D. 54. 9 § 15 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. 2. Any Conduct — of the principal, tending to show his own guilt, is evidence thereof equally against the accessory.} Again, — ; 3. Witness Competent in Part. — Formerly in North Carolina, negroes,could testify against negroes, but not against white men. So when a white man was tried as an accessory to a negro, negro testimony was admissible to the guilt of the principal, but not to the white man’s participation therein.? Also, — 4. Principal’s Confessions. — It would seem to follow from the foregoing that a confession by the principal would be evidence against the accessory the same as against him. And there is authority to this effect.2 Yet if the trials are separate, and the principal is in a condition to be called as a witness,‘ there is some ground for looking upon his confessions as mere hearsay ; and the current of authority ‘seems to reject them,5 — a conclu- sion which would be more satisfactory were it not for the fact that in the general law of evidence, the capacity of one to be a witness is not necessarily adequate cause for excluding evidence of what he said. , § 14. Principal in Second Degree. — The guilt of the principal in the second degree is not dependent on that of the other prin- cipal;® and against the former, evidence merely to the latter’s guilt is not admissible. For example, the record of the convic- tion of one who struck the fatal blow is not receivable on the trial of a stander-by charged with abetting; it proves no mate- rial fact, and only tends to prejudice the jury.? So far as the acts of such party are connected with the defendant, and on this ground admissible, they may be made to appear in the ordinary way, without producing the record of conviction. § 15. 1. Witnessing as to Each Other — (Accomplices, &c.). — The admission of accomplices is explained in the first volume,® and how as to joint and separate trials of persons variously con- 1§. v. Rand, 33 N. H. 216; S. v. Dun- can, 6 Ire. 98. See Reg. v. Hansill, 3 Cox C, C, 597. 2 §. v. Chittem, 2 Dev. 49. 8 Rex v. Blick, supra; Smith wv. S. 46 Ga, 298. 4 Post, § 15. 5S. v. Newport, 4 Harring. Del. 567; - Rex v. Turner, 1 Moody, 347; Ogden v. 8. supra; Reg. v. Hansill, 3 Cox C. C. 10 597,598. See Reg. v. Cox, 1 Fost. & F. 90; Reilley v. §. 14 Ind. 217; Rice v. S. 7 Ind. 332, 8 Ante, § 3. 7 P. v. Bearss, 10 Cal. 68. See Jackson v. S. 54 Ga. 439; Kazer v. S. 5 Ohio, 280. 8 S. v. Crank, 2 Bailey, 66, 23 Am. D. 117, And see Brown v. S. 28 Ga. 199, 9 Vol. I. § 1156-1172. CHAP. I.] ACCESSORY AND THE LIKE. § 15 nected ina common guilt.! For example, principal and acces- sory may be witnesses for and against each other.? Thus, — 2, Larceny and Receiving. — Where two were indicted for a larceny and a third for receiving the stolen goods, one of the two, having pleaded guilty, was deemed competent against his companion in the theft and the receiver.2 And — 3. Accessory and Principal. — An accessory may even be found guilty on the testimony of the principal alone; the credibility of such witness being for the jury. Of course, where parties con- nected with one another in this way are jointly indicted, no one is admissible for or against his companions until the case as to him is disposed of ;5 as, for example, accessories before the fact, jointly indicted with the principal, cannot, the case as to them not having proceeded to a conviction or acquittal, give evidence for their principal on his trial.® Still, — 4, Since Husband and Wife — cannot be witnesses in each other’s causes,’ it has been held that the husband of one charged as accessory cannot testify on behalf of the principal.® 1 Vol. I. § 1017 et seq. 5 Vol. I. § 1020, 1166. 2 Noland v. 8. 19 Ohio, 181; C. v. Mul- 6 Collier v. S. 20 Ark. 36; Davis v. S. len, 150 Mass. 394. 38 Md. 15, 45, 46. 3 Reg. v. Hinks, 1 Den. C. C. 84, 2 T Vol. IL § 1151. Car. & K. 462. 8 §. v, Ludwick, Phillips, N. C. 401. 4 Keithler v. S. 10 Sm. & M. 192. See Vol. I. § 1019 (4, 5). For ADULTERATED MILK, selling of, as to both law and procedure, see Stat. Crimes. ADULTERY, fornication, and kindred offences, as to both law and procedure, see Stat. Crimes. 11 x $17 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL CHAPTER II. AFFRAY. Consult, —for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, I. § 535 (1), 658 (4), 849 (5); IL § 1 et seq., 56, 653-655, 1150. For the form of the indictment, and further explanations, Dir. & F. § 924, 925. And look into the indexes for matter in Vol. I. Compare with post, § 992 et seq. § 16. 1. The Allegation and Proof — must show that persons (1) not less than two in number, (2) fought together by mutual con- sent or otherwise, (3) in a public place, (4) “to the terror of the people,” adds the definition ; but such mere constructive terror as is presumable from the fighting in a public place will suffice.? 2, The Number of the Persons Fighting — need not be directly charged if in any other way it appears that there were two or more. 3. The Form of the Allegation — is stated elsewhere.? Or, as given in an English book, it is that the defendants, at a time and place named, “being unlawfully assembled together and — arrayed in a warlike manner,‘ then and there in a certain public street and highway there situate, unlawfully, and to the great terror and disturbance of divers liege subjects of our lady the queen then and there being, did make an affray.”5 But — § 17. “Make Affray ” — “ Fight together.” — This form, in omit- ting to aver that the defendants did “fight together,” which would be a statement of fact, and saying instead that they “did make an affray,” which is a mere conclusion of law,® is, in prin- ciple, inadequate. The Tennessee? and North Carolina® courts have so held; contra, the Texas.® 1 New Crim. Law, II. § 1,2. And see 6 Vol. I. § 329, 331, 509, 514, 515. Th. I. § 1128; Stat. Crimes, § 298, 878. 7 Simpson v. S. 5 Yerg. 356; S. v. 2 New Crim. Law, Il. § 1, 3,4; 8. v. Priddy, 4 Humph. 429. And see S. vo, King, 86 N. C. 603. Vanloan, 8 Ind. 182. 8 Dir. & F. § 925. And see Ib. § 222. 8 Vol. I. § 527 (2). 4 Unnecessary. Dir. & F.§925; post, § 22. ® S. v. Washington, 19 Tex. 128, 70 5 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. Am. D. 823. And see S. v. Sumner, 5 ed. 599. Strob. 53, ‘ 12 CHAP, II.] AFFRAY. § 23 § 18. These Three Things —“are necessary to constitute an affray: first, there must be fighting; second, this fighting must be by or between two or more persons; and third, it must be in some public place to cause terror to the people. Hence it must follow that if either of these requisites is wanting, an affray does not exist.” § 19. Public Place. —The above form states the place to be “a certain public street and highway;” which is undoubtedly suffi-. cient, because the court can see that it is public. But the mere words “in the town of Clarksville” were adjudged inadequate.? Plainly enough the allegation may be either in terms that the place was public,? or it may set out facts making it such in law.# § 20. “ Pighting together,” — Properly the indictment should allege a “fighting together ”® by the defendants; and if it omits the word “together,” and does not say with whom was the fight- ing, it would seem to be inadequate.* Still, — § 21. “ Together” implied. — It was adjudged sufficient to charge that at a time and place named, the defendants, “being unlaw- fully assembled together, and arrayed in a warlike manner, then and there, in a public place, unlawfully, and to the great terror and disturbance of all the good citizens of said State then and there assembled, did make an affray by fighting, in con- tempt,” &c.* § 22. “Assembled unlawfully ”— “ Arrayed in Warlike Manner.” — In the defective form above given,® the pleader undertakes to supply the lack of good averment by inserting what is useless. To constitute an aftray the parties need not be “assembled unlawfully,” or “arrayed in a warlike manner ;” hence the indict- ment need not allege that they were. And unless they were in fact, it is practically better to omit this allegation. So that— § 23. A Better Form — is that on, &c. at, &c., they, in a public way there situate, did make an affray, by then and there fighting together, to the terror of the people then and there lawfully being.® : 1 Whyte, J. in Simpson v. 8, 5 Yerg. S. v. Billingsley, 43 Tex. 93; S.v. Wilson, 356, 358. Phillips, N. C, 237. . 2S. v. Heflin, 8 Humph. 84, 7 §. v. Benthal, 5 Humph. 519. 8 Shelton v. S. 30 Tex. 431. 8 Ante, § 16 (3), 17. 4 See, for illustration, post, § 914. ® See the cases cited to the preceding 5 Ante, § 16. sections, 6 §, v. Vanloan, 8 Ind. 182. And see 13 § 25 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL § 24. 1. On a Statute, — enlarging or changing the common law, the indictment must duly conform to the statutory terms as explained in the first volume.! To illustrate, — 2, Affray of Prize-fighting. — Under a statute making punish- able “every person who shall by previous appointment or arrangement meet another person and engage in a fight,”? it is plain that these statutory terms must be covered in allegation. Thereupon it was adjudged sufficient to say that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant “by and in pursuance of a previous appointment and arrangement made to meet and engage in a fight with another person, to wit, with one B, did meet and engage ina fight with the said B.” No more specific setting out of the pre- vious appointment, or of the arrangement, or of the defendant’s other acts, was deemed necessary.® Still, under another statute it has been held not adequate simply to employ the statutory words, that he “engaged in prize-fighting,” but facts showing an offence committed by him must be added. § 25. Minor Offences included — (Assault and Battery).— In definition, an affray would seem to include, but perhaps not necessarily, an assault and battery. Yet the indictment, in the forms before given, does not charge such assault and battery in any technical way. It may evidently be so drawn as to do this; and if it is, there may be a conviction for assault and battery, or for a simple assault, on the indictment for affray.® But if the indictment is otherwise drawn, there cannot be such conviction. Certainly such is the rule in principle.? On au- thority, it is not easy to say how the law is.8 1 Vol. I. § 593-642; and see specially, § 595-600, 610-612. 2 Prize-Fighting. — For the law of prize-fights, see New Crim. Law, I. § 535, 632 (2), 658 (4); II. § 35 (3); Champer v. §. 14 Ohio St. 487; S. v. Wilson, Phil- lips, N. C. 237; Reg. v. Coney, 8 Q. B. D. 534, 15 Cox C. C. 46; post, § 61. And for the offence, more in detail, with the forms, see Dir. & F. § 899-902. 3 C. vu. Welsh, 7 Gray, 324. On the trial, the previous arrangement may be in- ferred from the conduct of the parties and from other circumstances. It need not be proved to have been made within the State, or at a time and place distinct from those of the fight. C. v. Mitchell, 7 Gray, 14 324. Leaving the State, &c. — For the form upon the statute against leaving the State to engage in a fight, see Dir. & F. § 902; C. uv. Barrett, 108 Mass. 302. * Sullivan v. S. 67 Missis. 346. Appar- ently contra, P. v. Taylor, 96 Mich. 576. And see Reg. v. Orton, 14 Cox C. C. 226; S. v. Stafford, 113 N. C. 635. 5 New Crim. Law, II. § 1, 23, 35 (3). ® McClellan xv. S. 53 Ala. 640; S. v. Brewer, 33 Ark. 176. 7 Vol. I. § 417-419. 8 That there may be a conviction for assault and battery, see S. v. Allen, 4 Hawks, 356; Cash ». S. 2 Tenn. 198. That there may not be, see C. x. Perdue, 2 Va. Cas. 227. Barring Trial for Assault, — CHAP. II.] AFFRAY. § 30 § 26. Both convicted or neither. — On an indictment against two for affray in assaulting each other, one cannot be convicted of the full charge if the other is acquitted.!_ But in special cases he may be, owing to the form of the indictment or statute.? § 27. Relating to the Evidence — we have a few cases,? yet none of a sort requiring special consideration here. § 28. Participants. — This being a misdemeanor, all who in any way so abet the affray as to become punishable, are principals. § 29. Higher Offence — (Homicide). — If what the parties meant for an affray results in a higher offence, —as, for example, murder,® — practically the indictment will in general be for the higher. And — § 80. Kindred Offence. — There are various other offences akin to this, sometimes even called in the books by the same name. When, therefore, an indictment meant for such an offence is inadequate, it is not necessarily bad; it may still charge a common-law affray. In North Carolina it was held that one who has been tried in a county court for affray, cannot be again tried for the same act in the Superior Court charged as as- sault and battery; because, said Battle, J. the charge of an affray “necessarily in- cludes that of the assault and battery for which the second indictment was found.” S. v. Stanly, 4 Jones, N. C. 290, 292. 1 Hawkins v. 8. 13 Ga, 322, 58 Am. D. 517. But see Cash v. S. 2 Tenn. 198. 2S. v. Wilson, Phillips, N. C. 237; McClellan v. S. 53 Ala. 640; ante, § 24. 8 Herriott v.S. 1 McMul. 126; Klum v. S. 1 Blackf. 377; Skains v. S. 21 Ala. 218; Hunter v. S. 62 Missis. 540; S. v, Harrell, 107 N. C. 944; S. v. Hamlett, 85 N. C. 520; S. v. Harbison, 94 N. C. 885; S. v. Weaver, 93 N. C. 595. Astothe Charge to the Jury, — see S. v. Harrell, supra. # Curlin v. S. 4 Yerg. 143. 5 §. v. Raymond, 11 Nev. 98, 15 § 33 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. CHAPTER III. ARSON AND OTHER LIKE BURNINGS. § 31,32. Introduction. 33-49. Indictment. 50-53. Evidence. Consult, — for the law of this title, New Crim. Law, II. § 8et seq. And for vari- ous statutory burnings, see Stat. Crimes, § 207, 213, 277, 289, 310, 311. For the pre- cedents and related questions, Dir. & F. § 178-199. And for various questions see Vol. I. § 459 (5), 540 (3), 573 (4), 613 (2). § 31. What allege and prove. — As constituting this offence, it is necessary to allege and prove, (1) a malicious burning! of (2) a house,? if the indictment is at common law; or if under a statute, some structure the burning of which the statute makes punishable ;* (8) at common law, belonging to another ;* or under some of the statutes, one’s own to the injury of another.® § 32. 1. Indictments mainly Statutory. — Though this is a common-law offence, it has been so extended and defined by statutes that nearly all indictments for it are in practice statutory. 2. How Chapter divided. We shall consider, I. The Indict- ment; IJ. The Evidence. I. The Indictment. § 33. The Forms, — more fully than here, are given in Direc- tions and Forms. At common law, the charge is that the defendant, on, &c., at, &c., “a certain house of one X, there situate, did feloniously, wilfully, and maliciously set fire to and burn.” ? 1 New Crim. Law, I. § 224 (2), 318 (8), 4 New Crim. Law, I. § 514; IL § 12. 829 (2), 334 (3), 559, 765 (3); II. § 10; 5 Tb. IL. § 12. Stat. Crimes, § 310. § Dir. & F. § 178-199. 2 New Crim. Law, I. § 818 (3), 329 (2), 7 Matthews Crim. Law, 436; 3 Chit. 559; II. § 8,11; Stat. Crimes, § 207, 213, Crim. Law, 1127; Gibson v. 8, 54 Md. 447. 277, 289. See also post, § 35. 8 New Crim. Law, II. § 17; C. v. Hay- den, 150 Mass. 332, 16 CHAP. I11.] ARSON AND OTHER LIKE BURNINGS. § 35 § 84. 1. “House” or “Dwelling-house.” — The technical and proper word to designate the structure is “house;” though, as “dwelling-house ” is of like meaning but narrower, it appears the substitution of it would not render the indictment bad.! If the statute has “dwelling-house,” the indictment must employ it, and the word “house,” being of broader meaning, will not do.? If the arson is of an out-building which is a part of the house, still, at common law, the term in the allegation to designate it should be “house,” and to give the name of the structure —for instance, “barn ” — will not suffice, unless the pleader adds that it is parcel of the dwelling-house.¢ 2. On a Statute, — the indictment must designate the structure by its statutory term, adding other connected or descriptive matter, or not, as the rules for statutory indictments require. The statutes in this respect vary so much in our States that little help can properly be supplied to the reader here,. beyond a mere reference to cases.5 If the statute, for example, makes punishable the burning of “any house, barn, or out-house,” ® an indictment upon it may describe the structure by its statutory name of “barn,” or “out-house,” when it is such, though it remains at common law parcel of the house.’ § 35. “Feloniously,” &c.— Whether statutory arson is felony or misdemeanor is important in some of the States, where, if it is felony, “feloniously ” must be used, though the word is not in the statute. And the pleader should adhere to such statutory terms as are needful according to explanations in another con- 1S. v, McCarter, 98 N..C. 637. 2 Stat. Crimes, § 277, 289. In an in- dictment on a statute which had the word “ dwelling-house,” it was held sufficient to say that the defendant set fire to a house “used as a dwelling-house,” being the property of A. B. McLanev. S. 4 Ga. 335. Andsee Page r. C. 26 Grat. 943. 8 1 Hawk. P.C. 7th ed.c. 39,§ 1, 233 Inst. 67, Stat. Crimes, § 278, 289; post, §.135. 4 §S.v. Porter, 90 N.C. 719. 5 C. v. Hamilton, 15 Gray, 480; S. v. Emerson, 53 N. H. 619; McGarry v. P. 2 Lans. 227; P. v. Pierce, 11 Hun, 633; S.v. O’Connell, 26 Ind. 266; P. v. Haynes, 55 Barb. 450, 38 How. Pr. 369; McGary v. P. 45 N. Y. 153; Reg. v. Colley, 2 Moody & R. 475 ; Whiteside v. S. 4 Coldw. 175; P. v. VOL. 11. —2 Giacamella, 71 Cal. 48; Smith v. S. 64 Ga, 605; S. v. Thornton, 56 Vt. 35; Wolf v. C. 30 Grat. 833; S. ». Morgan, 98 N. C. 641; Pike v.S.8 Lea, 577; S. v. Downs, 59 N. H. 320; S. rv. Roper, 88 N. C. 656; C rv. Hayden, 150 Mass. 332; S. e. Bedell, 65 Vt. 541; Mulligan v. S. 25 Tex. Ap. 199, 8 Am. St. 435; Cook v. S. 83 Ala. 62,8 Am, St. 688; S. v. Gregory, 33 Ta. An. 737; 8. v. Ambler, 56 Vt. 672; Dugle v. S. 100 Ind. 259; Hall v. 8.38 Lea, 552; Gibson 7. S. 54 Md. 447; C. v, Smith, 151 Mass. 491. 6 Stat.9 Geo. 1, c. 22. 7 Rex v. North, 2 East P. C. 1021; Page v. C. 26 Grat. 943; Staeyer v. C. 103 Pa. 469. 8 Vol. I. § 533-537; post, § 42. 17 § 36 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. nection,! and should otherwise conform to the rules for indict- ments on statutes ;? but beyond this, he may employ the common- law form. As to both, — § 86. Allegation of Ownership : — 1. Necessity of. — Since one cannot at common law commit arson of his own house, or under a statute except in circum- stances it specifies,? the indictment must in some way show that the house was not the defendant’s, or that it was his in conjunction with the statutory circumstances.* And for other reasons, each particular offence, of whatever sort, should be identified. Both these objects are ordinarily accomplished by an allegation of ownership;® so that, whether an indictment for arson is at common law or upon a statute, it alleges the owner- ship of the structure burned, which, at the trial, must be proved as laid.? But there need be no ownership stated where the arson is of a public building. And by late English statutes an averment of ownership is not necessary; or, if made, it need'‘not be proved.? 2. In whom laia. — Arson being an offence against the security of the habitation, not as impairing the money value of it, the ownership is properly and perhaps in most cases necessarily laid in any person who has the present actual occupancy, or at least the right thereto. It is immaterial whether the fee is in him or not; or, if he is in actual possession, whether another has a better right to it than he, or not. 1 Vol. I. § 608-622. 2 And see cases cited to the last para- graph. 3 Ante, § 31 (3). 4 And see Reg. v. Newboult, Law Rep. 1C.C. 344, 346, 347,12 Cox C. C. 148; Mulligan v. S. 25 Tex. Ap. 199, 8 Am. St. 435. 5 Vol. I. § 325 (2, 6), 506, 507, 566, 568, 677 (1). 6 Vol. I. § 571, 581 ; Stat.Crimes, § 443. T Vol. I. § 573; Martin v. 8. 28 Ala. 71; 8. v. Fish, 3 Dutcher, 323; Rex c. Rick- man, 2 East P. C. 1034; Martha v. 8. 26 Ala. 72; P. v. Myers, 20 Cal. 76; C. v. Wade, 17 Pick. 395; Carter v. 8. 20 Wis. 647; Boles v. S. 46 Ala. 204; McGary v. Pp. 45 N.Y. 153; Graham v. 8. 40 Ala, 659; S. v. Keena, 63 Conn, 329; Smoke v. S. 87 Ala. 143; Kruger v. 8. 135 Ind, 573. 18 Even — See S. v. Kroscher, 24 Wis. 64. Not his own. — “Did, &c. wilfully burn a certain prairie, the said prairie not being his own,” was held good. S. v. White, 41 Tex. 64. 8 Dir. & F. § 183; Mott v. S. 29 Ark. 147;8.v. Roe, 12 Vt.93; S. v. Johnson, 93 Mo. 73. And see Stevens ~.C. 4 Leigh, 683. 9 Reg. v. Newboult, supra. 10 New Crim. Law, II. § 12, 13; 8. v. Toole, 29 Conn. 342, 76 Am. D. 609; S. uv. Gailor, 71 N. C. 88, 17 Am. R. 8; P. zu. Wooley, 44 Cal. 494; S. v. Moore, 6] Mo. 276; Woodford v. P. 62 N. Y. 117, 126, 20 Am. R. 464; Tuller v. S. 8 Tex. Ap. 501; Levy v. P. 80 N. Y. 327; S. v. Han- nett, 54 Vt. 83; P. v. Eaton, 59 Mich. ° 559; Adams v. 8. 62 Ala. 177; P. v. Fair- child, 48 Mich. 81; S, v. Bradley, 1 Houst. Crim. 164, And see S. v. Lyon, 12 Conn. 487 ; post, § 137, 138. : CHAP. III.] ARSON AND OTHER LIKE BURNINGS. § 38 § 87. 1. A Wrongful Occupancy, — by one in his own right, will support the allegation of ownership.! But — 2. A Servant’s Occupancy —is the master’s, in whom there- fore the ownership is to be laid.2, Moreover, — 3, Ownership is Presumed, — in matter. of evidence, from occu- pancy.2 Again, — 4, Other Reasons — may govern a different case; as, where a statute makes punishable the burning of a structure not used for dwelling, so that the offence is not against the habitation, there is no objection to laying the ownership in one in whom is the fee, though it is under lease to a tenant in possession. * § 88. Separate Families, — occupying each its particular rooms in a house, create distinctions as to ownership explained else- where,® If the tenements are 1 Rex v. Wallis, 1 Moody, 344; 2 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 920; post, § 138. 2 Rickman’s Case, 2 East P. C. 1034. East says: “It requires great nicety in some cases to distinguish the person who may be said to occupy suo jure, and against whom the offence must be laid to have been committed. In Glandfield’s Case, it appeared that the out-houses burned were the property of Blanche Silk, widow, but were only made use of by John Silk, her son, who lived with her, after his father’s death, in the dwelling-house adjoining the out-houses, and took upon him the sole management of the farm, with which these out-houses were used, to the loss and profit of which he alone stood, though without any particular agreement between him and his mother; and he paid all the ser- vants, and purchased all the stock ; but the legal property both in the dwelling-house and farm was in the mother, and she alone repaired the dwelling-house and the out-houses in question. Heath, J. held that as to the stable, pound, and hog-sties which the son alone used, the indictment must lay them to be in his occupation; and as to the brew-house (another of the out-houses burned), the mother and son both occasionally paying for ingredients, the beer being used in the family, to the expenses of which the mother in part con- tributed, though without any particular agreement as to the proportion, that the same should be laid in their joint occupa- tion. The prisoner was afterwards con- distinct, constituting separate victed on a second indictment (which contained two counts, the first laying the occupation in the son alone, the other lay- ing it in the mother and son), drawn agreeably to this opinion ; the, first having improperly laid the whole premises as in the sole occupation of the mother ; and he was executed.” 2 East P. C. 1034, 1035. See also S. r. Fish, 3 Dutcher, 323 ; Davis v. §. 52 Ala. 357; Harvey v. S. 67 Ga. 639; S. v. Haynes, 66 Me. 307, 22 Am. R. 569 ; post, § 138. 8 S. v. Taylor, 45 Me 322; S.v. Jaynes, 78 N. C. 504. And see S. v. Burrows, 1 Houst, Crim. 74. 4 P. v, Fisher, 51 Cal. 319. And see P. v. Simpson, 50 Cal. 304; S. v. Moore, 61 Mo. 276; P. v. Shainwold, 51 Cal. 468. 5 Stat. Crimes, § 277-289, particularly § 286. A house a man occupies in part for his dwelling, letting the rest to lodgers, is all properly described as his. And it is not otherwise though he has made an assignment in bankruptcy, if the assignee has not taken possession. Rex v. Ball, 1 Moody, 30. A room separately leased to a merchant for a store, having no communication with the other parts of the building, is well laid as the lessee’s. Sv. Sandy, 3 Ire. 570. A building occupied partly by w tenant who usually lodged there, and in part by the owner, was held to be rightly described as the dwelling-house of the tenant. Shepherd v. P. 19 N. Y. 537. See post, § 138. 19 § 41 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. houses, the ownership should be laid in him whose tenement is burned. To lay it in all collectively implies a joint occupancy, contrary to the fact to be proved.!_ And an indictment charging that the defendant did “in a certain store of one H” set fire, &c., is not sustained by proof of setting fire in the same build- ing, but in a different room from the one occupied as a store by H.? § 89. Form of Alleging Ownership.2 — The burning may be charged to be of the house of A,* or belonging to: one A,® or occupied by A as a residence,® or in the possession of A,’ or the property of A.° That it “was then and there the property of one L, and was then and there the dwelling-house of one C,” was adjudged insufficient; because of the uncertainty whether it was C’s or L’s. Neither could the defect be cured by any rejecting of surplusage.? § 40. Human Being in House : — 1. Fact — Name. — The indictment on a statute making it an aggravated offence to set fire to a house wherein is a human being must state that there was in the house such being, yet not necessarily his name.!®9 And— 2, The Full Statutory Terms, — describing the aieneh must be reproduced.!? § 41. Allegation of Place :— “There situate.”— The words “there situate,” commonly employed in addition to the ordinary allegation of venue,” do not seem necessary in principle, or on the English ® or American #4 authorities. 1S. v. Toole, 29 Conn. 342, 602. 2S. v. Tennery, 9 Iowa, 436. And see P. v. Fairchild, 48 Mich. 31. 8 See post, § 139. 4 Wolf v. 8.53 Ind. 80; Rex v. Donna- van, 1 Leach, 69. 5 C. v. Hamilton, 15 Gray, 480; Wood- ford v. P. 62 N. Y. 117, 125, 126, 20 Am. R. 464, 8 Young v. C. 12 Bush, 243. And see Tuller v. S. 8 Tex. Ap. 501. . * Rex v. Wallis, 1 Moody, 344. 8 Woodford v. P. supra, at p. 126. 9 P. v. Myers, 20 Cal. 76. 10S, v, Aguila, 14 Mo. 130; Woodford v. P. 62 N. Y. 117, 20 Am. R. 464; Beau- 20 76 Am. D. mont v. 8. 1 Tex. Ap. 538, 28 Am. R. 424. See Reg. v. Fletcher, 2 Car. & K. 215; Reg. v. Paice, 1 Car. & K. 73; Lacy v. S. 15 Wis. 18; Dick v. S. 53 Missis. 384; Dir. & F. § 188. 11 Lewis v. 8. 49 Missis. 354. And see Page v. C. 26 Grat. 943; Woodford v. P. supra. 22 Ante, § 338. See post, § 135. 18 Rex v. Napper, 1 Moody, 44. if Dir. & F. § 179, note; C. v. Lamb, 1 Gray, 493; S. v. Gwinn, 24 S. C. 146; S. v. Moore, 24 8. C. 150,58 Am. R. 241. See C. v. Barney, 10 Cush. 480; S. w Price, 6 Halst. 203 ; S. v. Gaffrey, 4 Chand. 163, 165; S. v. White, 41 Tex. 64; S. x. Wacker, 16 Mo. Ap. 417, CHAP. III] ARSON AND OTHER LIKE BURNINGS. § 44 § 42. Allegation of Intent : — 1. “Feloniously,’ — in most of the States, if the offence is felony as it is at the common law, must occur in the indictment.! Also, — ° 2. “ Wilfully,” “ Maliciously.” — “The burning,” says Archbold, “must be done wilfully and maliciously, in order to be an offence either at common law.or within Stat. 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 89.”2 But he adds: “If the act be proved to have been done wilfully, it may be inferred to have been done maliciously, unless the contrary be proved. The absence of malice or spite to the owner is no answer to the charge.”? Moreover, — § 43. 1. Further. — One can hardly be certain whether or, not both “wilfully” and “maliciously ” are indispensable at the common law. Practically the pleader in caution will insert both. Most of the statutes have both, conjunctively connected ; then probably both must be inserted in the indictment to avoid a variance. Yet “maliciously,” in the indictment, has been adjudged an equivalent for “wilfully ” in the statute. On the other hand, “maliciously ” is of somewhat larger meaning than “wilfully,” which, in an indictment, would not, therefore, supply the place, it is presumed, of “ maliciously ” in the statute.® And — 2, “Voluntarily.” — The words of a statute being “feloniously, unlawfully, and maliciously,” and of the indictment, “feloniously, voluntarily, and maliciously,” the variance was held to be fatal.® § 44. “Maliciously ” not in Statute. — Malice being an ingredient in common-law arson, it has been deemed to be such even in arson under a statute which does not contain the term or its equivalent; so that the statutory indictment must charge the act to have been done maliciously. Thus, under the words “shall be guilty of burning any dwelling-house, store, cotton-house, gin, or out-house, barn, or stable, or shall be accessory thereto,” an indictment fully within them yet containing no averment of malice was held to be bad.? A Vol. I. § 534-537; ante, § 33, 35; * Chapman v. C. 5 Whart. 427, 34 Am. Kellenbeck v. S. 10 Md. 431,69 Am. D. D. 565; P. v. Haynes, 55 Barb. 450, 38 166. See S. v. Keen, 95 N. C, 646. How. Pr. 369. 2 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. ® Vol. I. § 612 and note, 613. 314. " Rex v. Reader, 4 Car. & P. 245; Rex 8 Tb. Referring to Rex v. Salmon, vu. Turner, 1 Moody, 239. Russ. & Ry. 26. 7 Jesse v.S. 28 Missis. 100. The rule 21 § 47 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 45. 1. Follow Statute. — As to the intent, equally with the rest, the indictment on a statute must follow its language.? And — 2. To Injure.— To fill the terms of some of the statutes, it must be added that the intent was to injure some person,? — not necessarily the one in possession of the structure.? Thus, — § 45 a. To Defraud Insurers— is a common form of the statu- tory intent; in which case, it must be laid in the indictment, and proved as laid.® § 46. Allegation of the Burning : — At Common Law — “Set Fire to” — “Burn.” — The meaning of ‘these terms is elsewhere stated.6 The ordinary common-law indictment has both.? Chitty’s form is that the defendant “feloniously, &c., did set fire to, and the same house then and there, by such firing as aforesaid, feloniously, wilfully, and maliciously did burn and consume.”® But the common-law definition has only “burn;” and it is not easy to see that to expand the allegation beyond it, by “set fire to,” can make better what otherwise is abundantly good. We shall assume, therefore, that “burn” alone is adequate at the common law. But — § 47. Some of the Statutes — have “set fire to,” others “burn;” and whichever is the statutory term, it ought properly, and per- of pleading, under which this decision pro- ceeded, was stated by Handy, J. as follows: “Tf the words used in the statute do not, in view of the nature of the offence and the recognized principles of law, describe the offence so as to convey to the mind a full and clear idea of everything necessary to constitute the crime, in such case the full measure of the offence must be charged by the use of such words as are necessary and proper, under established rules of law, to characterize it. The difference is sim- ply that between offences which are fully and clearly defined in the statute, and such as are described generally. In the former, the description contained in the statute is sufficient; in the latter, the of- fence must be charged agreeably to the rules of the common law.” p. 109, 110. See Vol. I. § 623 et seq. As to the point of the text, see also Rex v. Minton, 2 East P. C. 1021; Kellenbeck v. 8. 10 Md. 431, 69 Am. D. 166; Reg. v. Lyons, Bell C. C. 22 38, 45. 552. 1 Dir. & F. § 180; C. v. Squire, 1 Met. 258; Chapman v. C. 5 Whart. 427, 34 Am. D. 565; 8. v. Hill, 55 Me. 365. 2 Ante, § 36; Reg. v. Paice, 1 Car. & K. 73; Rex v. Newill, 1 Moody, 458; Rex v. Smith, 4 Car. & P. 569. ® Rex rv. Wallis, 1 Moody, 344; Reg. v. Lyons, Bell C. C. 38. * New Crim. Law, II. § 12; Reg. w Lyons, Bell C. C. 38. 5 Dir. & F. § 184-187; Staaden rv. P. 82 Tll. 432, 25 Am. R. 333; Evans v. S. 24 Ohio St. 458; P. v. Hughes, 29 Cal. 257; P. v. Schwartz, 32 Cal. 160; Reg. v. Kit- son, Dears. 187, 188. See Reg. v. New- boult, Law Rep. 1 C. C. 344; C.v. Gold- stein, 114 Mass. 272; Baker v. 8. 25 Tex. Ap.1, 8 Am. St. 497. 6 Stat. Crimes, § 310, 311. 7 Ante, § 33. > 3 Chit. Crim, Law, 1127. And see §. v. England, 78 N.C. CHAP. III.] ARSON AND OTHER LIKE BURNINGS. § 48 b haps necessarily, to be in the indictment.!_ Both are not essen- tial.2 Or, if the statute is in the alternative, “set fire to or burn,” either will suffice. Still, in Maine, where the statute had “burn,” “set fire to” was held to be a permissible equiva- -lent;* while in Virginia,® Arkansas,* and North Carolina,’ the contrary was with perhaps a nicer accuracy adjudged. Even if we accept the Maine doctrine, it will not necessarily follow that “burn,” in the indictment, can take the place of “set fire to” in -the statute. ® § 48. Further of the Indictment : — Value. — If the punishment to be inflicted is greater or less according to the value of the property, the value must be stated in the indictment;® because every indictment, for whatever offence, must set out every fact which the law makes an element in the punishment.!° But where the value is not such a circum- stance, it need not be alleged.?! § 48 a. Degrees. — In some of the States, the statutes divide arson into degrees, distinguished by specified circumstances, and differing in their punishments. Thereupon the indictment must state the circumstances, within the rule of the last section. Yet sometimes, consistently with this rule, the terms of the statute and of the indictment will permit a verdict for one or another degree according to the facts proved.” § 48 6. One Offence or more — (Defraud Insurers). Where the burning is to defraud insurers, it is one offence only though different insurers have separate policies on the property. And where the offender sets fire to one house to burn it, but by its ” 1 Vol. I. § 613 (2); Archb. Crim. Pl. & Evy. 10th Lond. ed. 314; Howel v. C. 5 Grat. 664; Hester v. S. 17 Ga. 130; Cochrane v. 8. 6 Md. 400. 2 Rex v. Salmon, Russ. & Ry. 26; Rex v. Stallion, 1 Moody, 398; P.v. Myers, 20 Cal. 76. 3 Polsten v. S. 14 Mo. 463. 4 §. v. Taylor, 45 Me. 322. 5 Vol. I. § 613 (2). 6 Mary v. 8. 24 Ark. 44, 81 Am. D. 60. 7S. v. Hall, 93 N.C. 571. 8 Stat. Crimes, § 311. 9 Vol. I. § 540, 566, 567. 10 Vol. I. § 77 et seq. 11C. v. Hamilton, 15 Gray, 480, 482; Brown v, §. 52 Ala. 345. 1? Brown v. §. 52 Ala. 345; Didieu v. P. 4 Par. Cr. 593; Woodford », P. 62 N. Y. 117, 20 Am. R. 464; Dedieu v. P. 22 N.Y. 178. And see Sands v. S. 80 Ala. 201; Cook v. S. 83 Ala. 62,3 Am. St. 688. As to the form of the verdict see Davis . 8. 52 Ala, 357; P. v. Coch, 53 Cal. 627; P. v. Baza, 58 Cal. 690. 13 C. v. Goldstein, 114 Mass. 272. The Corporate Existence — of the insurance company, or whether it was a domestic or foreign one, need not be averred or specifi- cally proved. Johnson v. S. 65 Ind 204, And see Dir. & F. § 79 and note; Vol. I. § 682. 23 o § 50 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. communicating more are consumed, he may be charged for the whole in one count as one offence.! § 49, In Attempts — to burn, the indictment need not describe the combustible materials employed.? Il. The Hvidence. § 50. 1. Intent. — At common law, this offence not requiring a specific intent,? no other than that implied by the words “feloniously, wilfully, and maliciously,” or their accepted. equivalents, need be either averred or proved.* Under some of the statutes there must be a showing of a particular intent which they severally specify,® to the satisfaction of the jury.6 Thus, — 2. Defraud Person. — If the statutory charge is that the burn- ing was to defraud a particular person, it “must,” says Archbold,’ “be proved as laid.” Still, within the rule that one is pre- sumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his. act, the proof of a wilful burning sufficiently establishes that it was with the intent to injure the owner or occupier of the struc- ture burned.2 Yet — 3. Intent to defraud Insurers. — Where the defendant is owner, and the allegation is that the burning was to defraud insurers, the presumptions are balanced; and, says Archbold, “the intent. to defraud cannot be inferred from the act itself, but must be proved by other evidence.” The insurance policy must be pro- duced,® and the jury must be satisfied that he knew of its ex- istence; such knowledge being a necessary ingredient in the intent to injure. Evidence that the insurance was for more than the worth of the building is pertinent; also, that the defendant attempted to procure payment of what was thus excessive. 1 Woodford v. P. 62 N. Y. 117,20 Am, Reg, v. Heseltine, 12 Cox C. C. 404, 5 R. 464. Joinder.— As to the joinder of Eng. Rep. 483; Vol. I. § 1100. counts and offences in arson, see also Mil- ® Rex v. Gilson, Russ. & Ry. 138; Rex ler v. S. 45 Ala 24; Mitchellv.S.5Coldw. «. Doran, 1 Esp. 127. 53; C. v. Cain, 102 Mass. 487. 10 Martin v. S. 28 Ala. 71. 2 C.v. Flynn, 3 Cush. 529. ll Shepherd v» P. 19 N. Y. 537; S. v. * New Crim. Law, IL § 14 (1). Cohn, 9 Nev. 179; C. v. Hudson, 97 Mass. 4 Dir. & F. § 179. 565; S. v. Watson, 63 Me. 128; C. ». Mc- ® Tb. § 180. Carthy, 119 Mass. 354. 6 S. vu. Phifer, 90 N. C. 721. 2 Pp, v. Trim, 39 Cal. 75; Reg. v. Gray, 7 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. 4 Fost. & F. 1102; Stitz v.S. 104 Ind. 359. ed. 316, 317. And see P. v. Levine, 85 Cal. 39, 44; C. 8 Rex v. Farrington, Russ. & Ry. 207. v. Makely, 131 Mass. 421. And see Reg. w. Davies, 1 Fost. & F. 69; 24 CHAP. III] ARSON AND OTHER LIKE BURNINGS. § 53 4, The Means — by which the burning was effected are imma- terial; as, where the charge was the setting of fire to some woods, proof that it was set to a summer-house therein, whence it communicated, was sufficient.1 So the proof may be that the fire was set in a room other than the one occupied by the person named in the indictment, whence it burned through to the latter.? 5. As to Husband and Wife. — “The intention must be to injure some person who is not identified with the defendant. There- fore a married woman cannot be indicted for setting fire to the house of her husband, with intent to injure him.” ? § 51. In Attempts, — there must be proof that arson was speci- fically intended,* and that the alleged act toward it was done. If the charge is of an attempt to set fire to one building by attempting the same to another, proof of what was done in the latter is pertinent, but its effect is for the jury.® § 52. 1. View — Burned Part. —In a suitable case, the jury may have a view® of the premises burned.’ Also a board from the burned building may be produced in court.2 And— 2. What for Jury. — Whether such board had been so affected by fire as to constitute a burning is a question of fact for the jury, under instructions upon the law by the court, as in ordinary cases.2 Also, whether or not the building was a “house,” “barn,” or the like, is a mixed question of law and fact, to be thus decided by the jury under instructions from the court. 1 § 53. 1. For the Common Evidence — against the defendant, such as is admissible in all criminal trials, there is a wide scope in arson. Thus, — 2. Confessions — of the prisoner are receivable in arson the same as in other offences," and with the like limitations. So,— 1 Reg. v. Price, 9 Car. & P. 729. 2 Levy v. P. 19 Hun, 383. 8 Rex v. March, 1 Moody, 182. 4 New Crim. Law, I. § 728, 729. 5 C. v, Harney, 10 Met. 422. See C.v. ‘Tucker, 110 Mass. 403; Pipe v. S.3 Tex. Ap. 56. 6 Vol. I. § 965 (3). 7 Fleming v. S. 11 Ind. 234. 8 C. v. Betton, 5 Cush. 427. See Vol. I. § 965 (1). ® C. v. Betton, supra; S. v. Williamson, 42 Conn. 261. 10 §. v. McGowan, 20 Conn. 245, 52 Am. D. 336; S.v. Smith, 28 Iowa, 565; Mc- Garry v. P. 2 Lans. 227. uC. v. Ingraham, 7 Gray, 46; Reg. v. Sleeman, Dears. 249, 6 Cox C. C. 245, 22 Eng. L. & Eq. 606; Rex v. Long, 6 Car. & P.179; Reg. v. Hearn, Car. & M. 109; Reg. v. Taylor, '8 Car. & P. 733. As to confessions in general, see Vol. I. § 1216a et-seq. 2 Nesbit v. S. 43 Ga. 238; Murray v. S. 43 Ga. 256; Fulton v. S. 58 Ga. 224. 25 [Book XII. § 53 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. 3. Threats — may be shown.} 4, Solicitation — of another to burn the building, is relevant.? 5, Motive. — Anything which evinces a hostile feeling, or any other motive to the crime, may be shown.® 6. Foot-prints, — when relevant, are admissible. * 7. Circumstantial. — The evidence is often circumstantial, as to which the like considerations apply as in other offences. 8. Proof of Another Burning, —in exception to the general rule that only the particular crime in allegation can be shown, is admissible whenever it tends directly to the establishment of the offence in issue ;® for example, a previous firing of the build- ing burned, with testimony casting suspicion on the defendant.’ 9, Accessories, Accomplices, and other Participants — are treated the same in arson as in other offences. 1 Vol. I. § 1110; C. v. Goodwin, 14 Gray, 55; C. v. Chase, 147 Mass. 597; S. v. Parks, 109 N. C. 813; C.c. Quinn, 150 Mass. 401. See also Gregg v. 8. 3 W. Va. 705. 2 Martin v. S. 28 Ala. 71. 3 S. v. Moffitt, 31 Iowa, 316; Bell v. S. 74 Ala. 420; Ford v. 8. 112 Ind. 378; 8. v. Jones, 106 Mo. 302; S. v. Green, 92 N. C. 779; S. v. Hannett, 54 Vt. 83; McAdory v. S. 62 Ala. 154; S. v. Travis, 39 La, An. 356; Hudson v. 8. 61 Ala. 333 ; C. v. Chase, 147 Mass. 597; Halleck v. 8. 65 Wis. 147. 4 Whetston v. S. 31 Fla. 240; S. v. Melick, 65 Iowa, 614; Levy v. P. 80 N. Y. 327; Vol. I.§ 1097 (2). See S. v. England, 78 N. C. 552. 5 Johnson v, 8. 48 Ga. 116; Hensley v. 8. 9 Humph. 243; C. v. Marshall, 15 Gray, 202; Brooks v.S.51 Ga. 612; S.v. Vatter, 26 71 Towa, 557; P. v. O’Neill, 112 N. Y. 355; S. v. West, 1 Houst. Crim. 371; S. v. Crawford, 99 Mo. 74; Fletcher v. S. 90 Ga. 389; C.v, Allen, 128 Mass. 46,35 Am. R. 356; S. v. Ward, 61 Vt. 153. But the Connecticut court, as we shall by and by see,® held good an allegation that two thrust “their hand” into the pocket of a woman, with intent to steal.7 : § 60. On More Persons than One — an assault may be laid as committed, if the fact is so.8 Then, according to an Iowa case, the proofs must cover the whole charge, an assault or beating of one alone being inadequate.® But, in reason, an assault on A and B is an assault both on A and likewise on B; and when it is proved as to one, a complete offence appears equally in the evidence and in the allegation. So the Massachusetts court has since held; namely, that the charge may be of an assault on two, but the proofs need sustain it only as to one.” 8 61. Assaults by Two on Each Other — have been considered in various connections. Assuming that what is done consti- tutes an assault and battery, there may, perhaps, be circum- stances in which each will be so far responsible for the blows of 1 Vol. I. § 469; Fowler v. S. 3 Heisk. don, 2 Stra. 870, 2Ld. Raym. 1572, an in- 154; Reg. v. Gordon, 1 Cox C. C. 259; Lewis v. 8. 33 Ga. 13). 2 Ante, §3; S. v. McClintock, 8 Iowa, 203. 8 Ante, § 6a. 4S. v. Gray, 21 Mo. 492. 5 §. v. Dalton, 27 Mo. 13. McDonald, 67 Mo. 1. 6 Post, § 89. 7 See also S. v. Farley, 14 Ind. 23. 8 Vol. I. § 437 (4, 5); Fowler v. S. 3 Heisk. 154; 8. v. Bradley, 34 Tex. 95; Kenney v. S. 5 R. I. 885, Ames, C. J. ob- serving: “It is true that in Rex v. Clen- 30 See S. v. dictment was held bad upon this ground. In Rex v. Benfield, 2 Bur. 980, 983, 984, however, the King’s Bench overruled this case, declaring ‘it not to be law.’” p. 387. 9 §. v. McClintock, 8 Iowa, 203. 10 C. v. O’Brien, 107 Mass. 208. New Crim. Law, L. § 260 (3) and note, 535; II. § 35; ante, § 24 (2). And see these places as to when the act is indicta- ble; also C. v. Collberg, 119 Mass. 350, 20 Am. R. 328, compared with C. ». Welsh, 7 Gray, 324, in connection with the Massa- chusetts statute, ante, § 24. CHAP. IV.] ASSAULT AND BATTERY. § 63 the other that the two may be charged jointly in one indictment. Ordinarily, on principle, they cannot be, and there should be two indictments. Still, in the language of English, C. J., “the offences being misdemeanors and of the same nature, the offenders may, it seems, be joined in the same indictment, if ‘ severally ’ charged.! But it is not proper to do so, because the court has the discretion to quash the indictment.” ? § 62. The Name of the Assaulted Person — must be alleged if known; or if unknown, the indictment must so state. In matter of fact, he must have been living at the time of the assault; yet it is not objectionable to mention him as “ deceased,” if on the whole allegation he appears to have been then living.® Il. The Indictment for Aggravated Assaults and Batteries.® § 63. 1. The Doctrine — of this sub-title is the common one, that every element which the law has made essential to the offence must be alleged with due particularization; as, that a simple assault, or battery, or both, whichever is the basis of the crime, must be charged in the manner directed in the last sub- title; adding, or incorporating into this averment, the law’s aggravation,’ which will generally be statutory, according to its special facts, and, when it is statutory, within the rules of plead- ing upon a statute.® 2. The Degrees of Assault,— under the common law and the statutes, are numerous. The lowest degree is a simple assault. Another degree is formed by adding a battery to it. Another by adding to it, or to assault and battery, the intent to do a spe- cified ultimate wrong. Another, by adding the use of some 1 Vol. I. § 473-476. 6 And see Stat. Crimes, § 500-515. 2 §. v. Lonon, 19 Ark. 577. 7 New Crim. Law, II. § 42-54. 8 Johnson v. S. 46 Ga. 269; Gahan v. 8 Griffin v. §. 12 Tex. Ap. 423 ; Knight P.58 Hl. 160; C. v. Gray, 2 Cush. 535; v. S. 84 Ind. 73; Keyv. 8. 12 Tex. Ap. Hart v. S. 38 Tex. 382; Harnez. S. 39 Md. 552; P. v. Murray, 2 Mich. N. P. 94; S. v. Bitman, 13 Iowa, 485; Ranch v. 8. 5 Tex. Ap. 363; Black v. S. 57 Ind. 109. And see S. v. Crawford, 66 Iowa, 318; Henry v. 8. 7 Tex. Ap. 388. Human Being. — To say that the assault was on “one John Coffey” sufficiently alleges that it was on a human being. P. v. For- ney, 81 Cal. 118. 4 P. v. White, 55 Barb. 606. 5 C, v. Ford, 5 Gray, 475. 506; Buntin v. S. 68 Ind. 38; S. v. Phil- lips, 104 N. C.786; P.v. Vierra, 52 Cal. 451; P. v. Savercool, 81 Cal. 650: S. . Jenkins, 120 Ind. 268; Meier v. S.10 Tex. Ap.39; Flynn v. 8. 8 Tex Ap. 368; S. v. Moore, 82 N. C. 659; S. v. Hooper, 82 N. C. 663; S. v. Benthall, 82 N. C. 664; P. v. Forney, 81 Cal. 118; Marshall vy. S. 13 Tex. Ap. 492; S. v. Meinhart, 73 Mo. 562; S. v. Tidwell, 43 Ark. 71; P. v. Turner, 65 Cal. 540; S.v. Langston, 45 La. An. 1182; S. v, Tyler, 46 La. An. 1269. 81 § 63a [BOOK XII. SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. instrument implying special danger. Another, by its being made on a person of a special class. And in some of the States there are very many degrees. Generally each degree above assault, or assault and battery, is punished more heavily than the lower; and when it is, the indictment must set out the aggravating matter which gives it the particular degree.” 3. Not Separate Counts — are required; but a simple and aggra- vated or compound assault may be alleged in one;® and the conviction be for the whole, or for any part which, being well. laid, is proved. This doctrine extends even to cases where the aggravated act is known as a crime of another name,® but is limited by some rules appearing elsewhere.® § 63 a. Instances of the Leading Rules — are — 1. Both Simple and Aggravated. — The count, as just indicated, should set out an assault, or a battery, or an assault and battery, as the law on which it is drawn may specify;* and this allega- tion should accord with the rules for it in the particular State.® The aggravating matter may be made to appear by adjectives or by other qualifying words indicative of the manner of the assault or battery,® or by an added clause,! or both;!! the requirement 1 Cokely v. S. 4 Iowa, 477. 2Vol. L. § 82; Sloan v. §. 42 Ind. 570; S. v. Brown, 21 La. An. 347; Ash v. S. 56 Ga. 583; Hollohan v. S. 32 Md. 399; S. v. Jennings, 35 Tex. 503; Greenwood v. §. 35 Tex. 587; Stewart v. S. 4 Tex. Ap. 519; Browning v. 8. 2 Tex. Ap. 47; Bronson v. S. 2 Tex. Ap. 46; Bowden v. S. 2 Tex. Ap. 56; Coney v. S. 2 Tex. Ap. 62; Haynes v. S.2 Tex. Ap. 84; Nelson v. S. 2 Tex. Ap. 227; Chamberlain v. 8. 2 Tex. Ap. 451; Sanner v. 8. 2 Tex. Ap. 458; Pugh «. 8.2 Tex. Ap. 539; Wilks v. S. 3 Tex. Ap. 34; C. v. Fenno, 125 Mass. 387; S. v. Chumley, 67 Mo. 41; William- son v. S. 5 Tex. Ap. 485; Rountree v. U. 8.1 Pin. 59; C. v. McGahey, 11 Gray, 194; S. v. Roberts, 52 N. H. 492; S. v. Cassady, 52 N. H. 500; S. v. Russell, 91 N. C. 624; Territory v. Sevailles, 1 New Mex. 119; S. v. Green, 36 La, An. 99; S. v. Beadon, 17 S. C. 55. 8 Vol. I. § 433; ante, § 55 (3); S. v. Twogood, 7 Iowa, 252; S. v. Farley, 14 Ind. 23; Cokely v. 8. supra; P. v. Casey, 72 N. Y. 393; C. v. Thompson, 116 Mass. 346. * Gillespie v. S. 9 Ind. 380; Foley v. S. 9 Ind. 363; Brantley v. S. 18 Sm. & M. 2 VJ 468; Reg. v. Nicholls, 9 Car. & P. 267; Orton v. §. 4 Greene, Iowa, 140; Lewis v. S. 83 Ga. 181; P. v. McDonald, 9 Mich. 150; S. v. De Laney, 28 La. An. 434; S. o. Robey, 8 Nev. 312; S.v. McAvoy, 73 Iowa, 557; S. v. Howes, 26 W. Va. 110; Mil- stead v. S. 19 Tex. Ap. 490; Clarke v. Territory, 1 Wash. Ter. 68; S. v. Grear, 29 Minn. 221. 5 Vol. I. § 415-420; Reg. v. Guthrie, Law Rep.1 C. C. 241; Benham v. 8.1 Iowa, 542; S. v. Webster, 39 N. H. 96. ‘6 New Crim. Law, I. § 787-789, 798- 815. And see, as to the subject of this paragraph, Stat. Crimes, § 500 et seq.; S. v. Gummell, 22 Minn. 51. 7 Miller v. S. 53 Missis. 403; ante, § 63 (1). 8 Ante, § 56 (2). 9 8. v. Seward, 42 Mo. 206; Williams v. 8. 42 Missis. 328; S. v. Ray, 37 Mo. 365; S. v. Franklin, 36 Tex. 155. 10 Taylor v. C. 3 Bush, 508; P. v. Eng- lish, 30 Cal. 214; Carder v. S. 17 Ind. 307 ; S.v. Hunter, 44 Tex. 94: S. v. Mur. rah, 25 Tex. 758; Reg. v. Cruse, 2 Moody, 53, 8 Car. & P. 541. 4S, uv, Seward, supra; P.v. Congleton, CHAP. IV.] ASSAULT AND BATTERY. § 64 being that the charge shall be brought within the statutory terms, and be sufficiently full, as in other cases of indictments on statutes. 2. Surplusage. — Words insufficient as to the aggravation may still leave the indictment good for a simple assault, or assault and battery; being rejected as surplusage.? And there may be other surplusage within this rule.® 3. Aggravations not Affecting the Punishment — to be inflicted, otherwise than as influencing the discretion of the court, need not be mentioned unless the pleader chooses;* but as we have seen,> whatever is in law essential to the heavier punishment must be, or it cannot be imposed. ® § 64. 1. The Minuteness — with which this matter of agerava- tion must be averred is better explained by illustration than by rule. If the offence consists of an assault, or a battery, inflicted with an intent to commit a heavier crime, such heavier crime need not be set out with the formalities of an indictment for it, but the statement of such intent in ordinary words suffices.’ And an indictment for assault with intent to murder need not allege the mode of it or the means and weapon used ;8 or, if committed by several defendants, the specific acts of each.® And these illustrations have their numerous similitudes. ” 44 Cal. 92; Rasberry v. S.1 Tex. Ap. 664; Prior v. S. 41 Ga. 155; S. v. McGinnis, 12 La. An. 743; P. v. War, 20 Cal. 117. 1 Stat. Crimes, § 501-515; Baker v. P. 49 Ill. 308; S. v. Fee, 19 Wis. 562; P. v. Swenson, 49 Cal. 388; Robinson v. §. 31 Tex. 170; Fulford v. S. 50 Ga. 591; S. v. Jordan, 19 Mo. 212; S. »w. White, 14 Kan. 538; S. v. Elborn, 27 Md. 483; S. v. Little, 67 Mo. 624; S. v. Daley, 41 Vt. 564; Wilson v, P. 24 Mich. 410; S. v. Johnson, 9 Nev. 175; Reddan v. S. 4 Greene, Iowa, 137; S. v. Shepard, 10 Iowa, 126; S. v. Doty, 5 Or. 491; C. v. Welsh, 7 Gray, 324; S. v. Garvey, 11 Minn. 154; Manigault v. §. 53 Ga. 113; Robertson v. 8. 31 Tex. 36; Martin v. S. 40 Tex. 19; Bittick v. S. 40 Tex. 117; S. v. Cass, 41 Tex. 552; Meredith v. S. 40 Tex. 480; Mayfield v. 8. 44 Tex. 59; S. v. Rigg, 10 Nev, 284. 2 Wood v. §. 50 Ala. 144; Nelson wv. S. 2 Tex. Ap. 227; Higginbotham »v. S. 50 Ala. 133; P. v. O’Neil, 48 Cal. 257; C. v. VOL. 11.— 3 Hawkins, 11 Bush, 603; Kruger v. S, I Neb. 365; S. v. Archer, 34 Tex. 646; Blackburn v. S. 39 Tex. 153; Johnson vw. 8. 26 Tex. 117; C. v. Delehan, 148 Mass. 254, 8 P. v. Casey, 72 N. Y. 393; S. v. Sam- uels, 88 La, An. 457, 4 Vol. I. § 85; ante, § 56; S. v. Belk, 76 N.C. 10; S. v. Young, 7 Rich. 1. 5 Ante,§ 63. 6 Vol. I. § 77 et seq. 7 Post, § 76 (1), 77 (2); Hayes v. 8. 15 Lea, 64; S. v. Montgomery, 7 Bax. 160; Lacefield v. S. 34 Ark. 275, 36 Am. R. 8. 8 S. v. Jackson, 37 La. An. 467; Lace- field v. S. supra. And see S. v. Miller, 25 Kan. 699; S. v. Taylor, 83 N. C. 601. 9 Hamilton v. P. 113 Ill. 34,55 Am. R.. 396. 10 §. v. Bradford, 338 La. An. 921; P. v. Ah Toon, 68 Cal. 362; Logan v. S. 2 Lea, 222; Parsons v. S. 9 Tex. Ap, 204; Davis v. 8. 20 Tex. Ap. 302. 33 § 65 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. 2. Weapon. — It is good to allege that the assault was with a “deadly weapon” where these are the statutory words, without any further description of it.! On the charge of an assault with an axe, there need be no added allegation that the axe is a dangerous weapon.? Not even the instrument or its name requires mention, unless by reason of something in the statute, or made essential by its particular form.® 3. Applications of these Rules — will appear under the titles Attempt, Homicide,® Rape,® Abortion,’ and some others. ' TIT. The Evidence. § 65. 1. The Name — of the assaulted person being necessary in allegation,’ it must be proved,® and any variance therein will be fatal.2° If the assault is shown to have been committed on one of the name averred, it will be no objection that there are others of the same name,! or that the same person is also known by other names. The jury are to judge, under instructions from the court,!* of the evidence of the name, the same as of any other evidence in the case.!4 2. The Character of the Assaulted Person, — when not influen- cing the degree of the offence, is omiinarily uch admissible, especially if not known to the defendant.’ But under special circumstances, what was thus known may be relevant, !6— 1 §. v. Seamons, 1 Greene, Iowa, 418. And see S. v. Swann, 65 N. C. 330; May- field v. S. 44 Tex. 59; Burton v. 8. 3 Tex. Ap. 408, 30 Am. R. 146; Forrest v. 8.3 Tex. Ap. 232. 2 Dollarhide vu. U. S. Morris, 233, 39 Am. D. 460. 3 Montgomery v. 8. 4 Tex. Ap. 140; ‘Payne v. 8.5 Tex. Ap. 35; S. v. Moore, 65 Mo. 606. See S. v. O'Flaherty, 7 Ney. 153; S. v. Roderigas, 7 Nev. 328. 4 Post, § 77-85. 5 Post, § 643-659. 6 Post, § 976, 977; Stat. Crimes, § 430- 499. 7 Stat. Crimes, § 751-759. 8 Ante, § 62. ® McLaughlin v. S. 52 Ind. 279; Me- .~ Laughlin v. 8. 52 Ind. 476; 8. v. Boylson, 3 Minn. 488. W Swails v. S. 7 Blackf. 824; C. vw. 84 Booth, 2 Va. Cas. 394; Brown v. S. 16 Tex. Ap. 197. 1 Rex v. Peace, 3 B. & Ald. 579. 12 Johnson v. S. 46 Ga. 269. 13 §. v. Curran, 18 Mo. 320. 14 C. v. O’Baldwin, 103 Mass. 210; C. v. Stone, 103 Mass. 421. Disturbing Peace of Family. — An indictment under a statute for disturbing the peace of the family of Mary Riggs was held to be sup- ported by evidence that she was in fact the head of the family, though she had living a husband who had abandoned her. S. v. Slater, 22 Mo. 464. 16 §. v. Burt, 25 Vt. 373; S. v. Jackson, 17 Mo. 544, 59 Am. D. 281. 8S. v. Meader, 47 Vt. 78; Stevens v. 8.1 Tex. Ap. 591; S. v. Schleagel, 50 Kan. 325; S. v. Paterno, 43 La. An. 514; Lewallen v. 8.6 Tex. Ap. 475; Upthe- grove v. 8. 37 Ohio St. 662; Shields wv. S. 82 Tex. Cr. 498, CHAP. IV.] ASSAULT AND BATTERY. § 67 matter more particularly explained under the title Homi- cide. 3. Weapon — Wound. —I{ several weapons are the alleged instruments of assault, proof of any one of them which in.law makes the offence complete will suffice.2 The wound must not appear to have been inflicted by a weapon other than that stated ® or implied; except where the allegation is surplusage, and per- haps in some other exceptional cases.® - §66. 1. Preaumptions,—considered in a general way in the first volume,® are among the proofs of this offence; as, an injury inflicted by violence is presumed intended,’ a pistol pointed at a man’s head and fired; making a loud report and wounding him, is presumed to have been loaded with a ball, which and not the wadding inflicted the wound, though no ball was found.® And broadly, on the accusation of an assault with a loaded pistol, the presumption appears to be that it was loaded.® So, — 2, If a Wife in Presence of her Husband — commits assault and battery, his consent, should he not restrain her, may be inferred by the jury, who will convict both. § 67. 1. The Intent. — The practitioner should inquire whether, in the particular case, a specific evil intent as, to commit rape, .to take life, or the like — is in law an essential element in the-offence, or whether a general evil mind will suffice. If the former, there must be evidence, not merely of the assault, but from which also the jury may infer the specific purpose. Yet this evidence may be circumstantial.@ For example, — 1 Post, § 609-630. This is a civil case, but the presumption 2S. v. McClintock, 1 Greene, Iowa, 392; P. v. Casey, 72 N. Y. 393. 8 Ferguson v. 8. 4 Tex. Ap. 156; Me- Gee v. S. 5 Tex. Ap. 492. See P. v. Cavanagh, 62 How. Pr. 187; S. v. Phillips, 104 N. C. 786; Melton vu. S. 30 Tex. Ap. 273. 4 Rex v. McDermott, Russ. & Ry. 356 ; Kouns v. 8. 3 Tex. Ap. 138. And see Johnson v. 8. 35 Ala. 363. 5 Post, § 514; Ryan v, §, 52 Ind. 167. 6 Vol. I. § 1096-1131. 7 McConnel v. S. 25 Tex. Ap. 329. 8 Rex ». Weston, 1 Leach, 247. 5 Allen v. P. 82 Ill. 610; Burton z. §. 3 Tex. Ap. 408, 30 Am. R. 146, See post, § 96. 10 Phillips v. Phillips, 7 B, Monr. 268. would not be otherwise on an indictment. And see New Crim. Law, I. § 735. 11 New Crim. Law, I. § 735; 8. v. Jef- ferson, 3 Harring. Del. 571; S. x. Daley, 41 Vt. 564; Garrity v. P. 70 Ill. 83; S. wv. Glovery, 10 Nev. 24; Maxwell «. S. 3 Heisk. 420. 12 Vol. I. § 1073-1079, 1101; post, § 97; New Crim. Law, I. § 735, 736; Taliaferro v. §. 40 Tex. 522; Bradley v. 8.10 Sm. & M. 618; S. v. Napper, 6 Nev. 113; S. v. Doty, 5 Or. 491; S. v. Jackson, 17 Mo. 544, 59 Am. D. 281; C. v. Silk, 111 Mass. 431; Monday v. S. 32 Ga. 672, 79 Am. D. 314; Reg. v. Cox, 1 Fost. & F. 664 ; Brown v. 8. 55 Ga. 169; Roberts v. P. 19 Mich. 401; Corneille v. S. 16 Ind. 232; P.w, Kerrains, 1 Thomp. & C. 383; An. 35 § 68 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. 2. Prior Declarations — of purpose are admissible.! Also — 3. Observations Evincing Hate — to the assaulted person, even those made the next day, have been admitted.2 So— 4, Confessions ? — Threats *—- are admissible. 5. Prior Conduct and Relations — of the parties may be shown or not according as the evidence tends or not to establish the issue. The circumstances of cases within this doctrine are roultitudinous.© In one it was deemed that what took place between the two in the forenoon, the assault being in the even- ing, was too remote to be of the res geste, so not admissible.® In another, to show resentment by the defendant toward the person assaulted, and a consequent motive, the State was per- mitted to prove that the latter had said in the hearing of the former, shortly before the transaction, that “no honest man would avail himself of the bankrupt act;” in connection with the further fact that the defendant’s father had been talking of taking the benefit of it. This case lies near the border; and Gaston, J., said of it: “The circumstance per se would be exceedingly weak; but in connection with the other evidence in the case, it was entitled to some regard.” 7 § 68. 1. In General Terms, — the evidence, while it will be kept within the rules explained in the first volume, will bend to the circumstances the same in this offence as in others. Thus, — 2. The Defendant's Character — may be by him put in issue as there shown;® but no proof of character, good or bad, can be introduced in the first instance against him, to create a presump- tion of guilt. Again, — 3. Co-conspirator — Res Gestw. — Whatever is of the res geste is generally admissible, !° so may be the declarations of co-con- derson v. S. 1 Tex. Ap. 730; Lockwood v. 8. 1 Tex. Ap. 749; Coney v. 8.2 Tex. Ap. 62; Doyle v. S. 5 Tex. Ap. 442; Scott v. S. 48 Ala. 420; Field v. S. 50 Ind. 15; Tatum v. S. 59 Ga. 638. 1 Vol. 1. § 1110; Read v. S, 2 Ind. 438. ° Meeks v. 8. 51 Ga. 429. And see S. v. Fry, 67 Jowa, 475. 8 Vol. I. § 1216 a@ et seq.; Bob v. 8. 32 Ala. 560. 4 8. v. Beaudet, 53 Conn. 536, 55 Am. R. 155; Cahill 'v. P. 106 Ill. 621. See S. vu Skidmore, 87 N.C. 509. 5 Ryan v. P. 79 N. Y. 593; Moore v. S. 31 Tex. Cr. 234; S. v. Price, 111 N.C. 86 703 ; Hodgkius v. 8. 89 Ga. 761; Doolittle v. 8. 93 Ind. 272; P.»v. Miller, 49 Mich. 23; Heiser v. Loomis, 47 Mich. 16; S. v. Montgomery, 65 Iowa,-483 ; S. x. McDon- ald, 14 R. I. 270; S w. Clayton, 100 Mo. 516, 18 Am. St. 565; S. v. Noble, 66 Iowa, 541. 6 Rosenbaum t. S. 33 Ala. 354. See S. zt. Goodrich, 19 Vt. 116, 47 Am. D. 676. 7 §. ». Griffis, 3 Tre. 504. 8 Vol. I. § 1112-1119. ® Henderson v. S. 12 Tex. 525; Me Kenzie v. Allen, 3 Strob. 546. 10 Vol. I. § 1083-1087. CHAP. Iv.] ASSAULT AND BATTERY. § 70 spirators against each other.1 When, therefore, an assault appeared, but it was doubtful which party was the aggressor, acts and declarations of third persons tending to show a con- spiracy to mob the defendant were held admissible, whether notice of them was brought home to the defendant or not.? And — 4, Rule and Special Pact combining. — The cases wherein it becomes necessary to apply general rule and special fact to each other are very numerous.? § 69. Husband and Wife, — we have seen in these cases, where personal violence has been inflicted by either on the other, may be witnesses for and against each other;+ yet subject to impeach- ment the same as other witnesses.° There are intimations that this evidence is limited to the instances in which no others com- petent to testify were present,® but such is not the common doctrine. The necessity which creates an exception to the rule forbidding the matrimonial harmony to be disturbed by the parties testifying in each other’s causes, “is not,” said Lord Mansfield, “a general necessity, as where no other witness can be had; but a particular necessity, as where, for instance, the wife would otherwise be exposed without remedy to personal injury.” ? § 70. As to Chastisement.— Where the alleged assault is by a parent on his child, a teacher on his pupil, or the like, in chas- tisement, it is probably the better doctrine that if the relation- ship appears, the chastisement will be presumed to be reasonable and for sufficient cause, until the contrary is shown. Said Caruthers, J.: “To hold a parent bound to prove that he had good cause to whip his child, or be subject to a conviction upon indictment, would be monstrous.”® The nature of the instru- ment used for correction will strongly influence the question of 1 Vol. I. § 1248 (2). 2 Tompkins v. S. 17 Ga. 356. Harris v. 8. 53 Ga. 640. 3 Yoes v. 8. 4 Eng. 42; S. v. Bruce, 24 Me. 71; Tarver v. 8. 43 Ala. 354; C. v. Cooley, 6 Gray, 350; P. v. Bowen, 49 Cal. 654; Sinith v. S. 2 Ohio St. 511; C. v. Bean, 111 Mass. 438; S. v. Weeks, 1 Dev. 185; C. v. Lincoln, 110 Mass. 410; Rob- inson v. Wilson, 22 Vt. 35, 52 Am. D.77; Richards v. S. 3 Tex. Ap. 423. See # Vol. 1.§ 1153; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 343; Rex v. Azir, 1 Stra, 633; Soule’s Case, 5 Greenl. 407; S. v. Boyd, 2 Hill, 8. C. 288, 27 Am. IT). 376; Rex v. Serjeant, Ryan & Moody, N. P. 352, 354; S. v. Neill, 6 Ala. 685; C. v. Murphy, 4 Allen, 491; Dill v. P. 19 Colo. 469,41 Am. St. 254, 5 Memmler v. S. 75 Ga. 576. 6 §. v. Davis, 3 Brev. 3,5 Am. D. 529, 7 Bentley v. Cooke, 3 Doug. 422, 424. 8 Anderson v, S. 3 Head. 455, 457. 37 § 70. a SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK ‘XII motive or intention! Non-expert evidence as to whether an injury inflicted is permanent or not is inadmissible.? § 70 a. Court or Jury. — Whether force used to repel a battery was appropriate in kind and degree is a question of fact for the jury; to be decided, of course, under instructions upon the law from the court.® 1 Boyd v. S. 88 Ala. 169, 16 Am. 8 ©. v. Bush, 112 Mass. 280. See Sil- St. 31. vus v. S. 22 Ohio St. 90; .Weaver v. S. 24 2 Dean v. §. 89 Ala, 46. Ohio St. 584. For ASSEMBLY, UNLAWFUL, see Untawrut AssemBiy, New Crim. Law, IL. § 1150, 1151, 1184, 1185, 1256-1259; Dir. & F. § 926-9380. 38 CHAP. V.] ATTEMPT. § 74 CHAPTER V. ATTEMPT. § 71-78. Introduction. 74-76. Solicitations to Crime. 77-85. Committing Lower Crime, intending Higher. 86-93. Other Acts, intending a Particular Crime. 94-97. The Evidence. Consult, — for the law of this subject New Crim. Law, I. § 723-772a, and the in- dexes. For the form of the indictment and connected questions, Dir. & F. § 100-112. And see, for both law and procedure, the various substantive offences to commit which attempts may be made. And see the indexes to these volumes and to Statutory Crimes. § 71. 1. Two Elements. — An indictable attempt consists of a specific intent to do something which constitutes a substantive crime, and an act toward but short of its completion.!_ Hence, — 2. The Doctrine of this Chapter —is that both these elements must be charged in the indictment; the only question is how minutely. And the proofs should cover both. § 72. 1. The Obscurity of this Subject, — explained elsewhere,? extends as well to the procedure as to the law. The difficulties are in the condition of the authorities, particularly as to the indictment. In principle, this subject is as plain as most others. ‘ 2. With the Kind of Attempt — the indictment will vary; so that — _§ 73. How Chapter divided.— We shall consider, I. The Indictment for Soliciting to Crime; II. For committing a Lower Crime intending a Higher; III. For Other Acts short of a Par- ticular Substantive Crime intended; IV. The Evidence. I. The Indictment for Soliciting to Crime.® § 74, 1. Doctrine. — When one solicits to crime another who does it, the former is ordinarily an accessory before the fact if it is felony, or a principal therein if it is misdemeanor. And 1 New Crim. Law, I. § 727-730; Hicks 8 For the law of this sub-title, see New ». C. 86 Va. 223, 19 Am. St. 891. Crim. Law, I. § 767-768d, 772a; II. § 20, ' 2 New Crim. Law, I. § 725. 62. 39 § 75 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. the common form of indictment against the accessory before is to state the principal’s guilt and add that the defendant “did maliciously and feloniously incite, move, procure, aid, and abet ” him to do and commit the said felony.1 If the person solicited declines, or fails to accomplish the thing, the solicitation becomes an attempt, and the indictment for it, whether the thing solicited is felony or misdemeanor, is in the same terms, with the omission of the averment that the person solicited committed the offence. The common expression is that at, &c., on, &c., the defendant “intending to procure and cause,” &c., “did then and there solicit and incite one X to,” &c.2 The allegation may be simply that the defendant did “solicit,” or that he did “incite,” — or did “solicit and incite,” — any one of these forms being sufficiently full.® 2, Substance. — Though commonly a solicitation is by words, their tenor need not be set out, but their substance will suffice.4 And when is added the proper statement of the particular offence meant, the intent of the defendant appears, and the indictment for the attempt is complete.6 Thus, — 3. Por Soliciting to Larceny and Embezzlement, — an English form, needlessly verbose, is that the defendant on, &c., at, &ec., “falsely, wickedly, and unlawfully did solicit and incite one X, a servant of one Y, to take, embezzle, and steal a large quantity, to wit, one hundred pounds’ weight of cotton twist, of the goods and chattels of his master, the said Y.”® The statement that the solicitation was to two offences does not make the count double; but as probably in some States there cannot be both an embezzlement and a larceny of the same goods from the same owner,* the charge whereof would be of an impossible act, this part of the form is in such States, at least, not to be com- mended.? In like manner, — § 75. 1. Soliciting to Perjury — Not testify. — “Though,” says 1 Ante, § 8(1); Dir. & F. § 116. T Vol. I. § 437 (3); post, § 93. 2 Dir. & F. § 106, * New Crim. Law, II. § 328, 329. 8 Vol. I. § 434-436. ® This is in substance the form held 4 Vol. I. § 559-563. good in Rex v. Higgins, 2 East, 5. But 5 Rex v. Higgins, 2 East, 5, and the the objection in my text — namely, that other cases cited elsewhere to this sub- the solicitation was to an act legally im- title; also P. v. Thompson, 87 Mich. 118; possible —was not raised; the indictment Stuckmyer v. S. 29 Ind. 20. being treated as for a solicitation simply 6 Archb. Crim, Pl. & Ev. 13th Lond. to steal, and the principal question being ed. 805: Ib. 19th ed. 1025, whether this was indictable. Soliciting to 40 CHAP. V.] ATTEMPT. § 76 Starkie,! “some of the old indictments for endeavoring to suborn state an offer of money,” yet it has been deemed sufficient to charge an endeavor to suborn generally, without stating the means. So in an indictment for endeavoring to keep away a witness.” The particular perjury meant to be procured need not be stated, but its materiality should be.6 Again, — 2. An Attempt to Bribe — with money an officer to summon jurors nominated by the defendant, need not specify the sum offered.® § 76. 1. For Seducing from Allegiance — a person in the govern- mental service, under 87 Geo. 3, c. 70, it was in England held sufficient to allege that the defendant, at, &c., on, &c., “feloni- ously did maliciously and advisedly endeavor to seduce Matthew Lowe, he the said Matthew Lowe then and there being a person serving in His Majesty’s forces by land, from his duty and allegiance to his said Majesty.” For said Perryn, B.: “An endeavor to seduce, to entice, and to stir up, though a conclusion from an infinite variety of facts and circumstances, is but a conclusion of fact, is itself a fact, admitting of no definition or description. The fact is fully expressed by the mere force of the word ‘ endeavor,’ and can only be expressed by that word; like the words ‘conspire, maintain, aid and abet,’ which, in indictments for the offences of conspiracy, mainte- nance, &c., do sufficiently express the offences charged in the indictment.” 7 2. In Short, — the indictment for solicitation consists of the two allegations of, first, the solicitation; and, secondly, the thing solicited to. The general term, without descending to particulars, is adequate for the first; and for the second, the indictment need not be formal and minute as where the substan- tive offence is charged.8 burn — (Arson). —In P. v. Bush, 4 Hill, N. Y. 183, the averment was sustained “that the defendant, on, &c., at, &e., falsely, wickedly, &c., did solicit and in- cite one Kinney, unlawfully, feloniously, &c., in the night-time to set fire to a certain barn of said Sheldon, situate, &c., with in- tent to injure said Sheldon, against the peace,” &e. 1 | Stark. Crim. Pl. 2d ed. 146. _ 2 Rex v. Margerum, Trem. P. C. 168; Rex v. Buckingham, Trem. P. C. 171,174. 8 Fitzg. 263. See also Rex v. Plymp- ton, 2 Ld. Raym. 13877; Watson v. 8.5 Tex. Ap. 11. * §. v. Holding, 1 McCord, 31. 5 §. v. Tappan, 58 N. H. 152. 6 C. v. Chapman, 1 Va. Cas. 138. 7 Rex v, Fuller, 1 B. & P. 180, 186, 2 Leach, 790; Winsmore v. Greenbank, Willes, 577, 583 and note, 8 Ante, § 64 (1); post, § 77 (2). 41 § 77 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. Il. The Indictment for committing a Lower Crime intending a Higher. § 77. 1. Statutory — are most or all of the attempts within this sub-title. And— 2. The Rule —for the indictment is, that it must set out the lower offence as fully and in the same way as though it alone were complained of; and add an averment of intent to commit the higher. But the latter need be merely in terms reasonably precise, as pointed out under our last sub-title, not necessarily in the minute form required in an indictment therefor.! Thus,— 3. Assault intending Murder. — Where it is a statutory crime to assault one with intent to kill him, to murder him, or the like, the indictment need only charge that the defendant, at a time and place named, “did make an assault” on him, or, in some other form of words, did what else is necessary to be alleged in an indictment for the simple offence,? “ with intent,” for illustration, “then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought to kill and murder” such person.® It is not necessary to charge that the assault was on “ purpose,” or of “malice aforethought,” if these words are not in the statute.* Of course, if the statute requires a battery also to constitute the offence, it must be averred; otherwise it need not be.® But in the absence of anything special in the statute, the manner of the assault, or of the beating, or the kind of weapon, need not be stated.6 Yet — 1 And see ante, § 63a, 64 (1); Brown- ing v. S. 2 Tex. Ap. 47;S. v. Malcolm, 8 Iowa, 413 ; Cokely v. S. 4 Iowa, 477. 2 Ante, § 56. 8S. v. Dent, 3 Gill & J. 8; Harrison v. S. 2 Coldw. 232; Hart v.S. 38 Tex. 382; P. v. English, 30 Cal. 214; S.v. Fee, 19 Wis. 562; P. v. Swenson, 49 Cal. 388; Fulford v. S. 50 Ga. 591; Meredith v. S. 40 Tex. 480; S.v. Walker, 40 Tex. 485; Montgomery v. 8.4 Tex. Ap. 140; Stew- art v. S. 4 Tex. Ap. 519; Wood v. S. 64 Missis. 761; Plake v. 8, 121 Ind. 433, 16 Am. St. 408 And see S. v. Minau, 37 La. An. 526. * 8. v. Newberry, 26 Iowa, 467 ; Rice v. P. 15 Mich. 9. And see S. v. Murphy, 21 Ind. 441. 5 §. v. Seward, 42 Mo, 206; Miller v. 42 S. 53 Missis. 403. And see S. v. Brown, 21 La. An. 347; Ainsworth v. 8.5 How. Missis. 242. 6 S. v. Sheerin, 12 Mont. 539, 33 Am. St. 600; Connors v. S.16 Vroom, 211; Wil- liams v. 8. 47 Ind. 568; Rice v. 8. 16 Ind. 298; Nash v. S. 2 Tex. Ap. 362;S. v. Chandler, 24 Mo. 871, 69 Am. D. 432; S. v. Chumley, 67 Mo. 41; Martin ». S. 40 Tex. 19; Bittick v. S. 40 Tex. 117; May- field v. S. 44 Tex. 59; Browning v. 8. 2 Tex. Ap. 47; S. v. Shepard, 10 Iowa, 126. And see C. v. Galavan, 9 Allen, 271. There are a few cases which appear to require, contrary to the text, the particu- lars of the assault. Beasley v. S. 18 Ala, 535; Trexler v. S. 19 Ala. 21; S. v. Johnston, 11 Tex. 22; Wood v. S. 50 Ala, 144, CHAP. V.] ATTEMPT. § 80 4, The Name — of the person meant to be killed should be alleged ;1 it being, for example, insufficient to say, “with intent, in so striking and beating him the said X with the club, &c., feloniously, &c., to kill and murder, &c.,” where X had been mentioned only as the person assaulted.? Still, — § 78. More, with like Intent.— Where the statute requires more of substantive wrong than a simple assault, or assault and battery, in addition to the ulterior intent, such excess must also be alleged. Anda statute may be construed to require more, though it does not in terms, according to principles stated in the first volume.* Thus, — § 79. 1. With Knife, with Intent.—It was held good to say that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant, “with a certain large knife which he then and there had and held at and against the body of the said X, then and there did cut, thrust, and stab, with the intent the said X then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of malice aforethought to kill and murder.” Also, — 2. With Pistol, with Intent. — The allegation was sustained that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant did make a “violent and ageravated assault with a pistol, and did then present the said pistol at said X, and did then and there shoot at said X with intent,”® && And— § 80. 1. Sufficiently in the Statutory Terms — should be these indictments, to satisfy the rules in our first volume.? Thus, — 2, Deadly Weapon, &c.— Where a statute made punishable “every person who shall be convicted of any assault and battery ° upon another, by means of any deadly weapon, or by such other means or force as was likely to produce death, with intent to kill,” an allegation of assault and battery with the intent to kill, not adding that it was by means of a deadly weapon, or by any other such means as were likely to produce death, was held to be insufficient. Again, — 1 Ante, § 62, 65(1); Jones v. S.11 Sm. & M. 315. 28. v. Patrick, 3 Wis. 812. And see post, § 82; S. vu. McCunniff, 70 Iowa, 217. 8 S. «. Brown, 21 La. An. 347; Brown- ing v. S. 2 Tex. Ap. 47; S. v. Shepard, 10 Iowa, 126; S. v. Jordan, 19 Mo. 212. 4 Vol. 1. § 623-630. 5S. v. Bullock, 13 Ala. 413. 6 §. v. Lutterloh, 22 Tex. 210. It is not necessary to state the manner in which the pistol was used. . S. v. Croft, 15 Tex. 575. See also S. v. Cryer, 20 Ark. 64; Cronkhite v. S. 11 Ind. 307; Nixon v. P. 2 Scam. 267, 35 Am. D. 107; P. v. Urias, 12 Cal. 325; S. ce. Munco, 12 La. An. 625. 7 Vol. I. § 608-622; post, § 83; Sloan v. 8. 42 Ind. 570; S. v. White, 14 Kan. 538; Baker v. P. 49 Ill. 308; Reddan »v. S. 4 Greene, Iowa, 137; Williams v. 8. 42 Missis. 328. 8 P. v. Davis, 4 Par. Cr. 61. 43 And see § 81 “SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. 3. Malice, &c. — Where the statutory offence was assault and battery made with express malice and with the intent to kill, the words “of his malice aforethought” were adjudged in- adequate in allegation; for indictments upon statutes must state all the circumstances constituting the definition of the crime, and in the words which the statute has made technical. Again, — 4, “Intent,” “Attempt,” “Intention.” — Where the statute made punishable an act done “with intent to kill,” an averment that it was with the “attempt,” &c., was held defective; because, when the words of the statute “are descriptive of the offence, they must be used.”? But “intention” has been accepted as a substitute for the statutory “intent.” In a verdict, assault with “attempt” was adjudged a good equivalent for assault with “intent.” Said the court: “It seems impossible to doubt that the only distinction between an intent and an attempt to do a thing is that the former implies the purpose only, while the latter implies both the purpose and an actual effort to carry that purpose into execution.” * Since, therefore, the word “attempt” embraces the full meaning of “intent,” with something more, it is not impossible the courts may hereafter hold it to be an admissible substitute in an indictment.® § 81. 1. Assault intending “ Felony.” — Where the statute makes punishable an assault “with intent to commit a felony,” the indictment should not simply follow the statutory words, but it must specify the particular felony intended ;* for example, — 2. Intending Rape.— Under the English statute for “assault with intent to commit felony,” ’ where the intended felony was rape, the allegation is that the defendant made an assault on one named, and did beat, wound, and ill-treat her, with intent her Rex v. Jackson, 1 Leach, 267, 1 East P. C. 419; Rexv. Pegge, 1 East P. C. 420; S. v. Harris, 34 Mo. 347. 1 Anthony v. S.13 Sm. & M. 263. See also Jennings v. 8. 9 Misso. 856; S. v. Stewart, 29 Mo. 419. 2S. v. Ross, 25 Mo. 426 ; S. v. Marshall, 14 Ala. 411; the judge, in the latter case, adding: ‘‘ To charge one with an attempt to murder is the mere charge of a legal result.” And see Nugent v. S. 19 Ala. 540. 8 §.v. Tom, 2 Jones, N.C, 414. Strictly, 44 the decision was that if the indictment was defective from this cause, 1t was cured by the statute of 1811; but it seems to have been deemed good. 4 Prince v. 8. 35 Ala, 367, 369, opinion by R. W. Walker, J. 5 Vol. I. § 612 et seq. And see John- son v. 8. 14 Ga. 55. 6 S. v. Hailstock, 2 Blackf. 257. see Wilburn v. S. 41 Tex. 237. 19 Geo. 4, c. 31, § 25, superseded by 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, § 38, in like words. And CHAP. V.] ATTEMPT. § 84 the said, &c., violently and against her will feloniously to ravish and carnally know.”! As to the— § 82. Form of averring Intent to ravish,— The name of the person to be ravished must appear in the allegations both of the intent to ravish and of the assault.2 It need not be averred that she was a female,? or of the human species,* or that she was not the defendant’s wife.® “Ravish” is the proper word,® but probably not indispensable where the idea is otherwise adequately conveyed.’ Yet simply to say that the intent was to commit a rape on the person assaulted seems not to be deemed sufficient.® Nor need the word “rape” appear.? The expression, “with intent to ravish and carnally know the said Margaret Bolen,” not adding “against her will,” or any equivalent, has been adjudged inadequate.!2 The age of the female need not be given," except in some cases of carnal abuse, where age is an element in the offence.12 And — § 88. The Statutory Terms,—— where the indictment is on a statute, must be followed.!8 § 84. For Assault intending Robbery, —a form good in England is that the defendant on, &c., at, &c., “in and upon one X [then and there] being, feloniously did make an assault, with intent the moneys, goods, and chattels of the said X, from the person and against the will of him the said X, feloniously and violently to steal, take, and carry away.” 44 There is room for objecting to this form that it is silent as to the element of put- ting in fear. Yet probably the united words “violently ” and “from the person ” sufficiently supply the apparent omission. ® 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 13th Lond. ed. 589. ; 2 Ante, §77 (4); Nugent v. §.19 Ala. 540. 8 Tillson v. S. 29 Kan. 452; Battle ev. S. 4 Tex. Ap. 595, 30 Am. R. 169. 4S. v. Ward, 35 Minn. 182. 5 P.v. Estrada, 53 Cal. 600. 6 Witherby v. S. 39 Ala, 702. 7 Christian v. C. 23 Grat. 954; P. v. Brown, 47 Cal. 447. 8 S. v. Williams, 41 Tex. 98. 9 P. v. McDonald, 9 Mich. 150. 10 Mears v. C. 2 Grant, Pa, 385. And see Hewitt v. 8.15 Tex. Ap. 80. 11 Bowles v. S. 7 Ohio, 2d pt. 243, 12 Stat. Crimes, § 482; post, § 976. And see S, v. Ward, supra; Territory v. Keyes, 5 Dak. 244. 13 Ante, § 80; Grandison v. S. 2 Humph. 451; Elijah v. S. 2 Humph. 455; Henry v. S. 4 Humph. 270; Pleasant v. 8. 13 Ark. 360; Nelson v. S. 6 Ala. 394. See C. v. Bennet, 2 Va. Cas. 235; Williams v. S. Wright, 42. 14 Archb. Crim. Pl]. & Ey. 18th Lond. ed. 357, 19th ed. 458; Reg. v. Huxley, Car. & M. 596. See Rex v. Monteth, 2 Leach, 702; Rex 7. Remnant, 2 Leach, 583, 5 T. R.169; Rex v. Randall, 1 Leach, 267. Compare with Chitty’s form, 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 808, 809. See also Dicker- son v. C, 2 Bush, 1. 16 Post, § 1001, 1002. ner, 5 Bush, 316. 16 New Crim. Law, IT. § 1166-1170. 45 See C. v. Tan- § 87 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 85. The Thing to be taken in the Robbery —need not be described.? Ill. The Indictment for other Acts short of a Particular Substantive Crime intended. § 86. 1. This Sub-title — embraces the ordinary common-law attempts, and those under the confirmatory statutes. Most of our States have a provision that, to quote from the New York one, “every person who shall attempt to commit an offence pro- hibited by law, and in such attempt shall do any act towards the commission of such offence, but shall fail in the perpetration thereof, or shall be prevented or intercepted in executing the same, shall,” &c.2 These are simply the terms of the common law, and they seem to require no change from the common-law indictment. ; 2. The Doctrine — is, that since in matter of law the defendant to be guilty need not have devised the steps by which he would commit the substantive crime intended, and for other reasons, the indictment need not set it out with the particularization and technicalities of a charge of its actual commission ;? but because the act done toward it must be such as the law recognizes as adequate,+ and because accused persons are always entitled to have the particulars of the accusation stated to them,® such act must be specifically averred.6 There need be no allegation that the defendant failed in his attempt.’ It is necessary simply to set out both the intent and the act, in a way to individualize the instance, and make the combination of the two appear on the face of the allegation criminal.’ To illustrate, — § 87. In Attempted Larceny, — the things meant to be stolen were in one case described as “the goods and chattels of Thomas Roe, in the dwelling-house of the said Thomas Roe, situate in the borough of Brighton, in the county of Sussex.” And the 1 Conolly ». P. 3 Scam. 474, 478; 891; S.». Baller, 26 W. Va. 90; 58 Am. Crumes v. §. 28 Tex. Ap. 516,19 Am. St. R. 66. 853 ; Morris v. 8.13 Tex. Ap. 65; post, § 87. 5 Vol. L.§ 98a, 319 (1), 325 (2, 6), 331. 2 P. v. Bush, 4 Hill, N. Y. 138; P. ve. 8 S. v. Colvin, 90 N. C. 717; S. v. Me Moran, 123 N. Y. 254, 20 Am. St. 732; Chesney, 16 Mo. Ap. 259; Hicks v. C. C. v. Clark, 6 Grat. 675. To the like ef- supra; S. v. Baller, supra; Reg. v. Sow- fect, S. v. Decker, 36 Kan. 717; NewCrim. erby, 1894, 2 Q. B. 173; Thompson v. Law, I. § 743, P. 96 Ill. 158, 3 Ante, § 64 (1), 76, 77 (2). TS. v, Decker, 36 Kan. 717. # Hicks v. C. 86 Va. 223,19 Am. St. 8 See ante, § 71, 74, 76. 46 CHAP. V.] ATTEMPT. § 89 objection that the description was not sufficiently certain was overruled. “Where there is only an attempt,” said Pollock, C. B., “it is not always possible to say what property the would- be thief meant to steal.”1 In another case it was adjudged sufficient to say “five dollars in money and other goods, chattels, and valuable things.”? Practically the form will vary with the circumstances of the particular case? But — § 88. The Description of the Act — of attempt, it is but repetition to state, must be specific and individualizing. The single word “attempt” — “did attempt feloniously to steal,” &c. — does not, as the allegation should,‘ show to what class of attempts to steal the goods the individual instance belonged, the nature or extent of what was done, or anything else special to the particular accusation. Nor, even ina general way, does it make a prima facie case; because not all attempts to steal, either goods in general, or specific goods, are indictable. The attempt, to be so, must be in an adequate degree proximate to the completed theft, and of a standard magnitude.6 We have seen that a solicitation to a larceny is a punishable attempt to commit it, while yet the form of the allegation is, not that the defendant did attempt, &c., but did “solicit,” or “incite,” &c.; stating the manner in which the attempt in the individual instance was made. And we have seen this to be the general rule in indict- ments for attempts.” § 89. Pocket. picking. — Where a larceny is attempted by pick- ing a pocket,’ not only is the allegation inadequate that the defendant “did attempt feloniously to steal” the goods of the person whose pocket it was,? but even the added clause, “by picking the pocket” of such person, will not render the accusa- 1 Reg. v. Johnson, Leigh & C. 489, 490, ing it. Reg. v. Marsh, 1 Den. C. C. 505, 10 Cox C. C. 138. In this case, the act which made the attempt indictable was not set ont, as it should have been; but the defendant’s counsel overlooked the objection and did not take it. For the true rule, see Thompson v. P. 96 Il. 158. 2 §. v. Hughes, 76 Mo. 823. 8 Ante, § 76,77, 81, 84, 85; P. v. Ah Ye, 31 Cal. 451; Reg. v. Bullock, Dears. 653, 86 Eng. L. & Eq. 608; Reg. »v. Lawes, 1 Car. & K. 62; S. v. Jones, 10 Towa, '206.° Tt is probably necessary to state the ownership of the goods meant to be stolen, or allege a reason for not stat- 3 Cox C. C. 570, Temp. & M. 192. And see S. v. Wilson, 30 Conn. 500. 4 Vol. I. § 329 (2), 331, 506, 509, 514, 517, 519, 538, 610, 611, 623-626, 629. 5 New Crim. Law, I. § 727, 728, 737 et seq. 759, 764; Thompson wv. P. 96 Il. 158. 6 Ante, § 74 (1). See post, § 126 (2). 7 Ante, § 86 (2); Randolph wv. C. 6S. & R. 398; S. » Brannan, 3 Nev. 238; U.S. v. Ulrici, 3 Dil. 532. 8 New Crim. Law, I. § 743-745. ® Ante, § 86 (2)-88. 47 § 91 [BOOK XIL SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. tion sufficiently minute and specific.! Yet, particularizing one degree further, it has been well held good to say that on, &c., at, &c., the defendants “wilfully and maliciously did make an assault on the person of a woman” described, “and then and there did thrust their hand into the pocket of said woman, with intent, in so doing, the moneys, goods, and chattels of said woman, if any such should then and there be found in her per- sonal possession, feloniously to take, steal, and carry away from her person.”? Again, — § 90. An Attempted Mayhem — was held to be insufficiently averred by the words “with a certain pistol then and there loaded with gunpowder and one leaden bullet, which” the defendant “in his right hand then and there held, then and there did attempt feloniously to maim, disfigure, disable, and kill ” one named; for “the indictment ought to have alleged some act done by the defendant, of such a nature as to constitute an attempt to commit the offence mentioned.” ® Contrary to the foregoing, — § 91. 1. In Alabama, — where a statute provides that “the indictment must state the facts constituting the offence, in ordinary and concise language, in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended,” and perhaps some other statutes modify the common-law rules, the court held that the particular facts entering into the attempt need not be specified, but it suffices to say that at the time and 1 §. x. Wilson, 30 Conn. 500; Randolph vC. 6S. & R. 398. Attempt by False Pretences. —In England it has been held adequate to charge that the defendants, by “divers false and fraudulent pretences, unlawfully, knowingly, and designedly did attempt and endeavor feloniously to steal, take, and carry away of and from the said John Gaisford a large sum of money, to wit, the sum of twenty pounds, of the moneys of the said John Gaisford.” Reg. v. Bullock, Dears. 653, 36 Eng. L. & Eq. 608. This case appears to be contrary to the doctrine of the text. But in it, as in Reg. v. Johnson (ante, § 87), the objection now under consideration was not, I infer from the report, presented to the court. In another case it was adjudged inade- quate to say that the prisoner “did unlawfully attempt and endeavor fraudu- 48 lently, falsely, and unlawfully to obtain from the Agriculturalist Cattle Insurance Company a large sum of money, to wit, the sum of £22 10s., with intent thereby then and there to cheat and defraud” the company; because, first, the nature of the attempt was not sufficiently specified ; sec- ondly, the property in the money was not laid in any one. Reg. «. Marsh, 1 Den. C. C. 505, 3 Cox C. C. 570. 2 §. v. Wilson, supra.. And for forms held good, not greatly differing from this, see C. v. Fortune, 105 Mass. 592; C. v. Bonner, 97 Mass. 587; C. v. Sherman, 105 Mass. 169; Corneille x. S. 16 Ind. 232. For other forms, perhaps better, see Dir. & F. § 612 and note, 8 C. vo. Clark, 6 Grat. 675, 684, And see Ridenour v. S. 38 Ohio St. 272; S. x Agee, 68 Mo. 264. CHAP. V.] ATTEMPT. § 92 place laid the defendant “did attempt.” The reasoning appears to be that the single word “attempt” carries the double idea both of an intent and the endeavor to accomplish it, — a propo- sition everywhere held.! Hence it was adjudged sufficient to aver that the defendant “did attempt to feloniously ” commit a larceny ;? also, that the defendant “attempted to commit a rape on” a woman named.? The oversight of the court, for such there certainly was, consisted in not distinguishing between the charge of an endeavor in general terms and the particular endeavor, with its special facts, made in the individual instance. We have already seen, and it is but common elementary doc- trine, that a defendant is entitled to have an accusation of his offence laid before him individualized, — not merely, for example, that he committed “larceny,” which means that he did a wrong- ful act with a wrongful intent; or “murder,” a word which signifies both a criminal intent and an act done toward carrying it out; but the special thing done must be put in allegation. And it was shown in the first volume that anything short of this is contrary to the constitutions in all our States.+ 2. In New York — we have a dictum from Cowen, J. that “an attempt in any form to commit an offence is within the statute ; and the particular manner in which the attempt was made need not be pointed out by the indictment.”* But the author is not aware that there is any general departure there from the fore- going rules. And — § 92, The Doctrine prevailing — almost universally in our States requires, in attempt, the same as in all other criminal cases, the elements of the alleged wrong to be set out in the’ indict- ment; so that the court can see whether or not the law has been violated, and the defendant can know to what he must make answer. ® 1 Ante, §71 (1); Hicks v. C. 86 Va. 223, tempt treated of under this sub-title, C. v. 19 Am. St. 891. McLaughlin, 105 Mass. 460; Madden v. 2 Jackson v. 8. 91 Ala, 55, 24 Am. St. S. 1 Kan. 340; Cunningham » S, 49 860. Missis. 685; Bassett v. S. 41 Ind. 303; 3 Lewis v.S. 35 Ala. 380, 390, referring Bradley v. S. 32 Ark. 704; S. v. Yar- to the form in the Code, also to Rex v. Ful- borough, 77 N. C. 524; Willey v. 8.52 Ind. ler, 1 B. & P. 180; Lawson v. §. 20 Ala. 65, 246; Collins v. S. 25 Tex. Supp. 202; P. 56 Am. D. 182; Sterue v. S. 20 Ala. 43. v. Thompson, 37 Mich. 118; Collins v. S. 4 Vol. I. § 86, 95-112. 3 Heisk. 14; C. v. Murphy, 12 Allen, 449; 5 P. v. Bush, 4 Hill, N. Y. 133, 134. Queen v. 8.5 Har. & J. 232; Stuckmyer 6 And see, for other forms, for the at- v. 8. 29 Ind. 20; S. v. Abbott, 16 N. H VOL. 11. —4 49 § 97 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. + § 98. It is not Duplicity,—as already seen, to charge an attempt to commit more offences than one. There is but one attempt, though the object aimed at is multifarious.? IV. The Evidence. § 94. 1. Every Element — entering into the attempt as charged must be shown with the reasonable exactness demanded criminal evidence.? in By the common-law rules, prevailing in a part of our States, if in attempted felony the actual commission of the substantive offence intended is proved, there can be no conviction for the attempt. But — 2. On an Indictment for a Substantive Offence, — by statutes in some States, there can on a proper allegation be a conviction for the attempt;° in others, not.® § 95. Attempt to kill Seducer of Wife. —If, on an indictment against a husband for attempting to shoot the seducer of his wife, there is evidence of her want of chastity, he may rebut it by counter evidence. And if, had he killed the man, the homi- cide would be excusable, so is the attempt which failed.7 § 96. 1. Presumptions —are available in the evidence of attempt.® ‘Thus, — 2. In Attempt to Murder, —a gun levelled at one within shoot- ing distance is presumed loaded.® And — § 97. 1. The Probable Consequences — of one’s intentional act 507; Fairlee v. P. 11 Ill. 1; S.v. Place, 5 Wash. 773; U.S. v. Gordon, 22 Fed. Rep. 250; S. v. Frazier, 53 Kan. 87,42 Am. St. 274; P. v. Murray, 67 Cal. 103. 1 Vol. I. § 437 (3); ante, § 74 (3). 2 And see Rex v. Fuller, 1 B.& P. 180, 2 Leach, 790; S. v. Smith, 24 Tex. 285. 8 Vol. I. § 1052-1055; C. v. McLaugh- lin, 105 Mass. 460; Madden v. S. 58 Ga. 563; Garrity v. P. 70 Ill. 83; S. v. White, 41 Towa, 316; Thompson v. S. 43 Tex. 583; P. v. Bishop, 81 Cal. 113; Porter v. 8. 57 Missis. 300; Jones v. §. 13 Tex. Ap. 1; Taylor v. §.13 Tex. Ap. 184; Barr wv. P. 113 TL 471; Ross v. 8. 62 Ala. 224, ‘4 New Crim, Law, I. § 787-789; S. v. White, 35 Mo. 500. 5 New Crim. Law, I. § 809; Hill v. S. 53 Ga. 125; Stapp v. S. 3 Tex. Ap. 138; Miller v, 8. 58 Ga, 200; S. v. McLaugh- 50 lin, 44 Iowa, 82; Usher v. C. 2 Duv. 394; S. v. Frank, 103 Mo. 120; P. v. Dart- more, 48 Hun, 321. See Sullivan v. P. 27 Hun, 35. ® New Crim. Law, ut sup.; Rex v. Harmwood, 1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 870, 1 East P. C. 411; Wash v. S. 14 Sm. & M. 120; Reg. v. Nicholls, 2 Cox C. C. 182. See Matthews v. S. 33 Tex. 102. 7 Biggs v. S. 29 Ga. 723, 76 Am. D. 630. 8 Wood r. S. 27 Tex. Ap. 393; Reg. v. Duckworth, 1892, 2 Q. B. 83, 17 Cox C.C, 495; Pontius v. P. 82 N. Y. 339; Aiken v. §.10 Tex. Ap. 610; McMahon »v. S. 16 Tex. Ap. 357 ; Leverich v. S. 105 Ind. 277 ; Good v. 8.18 Tex. Ap. 39; S. v. Mounce, 106 Mo. 226 ; Steffy v. P.130 Ill. 98. § Ante, § 66 (1) ; Caldwell v. S. 5 Tex. 18, CHAP. V.] ATTEMPT. § 97 are, as in other criminal cases, presumed to have been intended.? But in attempt, this presumption is never of law, always only of fact; for — ‘ 2. Intent.— In all these cases the jury must be satisfied that in fact the defendant entertained the particular evil intent alleged against him.? Not necessarily by direct testimony, but in some form, this intent must be affirmatively shown in evidence.’ 1 Vol. I. § 1100; S. v. Schloss, 93 Mo. 8 Vol. I. § 1101; ante, § 67; Roberts 361. v. P. 19 Mich. 401; S. v. Neely, 74 N.C. 2 New Crim. Law, I. § 728, 729; S. v. 425, 21 Am. R. 496; Meeks v. S. 51 Ga. White, 41 Iowa, 316 ; Reg.v. Cox, 1 Fost. 429; Garrity v. P.70 Ill. 83; P. v. Jones, & ¥F. 664; S. v. Jefferson, 3 Harring. Del. 32 Cal. 80; Pratt v. S. 56 Ind. 179. 571. 51 § 100 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII, CHAPTER VI. BARRATRY. Consult, — for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, I. § 541 (1), 588; IT. § 63- -69. For the indictment, &c., Dir. & F. § 778, 779. And compare with the title NUISANCE. § 98. The Old Form of Indictment—for this old offence charges that on, &c. [with or without a continuando], at, &e., the defendant “was and yet is a common barrator;” adding that he “divers quarrels, strifes, suits, and controversies among the honest and quiet liege subjects of our lord the king then and there did move, procure, stir up, and excite;” and concluding “to the evil example, &c., and common nuisance of the liege subjects of our said lord the king, and also against the peace, &e.”1 As certainly essential in this form are — § 99. 1. “Common Barrator.”— These words, technically de- scriptive of the offence, cannot be dispensed with, or “supplied by words which may import as much, such as a common oppressor and disturber of the peace, or a stirrer up of strife among neighbors.”2 And — 2. “ Against the Peace ” — are essential in the conclusion. § 100. Bill of Particulars.—It is believed that the middle clause in the above form, which, in averring the stirring up of “divers” suits and the like, points to no one act with the cer- tainty required in criminal pleading, is superfluous. The term “common barrator” is, contrary to the general rule in other cases, sufficiently definite.6 But the court will order a bill 2 12 Chit. Crim. Law, 232. A little more extended, but otherwise like this, is the form in Rex v. Spencer, Trem. P. C. 224, 7 2 Note to Rex v. Urlyn, 2 Saund. Wms. ed. 808; Rex v. Hardwicke, 1 Sid. 282; Reg. v. Hannon, 6 Mod. 311; 1 Hawk. P. C. Curw. ed. p. 475, § 9; New Crim. Law, II. § 65. Compare with post, § 200. 52 8 Palfrey’s Case, Cro. Jac. 527. + But see Case of Barretry, 8 Co. 36d. Compare with post, § 199, 200. 5 Vol. I. § 494; 1 Hawk. P.C. Curw. ed. p. 475, 476; Rex v. Cooper, 2 Stra. 1246; Rex v. Clayton, 2 Keb, 409; Pal- frey’s Case, Cro. Jac. 527; C. v, Davis, 11 Pick. 432, CHAP. VI.] BARRATRY. § 108 or note of the particulars,! and limit the proofs to the instances therein set down.? § 101. “Common Nuisance.” — This offence being a common nuisance, the question whether the conclusion “to the common nuisance,” &c., is necessary,® is the same which is elsewhere considered. # § 102. Acts in Proof. — How far particular acts must be shown in proof was explained in “New Criminal Law.” ® § 103. 1. Allegation of Time. — Chitty’s form avers that the offence was committed on a day named “and on divers other days and times as well before as afterwards,” ® and the same matter appears in Tremaine.? We have seen that these words, here following a specific day, do not constitute a continuando, or any sufficient setting out of “divers other days,” but the clause is mere surplusage, and one day only is alleged.* In the first volume the author gave his reasons for believing that in this class of offences the pleader may, at his election, lay the wrong- ful acts as all done on a particular day, or as continuing; and if the former, the proofs will not be restricted to the one day, except in Massachusetts. ® 2. The Particular Vill— within the county was never, it appears, required to be given in this offence. It is certainly unimportant now, in our States. , 1 Vol. I. § 643 et seq.; C. v. Davis, 11 8 See Train & Heard Prec. 57, note. Pick. 432; Rex v. Grove, 5 Mod. 18; J’An- £ Post, § 200, 863, 864. son v. Stuart, 1 T. R. 748, 754; Rex v. 5 New Crim. Law, II. § 65. Wylie, 1 New Rep. 92, 95. 8 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 232. 2 Goddard v. Smith, 6 Mod. 2617. But 7 Rex v. Spencer, Trem. P. C. 224. So in Iveson v. Moore, 1 Ld. Raym. 486, also in Parcel’s Case, Cro. Eliz. 195. 490, Gould, J. said that when the prose- 8 Vol. I. § 388, 395. eutor has proved the particulars in his 9 Vol. I. § 388, 392, 397, 402. bill, “he shall be admitted to prove as 1 2 Saund. 5th ed. by Wms. 308, noté; many more of them as he pleases, toag- 1 Hawk. P. C. Curw. ed. p. 476, § 11; gravate the fine.” And see observations Parcel’s Case, supra. in Lambert v. P. 9 Cow. 578, 587; and in 1 Vol. I. § 370. C.v. Pray, 13 Pick. 359, 362. And see Chambers v. 8. 26 Ala. 59. For BATTERY, see AssavuLT AND Battery. 53 § 105 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. CHAPTER VII. BAWDY-HOUSE, § 104. Introduction. 105-111. The Indictment. 112-118. The Evidence. 119-122. Letting House for Bawdry. Consult, — for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, I. § 1082a-1096; and for various questions, Ib. § 361 (3), 500 (2), 686, 734 (2), 945, 974, 1107 (1) ; Stat. Crimes, § 21,279. For the Indictment, &c., Dir. &. F. § 780-787. And see the titles DisorDERLY Hovse and Nuisance. § 104. How Chapter divided.— We shall consider, I. The Indictment for Keeping the House; J]. The Evidence; III. The Letting of the House for Bawdry. I. The Indictment for Keeping the House. § 105. 1. Disorderly House.— A bawdy-house is a species of disorderly house; so that every bawdy-house is a disorderly house, but not every disorderly house is a bawdy-house. ‘2, How the Indictment. — In reason, and on the better authori- ties, it is not sufficient simply to allege that the defendant, on, &c., at, &¢., kept a disorderly house; the facts constituting the offence should be set out.! It is an approximation thereto to add that the house was unlawfully kept for public prostitution and lewdness; and under some of our statutes, possibly also under the common-law rules, such addition will render the indictment adequate.? But under .the common law it is, at least, prudent to extend the allegation further.2 The form of such extension should depend on the special facts. It was long ago held good 1 Post, § 275, 276; Taylor v.C.1 Duy. 160; Leary v. S.39 Ind. 544; Mains v. S. 42 Ind. 327,18 Am. R. 364; Jordan v. S. 60 Ga. 656. 2 Clifton v, 8. 53 Ga. 241; Thompson v. 8. 2 Tex, Ap. 82; Brown v. 8. 2 Tex. Ap. 189 (compared with Stephanes v. 8. 54 21 Tex, 206); Killman v. 8.2 Tex. Ap. 222, 28 Am. R. 482; Brooks v. S. 4 Tex. Ap. 567; Bigby v. S, 5 Tex. Ap. 101. And see §. v. Alderman, 40 Iowa, 375. 8 And see Greensburgh v. Corwin, 58 Ind. 518. CHAP. VII.] BAWDY-HOUSE. § 107 to say,! and so is Archbold’s form,? that at a time? and place named, the defendant “unlawfully did keep and maintain a cer- tain common ill-governed and disorderly house; and in the said house, for the lucre and gain* of him the said [defendant], certain persons as well men as women, of evil name and fame and of dishonest conversation, then, &c. unlawfully and wil- lingly did cause and procure to frequent and come together; and the said men and women, in the said house of him the said defendant, at unlawful times as well in the night as in the day, then, &c. to be and remain drinking, tippling, whoring, and misbehaving themselves, unlawfully and wilfully did permit,” &e.5 But— § 106. 1. “Disorderly ” —“Bawdy.” — The allegation that the house was “disorderly” is unnecessary, it being sufficient to say “a certain common bawdy-house.”® Or, — 2. Combination of Forms — (Duplicity).— As a house may be disorderly by reason of its use for bawdry,’ or for common tippling, or for common gaming, or for disturbances of the neighborhood through quarrelling and loud noises; so, a fortiori, it may become so by combining any two or more of these evil uses. The indictment, therefore, may charge, in a single count, any or all of these various forms of the offence conjunctively, and it will not be double, and will be sustained by proof of any oné of the uses.® § 107. 1. Names — Instances. — “It is not necessary,” says Chitty, “to state particulars; as, the names of those who S. v. Holmes, 56 Iowa, 588, 41 Am. R. 121; S.v. Towler, 13 R. I. 661; 8. v. Brown, 7 Wash. 10: S. rv. Osgood, 85 Me. 288. For Frequenting Bawdy-Houses, — there is a good indictment in Fahnestock v. S. 102 Ind. 156. And see Raymond v. P. 9 Bradw. 344. 6 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 39 and note; S. v. Alderman, 40 Iowa, 375; Clifton v. 8. 53 Ga. 241. 7 New Crim. Law, I. § 1083. 1 Rex v. Higginson, 2 Bur. 1222; post, § 273. 2 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed, 638, 19th ed. 960. 3 As to the allegation of time, see ante, § 103 (1) and places there referred to; Lowe v. S. 4 Tex. Ap. 84; S.v. Reck- ards, 21 Minn. 47; Freeman v. 8. 119 Ind. 501. 4 Not necessary. Post, § 108. 5 Conclusion. — As to the proper con- clusion, see ante, § 98, 99 (2) ; post, § 862- 864. For Other Forms — see Dir. & F. § 780-787 ; C.v. Shea, 150 Mass. 314; 8. v. McGregor, 41 N. H. 407; C. v. Hart, 10 Gray, 465; Reg. v. Barrett, Leigh & C. 263; S. v. Odell, 42 Iowa, 75; Lowe v. S. supra; S. v. Nichols, 83 Ind. 228, 43 Am. BR. 66; C. v. Lavonsair, 132 Mass. 1 ; ® Vol. I. § 434; P. v. Carey, 4 Par. Cr. 238; C. v. Kimball, 7 Gray, 328; C. v. Donovan, 16 Gray, 18. And see C. z. Howe, 18 Gray, 26; S.v. Hanchett, 38 Conn. 35, 88; C. v. Ballou, 124 Mass. 26; Tompkins v. 8. 4 Tex. Ap. 161; Wooster v. S. 55 Ala. 217. ® 2 Chit. Crim, Law, 39 and note. 55 § 111 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL frequent the house.! But evidence of particular instances of illicit intercourse may be given under the general charge.” ? And — 2. “ Divers Persons.” — Under a statute forbidding any one to “keep a house of ill-fame, resorted to for the purpose of prosti- tution or lewdness,” it is sufficient to aver that the defendant unlawfully kept and maintained a house of ill-fame, resorted to for the purpose of prostitution and lewdness, without adding “)y divers persons, men as well as women.” Again, — § 108. 1. “For Lucre” — is needless in allegation.* 2, Indorsement.—— An indictment for this offence need not, in Missouri, be indorsed® with the prosecutor’s name.® § 109. Wife — (Keeping). — The wife may be indicted jointly with the husband, or alone.’ “The keeping is not to be under- stood of having or renting, in point of property; for in that sense the wife cannot keep it. But the keeping here is the governing and managing a house in such a’ disorderly manner as to be a nuisance, and the wife may have a share in the manage- ment or government of a disorderly house as well as the husband.” § § 110. Separaliter._— This is among the offences to which the doctrine of joining defendants and transactions “separaliter,” as explained in the first volume,® applies, /— a method practically objectionable. ’§ 111. Minor Locality within County. — By some of the books, in the words of a learned judge, this offence “must be described as committed in a particular town; and the prosecutor is con- fined in his proofs to the town, and cannot, as in other cases, prove an offence within the county:\a more particular descrip- tion of the house is not required.” In one book it is very properly stated that “when the house is described as being ' Rex v. Higginson, 2 Bur. 1232; J’An- 5 Vol. I. § 690 et seq. son v. Stuart, 1 T. R. 748, 752, 754 ; post, § 276. 2 Clark v. Periam, 2 Atk. 337, 339; S. v. Patterson, 7 Ire. 70, 45 Am. D. 506. 3 C. v. Ashley, 2 Gray, 356; S. v. Ho- mer, 40 Me. 438 ; Brooks v. S. 4 Tex. Ap. 567. 4 New Crim. Law, I. § 1086; C.v. Ash- ley, 2 Gray, 356; C. v. Wood, 97 Mass. 225, 229; S.v. Homer, 40 Me. 438; S. v. Lee, 80 Iowa, 75, 20 Am. St. 401. 56 6 §. v. Bean, 21 Mo. 267, 7 New Crim. Law, I. § 361, 363, 366, 1084. 8 Reg. v. Williams, 1 Salk, 384. And see S. v. McGregor, 41 N. H. 407. 9 Vol. L. § 473-475. 0 2 Hale P.C. 174; S. v. McDowell, Dudley, S. C. 346. ‘ 1 Williams, C. J.in S, v. Nixon, 18 Vt. 70, 76,46 Am. 1D. 135; Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ey. 13th Lond. ed. 749. CHAP. VII] BAWDY-HOUSE. § 118 situated in a particular parish, this, being matter of description, must be proved as laid;”! because otherwise there will bea variance.2_ And if, to abate a nuisance, a house is to be torn down by order from the court, the indictment must aver its particular location; but no such judgment is given or asked in this class of nuisances. he true doctrine, certainly in principle, therefore, is that neither in allegation nor in the proofs need the minor locality within the county. appear, the ordinary rules applying to this offence the same as to most others.§ II. The Evidence. § 112. 1. No One Class of Proofs — is required in these cases, to the exclusion of others legitimately tending to establish the issue. Some forms of the evidence are, — 2, Reputation of Frequenters. — A bawdy-house being indictable because corrupting to the public morals,® evidence is admissible that it is frequented by reputed strumpets and rakes; for by the characters of such frequenters its business is advertised, and the intent of the keeper is evinced. Moreover, the fair presumption is that the coming together of such persons, male and female, where opportunities are provided, is for bawdry, and that their conduct there corresponds with the object of their coming.’ And though reputation pertains in a certain sense to hearsay,® it is still proper evidence of character.® § 113. Reputation of House. — Some carry this doctrine a step further, and accept the reputation of the house for bawdry as competent evidence, prima facie, that it is a bawdy-house”™ at 1 Roscoe Crim. Ev. 3d ed. 796. 7 Iowa, 411, 71 Am. D. 453; S. v. Lyon, 2 Vol. L. § 371, 485, 486. 2 Vol. I. § 372. 4 New Crim. Law, I. § 828; Ely v. Niagara, 36 N. Y. 297; Brooks v. 8. 4 Tex. Ap. 567. 5 Vol. I. § 370; Lowe v. 8.4 Tex. Ap. 34; Handy »v. S, 63 Missis. 207, 56 Am. R. 803; Sparks v. S. 59 Ala. 82, 86. And see P. v. Saunders, 29 Mich. 269. 6 New Crim. Law, I. § 500 (2), 734 (2), 1083. 7 Post, § 116; S. ve McDowell, Dudley, S. C. 346, 349; C. v. Cardoze, 119 Mass. 210; McCain v. S. 57 Ga, 390; U.S. ». Stevens, 4 Cranch C, C. 341; S. v. Hand, 39 Iowa, 379; Sylvester 7. S. 42 Tex. 496; S. v. Boardman, 64 Me. 523; 8. x. Brunell, 29 Wis. 435; O’Brien v. P. 28 Mich. 213; Harwood v. P. 26 N. Y. 190, 84 Am. D. 175; Beard v. S. 71 Md. 275, 17 Am. St. 536; S.v. Schaffer, 74 Iowa, 704; Sparks v. §, 59 Ala. 82; Johnson v. S. 82 Tex. Cr. 504. 8 Vol. I. § 1081. 9 Vol. I. § 1117; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 55; Clementine v. S. 14 Mo, 112; C. v. Kim- ball, 7 Gray, 328; C. v. Gannett, 1 Allen, 7,79 Am. D. 693; S. o. McDowell, supra. 10 §. v. McDowell, Dudley, S. C. 346, 349; Territory v. Chartrand, 1 Dak. 379; 57 § 116 [BOOK XII. SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. least, as tending to prove it such, yet not that the defendant is the keeper.! Others, and probably the majority, reject this evidence, in accordance with the humane principle that a man shall not be condemned for what his neighbors say of him.? Other proofs will supply the place of evil reputation.? But — § 114. Reputation of House under Statutes. — The statutes in some of our States are construed as making the offence itself consist, partly or altogether, in the evil reputation of the house. Then the reputation not only may, but must, be proved.* § 115. Specific Acts —of bawdry in the house need not be shown;® though admissible, with other proofs.6 Alone they are not enough.7 § 116. 1. The Usual Evidence — is “that notoriously reputed prostitutes and libertines were in the habit of frequenting the house during the time laid in the indictment;”® and (where it can be shown) that actual lewd behavior took place therein,°® together with the disturbance it created, if any, to the peace, good order, and consequent enjoyment of the neighborhood.” Yet — 2. That the Neighborhood was not Disturbed —is not a suffi- cient defence to a prima facie case.4 And — Territory v. Stone, 2 Dak. 155, 161 ; King v, 8. 17 Fla. 183; Hogan v. 8. 76 Ga. 82; S. v. Lee, 80 Iowa, 75, 20 Am. St. 401; S. v. Mack, 41 La. An. 1079; 8. v. Smith, 29 Minn. 193; S. v. West, 46 La. An. 1009. See O’Brien v. P. 28 Mich. 213. 1 Allen v. S. 15 Tex. Ap. 320. 2S. vo. Boardman, 64 Me. 523; S. v. Lyon, 39 Iowa, 379; C. v. Stewart, 1 S. & R. 342; P. v. Mauch, 24 How. Pr. 276; Henson v. S. 62 Md. 231, 50 Am. R. 204; Sparks v. S. 59 Ala. 82. See S. v. Brunell, 29 Wis. 435. And see New Crim. Law, I. § 1088. 3S. v. Lee, supra. * New Crim. Law, I. § 1088; Cadwell v. 8. 17 Conn, 467; S. v. Brunell, 29 Wis. 435. See S.v. Morgan, 40 Conn. 44; 58. v. Hand,7 Iowa, 411, 71 Am, D. 453. It has been held that evidence of the bad reputation of the house prior to the statute going into effect is admissible in aid of the proofs of its subsequent character. Cad- well v. S. supra. 6 §. v. Brunell, 29 Wis. 58 435, 438; Drake v. S. 14 Neb. 535; Chartrand, 1 Dak. 379; Ind. 375. ® Ante, § 107 (1); O’Brien v. P. 28 Mich, 213; McCain v. S. 57 Ga. 390; C. v. Cardoze, 119 Mass. 210; C. v. Stewart, 158. & R. 342; S. o. Garing, 75 Me. 591; S. v. Smith, 29 Minn. 193. And see S. v. Foley, 45 N. H. 466; U.S. v. Jourdine, 4 Cranch, C. C. 888; U. S. v. Nailor, 4 Cranch C. C. 372; Mahalovitch v. S. 54 Ga. 217. 7 Pp. v. Gastro, 75 Mich. 127; 8S. »v. Calley, 104 N. C. 858,17 Am. St. 704; S. v. Webber, 107 N. C. 962, 22 Am. St. 920; Singleton v. Ellison, 1895, 1 Q. B. 607; Smalley v. S. 11 Tex. Ap. 147. 8 Fowler, J. in S. v. McGregor, 41 N. H. 407, 413 ; Greig v. Bendeno, Ellis, B. & E. 133; C. v. Gannett, 1 Allen, 7, 79 Am. D. 693; ante, § 112 (2). ® Ante, § 115; Clementine v, S.14 Mo. 112. 10 Clementine v. S. supra; C. v. Stewart, 18. & R. 342. 11 New Crim. Law, I. § 1087; C. x, Territory v. Betts v. S. 93 CHAP. VII] BA WDY-HOUSE. § 118 3. Conversations of Men — after coming out of the house, not in the presence of the keeper, are inadmissible; being hearsay. But — 4, Conversations of Women — stopping at the house may be evidence of their character, though not had in the defendant’s presence.? § 117. 1. Frequent Arrests, —in the house, of known prosti- tutes, or of women convicted of prostitution, and attendant cir- cumstances, are evidence that it is a bawdy-house.2 So, — 2. Procuring Women, — by the defendant to come and live in the house, was with other facts held admissible. Even — 8. Refusal to Testify —to the conduct of the inmates and visitors, by witnesses who have frequented the house, on the ground that thereby they would degrade themselves, bas been deemed proper for consideration by the jury.® § 118. 1. Keeping the House —does not require ownership, even such as is created by a lease and occupancy ;® but by such control over it and its inmates as pertains to the head of a household.? This part of the case is not provable by general reputation. S.v. Tate, 6 Humph. 424; S.v. John- son, 6 Humph. 426, note. 9S. v. Caldwell, 112 N. C. 854; S. v. Bryan, 112 N, C. 848. 10 New Crim. Law, IT. § 411-413. j1 Reg. v. James, 12 Cox C. C. 127, 2 Eng. Rep. 192; S. v. Scott, 48 Mo. 422; S. v. Switzer, 63 Vt. 604,25 Am. St. 789; Stringer v. S. 13 Tex. Ap. 520; S. »v. Bradley, 68 Mo. 140; 8. v. Smallwood, 68 Mo. 192. And see O’Connor v. 8.30 Ala. 9; Miller v. S. 73 Ind. 88; White v. S. 86 Ala. 69. 122 §, v. Bacon, 7 Vt. 219, 222; Jim v. 8. 8 Humph. 603. And see S. v. Morgan, 112 Mo. 202. 13 P, y. Herrick, 13 Wend. 87. And see Tomkins v. 8. 33 Tex. 228; Robinson v. §. 33 Tex. 341; Reg. v. Gray, 17 Cox C. C. 299; post, § 190. 4S. v, Scott, supra; Rex v. Williams, 7 Car. & P. 354; Reg. v. Cooper, 2 Q. B. D. 510. 87 § 184 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 183. Eleventhly. Avoiding a Variance : — 1. Essential. — The indictment should be in terms to avoid any variance at the trial between allegation and proof. Con- formity to this rule is attained only by the exercise of a practical skill, in conjunction with legal knowledge. Thus, — 2. Substance or Tenor.— Where the substance of a writing will suffice,? it is not prudent to set it out by its tenor, which requires extreme nicety of allegation and proof.® 8. A “Flash Note” — being the false pretence, an allegation was sustained describing it as “a certain printed paper, produced by” the defendant, pretending it “was a good and valid promis- sory note for the payment of five pounds.”* But caution even in this sort of averment is prudent. For where the false pre- tence to be proved was that the note of a broken bank was good, and the pretence alleged was that “a certain piece of paper,” set out in full, “was a good negotiable promissory note and bank bill, and security for the payment of five dollars,” which in fact it was not, this was deemed to describe a counterfeit, or the note of a non-existing bank, not a genuine undertaking of a bankrupt promisor, and the variance was held fatal.5 Again, — 4. A Joint or Several Instrument or Fraud — must be described according to the fact, or the variance will be fatal.® § 184. 1. Only the Substance of the Issue — need in many cases be proved, unless the allegation is in form descriptive. This applies specially to number, value, and the like; but it has been already considered.’ 1 Vol. I. § 483, 484 a-488e; Reg. v. Butcher, Bell C. C. 6, 8 Cox C. C. 77 ; Reg. v. Ward, 1 Cox C. C. 101; U.S. v. Bowen, 3 MacAr. 64; Marwilsky v. S. 9 Tex. Ap. 377; Sitman v.S. 9 Tex. Ap. 461; Prehm v. §, 22 Neb. 673; Willis v. P. 19 Hun, 84; Reg. v. Willot, 12 Cox C. C. 68. 2 Ante, § 178 (1). ® Vol. I. § 562. * Reg. v. Coulson, 1 Den. C. C. 592, Temp. & M. 332, 4 Cux C. C. 227, 1 Eng. L. & Eq. 550. 5 C. v. Stone, 4 Met. 48. Compare with Reg. v. Wickham, 10 A. & KE. 34; Wickham v. Reg. 2 Per. & D. 333; Reg. v. Smith, 6 Cox C. C. 314; Reg. v. Hazel- ton, Law Rep. 2 C. C. 1384; Moore v. 8. 20 Tex. Ap. 233. And see Baker v. 8. 31 88 Ohio St. 314; S. v. Locke, 35 Ind. 419; S. v. Blauvelt, 9 Vroom, 306; Reg. v. Car- penter, 11 Cox C. C. 600. ® C. v. Pierce, 130 Mass. 31; Kirtley v. S. 38 Ark. 543; P. v. Reed, 70 Cal. 529. And see Wallace v. S. 11 Lea, 542. 7 Vol. I. § 488 }, and various connected places; O’Connor v. 8. 30 Ala. 9; Reg. v. Leonard, 1 Den. C. C. 304; C.v. Coe, 115 Mass. 481; Todd v. S. 31 Ind. 514; S. x. Smith, 75 N. C. 141; C. v. Davidson, 1 Cush. 33 ; C. v. Ashton, 125 Mass. 384. Sale on Credit. An allegation of “a sale obtained upon credit” is proved though a promissory note was given. C. v. Davidson, 1 Cush. 33, 40, Money ob- tained through a Check — may be treated as money. S. v. Palmer, 40 Kan. 474. CHAP. XI1.] CHEATS AND FALSE PRETENCES. § 187 2. Ownership — must be proved as laid. 3. Surplusage — may sometimes be rejected to avoid a variance. ? § 185. Twelfthly. Charging the Act as Larceny : — 1. Under the Statutory Words, — “if a person obtain by any false pretence or token, from any person, with intent to defraud, money or other property which may be the subject of larceny, he shall be deemed guilty of the larceny thereof,” it was held that there may be a conviction on an indictment in common form as for larceny. Or, if the pleader chooses, he may set out the special facts instead. But — 2. This Form of the Statute —is not common in our States. And, wherever found, the former of the two above methods of allega- tion would be contrary to principles generally maintained. § 186. Thirteenthly. The Entire Structure of Indictment : — While heeding the Foregoing Particulars, — the pleader should still bear in mind that the indictment is one entire charge, to be made harmonious, distinct, and full, as a whole. Til. The Evidence. § 187. 1. Something of the Evidence — appears in the preced- ing sub-titles. So much of the allegation as constitutes an of- fence must be proved, not necessarily more. Nor can any defect herein be supplied by proof of what is not alleged.” Presump- tions are resorted to in these cases, the same as in others.® And — 1 Rex. v. Douglass, 1 Camp. 212. 2 Vol. I. § 485-487; Reg. v. Kealey, 2 Den. C. C. 68,5 Cox C. C. 193, 1 Eng. L. & Kg. 585; Reg. v. Boynes, 1 Car. & K. 65. 3 Anable v. C. 24 Grat. 563; Dowdy v. C. 9 Grat. 727, 734, 60 Am. D. 314. And see Fay v. C. 28 Grat. 912. 4 Leftwich v. C. 20 Grat. 716. 5 Stat. Crimes, § 412-429. Compare Reg. v. Norton, 8 Car. & P. 196, with Archbold’s form, always accepted as good, Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 289; and Hamilton v. Reg. 9 Q. B. 271. 6 Ante, § 169-171; S. v. Burge, 7 Towa, 255; Cowles v. S.50 Ala. 454; Fay v. C. 28 Grat. 912; S. v. Pitts, 18 Rich. 27 ; C. v. Hutchison, 114 Mass. 325; Reg v. Foster, 2 Q. B. D. 301; Bowler v. S. 41 Missis. 570; Reg. v. Walne, 11 Cox C. C. 647; C. v. Howe, 132 Mass. 250; Barton v. P. 135 Ill. 405, 25 Am. St. 375; P. v. Wakely, 62 Mich. 297; Carlisle v. S. 76 Ala. 75 ; 8. v. Penny, 70 Iowa, 190; Reg. v, Stenson, 12 Cox C.C.111; S. v. Nor- ton, 76 Mo. 180; Jackson v. P. 126 Ill. 139. 7 Reg. v. Bulmer, Leigh & C. 476, 9 Cox C. C. 492; P.v. Gates, 13 Wend. 811; Barber v. P.17 Hun, 366. 8 Ante, § 182 (2); post, § 189, 190; Reg. v. Langton, 2 Q. B. D. 296; S. v. Call, 48 N. H. 126; Reg. v. Wenham, 10 Cox C. C. 222; Bozier v. S. 5 Tex. Ap. 220; Ab- bott v. P. 75 N. Y. 602; S. v. Rivers, 58 Towa, 102, 48 Am. R. 112; S. ». Decker, 36 Kan. 717. 89 § 189 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. 2. Variance — must be avoided:! as, on the averment that the defendant said he had paid a sum into the bank, but the proof was that he said the money had been paid, not stating by whom, “the defendant’ was acquitted for the variance; Lord Ellen- borough holding that the assertions were different in substance.” # But an allegation of false pretences to a county, and proof of them to its officers, creates no variance.® 3. A Lost Written Pretence *— may be proved by parol.§ § 188. 1. The Pretence alleged — must be shown to have been the inducement to the parting with the goods.6 And — 2. The Thing Obtained — thereby must appear in the evidence to be within the statute and the indictment.7 Also — 3. The Defendant’s Knowledge of the Falsity — must be shown.® § 189, In Aid of the Proofs — of guilty knowledge and evil intent,® evidence may be given of other successful and unsuc- cessful attempts of the like sort.!° This evidence is, by many, limited ordinarily to what took place before or simultaneously with the act charged." But where the two transactions are con- nected, and perhaps in other special circumstances, they permit it to extend to subsequent doings; while, it appears, others allow this as the general rule.!2 1 Ante, § 161, 183, 184; Edwards ». S. 49 Ala, 334; C.v. Jeffries, 7 Allen, 548, 83 Am. D. 712; 8. v. Bloodsworth, 25 Or. 83, 2 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 294, 295, referring to Rex v. Plestow, 1 Camp. 494. See Rex v. Douglass, 1 Camp. 212. 3 Roberts v. P. 9 Colo. 458. 4 Reg. v. Cooper, 2 Q. B. D. 510; Reg. v. Cooper, 1 Q. B. D. 19; Reg. v. Adam- son, 2 Moody, 286, 1 Car. & K. 192; Lind- say v. Cundy, 1 Q. B. D. 348. 5 Rex v. Chadwick, 6 Car. & P. 181. 6 New Crim. Law, IT. § 461; Reg. w. Bulmer, Leigh & C. 476, 9 Cox C. ©. 492; Rex v. Douglass, 1 Camp. 212; Rex v. Dale, 7 Car. & P. 352. 7 Rex v. Yates, 1 Moody, 170; Rex ov. Wavell, 1 Moody, 224. 8 Reg. v. Walne, 11 Cox C. OC. 647; Reg. v. Burrows, 11 Cox C.C. 258; Rex v. Dobson, 7 East, 218; Reg. v. Foster, 2 Q. B. D. 301; P. v. Hamberg, 84 Cal. 468. See Buckalew v. S. 11 Tex. Ap. 352; S. uv. Lichliter, 95 Mo. 402. 90 The latter is believed to be the 9 Vol. I. § 1126. 0 §. v. Long, 103 Ind. 481; S. v. Wal- ton, 114 N. C. 783; S. v. Jamison, 74 Towa, 618; S. v. Beaucleigh, 92 Mo. 490; Mayer v. P. 80 N. Y. 364. U Reg. v. Francis, Law Rep. 2 C. C. 128, 12 Cox C. C. 612, 9 Eng. Rep. 509; Reg. ». Hamilton, 1 Cox C. C. 244; Reg. v. Holt, Bell C. C. 280, 8 Cox C. ©. 411; S. v. Church, 43 Conn. 471; Rex v. Smith, 4 Car. & P. 411; S. v. Myers, 82 Mo. 558, 52 Am. R. 389; Trogdon v. C. 31 Grat. 862; S. v. Bayne, 88 Mo. 604; C. v. Jack- son, 132 Mass. 16,44 Am. R. 299, note. But see Todd v, 8. 31 Ind. 514. And see Bottomley v. U. S. 1 Story, 135. 12 Reg. v. Forster, Dears. 456, 6 Cox C. C. 521, 29 Eng. L. & Eq. 548; Rex v. Taverner, Car. Crim. Law, 3d ed. 195, 4 Car. & P. 413, note; Reg. v. Roebuck, Dears. & B. 24, 26, 7 Cox C. C. 126, 36 Eng. L, & Eq. 631; Britt » S. 9 Humph. 31; Reg. v. Kain, 8 Car. & P. 187; Lynde v. McGregor, 13 Allen, 172. See Vol. I. § 1128. CHAP. XII.] CHEATS AND FALSE PRETENCES. § 193 better doctrine in principle.! Yet regard should be had to what is special to the individual case. § 190. The Evil Intent, — always necessary to be shown,? may be inferred from the evil act proved as constituting the offence.? But other proofs are not therefore incompetent;* as, that the defendant, while making the false pretences, was deeply insolvent.® § 191. The Falsity of the Pretences, — not simply the defend- ant’s knowledge of it, must be affirmatively proved.? But prima facie evidence is sufficient till rebutted ;° as, that a bank, -a bill of which the defendant had passed representing it to be good, had stopped payment, proof of the bankruptcy proceedings not being required.® If the representation was that the defend- ant possessed ample means, a mortgage by him, three days after- ward, of all his property, is admissible. On the other hand, one who has made pretence of a specific fact, proved to be untrue, cannot defend himself by showing that he was then in good pecuniary credit and standing." § 192. A Witness — may be the person defrauded. And he may state what influence the defendant’s representations had upon him.® § 193. Pretences by a Third Person — are inadmissible, unless it is first shown that he was instigated by the defendant to make them,‘ or the two were conspiring,” or that there was in the case some other like exceptional fact. Even where the pretence is that a promissory note of a third person is genuine, the latter’s declarations of the defendant’s authority to sign it are “mere hearsay.” 36 1 See Stat. Crimes, § 681-684. 2 §.yv. Austin, 79 N. C. 624; Reg. vo. Foster, 2 Q. B. D. 301. 3 Ante, § 182 (2); Rex v. Williams, 7 Car. & P. 354. 4 See the cases cited to the last sec- tion. 3 C.v. Jeffries, 7 Allen, 548, 83 Am. D. 712, 6 Ante, § 188 (3). 7 Rex v. Dobson, 7 Fast, 218; Reg. v. Foster, 2 Q. B. D. 301, 13 Cox C. C. 393. 8 Reg. v. Wenham, 10 Cox C. C. 222. And see Reg. v. Browning, 3 Cox C. C. 437. » Reg. v. Smith, 6 Cox C. C. 314. And see C. v. Stone, 4 Met. 43; P. v. Chandler, 4 Par. Cr. 231. W§. v. Call, 48 N. H. 126. 11S. v. Penley, 27 Conn. 587. And see P. v. Genung, 11 Wend. 18, 25 Am. D. 594. 12 Reg. v. Mackartney, 1 Salk. 286, Holt, 300, 301. It appears to have been once thought otherwise. Rex v. Whiting, 1 Salk. 283, 1 Ld. Raym. 396. 13 P, v. Miller, 2 Par. Cr. 197; P. wv Herrick, 13 Wend. 87. 144 P. v. Parish, 4 Denio, 153. 15 Vol. I. § 1248; Young». Rex, 3 T. R. 98. 16 C. v. Goddard, 2 Allen, 148. 91 § 197 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. IV. The Procedure for the Attempt. § 194. 1. The Title “Attempt” — should be consulted in con- nection with this sub-title. 2. For the Indictment, — a ready but not the exclusive method is to draw it in the same form as for the accomplished fraud ; except that where the latter has “did then and there unlawfully obtain,” é&c., say, “did then and there attempt unlawfully to obtain,” &c.,! or “unlawfully attempt and endeavor unlawfully to obtain,” &c.? § 195. How minute. — Probably this form may be abridged in its description of the goods to be obtained.? But “the nature of the attempt must,” says Archbold,* “beset forth with reasonable certainty ;” it not being, for example, sufficient to say merely that the defendant “did unlawfully attempt and endeavor fraudu- lently, falsely, and unlawfully to obtain,” &.® § 196. As to Variance, — an attempt charged as made by a paper writing purporting to be an order for money, is not proved by one which does not purport to be such order.® V. Questions of Practice. § 197. 1. The County — wherein crimes are to be laid as com- mitted was considered in the first volume,’ and something was there said of cheats and false pretences in particular.’ To illustrate, — 2. The Receipt of the Thing — is, in general, the consummation of the crime, and it is indictable at the place of such receipt.? So that where one in a county in this country transmits a letter abroad containing a false pretence, and the thing is sent to him at the place of the writing, an indictment is maintainable at such place.!0 And it is believed that the fact of the pretence being made or sent from here is immaterial; as, where the 1 Reg. v. Henshaw, Leigh & C. 444. 8 Tb. § 53, 60a (2). And see New ” Reg. v. Kealey, 2 Den. C. C. 68, 70, Crim. Law, ITI. § 486 (4). 5 Cox C. C. 193. ® Connor v. 8. 29 Fla. 455, 30 Am. St. 3 Ante, § 84, 87, 89. 126; Reg. v. Peters, 16 Q. B. D. 636, 16 4 Archb. Crim, Pl. & Ev. 13th Lond. CoxC. C.36; S.v. Lichliter, 95 Mo. 402. ed. 895. And see §. v. Dennis, 80 Mo. 589. 5 Reg. v. Marsh, 1 Den. C. C. 505. W Reg. v. Holmes, 12 Q. B. D. 23, 15 6 Rex v. Cartwright, Russ. & Ry. Cox C.C.343. Contra Stewart v. Jessup, 106. 51 Ind. 413, 19 Am. R. 739. * Vol. I. § 45 et seq. ll §. v. Shaeffer, 89 Mo. 271. 92, CHAP. XII] CHEATS AND FALSE PRETENCES. § 198 pretence is uttered in one county, and the thing is delivered in another, an indictment is good in the latter.!_ Of course, — 8. Innocent Agent. — One acting through an innocent agent, or otherwise, may become answerable for this offence in a county in which he is not personally present.? § 198. Restitution of the Property —cannot he ordered as in cases of larceny,’ either by the ancient common law or by the statute of 21 Hen. 8,c.11. In England, of late, this is provided for by statutes not in force in our country, though there are statutes in perhaps more than one of the States of the like sort.® 1 §. v. House, 55 Iowa, 466; Reg. v. Saund. 6th ed. 47h, in notes; 1 Chit. Jones, 1 Den. C. C. 551, 1 Eng. L.& Eq. Crim. Law, 7, 817; Reg. v. Stancliffe, 11 533, Temp. & M. 270. See Skiff v. P.2 Cox C. C. 318; Reg. v. Goldsmith, 12 Par. Cr. 139, 147; Reg. v. Leach, Dears. Cox C. C. 594, 8 Eng. Rep. 605; Reg. v. 642, 36 Eng. L. & Eq. 589; C. v. Taylor, Justices of Cent. Crim. Ct. 17 Q. B. D.598; 105 Mass. 172. Vilmont v. Bentley, 18 Q. B. D. 322; Reg. 2 Reg. v. Garrett, Dears. 232, 22 Eng. v. Justices of Cent. Crim. Ct. 18 Q. B. D. L. & Eq. 607, 6 Cox C. C. 260. 314. 8 Post, § 755-763. 5 Huntzinger v. C. 97 Pa. 336. * Roscoe Crim. Ev. 3d Lond. ed. 477 ; 2 For CHILD MURDER, see Stat. Crimes. COIN, see CouNTERFEITING. COMMON BARRATRY, see Barratry. COMMON DRUNKARD, sce Stat. Crimes. COMMON GAMING-HOUSE, see GaminG-HOUSE. COMMON NUISANCE, see Nutsance. CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH, see Stat. Crimes. 93 § 201 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. CHAPTER XIII. COMMON SCOLD. Consult, — for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, I. § 540 (6), 943 (2), 1101- 1105. For the indictment and other questions of procedure, Dir. & F. § 791, 792; Vol. I. § 335, 470 (5), 494 (2). And compare, on the various questions, with the’ title NUISANCE. § 199. As to the Form of the Indictment, — the decisions are not sufficiently numerous to exclude all doubts. But the mate- rial parts are, that at a time and place stated,! the defendant was a common scold, to the common nuisance, &c. § 200. 1. The Words “Common Scold,”— though general in meaning, are the proper and technical ones; nor, it appears, need the indictment descend beyond them into the particulars.? In Latin, it was ill, says the report, to say “communis riza, a common scold, instead of rizatriz.”3 The phrase “a common and turbulent brawler and sower of discord amongst her quiet and honest neighbors,” &c., seems to have been adjudged insuffi- cient;* though, in Pennsylvania, a charge that the defendant “openly and publicly, in the public highway, wicked, scandalous, and infamous words did utter in the hearing,” &c., not saying “common scold,” was held adequate.® -But perhaps this may be deemed a nuisance of another sort. 2, How conclude. — It is probable that where the general form of allegation is employed, whatever the rule is in other cases, the conclusion must be “to the common nuisance,” &c.® § 201. Particulars,’ — where the indictment is thus general, should be required. 1 Ante, § 103. 153. Compare with C.v. Foley, 99 Mass. 2 Vol. I. § 494 (2); New Crim. Law, 497; and U. S. vo. Royall, 3 Cranch C. C. I. § 1103 (2); Rex v. Urlyn,2 Saund. Wms. 620, 621. ed. 308 in notes. See Rex v. Rogier, 1 B. 6 Rex v. Cooper, supra. And see & C. 272, 275. post, § 863. 2 Reg. v. Foxby, 6 Mod. 239. 7 Vol. I. § 648 et seq. 4 Rex v. Cooper, 2 Stra. 1246. *® Rex v. Urlyn, 2 Saund. Wms. ed. 308, 5 C. vu. Mohn, 52 Pa. 243,91 Am. D. in notes; ante, § 100. For COMPOUNDING, see the several Indexes to this Criminal-law Series. And see Dir. & F. § 123-127, 300. ‘ 94 CHAP. XIV.] CONSPIRACY. § 204 CHAPTER XIV. CONSPIRACY. § 202, 203. Introduction. 204-226. In General of the Indictment. 227-236. The Evidence. 237-239. Questions of Practice. 240-245. In some Particular Forms of Conspiracy. Consult, — for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, II. § 169-240; and the In- dex to New Crim. Law. Also the Index to Stat. Crimes. For the forms of the indict- ment, &c., Dir. & F. § 279-315. And see the Index to Vol. I. of this New Crim. Pro. § 202. Extent of Subject, Difficult. — Conspiracy is the most extended of the offences, being connected with every form of wrong-doing. And the procedure is in some respects difficult, both from its variety, and because the offence itself has not always been well understood. § 203. How Chapter divided. — We shall consider, I. In Gen- eral of the Indictment; IJ. The Evidence; III. Questions of Practice; IV. Specially in some Particular Forms of Conspiracy. I. In General of the Indictment. § 204. 1. In “ Directions and Forms,” — the title Conspiracy is very full, and it should be consulted in connection with the present chapter. 2. Act and Intent. — Every crime consists of a combination of evil act and evil intent;! both of which must be alleged and proved.? But in most offences, either the averment of the intent is involved in that of the act, so requires no separate setting out,3 or it may be stated very briefly and simply ;‘ the real difficulties being in the part of the indictment which concerns the act. All this is reversed in conspiracy. The combining of the two 1 New Crim. Law, I. § 204-206. 8 Vol. I. § 521; ante, § 74. 2 Vol. I. § 79, 80, 84, 98 a, 127 et seq., 4 Vol. I. § 521-525. 331, 509, 519, 523, 525, 1052; Reg. v. As- pinall, 2 Q. B. D. 48; 56. 95 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND ‘THEIR INCIDENTS. § 206 {BOOK XII. or more minds is the act, and at common law is the only act essential; though in some States something more, such as the averment of overt acts, is made necessary by the statutes.?, Hence the indictment for conspiracy charges — 8. (1) A Combining — of two or more minds. 4, (2) The Purpose — of the combining; which purpose, or in- tent, must be, in the words of the definition, “to do by concerted action something unlawful, either as a means or an end.” And the averment of it must be in terms which show that the com- bining to accomplish it is indictable.t Nearly all the practical difficulties in an indictment at common law for conspiracy con- cern this averment. § 205. First. The Setting out of the Act : — 1. The Indictment charges — as to the act, that, on, &., at, &., the defendant, to copy from Chitty’s form,’ “unlawfully and wickedly [or, if the conspiracy be malicious, say falsely and maliciously] did conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together.” A shorter form, which has been held good, is “unlawfully did conspire and combine together.” ® And not improbably the words “unlawfully ” 7 and “combine” may also be omitted, but the author is not aware that the question has been decided. The indictment proceeds, “to,” &c., stating the purpose of the conspiracy — that is, the intent— which varies with the particular case. But, — 2. Overt Acts. — At common law, it need not go further and specify acts done in pursuance of the combination.® § 206. 1. Such Acts —are, when the combining of the defend- 1 §. v. Setter, 57 Conn. 461, 14 Am. St. 121; Johnson v. 8. 3 Tex. Ap. 590. 2 New Crim. Law, I. § 432; II. § 191, 192; R. S. of U.S. § 5440; Wood v. S. 18 Vroom, 180; P. v. Flack, 125 N. Y. 324. 3 New Crim. Law, II. § 171. 8 See, for various forms, Dir. & F. § 285; S.v. Mayberry, 48 Me. 218; S.v. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J. 317,9 Am. D.534; Reg. v. Lewis, 11 Cox C. C. 404; Smith v. P, 25 Il. 17, 76 Am. D. 780; C. v. Put- nam, 29 Pa, 296; Reg. v. Yates, 6 Cox 4 Pettibone » U. S148 U. S. 197; Wood v,S. 18 Vroom, 461; C.v. Barnes, 182 Mass. 242; U.S. v. Reichert, 12 Saw. 643, 32 Fed. Rep. 142; Elsey v. S. 47 Ark. 572; P. v, Flack, 125 N. Y.324. 5 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 1145. To the like effect, Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 19th ed. 1005. 6 Rex v. Gill, 2 B. & Ald. 204. 7 But see Reg. v. Aspinall, 2 Q. B. D. 48, 60. 96 C. C. 441; Rex v. Glennan, 26 How. St. Tr. 437; Reg. v. Mears, 2 Den. C. C. 79, 4 Cox C. C. 423. ® Note to Rex v. Johnson, 2 Show, 1, 2; Rex v. Gill, 2 B. & Ald. 204; Rex v. Seward, 1 A. & E. 706; Rex v. Richard- son, 1 Moody & R. 402; Reg. v. Kenrick; 5 Q. B. 49, Dav. & M. 208; P.v. Richards, 1 Mich, 216, 224, 51 Am. D. 75; S. 2. Straw, 42 N. H. 393; New Crim. Law. II. § 192 (1). CHAP. XIV.] CONSPIRACY. § 207 ants in a common purpose has been shown, evidence, like their declarations, further establishing the conspiracy and illustrating its character.! And if the law gave to these acts no other effect, they should not be set out in the indictment; the province of which is to state facts, not evidence.2 But each overt act is likewise a renewal of the conspiracy; hence the pleader may lay it in the indictment if he chooses, and the prosecuting power has the election, at the trial, to prove the allegation or treat it as surplusage.+* 2. Defects in the Indictment — are not cured by a mere aver- ment, in another part of it, of overt acts;> though there are cases which seem to hold otherwise.® Still, in just reason, all parts of an indictment are to be construed together; and if in one part an averment appears which supplies a defect in another, it will be effectual for such purpose. § 207. Secondly. The Setting out of the Intent or Purpose : — 1. The Doctrine — under this head is so blended with the law of the offence that of necessity it was somewhat considered in “New Criminal Law.”7 A conspiracy being an attempt to do something not yet accomplished, in reason the rule in other attempts applies to it; namely, that as the thing meant is not done, it need not, because it cannot, be set out with the particu- larity of an executed transaction, yet within practical limits the allegation should plainly notify the defendant what he is to answer to.’ For example, — 2. To Cheat an Individual. — To state the case oftenest occur- ring in our books, it is in England held sufficient to allege that the defendants conspired, &c., “by divers false pretences and subtle means and devices, to obtain and acquire to themselves, 1 Vol. I. § 1248, 1249 ; post, § 228-230; New Crim. Law, II. § 192, 193. And see Ib. I. § 636; C. v. Corlies, 8 Philad. 450. 2 Vol.I. § 514,516; U.S. ». Ulrici, 3 Dil. 532. 3 Vol. I. § 61 (3); C. v. Bartilson, 85 Pa, 482; P. v. Arnold, 46 Mich. 268. 4 New Crim. Law, II. § 192, 193; Wright v. Reg. 14 Q. B. 148; Rex v. Rob- erts, 1 Camp. 399, 2 Leach, 987, note. See S. v. Ormiston, 66 Iowa, 143. 5 Reg. v. King, 7 Q. B. 782; C. v. Shedd, 7 Cush. 514; P. v. Arnold, 46 Mich. 268. VoL. 11. —7 6 Rex v. Spragg, 2 Bur. 993, 999; Wright v. Reg. 14 Q. B. 148. And see Rex v. Rispal, 3 Bur. 1320; Twitchell v. C. 9 Pa. 211. 7 New Crim. Law, II. § 199-202. 8 Ante, § 74,76, 77, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87— 89, 92; Reg. v. Rowlands, 2 Den. C. C. 364, 5 Cox C.C. 466, 9 Eng. L. & Eq. 287; Brown v. S.2 Tex. Ap. 115; Reg v. As- pinall, 2 Q. B. D. 48, 60, 61; S. v. Mc- Kinstry, 50 Ind. 465. See Landringham »v. S. 49 Ind. 186. 97 § 210 [BOOK XII. SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. of and from F and G, divers large sums of money, of the respec- tive moneys of the said F and G, and to cheat and defraud them respectively thereof;”! or, still more briefly, conspired, &c., “to cheat and defraud F. of his goods and chattels;”? the objection, not deemed valid, being that the contemplated means for effect- ing the cheat ought to be set out. On principle, and by the better American authorities, contrary to others, where no statute has interposed to change the written rule, this form of allega- tion is beyond all just question adequate. § 208. The Reason — is, that it discloses every element of the offence, and as minutely as the circumstances permit. No indictment is ever required to charge one with what the law has not made a part of his crime; and when two or more com- bine to cheat another, they become guilty of a criminal con- spiracy, though they have not even considered of the means. Hence, as agreed means are not essential to the offence, it would be a perversion of justice to require the prosecuting power to allege them, — to allege, indeed, what may not in fact exist. § 209. As Brief in Definition — are some other kinds of offend- ing, and they may be charged in as few words, and for the same reason; namely, that the short averment covers the whole offence, and in as minute a way as is practicable. Such are simple assault and battery,* barratry,® common scold,* and some others. And where the trial judge deems that further information ought in justice to be given the defendant, he orders a note or bill of the particulars.?7 Again, — § 210, 1. Particulars in Allegation. — Since every element which in law enters into the offence must be alleged,’ whenever the averment of such an element properly admits of being indi- vidualized, this, in justice to the defendant, should be done in the indictment.9 Thus, — 1 Rex »v. Gill, 2B. & Ald. 204. 2 New Crim. Law, IT. § 200; Sydserff v. Reg. 11 Q. B. 245; 8. p. Reg. v. Gom- pertz, 9Q. B. 824. And see White v. Reg. 13 Cox C.C. 318, 15 Eng. Rep. 353. 8 Vol. I. § 516 (2); New Crim. Law, II. § 198-202; Rex v. Gill, 2 B. & Ald. 204, 205; Reg. «. Gompertz, 9 Q. B. 824, 838; S. v. Young, 8 Vroom, 184; U.S. »v. Ulrici, 3 Dil. 532; 'S. v. Brady, 107 N. C. 822; Thomas v. P. 118 Ill. 531; S. v, Or- 98 miston, 66 Iowa, 143; P. v. Arnold, 46 Mich. 268. And see ante, § 75, 78. 4 Ante, § 55-57. 5 Ante, § 98-101. § Ante, § 199, 200. 7 Vol. I. § 644 (2): Rex v. Hamilton, 7 Car. & P. 448; Reg. v. Rycroft, 6 Cox C.C. 76; Reg. v. Stapylton, § Cox C.C. 69. 8 Vol. I. § 77-88, 98 a; ante, § 63 (1). ® Ante, § 81, 207. CHAP. XIV.] CONSPIRACY. § 213 2. The Name of the Person to be cheated, — if known, should be stated.! “And,” said Tindal, C. J., “if the conspiracy was to cheat indefinite individuals, — as, for instance, those whom they should afterwards deal with, or afterwards fix upon, — it ought to have been described in appropriate terms; showing that the objects of the conspiracy were, at the time of making it, unas- certained.”? Or the indictment may disclose that the conspiracy was to cheat and defraud the public generally,’ or the United States, or the State.# § 211. The Thing meant to be obtained — by the cheat need not be specified; not being essential to an identification of the transaction, or required to be known even to the defendants themselves. ® § 212. “To Cheat and Defraud” —are the proper words, so at least is “cheat,” which is nearly or absolutely indispensable; for all cheating is “unlawful.”® On the other hand, it was held inadequate to say that the defendants conspired “to deceive and defraud,” &c. by obtaining goods without paying for them. For such transaction is, said Lord Denman, C. J. “not neces- sarily a fraud; the words might apply to the obtaining goods to sell on commission.” * § 213. “Cheat and defraud ” with us — (Massachusetts doctrine). — Some of our courts have applied this reasoning to the short form of allegation held good in England,’ and adjudged it to be also bad. In Massachusetts, for example, it is so laid down; because, as Dewey, J. argued, “the charge of a conspiracy to cheat-and defraud A does not, ex vt termini, import a criminal object. Cheating and defrauding are ambiguous terms, as well applicable to civil contracts as to injuries inflicted wholly by breach of criminal law. A man [forgetting the distinction between one man’s cheating another and two or more conspiring 1 Ante, § 82, 84, 87, 89, 90; Reg. v. 4U.S.v. Upham, 2 Mont. 170; Reg. Parker, 3 Q. B. 292. v. Blake, 6 Q. B. 126. 2 Reg. v. King, 7 Q. B. 782, 807. And 5 Reg. v. Blake, 6 Q, B. 126; C. v. see Reg. v. Peck, 9 A. & E. 686; Peck v. Goldsmith, 12 Philad. 632. Compare with Reg. 1 Per. & D.508; White «. Reg. 13 Teg. v. Parker, 3 Q. B. 292, 297, 2 Gale & Cox C. C. 318, 15 Eng. Rep. 353. D. 709. 8 C. v. Judd, 2 Mass. 329, 3 Am. D. 6 Dir. & F. § 291. 54; C. v. Harley, 7 Met. 506; McKee v. 7 Reg. v. Peck, 9 A. & E. 686, 692; S. 111 Ind. 378. See Reg. v. Blake, 6 Peck v. Reg. 1 Per. & D. 508. Q. B. 126; Reg. v. Aspinall,1 Q. B. D. 8 Ante, § 207 (2). 730, 741, 744. 99 § 215 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII to cheat him!] may cheat and defraud another in the sale of articles of merchandise, and yet the case be one of civil wrong merely.” But, the reader perceives, a combination of men to do this is a criminal wrong, indictable under the name of conspiracy. “Therefore,” continues the learned judge, “the means must also be set forth, that it may be seen that it was a conspiracy to effect the proposed object by illegal means.” ? Now, — § 214, Blunder. —.This, which purports to be reasoning, over- looks and ignores the distinction between a proposed cheat by con- spiracy, which is indictable, and the same without conspiracy, which is a mere civil wrong. And if the law of Massachusetts really were what this language, afterward repeated in substance by another learned judge,’ imports, there could be properly no such offence as conspiracy in this State. So that what we call conspiracy would be merely criminal attempt,* of the same nature with attempt by solicitation;® governed by the same principles, and by no other. But — § 215, True Massachusetts Doctrine. — The court, while making this confused statement of the law, gives no intimation of an intent to overrule what it had before laid down. “ Without attempting to review and reconcile all the cases,” said Shaw, C. J., speaking for this tribunal, “we are of opinion that as a general description, though perhaps not a precise and accurate definition, a conspiracy must be a combination of two or more persons, by some concerted action, to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some purpose, not in itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means. We use the terms criminal or unlawful, because it is manifest that many acts are unlawful which are not punishable by indictment or other public prosecution; and yet there is no doubt, we think, that a combination by numbers to do them would be an unlawful conspiracy, and punishable by indictment. Of this character was a conspiracy to cheat by false pretences, without false tokens, when a cheat by false pretences only, by a single 1 New Crim. Law, IT. § 178, 198, 202. C. v. Wallace, 16 Gray, 221; C. v. Fuller, 2 C. v. Shedd, 7 Cush. 514, 515, refer- 132 Mass. 563. ring to C. v. Eastman, 1 Cush. 189, 48 4 New Crim. Law, II. § 191, 194, 195, Am. 1.596; C.v. Hunt, 4 Met. 111,125,838 198. Am. 1). 346. 5 Ante, § 74-76. 3 C. v. Prius, 9 Gray, 127. And see 100 CHAP. XIV.] CONSPIRACY. § 217 person, was not a punishable offence.! So a combination to destroy the reputation of an individual, by verbal calumny, which is not indictable. So*-a conspiracy to induce and per- suade a young female, by false representations, to leave the protection of her parent’s house, with a view to facilitate her prostitution.” 8 , § 216. In some other of our States, — the English form is dis- carded as in Massachusetts;* in a part of them, it is adjudged sufficient.© Whether, in any State besides Massachusetts, the English and better view of the law is maintained yet the English indictment held bad, is perhaps doubtful. In some, at least, the departure is in the law, and this necessarily requires a difference in the indictment. § 217. The Principles governing this Question — are in the main stated in the foregoing sections, and are not disputed. All the facts which the law makes elements of the offence-must be alleged, and with such certainty that the defendant will know what is the charge to which he must answer, that he may plead the indictment in bar of a future one, and that the court may see the criminality of what he is accused of and affix the punish- ment.’ And in any State wherein the law, whether by statute or by judicial exposition, declines to hold persons indictable who simply conspire to cheat and defraud another of his lands and goods, before they have taken steps toward the cheat, or agreed on the means, the indictment must set out the step or the means thus made essential to the offence.® In accordance with these views, — 1 Referring to C. v. Boynton, 3 Law Reporter, 295. 2 Referring to Rex v. Grey,3 Harg. St. Tr. 519, 9 How. St. Tr. 127. 3 C.v. Hunt, 4 Met. 111, 123,38 Am. D. 346. See, also, C. v. Ward, 1 Mass, 473 ; New Crim. Law, II. § 178, 180, 198, 202. 4 New Crim. Law, II. § 201: S. ». Keach, 40 Vt. 113; S. v. Parker, 43 N. H. 83; S.v. Jones, 13 Iowa, 269; S. ce. Pot- ter, 28 Iowa, 554; S. v. Stevens, 30 Iowa, 391; Lambert v. P. 9 Cow. 578; March v. P. 7 Barb. 391; S. v. Roberts, 34 Me. 320; S. v. Hewett, 31 Me. 396, S. v. Mayberry, 48 Me. 218; P. v. Eckford, 7 Cow. 535; P. v. Brady, 56 N. Y. 182, 189. 5 New Crim. Law, II. § 201; S. »e. Young, 8 Vroom, 184; S. v. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J. 317, 9 Am. D. 534; S. ». Brady, 107 N. C. 822. Michigan. — As to Michi- gan, see P. v. Richards, 1 Mich. 216, 223, 51 Am. D. 75; Alderman v. P. 4 Mich. 414, 69 Am. D. 321; P.v. Clark, 10 Mich. 810; P. ». Barkelow, 33 Mich. 455. 6 New Crim. Law, II. § 199; P. v, Brady, supra, at p. 189; Territory v. Car- land, 6 Mont. 14. 7 C. »v. Wallace, 16 Gray, 221; S. ve. Keach, 40 Vt. 113: S. v. Potter, 28 Iowa, 554. 8 March v. P.7 Barb. 391; S. v. Har- ris, 38 Towa, 242; Landringham v. 8. 49 Ind. 186; S. v. Crowley, 41 Wis. 271, 22 Am. R. 719; 8. v. Clary, 64 Me. 369; U.S. v. Donan, 11 Blatch. 168. 101 § 223 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 218. Indictable done by One. —If the conspiracy is to do what would be indictable were it done by one alone, all hold that the contemplated means need not be set out.! Still the instance must be particularized, and the like, according to rules already laid down.? It seems to be sufficient, within this requirement, to describe the purposed offence simply by its name,? with the name of the person to be injured thereby.‘ When it is not known by any name, its constituents must be stated.6 And there may probably be named offences which should be more minutely identified than by name.® § 219. Hither the Means or the End —of the conspiracy? must appear in the indictment to be unlawful; both need not.® § 220. The Unlawful End,— in an indictment for conspiracy to cheat by statutory false pretences, sufficiently appears from the allegation that it was “to get and obtain, knowingly and designedly, by false pretences, of” the person to be injured, certain of his property described, “with the intent then and there to cheat and defraud” him of the same.? § 221.-In a Conspiracy Lawful in Object, — unlawful means must be set out. And — § 222. If the Conspiracy is Statutory, — every element must be averred, and the legislative expressions sufficiently followed." § 228, Thirdly. Other Parts of the Indictment : — Where Overt Acts — are to be set out,” the form may be, after charging the conspiring in the ordinary way, to add that after- ward, on, &c., at, &c., “in pursuance of and according to the 1 C. v. Shedd, 7 Cush. 514, 515; S. v. Crowley, 41 Wis. 271,22 Am. R. 719; S. uv. Sterling, 34 Iowa, 443; S. v. Hewett, 3! Me. 396; S. v. Bartlett, 30 Me. 132; S. v. Noyes, 25 Vt. 415; Thomas v. P. 113 I. 531. 2 Ante, § 207, 210, 211, 217. 3 S.v. Ripley, 31 Me. 386; C. v. Kast- man, 1 Cush. 189, 224, 48 Am. D. 596; Alderman v. P. 4 Mich. 414, 69 Am. D. 821; Johnson v. P. 22 Ill. 314. 4 Ante, § 82, 210 (2). 5 Hartmann v. C. 5 Pa. 60. And see Reg. v. Rowlands, 2 Den. C. C. 364, 5 Cox C. C. 466,9 Eng. L. & Eq. 287. 6 Ante, § 82; Landringham v. S. 49 Ind. 186, And see 8. v. McKinstry, 50 Ind. 465. 7 New Crim. Law, IT. § 171, 175. 102 8S. v. Harris, 88 Iowa, 242; S. o. Crowley, 41 Wis. 271, 22 Am. R. 719. 5 Johnson v. P. 22 Ill. 314. And see P. v. Clark, 10 Mich. 310; C. v. Walker, 108 Mass. 309. : 1 C.v. Prius, 9 Gray, 127; Alderman v. P. 4 Mich. 414, 69 Am. D. 821; S. v. Burnham, 15 N. H. 896. And see S zx. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J.317, 9 Am. D. 534. Ante, § 217; Elkin v. P. 28 N. Y. 177; U. S. v. Donau, 11 Blatch. 168; S. v. Clary, 64 Me. 369; S. v. Stevens, 30 Jowa, 391; S. v. McKinstry, 50 Ind. 465; Hazen v. C, 23 Pa. 355; U.S. v. Smith, 2 Bond, 323 ; Cole v. P. 84 Ill 216, 219; U.S. v. Carpenter, 6 Dak. 294; U. S. v. Cruik- shank, 92 U. S. 542. 2 Ante, § 205 (2), 206; C. v. O’Brien, 140 Pa, 555. CHAP. XIV.] CONSPIRACY. § 226 said conspiracy,” &c., the defendants did so and so; and after- ward, on, &c., at, &c., “in further pursuance of and according to the said conspiracy,” &c., they did so and go.! § 224. Disjunctive Averments —as, that the defendants con- spired falsely and maliciously to charge or cause to be charged one with crime, and falsely and maliciously to prosecute him or cause him to be prosecuted therefor 2 — are inadequate. § 225. More Conspirators than One, — in the one combination, may, of course, be jointly indicted. And not generally will the court direct that they be separately tried.® But if one of two dies, the living one may be indicted and tried;® and it is the same of a known conspirator where the other is unknown.? Probably it is competent to indict known and arrested conspira- tors separately, while yet the judge might interfere to prevent a procedure so inconvenient and unusual. Where one is separately charged, it must be averred that’ another or others conspired with him; one form being that the defendant’s conspiracy was “with divers other persons to the jurors unknown.”® But the New York court deemed that names of co-conspirators, though known, need not be mentioned; hence, where a name was alleged as unknown, yet truly the grand jury knew it, the indictment was not therefore ill. According to a South Carolina case, if a nolle prosequi is entered as to one of two co- conspirators jointly indicted, there can be no conviction of the other, but it is not probable this doctrine will be generally accepted in the States. § 226. More than One Offence. —To commit more than one offence may be the object of one conspiracy. Hence a count is not double which charges it so." 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. , 5 Wol. I. § 1022. ed. 677,678. And see 3 Chit, Crim. Law, 6 Rex v. Nichols, 13 East, 412, note. 1145, 1146, and other places; Dealy v. 7 Reg. v. Steel, Car. & M.337,2 Moody, U. S. 152 U. S. 539. 246. 2 §. v. Gary, 36 N. H. 359, 363. 8 Tb. 8 Vol. I. § 585. 9 P. v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229, 265, 21 4 Vol. I. § 468 (4); S. vu. Bradley, 48 Am. JD, 122. Conn. 535; Spies v. P. 122 Ill. 1, 3 Am. 10'S. v. Jackson, 7 S. C. 283. St. 320; S. v. Crowley, 41 Wis. 271, 22 11 Ante, § 74 (3), 93; S. vo. Sterling, 34 Am. R. 719. Towa, 443. 103 § 229 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII II. The Evidence. § 227. 1. Multitudinous —are the forms of the evidence; and even to the act of conspiring, which is the gist of the offence, it may be circumstantial! as well as direct. ‘Thus, — 2. Separate Acts — by the defendants, yet tending to the one end, together with the relations of the doers to one another, and any other explanatory facts, constituting a body of circumstan- tial evidence, may be shown as justifying the jury in inferring a conspiracy whence they proceeded.? But, inferentially or other- wise, a connection between the acts must appear, or they will be inadequate. This sort of evidence may be given in the first instance to establish the conspiracy ;* or, — § 228. Combining — Acts and Confessions of Co-conspirator.— The combining may be made to appear by any competent testimony,® and then the separate acts and declarations of the co-conspira- tors, including even persons not indicted, may be produced, on the principle explained in the first volume. For when this sort of relationship exists between persons, the doings of one are in contemplation of law those of all.7 But — § 229. Such Acts and Confessions — cannot, otherwise than as already explained,® be brought forward in the first instance to establish the conspiracy. This sort of evidence is competent in other offences likewise; and in all, the rule is that the com- 1 Rex v. Parsons, 1 W. Bl. 392; Spies v. P. 122 Ill. 1, 3 Am. St. 320; P. v. Bent- ley, 75 Cal. 407; Martin v. 8. 89 Ala.115, 18 Am. St. 91. And see Vol. I. § 1073- 1079. 2U.S8. ve. Cole, 5 McLean, 513, 601; Reg.'v. Murphy, 8 Car. & P. 297; Rex v. Cope, 1 Stra. 144; Reg. v. Blake, 6 Q. B. 126; Reg. v. Frost, 9 Car. & P. 129; Poindexter v. C. 33 Grat. 766; U. S. wv. Newton, 52 Fed. Rep. 275; P. v. Flack, 125 N. Y.324; C. v. O’Brien, 140 Pa. 555. 3 Jenks ». Lewis, Ware, 51; McAnally v. S. 74 Ala. 9; Elizey v. S. 57 Missis. 827 ; McDonald v. P. 126 Tl. 150, 9 Am, St. 547. * Cases in last note but one; also Reg. c. Brittain, 3 Cox C. C. 76. 5 Reg. v. Frost.9 Car. & P. 129. ® Vol. I. § 1248, 1249; 3 Greenl. Ev. § 94, 104 7 Hardin v. 8.4 Tex. Ap. 355; Peden v. 8, 61 Missis. 267; Bowers v. 8. 24 Tex. Ap. 542, 5 Am. St. 901; U.S. v. Mitchell, 1 Hughes, 439; U.S. v. Butler, 1 Hughes, 457; Phillips v. S. 26 Tex. Ap. 228, 8 Am. St. 471; Spies v. P. 122 Ill. 1, 3 Am. St. 320; P. v. Bentley, 77 Cal. 7, 11 Am. St. 225; Martin v. S. 89 Ala. 115, 18 Am. St. 91; Gibson v. §. 89 Ala. 121, 18 Am. St. 96. 8 Ante, § 227 (2). 9 Metcalfe v. Conner, Litt. Sel.Cas. 497, 12 Am. D. 340; Hightower v. S. 22 Tex. 605 ; Windover v. Robbins, 2 Tyler, 1, 4; 8. ». George, 7 Ire. 321; U. S. v. Cole, 5 McLean, 513. WC. r. Tivnon, 8 Gray, 375, 69 Am. D. 248; Cornelius ». C. 15 B. Monr. 539; Malone v. 8. 8 Ga. 408; Gardner v. P. 8 Scam. 83. CHAP. XIV. ] CONSPIRACY. § 231 bination of wills in a common purpose being first shown, what is said and done by one becomes then admissible against the: rest.1_ And the court determines when the combination is suffi- ciently established for this purpose.? § 230. When the Transaction is ended, — individual declara- tions, confessions, and acts are, of course, not in execution of the common purpose; therefore they are competent only against those from whom they proceed. Nice questions arise as to when this condition of things is reached:* after a burglary by two, the confessions of one who retained the stolen goods were not received against the other. But where, in larceny, the conspiracy extended as well to the dividing of the goods taken as to the theft, what one did between the stealing and the divid- ing was admitted against both.® § 231. The Order of the Testimony — is in all cases within the discretion of the presiding judge, though commonly he follows therein the established practice.* In practice, if the counsel for the prosecution opens to a general conspiracy, and it appears “manifest that no particular proof sufficient to affect the defend- ants is intended to be adduced,” the judge will “stop the case in limine.” But when the counsel at the opening makes full promise to supply the missing link, it is within the discretion of the court, relying thereon,® to permit general evidence of an existing conspiracy to precede that affecting a particular one or all of the defendants.? Or should it be deemed to have been incompetent when admitted, it may be rendered unobjectionable by what is afterward proved. Yet perhaps ordinarily the court 1 American Fur Company v. U.S.2 Pet. 13; Patton v. S.6 Ohio St. 467. See S. 358; Glory v. S. 18 Ark. 236; S. v. Ross, 29 Mo. 32; S. v. Nash, 7 Iowa, 347; S. v. Soper, 16 Me. 293,33 Am. D. 665; Rex v. Salter, 5 Esp. 125; Page v. Parker, 40 N. H. 47; Clinton v. Estes, 20 Ark. 216 ; Nevill v. S. 60 Ind. 308; U. S. v. McKee, 3 Dil. 546; U. S. v. McKee, 3 Dil. 551; U.S v. Mitchell, 1 Hughes, 439; U.S. v. Butler, 1 Hughes, 457; Solander v. P. 2 Colo. 48; P. v. Saunders, 25 Mich. 119; S. v. Brady, 107 N. C. 822; U. S. v. Lan- caster, 44 Fed. Rep. 896. 2 Windover v. Robbins, supra; Fouts v. 8. 7 Ohio St. 471; C. v. Crowninshield, 10 Pick. 497 ; Stone v. P. 13 Hun, 263. 8 S. v. Dean, 13 Ire. 63; S. v. Thibeau, 30 Vt. 100; Thompson v. C.1 Met. Ky. uv, Simons, 4 Strob. 266; Lynes v. 8. 36 Missis. 617; S. ». Ross, 29 Mo. 32; Clin- ton v. Estes, 20 Ark. 216; Hunter v. C. 7 Grat. 641, 56 Am. D. 121. * See Mask v. S. 32 Missis. 405; Curry v. Kurtz, 33 Missis. 24; American Iron Mountain Co. v. Evans, 27 Mo. 552. 5 S.v. Thibeau, 30 Vt. 100. And see Reg. v. Blake, 6 Q. B. 126. 8 Scott v. S. 30 Ala. 503, 509. 7 See Vol. I. § 966, 966 a. 8 Vol. I. § 966 a (2). 9 The Queen’s Case, 2 Brod. & B. 302, 310. And see Rex v. Hammond, 2 Esp. 719; Browning v. S. 30 Missis. 656. 1 Johnson v. S. 29 Ala. 62, 65 Am. D. 383, 105 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. § 234 [BOOK XIL will receive evidence only as the foundation for it is laid in prior testimony or in the record.? § 232, In One’s own Favor. — Whatever is of the res geste is admissible, though proceeding from a defendant and tendered in his own behalf.2 Thus, on one’s trial for conspiring with another not arrested to defraud a third person, his defence being that he was the other’s dupe, himself believing what he said, he was permitted to put in evidence a correspondence between himself and such supposed co-conspirator. “ What the parties say at the time,” observed Best, J., “is evidence to show how they acted.” 8 § 233. 1. Variance — must be avoided;* as, — 2. Name. — An allegation of a conspiracy to defraud one named is not sustained by proof of the intent to defraud another,® or the public, or anybody whom the defendants could defraud.® So, — 3. To Commit One Offence — being the object of the conspiracy charged, proof that it was to commit another will not suffice.? But the manner of committing it may be shown in a form more minute than the allegation, or varying from it in non-essentials.8 And if the parts of the charge are separable, no more need be proved than will simply constitute the offence; as, if the alleged purpose is “to prevent the workmen of C. from continuing to work,” &c., it will be adequate to show the purpose as to any of the workmen.? Again, — § 234, 1. A Conspiracy to prosecute for Crime — persons not guilty is not established by proof of a conspiracy to prosecute guilty ones, nor is such evidence admissible.” And — 2. Sufficient in Degree — must be the evidence," affirmatively covering the whole charge. If, for example, three persons are indicted for conspiring together, and the proof is that one con- 1 And see Browning v. S. supra. 2 Vol. I. § 1083-1087. And see Reg. v. Vincent, 9 Car. & P. 275; S. v. Cardoza, 11S. C. 195. 8 Rex v. Whitehead, 1 Car. & P. 67, 69, D. & R., N. P. 61. 4 Vol. I. § 484 a et seq. = Reg. v. Steel, Car. & M. 337, 2 Moody, 246. 6 C. v. Harley, 7 Met. 506; C. v. Kel- logg, 7 Cush. 473. 7§. v. Hadley, 54 N. H. 224. And 106 see Randolph v. S. 14 Ind. 232; Reg. v. Banks, 12 Cox C. C. 393, 5 Eng. Rep. 471. _ 8 Vol. I. § 488 b-488e; Reg. v. Gom- pertz, 9 Q. B. 824. § Rex v. Bykerdike, 1 Moody & R.179. 10 §. v, Walker, 32 Me. 195. 11S. v. Simons, 4 Strob. 266; Reg. v. Hibbert, 13 Cox C. C, 82, 13 Eng. Rep. 433; Reg. v. Banks, 12 Cox C. C. 398, 5 Eng. Rep. 471. 12 Vol. I. § 1052, 1054; C. v. Kellogg, 7 Cush. 478; U.S. v. Smith, 2 Bond, 323, CHAP. XIV.] CONSPIRACY. § 239 spired with one other, it not appearing with which one, all must be acquitted.1 But a part only may be shown by the direct evidence, if the circumstances authorize the jury to infer the rest.2. Thus, — § 235. 1. Conduct.— Where the alleged conspiracy was by two to cheat a third of his goods, and it was clearly proved as to one, evidence that the other was present when the fraud was consummated, received a part of the goods, and sold them under a fictitious name, was held to show such a connection between the two as to justify a verdict against both.® 2. Other Instances — of actual or attempted fraud may in proper circumstances be given in evidence, in support of the conspiracy on trial,* within explanations in the first volume.® § 236. 1. Though the Venue — in this offence as in all others must be proved,® evidence of what was done beyond the jurisdic- tion of the court is still competent to the other parts of the charge.? And — 2. An Overt Act, — within the county, the effect whereof is to renew the conspiracy there, is adequate evidence of the venue.® III. Questions of Practice. § 237. If the Indictment is in Several Counts, — yet one conspir. acy only is proved, a verdict of guilty may be taken on all the counts which set out the offence in accordance with the evidence.? § 238. a Special Verdict, — not responding to all the material parts of the indictment, will be ill. When adequately respon- sive and full, judgment will be rendered thereon." § 239. The Questions of Separate Trial, _- and some connected ones, are not quite the same in conspiracy cases as in others. But they have been already considered.” 1 Reg. v. Thompson, 16 Q. B. 832. See 5 Vol. I. § 1120-1129. S. v. Adams, | Houst. Crim. 361; S. vo. 6 U.S. uv. Jackalow, 1 Black. 484. Gardner, 84 N. C. 732. 7 Rex v. Bowes, cited 4 East, 171. 2 Ante, § 227 (2); Reg. v. Banks, su- 8 Vol. I. § 61 (3); ante, § 206 (1); Rex pra; S. v. Morton, 27 Vt. 310,65 Am. D. v. Brisac, 4 East, 164, 170, 171; C. v. 201. Corlies, 3 Brews. 575, 578, 8 Philad. 450. 3 C. v. Warren, 6 Mass. 74. 9 Reg. v, Gompertz, 9 Q. B. 824. 4C. v, Eastman, 1 Cush. 189, 216; 10 Vol. I. § 1005-1006 a; P. v. Olcott, 2 Luckey v. Roberts, 25 Conn. 486; P.v. Johns. Cas. 301, 1 Am. D. 168. Saunders, 25 Mich. 119; Rex v. Hunt, 3 11 C, v. Judd, 2 Mass. 329, 3 Am. D. 54. B. & Ald. 566; U. S. v Russell, 19 Fed. 12 See, among other places, Vol. I. Rep. 591. § 464 (2), 468 (4), 1019 (5), 1022, 1038 (2) ; 107 § 242 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. IV. Specially in some Particular Forms of Conspiracy. § 240. To Charge with Crime. — The indictment may aver that the defendants, on, &c., at, &c., devising not only to deprive X of his good name, but also to subject him without just cause to the pains and penalties provided for persons guilty of [rape], did then and there conspire, &c., falsely to charge and accuse him the said X that he the said X had then lately before [feloniously ravished and carnally known a woman named Y, violently and against her will and consent]; adding, if deemed important, overt acts.? § 241. 1. “Falsely Conspired ” — would be equally well with the above “falsely to charge.” And it need not be added that X was innocent.2 So, — 2. Where Fornication and Adultery — are not indictable, it is still a crime to conspire falsely to charge one with what is so prejudicial to good morals; as, with being the father of a bastard child. The indictment need not aver that he is not the father.® § 242. 1. Labor Conspiracies, — including conspiracies among workmen, conspiracies to injure one in his business, and the like, are pretty minutely considered in the author’s “ Directions and Forms,” to which reference here is specially. made.* 2, The Indictment, — in States where overt acts are not required to be set out, may be brief; and it should conform to the special purpose of the conspirators in the individual instance, and the pleader’s view of the law. For a conspiracy to prevent one’s working at his trade, it was in England held good simply to charge the purpose to be, “by indirect means, to impoverish the said X, and to deprive and hinder him from following and exercising his aforesaid trade or business of a tailor.” And Buller, J. said that the words “by indirect means ” were unneces- sary; the means being matter of evidence.® ante, § 225. And see Cummins v. C.81 Dutcher, 313; C. v. O’Brien, 12 Cush, 84; Ky. 465 ; Bradshaw v. Territory, 3 Wash. Ter. 265; P. v. Richards, 67 Cal. 412, 56 Am. R. 716; Casper v. 8. 47 Wis. 535; Paul v.S. 12 Tex. Ap. 346. 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Evy. 10th Lond. ed. 672, 673; 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 1171, 1174— 1179; Dir. & F. § 300, where some expla- nations and varied forms appear; C. v. Andrews, 132 Mass. 263; Johnson v. 8. 2 108 2 Elkin v. P. 28 N. Y. 177; S. v. Hadley, 54 N. H. 224, * Johnson v. §. 2 Dutcher, 313 ; Rex v. Spragg, 2 Bur. 993. 8 Reg. v. Best, 2 Ld. Raym. 1167, 6 Mod. 137, 1 Salk. 174. 4 Dir. & F. § 301-308. 5 Rex v. Eccles, 3 Doug. 337, 389. But compare this with C. v. Hunt, 4 Met. CHAP. XIV.] CONSPIRACY. § 245 3. The Conspiracy of Boycott, — both as to the law and the procedure, has been considered in some cases to which it will suffice here simply to refer.} § 248. For a Conspiracy to defraud the Public, — the form is sub- stantially the same as where an individual is to be defrauded ;2 but it does not, for it cannot, set out the names.? § 244. Where the Defilement — of a female,‘ or the procuring of an unlawful marriage,’ is the object of the conspiracy, no special difficulties attend the allegation. If the marriage is not valid, the woman can be a witness against her seducer.® § 245. Against the Public Revenue — are some of the conspira- cies in our books, the forms of procedure for which will not be here specially considered.* And the same may be said of con- spiracies otherwise to defraud the United States.° 111,38 Am. 1.346. And see Morris Run Coal Co. «. Barclay Coal Co. 68 Pa. 173, 8 Am. R. 159; Reg v. Rowlands, 2 Den. C. C. 364, 5 Cox C. C. 466, 9 Eng. L. & Eq. 287; P.v. Sheldon, 139 N. Y. 251. As to the evidence, Rex v. Ferguson, 2 Stark. 489. For a form of conviction, see Ex parte Perham, 2 Ellis & E. 383. 1 §. v. Glidden, 55 Conn. 46, 3 Am. St. 23; Crump v. C. 84 Va. 927,10 Am. St. 895 ; in which two cases the authorities are cited and explained. : 2 For forms, see S. v. Trammell, 2 Ire. 879; C.v. Judd, 2 Mass. 329,3 Am. D. 54; S. v. Cardoza, 11 8. C. 195. 3 Ante, § 210 (2). 4 Reg. v. Mears, 2 Den. C. C. 79, 1 Eng. L. & Eq. 581; Smith v. P. 25 Tl. 17, 76 Am. 1). 780. See 8. v. Trice, 88 N.C. 627. 5 Respublica v. Hevice, 2 Yeates, 114; 8. v. Savoye, 48 Iowa, 562. 6 Respublica v. Hevice, supra. 7 See, for example, U. S. v. Nunne- macher, 7 Bis, 111; U. S.v. Goldberg, 7 Bis. 175; U. S.v. Dustin, 2 Bond, 332; U.S. v. McKee, 8 Dil. 546; P. vr. Saunders, 25 Mich. 119; U.S. ». Ulrici, 3 Dil. 532; Reg. v. Blake, 6 Q. B. 126. 8 U.S. v Crafton, 4 Dil. 145; Ex parte Shaffenburg, 4 Dil. 271; U. 8. x, Donan, 11 Blatch. 168; U.S. v. Gordon, 22 Fed. Rep. 250. And see Rex v. Hedges, 28 How. St. Tr. 1315. For CONTEMPT OF COURT, see Dir. & F. § 316-329. CONVEYANCES, FRAUDULENT, see Dir. & F. § 481-487. CORRUPTION IN ELECTIONS, see Dir. & F. § 382-400. COUNSELLING, see Dir, & F. § 105, 106, 114-117, 119-121. COUNTERFEIT MONEY, see the next chapter; also ForcEry. 109 § 249 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. CHAPTER XV. COUNTERFEITING AND THE LIKE AS TO COIN. § 246,247. Introduction. 248-256. Counterfeiting the Coin. 257-262. Passing Counterfeit Coin. 263, 264. Uttering having Other in Possession. 265-268. Possession with Intent to Pass. 269, 270. Possessing or Making the Instruments. 271. Some Remaining Questions. Consult, — for the law of these offences, New Crim. Law, II. § 274-300. For the indictment, &c., Dir. & F. § 330-344. And for various collateral things, see the indexes to this series of books. ; § 246. Fragmentary — are the elucidations in this chapter, like those in the corresponding one in “ New Criminal Law;” render- ing necessary their examination in connection with the chapters in that work, and in this on the Forgery of Writings. § 247. How Chapter divided. — We shall consider, I. Counter- feiting the Coin; II. Passing Counterfeit Coin; III. Uttering Counterfeit Coin having Other in Possession; 1V. Having Counterfeit Coin in Possession with Intent to Pass it; V. Possessing or Making the Instruments for Counterfeiting; VI. Some Remaining Questions. J. Counterfeiting the Coin. § 248. Statutory — are practically with us all indictments for this offence; for which reason, and because it is not certainly indictable anywhere among us at common law, no attempt will here be made to supply a common-law form.! § 249, Falsely Making. — Under the English 2 Will. 4, ¢. 34, § 3,2 for punishing one who shall “falsely make or counterfeit any coin resembling, or apparently intended to resemble or pass for, any of the king’s current gold or silver coin;” adding that 1 New Crim. Law, II. § 281, 284-287; 2 Now 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, § 2. Dir. & F. § 33). 110 , CHAP. XV.] COUNTERFEITING, ETC., AS TO COIN. § 253 “every such offence shall be deemed to be complete although the coin so made or counterfeited shall not be in a fit state to be uttered, or the counterfeiting thereof shall not be finished or perfected,” — an approved form of the indictment was that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant “ten pieces of false and counterfeit coin, each piece thereof resembling, and apparently intended to resemble and pass for, a piece of the queen’s current gold coin called a sovereign, falsely and feloniously did make and coun- terfeit.” 1 § 250. Compared with Forgery. — It is seen that this form, in its manner of setting out the thing counterfeited, differs totally from what is required in forgery of writings, where the very words of the instrument must be given.? Still, the description here, “the queen’s current gold coin called a sovereign,” is, when the full import of the words is considered, exact and complete. § 251. For Treason of Counterfeiting. — The old statute of 25 Edw. 3, stat. 5, c. 2, made it treason to “counterfeit the king’s money.” And a form of indictment thereon was that the defend- ants, “contriving and intending our said lord the king-and all his people craftily, falsely, deceitfully, feloniously, and traitor- ously to deceive and defraud,” on, &c., at, &c., “twenty pieces of false, feigned, and counterfeit money and coin, of copper, brass, and other mixed metals, of the likeness and similitude of the good, legal, and current money and gold coin of our said lord the king, of this realm, called guineas, then and there falsely, deceitfully, feloniously, and traitorously did forge, counterfeit, and coin.” 8 § 252. Describing the Coin. — Hale says the indictment “ought to show particularly what kind of coin, namely, groats or shil- lings. But although it is usual to express the numbers of each kind, yet it is not of absolute necessity.” # § 258. 1. It is legally Sufficient, — though slightly inaccurate, 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond.ed. contrary to 2 Will. 4, c. 34, § 16, see Reg. 501. And see Reg. v. Blaby, 1894, 2 Q. v. Turner, 2 Moody, 42. And see Dir. & B. 170. Not necessary to aver the intent F. § 336. to pass the coin as true. U. S. v. Peters, 2 Post, § 403 et seq. 2 Abb. U. S. 494. For a form, see U.S. 8 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 104. A similar v. Otey, 12 Saw. 416, 31 Fed. Rep 68. And method of describing the coin was held for forms under our American statutes good in C. v. Stearns, 10 Met. 256. generally, see Dir. & F. § 332-335. For 4 2 Hale P. C. 187. Gilding, — to produce the color of gold, 111 § 255 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. to say, “ten pieces of false, forged, and counterfeit coin and money, &c., unlawfully and feloniously did forge, make, and counterfeit,” &c.1 But — 2, Repugnant. — To charge the counterfeiting of a good and legal coin of “the State of Missouri,” “called a Mexican dollar,” is bad, because repugnant.? § 254. The Evidence : — 1. Circumstantial. — Not often is direct testimony attainable, but commonly the offence is made out by circumstantial evidence; “as,” says Archbold, “finding the necessary coining tools in the defendant’s house, together with some pieces of the counterfeit money in a finished, some in an unfinished, state, or such other circumstances as may fairly warrant the jury in presuming that the defendant either counterfeited, or caused to be counterfeited, or was present aiding and abetting in counterfeiting, the coin in question.” Yet in one case it was deemed not enough to show that, the defendant once or twice a week visited coiners, that the rattling of money was heard while he was with them, that once after coming out he was discovered counting something, that when their rooms were visited just after their arrest he resisted being stopped and jumped over a wall to escape, and that some bad money was then found upon him.* The jury may infer a counterfeiting from the instruments for it and large quantities of spurious coin being found unexplained in the defendant’s possession.® On a charge of counterfeiting, it is not necessary to prove an intent to pass.® 2. Variance — “between the indictment and the evidence, in the number of the pieces of coin alleged to be counterfeited, is immaterial; but a variance as to the denomination of such coin, as guineas, sovereigns, shillings, &c., would be fatal.”7 And — § 255. A Description — of the false coins as “fifty cent pieces ” and “twenty-five cent pieces,” instead of “half dollars” and “quarter dollars,” which are the statutory words, involves a fatal variance. No proof of the existence of the genuine coin 1 S.v. Griffin, 18 Vt. 198. And see S,v. 4 Rex v. Isaacs, 1 Russ. Crimes, 5th McPherson, 9 Iowa, 53. Eng. ed. 208. 2S. v. Shoemaker, 7 Misso. 177. 5 U.S. v. Burns, 5 McLean, 23; U.S. 8 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. v. King, 5 McLean, 208. ed. 501, 502. 6 S v McPherson 9 Iowa, 53. ; 7 Archb, ut sup. 112 CHAP. XV] COUNTERFEITING, ETC., AS TO COIN. § 259 need be given, being presumptively known to the court and jury.? § 256. Other Evidence — is explained under the analogous title Forgery of Writings. II. Passing Counterfeit Coin.? § 257. The Cheat. — The procedure for the cheat through coun- terfeit coin as a false token, at common law and under the false- pretence statutes,® belongs to other chapters. But — § 258. 1. The Knowingly Passing — of counterfeit coin is, under State and national statutes, a separate offence in the nature of counterfeiting. * . 2. The English Indictment — under 2 Will. 4, c. 84, § 7, the words of which are “shall tender, utter, or put off any false or counterfeit coin resembling, or apparently intended to resemble or pass for, any of the king’s current gold or silver coin, know- ing the same to be false or counterfeit,” is, by an approved form, that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant “one piece of false and counterfeit coin resembling a piece of the queen’s current gold coin called a sovereign, unlawfully, falsely, and deceitfully did utter to one N, he the said [defendant], at the time he so uttered the said piece of false and counterfeit coin, [then and there *] well knowing the same to be false and counterfeit.” ® § 259. 1. With Us,— this form need only be adjusted to the terms of our statute to be good.’ Thus, — 2. The Name — of the person to whom the coin was uttered must in general be averred, and proved at the trial. But under the statutory words “with intent to defraud any person whatso- 1U.S. v. Burns, 5 McLean, 23; U. S. v. King, 5 McLean, 208. “ United States gold coin” is equivalent to “gold coin of the United States;” it is current by law; and without allegation and proof, both court and jury take cognizance that a gold coin of the denomination and value of ten dollars is an eagle. Daily v. S. 10 Ind.. 536. See also Reg. e. Connell, 1 Car. & K. 190. 2 Dir. & F. § 337-340. 3 New Crim. Law, IL. § 147, 148, 286, 448. 4 Ib. § 282, 285; R S. of U.S. § 4557. VOL. 11.—8 ' 5 Not essential. Reg. v. Page, 2 Moody, 219, 9 Car. & P. 756. 6 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ey. 10th Lond. ed. 509. 7 For various forms, see Dir. & F. § 837-340. As to Delaware, see S. ov. Johnson, 3 Harring. Del. 561; Indiana, McGregor v. 8, 16 Ind. 9; Ohio, Leonard ce. §. 29 Ohio St. 408. 8 1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 231; Gabe v. S. 1 Eng. 540; Rouse v. S. 4 Ga. 136, 139, 140. Butsee Gentry v. 8. 6 Ga. 503. 113 § 260 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL ever,” it was held sufficient to set out this person’s name only, omitting that of him to whom the coin was passed. 3. The Charge of Uttering — must be positive, “did utter;” its omission is not supplied by the conclusion of the setenter.? 4, Scienter. — “ Knowing the same to be false and counterfeit” is sufficient; and “knowing” will be referred to the antecedent which will make sense, and render the indictment good. 5. “ Dollars” — sufficiently designates the coin.4 6. “Base” — “ Adulterated ” — are equivalents. And under the statutory expression “base or adulterated,” “base and adul- terated ” was held not repugnant in the indictment. 7. That the Coin was Current —in the State must be alleged or not, according to the terms of the statute. In Ohio, it was deemed. unnecessary, and, when inserted, mere surplusage.® In Alabama, it must be inserted, with averment of time.’ 8. “Feloniously,’ — where this offence is misdemeanor, is not required in the allegation;® how, where it is felony, may be seen in the first volume.® § 260. The Evidence :— 1. The “Uttering,” “Putting Off,” or “ Passing” — of the coin, whichever term is used in the statute and the indictment, must be proved.!0 As there is a difference in the meaning of these words,/! the practitioner should attend to it when drawing the allegation and at the trial. “Where a good shilling was given to a Jew boy for fruit, and he put it into his mouth under pretence of trying whether it were good, and then taking a bad shilling out of his mouth, instead of it, returned it to the prose- cutor, saying that it was not good; this (which is called ringing the changes) was holden to be an uttering within the meaning of the statute 15 Geo. 2, c. 28.” It would be a passing also, if accepted; an uttering, whether accepted or not. 1 U.S. v. Bejandio, 1 Woods, 294. 6 Smith v. S. 8 Ohio, 294. 2S. v. Halder, 2 McCord, 377. Here 7 Nicholson v. §.18 Ala. 529, 54 Am. the omission simply of the word “did” D. 168. And see S. v. Shoemaker, 7 before “ utter” was held to be fatal. Misso. 177 ; New Crim. Law, II. § 295-298. 8 Reg, v. Jones, 9 Car. & P. 761; Reg. § Wilson v.S. 1 Wis. 184. v. Page, 9 Car. & P. 756, 2 Moody, 219; 9 Vol. I. § 533-537. Vol. I. § 355, 356, 510-512. 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. * Peek v.S. 2 Humph. 78; Fight v.S. ed. 509, 510. 7 Ohio, Ist pt. 180, 28 Am. D, 626. See 11 Stat. Crimes, § 306-308. Reg. v. Connell, 1 Car. & K. 190; C. v. 12 Archb. ut sup., referring to Rex 2. Stearns, 10 Met. 256. Franks, 2 Leach, 644. 5 Gabe v. S. supra, 114 CHAP. XV.] COUNTERFEITING, ETC., AS TO COIN. § 2638 2, Variance — must be avoided; as, under 8 & 9 Will. 3, c. 26, § 6, it being alleged that five counterfeit shillings were paid and put off for two shillings, and the proof was that five bad shillings were sold for half a crown, this was held to be fatal; for a contract must be proved as laid.! 3. The Similitude, — or intent to have the counterfeit resemble and pass for the genuine, must be satisfactorily shown.? § 261. 1. The Defendant’s Knowledge — that the coin was coun- terfeit must be affirmatively proved; the evidence of which will be generally circumstantial. Thus, — 2. Other Utterings — Possession.— Other utterings, by the de- fendant, of base coin of the same or even a different species or denomination,* made at a time not too remote, whether before or after;® or the prior, simultaneous, or subsequent possession of such coin ® or of the coining instruments’ by him; may properly be considered by the jury on the questions of knowledge and intent. Its effect is for them.® 8. Intent to defraud. — If, by the particular statute, an intent to defraud is made an element of the offence, it may be presumed from the passing for value to an innocent person. 1° § 262. Producing Counterfeit at Trial.—It is believed that a counterfeit coin is within the rule which requires the production of a writing in controversy at the trial," subject to the well- known exceptions. It is excused, for example, if the person to whom it was passed resides out of the State, and he has been subpeenaed, but has not appeared. Ill. Uttering Counterfeit Coin having Other in Possession. § 263. 1. In England — the statutes? make it a special offence for one to utter counterfeit coin having other in possession; and 1 Rex v. Joyce, Car. Crim. Law, 3d ed. 6 Stalker v. S. supra; Harrison’s Case, 184. Compare with ante, § 120,161; Rex 2 Lewin, 118; McGregor v. S. 16 Ind. 9; v. Hedges, 3 Car. & P. 410. Peek v. S. 2 Humph. 78. 2 New Crim. Law. II. § 291; Reg »v. ” §. v. Antonio, 2 Tread. 776, 3 Brev. Byrne, 6 Cox C. C. 475. 562. 8 Archb. ut sup. 8 Vol. I. § 1120-1128. : * Reg. v. Forster, Dears. 456, 6 Cox 9 Tharp v. S. 15 Ala. 749, 756, 757. C. C. 521; s.c. nom. Reg. v. Foster, 29 See, also, S. v.Odel, 2 Tread.758, 3 Brev.552. Eng. L. & Eq. 548. W McGregor 7. 8. 16 Ind. 9. 5 Reg. v. Forster, supra; Stalker v. S. 11 §, ». Phelps, 2 Root, 87, 88. 9 Conn. 341, 348; Rex v. Salt, 3 Fost. & 12 Kirk v. C. 9 Leigh, 627. F. 834; Rex v. Whiley, 2 Leach, 983. 18 2 Will. 4, c. 34, § 8, now superseded See Payson v. Everett, 12 Minn. 216. —— by 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, § 9. 115 § 266 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. it is believed that this sort of legislation prevails in a few of our States. 2. The Indictment — sets out the uttering as before described,} and avers the possession of the other coin.? It need not conclude that the defendant was a common utterer.? § 264. On the Evidence, — we have various English cases, but none are believed to involve principles specially important. to the present elucidations.4 IV. Having Counterfeit Coin in Possession with Intent to pass it. § 265. 1. By the Common Law — this is not an offence, because not involving a sufficient act. Itis made punishable by statutes in England and generally in this country. 2. English Indictment, — Under 2 Will. 4, ¢. 34, § 8, the words of which are, “shall have in his custody or possession three or more pieces of false or counterfeit coin resembling, or apparently intended to resemble or pass for, any of the king’s current gold or silver coin, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, and with intent to utter or put off the same,” it was an approved form to say that on, &e., at, &c., the defendant “four pieces of false and counterfeit coin, resembling the queen’s current silver coin called shillings, unlawfully, falsely, and deceitfully had in his custody and possession, with intent to utter the said pieces of false and counterfeit coin, he the said [defendant] then and there® well knowing the said pieces of false and coun- terfeit coin to be false and counterfeit.” 7 § 266. Our American Forms —are modelled after this one, simply varied to meet the somewhat differing terms of the statutes. No allegation of value is required.’ Nor is any averment of the materials of which the counterfeit was made. 1 Ante, § 258 (2). 2 Archb. Crim. Pl & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 510, 19th ed. 814; Dir. & F. § 340. 3 Rex v. Smith, Russ. & Ry.5, 2 Leach, 856, 858, 1 East P. C. 183. 4 Rex v. Else, Russ. & Ry. 142; Rex ve. Manners, 7 Car. & P. 801; Reg. v. Jones, 9 Car. & P. 761; Reg. v. Smith, 2 Den. C. C. 449, 452; Rex v. Skerrit, 2 Car. & P. 427; Reg. v. Gerrish, 2 Moody & R. 219; Reg. v. Rogers, 2 Moody, 85; Reg. v. Hurse, 2 Moody & R. 360; Reg. v. Wil- liams, Car. & M. 259; Reg. v. Greenwood, 2 Den. C.C. 453. These cases may be 116 found stated in Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 19th Lond. ed. 510, 19th ed. 813, 814. 5 New Crim. Law, I. § 304 (2). 6 «Then and there” not essential. Ante, § 258 (2) and note. 7 Archb. Crim. Pl, & Ey. 10th Lond. ed. 513. 8 C. v. Stearns, 10 Met. 236; C. v. Ful- ler, 8 Met. 313, 41 Am. D. 509; S. v. Wil- liams, 8 Iowa, 533; S. v. Griffin, 18 Vt. 198; Scott ». C. 14 Grat. 687; P. v. Stan- ton, 39 Cal. 698; Sizmore v. S, 3 Head, 26. 9 S. v. Williams, supra. 10 §, v. Griffin, supra. For forms see CHAP. XV.] COUNTERFEITING, ETC., AS TO COIN. § 269 § 267. The Evidence : — ‘Where the Possession of a Given Number — of pieces, more than the law requires to constitute the offence, is averred, proof of less, but not less than is legally adequate, will suffice! And proof of more will equally sustain the allegation.? § 268. 1. Other Instances, as ground for presuming knowl- edge and intent, of possessing, uttering, and the like, may be shown, in the manner already explained.2 And — 2. The Defendant, — on his side, may prove that he received the coin accidentally, or in the usual course of business. ¢* 8. Acting in Concert — Possession. — Where two or more are acting in concert, the possession of one, with the knowledge of the others, is the possession of all.® V. Possessing or Making the Instruments for Coining. § 269. 1. The Indictment — for this offence is in like form with that for making or possessing the false coin. And it must cover the terms of the particular statute. In Tennessee, it was adjudged adequate under the State legislation, and deemed probably so on common-law principles, to say that on, &c., at, &ec., the defendant “did feloniously and fraudulently, and with- out any lawful excuse, keep in his possession a machine, which said machine was then and there intended by the prisoner for the forging and counterfeiting the coin current by law and usage in the State of Tennessee and the United States;” the objection urged being that the coin to be counterfeited was not sufficiently specified.6 The Indiana court held that the name of the instru- ment or some description of it should be given.7 2. Another Form — may be found in “ Directions and Forms.” 8 Dir. & F.§ 341; U. S. oe. Bicksler, 1 Mackey, 341; S. v. Keneston, 59 N. H. 36. 1 Vol. I. § 4885 (4). 2S. v. Pepper, 11 Iowa, 347. 8 Ante, § 261 (2); C. v. Stearns, 10 Met. 256; P. v. Farrell, 30 Cal. 316; Rex v, Fuller, Russ. & Ry. 308, 310. 4 U.S. v. Kenneally, 5 Bis. 122. 5 Reg. v. Rogers, 2 Moody, 85; Reg. v. Williams, Car. & M. 259. 6 Bradford v. S. 3 Humph. 370. And see S. v. Bowman, 6 Vt. 594; Harlan v. P. 1 Doug. Mich. 207 ; Reg. v. Richmond, 1 Car. & K. 240, 1 Cox C. C.9; S. v. Col- lins, 3 Hawks, 191; C. v. Kent, 6 Met- 221; C. v. Morse, 2 Mass. 128; Reg. ». Roberts, Dears. 539, 7 Cox C. C. 39, 38 Eng. L. & Eq. 553; Rex v. Catapodi, Russ. & Ry. 65; P.v. McDonnell, 80 Cal. 285, 13 Am. St. 159; Long v. S. 10 Tex. Ap. 186; Rex v. Moore, 1 Moody, 122. 7 Chamberlain v. S. 5 Blackf. 573. But see, as to Illinois, Miller v. P. 2Scam. 233. “One die or instrument for the pur- pose of,” &c. is sufficient in Virginia. C. v. Scott, 1 Rob. Va, 695. 8 Dir. & F. § 342. 117 § 271 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL 3. “Knowingly,” — if in the statute, must be also in the indict- ment;! but no further averment of the scienter is necessary.” 4, Use of Instrument. — Where the indictment is for the use of the instrument, the Arkansas court holds that the manner of the use must be stated; the simple allegation that the defendant fraudulently used it, not being sufficient.® § 270. The Evidence : — 1. It must establish,—as in other offences, enough of the allegation to constitute legal guilt, but it need do no more; as where, under 8 & 9 Will. 3, c. 26, § 1, the possession of a die made of iron and steel was charged, proof of either metal was adjudged adequate, the kind being immaterial. And the evil intent proved need be only what will simply cover the terms of the law. 2. Other Connected Offences — may, within principles already explained,® be shown. When, therefore, the charge was that the prisoner had in possession a mould on which were impressed the figure and apparent resemblance of the obverse side of a half crown, and he occupied a house wherein the mould was found, evidence that a fortnight before he had passed a bad half crown was held competent, though it did not appear whether or not this half crown was made in this mould.” VI. Some Remaining Questions. § 271. 1. A Second or Third Offence, —of some of those ex- plained in this chapter, is, by the English and a part of the American statutes, made more heavily punishable than the first. There are cases illustrating the procedure,® but it is sufficiently explained in “New Criminal Law.” 2. “Common Utterer.’’ — Though the statute should declare the offender to be “a common utterer,” the indictment need not aver that he is. 1 Chamberlain v. S. 5 Blackf. 573, 8 Rex v. Turner, 1 Moody, 47; Rex v. 2 Sutton v. S. 9 Ohio, 133. Michael, Russ. & Ry. 29, 2 Leach, 938; 3 Bell v. S. 5 Eng. 536. Rex v. Booth, Russ. & Ry. 7; Reg. v. 4 Rex v. Oxford, Russ. & Ry. 382, 383. Thomas, Law Rep. 2 C. C. 141; Reg. v. 1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 222; Rex v. Jones, 9 Car. & P. 761; Rex v. Tandy, 2 Phillips, Russ. & Ry. 369, 371. Leach, 833; Reg. v. Goodwin, 10 Cox 5 Reg. v. Harvey, Law Rep. 1 C.C. C. C. 534, overruled in Reg. v. Martin, 284,11 Cox C. C. 662. Law Rep.1 ©. C. 214. 6 Ante, § 261 (2), 268 (1). ® New Crim. Law, I. § 959-965. 7 Reg. v. Weeks, Leigh & C. 18, 8 Cox W Rex v. Smith, 2B. & P. 127; Vol. L C. C. 455. § 515 (2). 118 CHAP. XV.] COUNTERFEITING, ETC., AS TO COIN. § 271 3. Joinder of Counts. — Under United States statutes, counts charging the making of false coin, assisting in the making, and procuring it to be made, may be joined.! 4, The Indictment should conclude — against the peace of the State or the United States, according as it is under the statutes and in the tribunal of the one or the other.? 7 U.S. v. Burns, 5 McLean, 23. And 2 Harlan v. P. 1 Doug. Mich. 207. see R. S. of U. S. § 1024, 1025. For CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, see Stat. Crimes, § 1099-1122; New Crim. Law, I. § 594-597 a; Dir. & F. § 345-362; Vol. I. of this work, § 356 (2), 629 (2). DEAD BODIES, see Serutturs. DEFILEMENT OF WOMEN, see Conspiracy — Raps — SEDUCTION AND ABDUCTION, &c. - DISOBEYING JUDICIAL ORDER, see Dir. & F. § 322, 323. 119 § 273 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL CHAPTER XVI. DISORDERLY HOUSE, § 272, Introduction. 273-277, The Indictment. 278-282. The Evidence. 283. The Verdict. ' Consult —the title Nuisance (this offence being one of the nuisances), and the titles of the several nuisances there referred to, specially Bawpy-HousE. Also, for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, I. § 1105 a-1121, and the indexes to the several volumes of this Criminal Law Series. For the form of the indictment, &., Dir. & F. § 793-795. § 272. How Chapter dividea.— We shall consider, I. The Indictment; II. The Evidence; II. The Verdict. I. The Indictment. § 273. The Porm of Indictment — giyen under the title Bawdy- house,! varied to describe the disorderly conduct in the particu- lar instance, is, for any disorderly house, in substance the same which the books generally supply.? 1 Ante, § 105 (2). 29 Chit. Crim. Law. 39, 40; Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 19th Eng. ed. 960, 962; S. v. Bailey, 1 Fost. N. H. 348; Rex v. Hig- ginson, 2 Bur. 1232; U. §S. v. Milburn, 4 Cranch C. C. 719; Cable v. S. 8 Blackf. 531; C. v. Kelly, 12 Gray, 175; C. ». Donovan, 16 Gray, 18; C.v. Ballou, 124 Mass. 26; S, v. Reckards, 21 Minn. 47; Smith v. C.6 B. Monr. 21; S. v. Flynn, 35 Tex. 354; Thatcher v. S. 48 Ark. 60; S. v. Dame, 60 N. H. 479, 49 Am. R. 331; McElhaney v. 8. 12 Tex. Ap. 231. In Mains v. S. 42 Ind. 327,13 Am. R. 364, a form in substance the same which is gen- erally accepted in England and our other States was adjudged inadequate, on the 120 ground that it did not sufficiently show the acts charged to be a public nuisance. It “ does not,” observed the learned judge, allege that the house “was situate in any public place, as in a city, town, or yil- lage, nor near any public street or high- way; nor does it allege that any person resided near thereto, or was in the habit of passing thereby. In short, there is nothing in the indictment which shows that the house was in the vicinity of any inhabitants, or that any person ever came near it save those who congregated there by the alleged procurement of the appellant. In the language of the counsel for the appellant, ‘ for aught that appears, it may have been in the woods, away from the CHAP. XVI] DISORDERLY HOUSE. § 276 § 274. “For Luere.” — It being immaterial in law what was the motive for the keeping, the allegation that it was for lucre, commonly found in the precedents, is unnecessary.! § 275. How Minute. — There are passages in the older books indicating that simply to charge the defendant with keeping a disorderly house, not descending to particulars, is sufficient.? But the contrary is now established; something more specific, it may not be possible to define how much, yet, at least, show- ing or stating the nature of the disorder, —or, as the expres- sion sometimes is, “specific acts,” — must be alleged and proved. § 276. 1. If the General Averment — that the defendant kept a disorderly house is followed by the specific one that it was for common bawdry, common tippling, common gaming, or the like, one step will thus be taken toward the minute; and to hold it enough would reconcile with the better doctrine cases which else must be rejected.4 require the description of the use to extend further. But it is believed that most courts Still, — 2. The Names of the Frequenters — need not be given.® 3. The Conclusion — “to the common nuisance’ But the question is more minutely con- adjudged unnecessary.® > has been sidered under the title “ Nuisance.” 7 4, The Terms of the Statute, where the offence is statutory, sight and hearing of every citizen of the State.’” p. 328. If the indictment had contained no allegation that persons from without ever entered or were permitted in the house for disorderly conduct, it would plainly have set out no offence, according to common doctrine. New Crim. Law, I. § 1078, 1109. But this operating from within on people without, which the in- dictment under consideration did charge, completes the offence, according to what is generally held, even supposing the house to have been remote from other habita- tions. New Crim. Law, I. § 1107, 1111; C. v. Cobb, 120 Mass. 356. Compare Hickey v. 8. 53 Ala. 514. The difference of opinion, therefore, seems to relate to the law itself. 1 New Crim. Taw, I. § 1112; ante, § 108 (1); S. v. Bailey, 1 Fost. N. H. 343. 2°29 Hawk. P. C. c. 25, § 57; Davis Prec. 140, 198; Rex v. Rogier, 1 B. & C. 272, 275; C. v. Pray, 13 Pick. 359, 262; Rex v. Dixon, 10 Mod. 335; Rex v. Ma- son, 1 Leach, 487, 491, 493. 8 Ante,§ 105 (2); Leary v. S. 39 Ind. 544; Mains v. §. 42 Ind. 327,13 Am. R. 864; Hickey v. 8. 53 Ala. 514; Hosea v. S. 47 Ind. 180; Taylor v. C. 1 Duv. 160; Stephanes v. S. 21 Tex. 206; Vander- worker v. S, 13 Ark. 700; P. v. Jackson, 3 Denio, 101,45 Am. D. 449; Frederick v. C. 4 B. Monr. 7,9. And see C. vz. Stewart, 1 S. & R. 342; C. v. Davenport, 2 Allen, 299; S. v. Miller, 5 Blackf. 502; C. v. Crupper, 3 Dana, 466; Rex v. Hig- ginson, 2 Bur, 1232; McElhaney v. S. 12 Tex. Ap. 231; S.v. Dame, 60 N. H. 479, 49 Am. R. 331. 4 See the first note to the last section ; ante, § 105 (2). 5 §. v. Patterson, 7 Ire. 70,45 Am. D. 506; ante, § 107 (1). 6 §.v. Wilson, 93 N. C. 608. 7 Post, § 862-864. 121 § 280 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL must be taken into the account, and they will sometimes modify the allegations ! and the other procedure.? § 276 a, “ House” — “Tenement.” —The common-law forms have the words “disorderly house;”* for the latter of which “tenement” has been held an inadequate substitute,* but it is right where the indictment is on a statute employing it.® § 277. Joinder of Counts. — Counts for the offence at common law and under a statute may be joined.® Il. The Evidence. § 278. That the Defendant is the Keeper — of the house must be shown,’ not necessarily by direct evidence, it may be circum- stantial.2 And he may rebut a prima facie case, when made against him. Ownership of the house as real estate does not necessarily imply a keeping; and on an indictment for the unlicensed sale of confectionery, proof that the title to the land was in trustees to the use of the defendant’s wife was held inadmissible. 1 § 279. 1. Opinions of Witnesses — that the house is a nuisance will not be received.4 But — 2, Former Instances — of like conduct at the house, with the defendant’s permission, by the same persons, are admissible as showing his knowledge. § 280. 1. Doings outside the House, — too remote to be within the presumable knowledge of the keeper and inmates, cannot be shown against him.!* 2. ‘The Usual Evidence,” —it has been said, “is of such noises” in the house “as to make it a nuisance; but it may also 1 Springer v.S. 16 Tex. Ap. 591; S. v. Sheridan, 14 Vroom, 484; S. v. Botkin, 71 Towa, 87, 60 Am. R. 780; Harmesv. S. 26 Ismahl, 134 Mass. 201. And see Wooster v, 8.55 Ala. 217, overruling Norvell v. S. 50 Ala, 174. Tex. Ap. 190,8 Am. St. 470. 2 Baton Rouge v. Cremonini, 36 La. An. 247; S. v. McLorinan, 14 Vroom, 410. 3 Ante, § 273. See Killman v. S. 2 Tex. Ap. 222, 28 Am. R. 432. 4 C. v. Wise, 110 Mass. 181. °C. v. Welsh, 1 Allen, 1, compared with Mass. Gen. Stats. c. 87,§ 6; C. v. Bulman,-118 Mass. 456,19 Am. R. 469. See C. v, McCaughey, 9 Gray, 296. 6 C. v. Kimball, 7 Gray, 328; C. v. 122 7 Ante, § 118 (1). 8 §. ». Worth, R. M. Charl. 5. ® Couch ». S. 24 Tex. 557. 10 Williamson v. 8. 16 Ala. 431. 11 Smith ». C.6 B. Monr. 21. See S.v. Foley, 45 N. H. 466. And consult ante, § 112-117. 22 Vol. I. § 1120-1128 ; Parker v. Green, 2B.& 8. 299. 18 Ante, § 118. 14 C. v. Davenport, 2 Allen, 299. But see Delaney v. S. 22 Vroom, 37. CHAP. XVI] DISORDERLY HOUSE. § 283 be incidentally shown by proof of quarrelling and fighting, or of breaking in by persons whom it is attempted to keep out, or breaking out by those whom it is attempted to keep in.” It is relevant, for example, to show that doors were broken while the defendant occupied the house.? § 281. 1. Acts not charged. — Though specific acts are set out, others which are not may be shown under the more general averments of the indictment.2 Yet the former must also be proved.2 And — 2. Only the Substance of the Issue, —as to the form of the disorder appearing in the allegation,* need, it seems, be proved. 8. Court — Jury. — What constitutes a disorderly house is determined as of law by the court. The jury finds, as of fact, whether or not the defendant permitted such repeated infractions of order as to render his house within the ruling of the court disorderly. § 282. Proof of License — (Statutory Offence). — On an indict- ment against a licensed person for keeping his house in a dis- orderly manner, contrary to the requirement of the statute, the license, being an element in the offence, must be alleged? and proved. But it was held that the written instrument of license need not be produced, or notice to produce it be shown; the entry on the journals of the court granting it, or the fact of the defendant’s keeping the house, being adequate.® Tl, The Verdict. § 283. A Special Verdict,2 — “that the defendant kept a dis- orderly house and disturbed his neighbors,” was adjudged insufficient; because a disorderly house is not indictable unless a common nuisance, and because a house may be disorderly without being injurious except to its inhabitants, while the essence of the offence is the injury to the public.}° 1 C.v. O’Brien, 8 Gray, 487. For other 6 Brown v. §. 20 Vroom, 61. evidence, see S. v. Robertson, 86 N. C. 628. 7 Davis v. S. 52 Ind. 488. 2 Ante, § 107; Garrison v. S. 14 Ind. 8 Baldwin v. S. 6 Ohio, 15. 287; Frederick v. C. 4 B. Monr. 7, 9. ® As to the nature of the special ver- 8 Ante, § 275; Frederick v. C. supra. dict and how it differs from the general, 4 Vol. 1. § 488 4, 488 c. see Vol. I. § 1006, 1006 a. 5 Lord v. S.16 N. H. 325,41 Am. D. 10 Hunter v.C.2S.& R. 298. Compare 729; Belasco v. Hannant, 3 B. & S. 13. with ante, § 273, note. 123 § 285 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII CHAPTER XVII. DISTURBING MEETINGS. § 284. Introduction. 285-288. In General and at Common Law. 289-301. Statutory Disturbances. Consult, — for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, I. 542; II. 301-310a. For the indictment and the like, Dir.& F. § 863-372. For various incidental things, see the indexes to this Criminal Law Series. § 284. How Chapter divided. — We shall consider, I. In Gen- eral and at Common Law; II. Statutory Disturbances. I. In General and at Common Law. § 285. 1. The Common-Law Indictment — in legal principle should aver, besides its formal parts, that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant did, by means or in a manner so fully set out as to show his act to be of the indictable sort and apprise him of what he is to answer to, disturb a meeting so designated or described as to appear on the face of the allegation to be one whereof the disturbance is punishable. To accept less would contravene familiar and fundamental rules of criminal pleading. The pre- cedents and adjudications do not seem opposed to this view as to the meeting; but as to the disturbance, — 2, Allegation of Disturbance. —It was in Pennsylvania held adequate simply to say that the defendants “did wilfully and maliciously disturb and interrupt a meeting of,” &c., followed by no specification of methods or acts.2 But in Texas this short averment was, “upon the well-settled general principles of the law governing indictments,” adjudged inadequate, though the indictment was on a statute, which probably did not vary the 1 New Crim. Law, I. § 542; II. § 308, 2 Campbell v. C. 59 Pa, 266. 309. 124 CHAP. XVII. | DISTURBING MEETINGS. § 286 question. It should be more specific as to the acts.1_ In accord with the Pennsylvania doctrine, — 3. “ Disturb ” — “ Interrupt” — “ Obstruct.” — Widely in the forms seemingly deemed good, the only averment of the criminal act, or only one apparently regarded as material, is that the defendant unlawfully, &., “did disturb and obstruct,” or “did disturb and interrupt,” or “did disturb and hinder,” the meet- ing or the officiating person; though a part of the forms proceed further.? If the brief allegation is sufficient, it is, in principle, equally so merely to say that the defendant kept a disorderly house,? or committed larceny of goods named, or murdered Richard Jones.5 Consistently with this view it has been held that the disturbance may be alleged by the general character of the disturbing acts, without descending to details.® § 286. As to the Meeting, — it is believed that all the approved forms set it out in a way showing it to be one wherein the offence can be committed: for example, “in the Ebenezer Baptist Church there, during the celebration of divine service;”7 “in the parochial church there, at the time of the celebration of divine service;”® “the congregation of the African meeting- house in Washington county aforesaid, then and there in the said house assembled for and engaged in the worship of God;” 9 “a certain meeting of the school directors of St. Clair township, in said county, they the said school directors being then and there lawfully assembled for the purpose of discharging their duty as school directors for the said township of St. Clair.” 10 Simply to say “a religious assembly commonly called a quarterly- meeting conference” has been adjudged ill as being too indefi- nite; the charge should be that the assembly had met for “divine worship,” “divine service,” “religious worship or service,” or 1 Thompson v. S. 16 Tex. Ap. 159. And see Dir. & F. § 364-367. 2 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 21; P. v. Degey, 2 Wheeler Crim. Cas. 135; S. v. Horn, 19 Ark. 578; Rex v. Hube, 5 T. R. 542; Rex v. Parry, Trem. P. C. 239; C. ». Hoxey, 16 Mass. 385; U.S. v. Brooks, 4 Cranch C. C. 427 ; Kidder v. S. 58 Ind. 68; Bush v. §. 5 Tex. Ap. 64. 8 Ante, § 275. 4 Vol. I. § 331 (2). 5 And see Vol. I. § 508-510, 514-516. This view is fully sustained by the reason- ing, and almost by the very case passed upon, in Rex v. Cheere, 4 B. & C. 902, 7 D. & R. 461. i 6 §. ». Hinson, 31 Ark, 638; Kindred v. S. 83 Tex. 67; Cockreham v. S. 7 Humph. 11; Bush v. 8. 5 Tex. Ap. 64; S. v. Ringer, 6 Blackf. 109; 8S. v. Stubble- field, 32 Mo. 563. ‘ 7 P. v. Degey, 2 Wheeler Crim. Cas. 135. 8 Rex v. Parry, Trem. P. C. 239. 9 U.S. v. Brooks, 4 Cranch C. C. 427. 1 Campbell v. C. 59 Pa, 266. 125 § 288 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. something of the like import.! Where the words of a statute were “any meeting of inhabitants of this State, met together for any lawful purpose,” an indictment thereon describing the meeting as “a certain collection of divers inhabitants of the State of Indiana, met together as a singing-school,” was adjudged inadequate. ? § 286 a. The Particular Vill or Parish — need not be stated in either the averment or proof of the place.® § 287. 1. The Manner of the Disturbance — must be proved as laid,* yet doubtless so only as to the substance of the issue.® If the allegation of it is surplusage, it need not be proved.* To illustrate, — 2. Variance — A charge that the defendant went drunk into a religious assembly, and there talked in a loud voice, and the like, is not sustained by proof of striking the building on the outside with a stick, to the disturbance of the worshippers with- in. “The State,” said Nash, C. J., “did not rest its charge against the defendant by averring that by loud and unusual noises, he had disquieted the congregation; in which case any such noises, however made, with a view to such disturbance, and attended with that effect, would have sustained the indict- ment; but it has particularized when the acts were done, and what they were.” ? § 287 a. 1. The Witnesses — should state the acts of disturb- ance, but not their opinion that they amounted to such. 2. The Evidence —should show either a participation of the defendants in the disturbance, or connect them with those who did the acts.9 § 288. Others disturbing. — Whether the indictment is on the common law or a statute, it will not avail the defendant, nor will he be permitted to show, that others had committed similar disturbances and no objection was made. 1§. v. Fisher, 3 Ire. 111. And see 5 Ante, § 281 (2). S. v. Jones, 53 Mo. 486. 6 Hull v. S. 120 Ind. 153. 2S. 7. Zimmerman, 53 Ind. 360. See 7. v. Sherrill, 1 Jones N. C. 508, Kidder v. 8. 58 Ind. 68. 509. 3 Corley v. S. 3 Tex. Ap. 412; Bush v. 8 Morris v. S. 84 Ala. 457; Calvert v. 8.5 Tex. Ap. 64; Warren v. 8.3 Heisk. 8.14 Tex. Ap. 154. 269; Kindred v, S. 833 Tex. 67. See ante, 9 Miller », S. 83 Ind. 334; Jackson »v. § 41, 111, 135 (1); Stratton »v. 8.13 Ark. S. 87 Ga. 432. And see S. v. Bledsoe, 47 688; S. v. McClure, 13 Tex. 23. Ark. 233; S. v. Jacobs, 103 N. C. 397. 4 Stratton v. 8.13 Ark. 688; Lyons v. W Harrison v. §. 87 Ala. 154, S. 25 Tex. Ap, 403. 126 CHAP. XVII. ] DISTURBING MEETINGS. § 290 II. Statutory Disturbances. § 289, 1. In England, — when the disturbance is to a congre- gation of worshipping dissenters, whose chapel to be lawful must be registered, averments may be necessary which are not so in this country.! As to those which should be the same in both countries, — ; 2. Indictment. — Archbold’s form sets out the special facts of the disturbance, in addition to covering the statutory terms, and there is probably no late English authority for omitting them.? § 290. 1. For American Use, — a considerable variety of forms is given in “Directions and Forms.”® Though there are diver- sities of opinion with us, on the whole our indictment is sub- stantially the same as the modern English, just stated. For example, where a statute made it punishable to “interrupt a congregation assembled for the purpose of worshipping the Deity,” an indictment, held good upon it, charged that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant “did unlawfully, contemptuously, and of purpose interrupt a congregation of Methodists, then and there assembled for the purpose of worshipping the Deity, by then and there talking and swearing with a loud voice.”* It is perceived that the character of the disturbance is set out, but not neces- sarily the precise words and specific acts.° Beyond this, the indictment should sufficiently conform to the statutory terms ;° as, — 2. “ Unlawfully.”—If a disturbing of the meeting “unlaw- fully” is prohibited, it will be inadequate to charge it as “wilfully.” 7 3. “ at or Near.” — Where the thing prohibited was a disturb- ance “at or near the place of worship,” the words “at or near” were at first adjudged necessary to be averred.§ But on subse- 1 New Crim. Law, I. § 542. 464; P. v. Crowley, 23 Hun, 412; Riggs 2 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed, 667, 19th ed. 998. He refers to Rex v. Cheere, 4B. & C. 902, 7 D.& R. 461, as to which see ante, § 285 (3), note. 8 Dir. & F. § 363-372. ® Cockreham v. S. 7 Humph.11. And see, as not essentially differing from this, S. v. Stubblefield, 32 Mo. 563; Kidder v. §. 58 Ind. 68; S. v. Ringer, 6 Blackf. 109 ; Lockett v. S. 40 Tex. 4; Hicks v. S. 60 Ga, v. &. 7 Lea, 475; Howard v. 8. 87 Ind. 68. 5S. v, Ratliff, 5 Eng. 530. And see cases in last note to ante, § 285 (3). 8 §. v. Kindrick, 21 Mo. Ap. 507; S. ». Cate, 58 N. H. 240; Cooper v. 8. 75 Ind. 62; Smith v. §. 63 Ala, 55. 7 §. v. Townsell, 3 Heisk. 6. § 296. 8 §. v. Doty, 5 Coldw. 33 127 See post, § 293 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. quent consideration the court overruled this decision; because, said Deaderick, J., the “precise locality of the offender . . . is not an essential element of the offence.”1 This accords with the general doctrine that the law holds an offence to be committed in the locality where the criminal act takes effect, and it is immaterial whether the personal presence of the doer is there or elsewhere.? § 291. Some Particular Questions on the Statutes : — Disturbing School. — A statute made punishable “every person who shall at any time wilfully interrupt or disturb any district school, or any public, private, or select school, while the same is in session.” And it was adjudged insufficient to charge that the defendant wilfully disturbed a school met for culture in church music, because omitting to cover the last clause of the statute by saying that the school was in session. § 292, Bvidence of Intent. — Under the provision that one who sells bread or other named thing within a mile of any wor- shipping assembly, so as to interrupt it, shall be dealt with as a rioter, his illegal intent may be inferred from his doing and persisting in the forbidden acts, to the creating and continuing of the disturbance. “As men seldom do unlawful acts with innocent intentions,” said the learned judge, “the law presumes every act in itself unlawful to have been criminally intended.” * § 293. 1. Society or Members. — Where the forbidden disturb- ance is-of “any religious society 07 any members thereof,” ® both clauses may be proceeded upon in one count.® The allegation may be that the defendant, “being present at and when a certain religious society was convened and met together for the worship of Almighty God, did then and there interrupt, molest, and dis- turb said society and meeting, and the individual members thereof, by then and there in a loud, insulting, and boisterous manner talking,” &.* And — 2. The Name of the Society, — it was also held, need not be averred; for it was not essential, observed Sullivan, J., “to the existence of a society convened for public worship that it should be known by any distinctive or sectarian name.” 8 1 Warren v. 8. 3 Heisk. 269, 271. 5 New Crim. Law, II. § 305. ° Vol. I. § 53. 6 Vol. I. § 434, 436. 8 S. vu. Gager, 28 Conn. 232. 7S. v. Ringer, 6 Blackf. 109. 4 West v. 8. 9 Humph. 66, 70. 8 Tb. 128 CHAP. XVII] DISTURBING MEETINGS. | § 299 § 294. Whether the Means of Disturbance — must, by general doctrine, be set out we have already considered.! While possibly there may be some at the present day who deny its general necessity,” there are statutes which so far specify the means as to render some averment of them plainly indispensable to a covering of the statutory termis.® § 295. Duplicity of Means.— Since an offence which may be committed in different ways is only one offence,‘ a count is not double which charges that the disturbance was by “ profanely swearing,” “and by talking and laughing aloud.” In the case holding this, it was said that the latter clause was not in the statute, therefore the allegation was mere surplusage.® But if it had been in the statute, it would not have been surplusage, yet the indictment would still have been good., § 296. Following Statutory Words.°— Where “wilfully, or maliciously, or contemptuously ” are statutory words, they must be in the indictment.? And “congration” in the indictment, instead of the statutory “congregation,” is insufficient.® But it need only follow accurately and fully the words of the statute.® § 297. Assault laid as Disturbance. — A charge of assault on one named, so near, &c., as to disturb, &c., is not good for assault alone; because it merely describes the assault as the means for effecting the disturbance.” § 298. “House for Worship” — ‘“ Meeting-house ” — “ Assem- bled,” &c. — The word “meeting-house,” in a statute, is suffi- ciently supplied by “house for religious worship” in the indictment. And the allegation that the people were “assembled for religious worship” is equivalent to saying they were attend- ing a “ protracted or other religious meeting.” 4 § 299. Town Meeting — Persistent Disturbance. — Under the Massachusetts statute of 1785, to punish disorderly conduct in town meetings, the indictment was required to charge the defend- ant with having persisted in his disorder after notice from the 1 Ante, § 285, 289, 290. 5 S. v. Horn, 19 Ark. 578. 2 ©. v. Daniels, 2 Va. Cas. 402. See ® See ante, § 290. New Crim. Law, II. § 303. 78. », Bankhead, 25 Mo. 558; §S. 2» 8 §. v. Schieneman, 64 Mo. 386; S. v. Hopper, 27 Mo. 599. Minyard,7 Eng. 156; Fletcher v. S. 7 8S. v. Mitchell, 25 Mo. 420. Eng. 169. 9 S. v. Stubblefield, 32 Mo. 563. 4 Ante, § 293 and the places there re- 10 §, v. Bankhead, 25 Mo. 558. ferred to. u §, v. Yarborough, 19 Tex. 161. VOL. 11. —9 129 § 301 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. moderator; and with refusal or nee leet to withdraw, after being directed to, as provided by the statute.! § 300. Summary Conviction — Writ of Error. — In Pennsylvania, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, on certiorari to a justice of the peace, upon a summary conviction under the act of 1847, for disturbing a religious meeting, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court on writ of error.? § 301. In General, the Procedure for this Offence —is, neither under the common law nor under our American statutes, so settled by multiplied adjudications as to render impertinent any intelligent appeal to principle. And the teachings of principle, it is believed, are sufficiently explained in the foregoing sections. 1 C. «. Hoxey, 16 Mass. 385. 2 C. v. Burkhart, 23 Pa. 521. For DOGS, UNLICENSED KEEPING OF, see Dir. & F. § 177. DOMESTIC ANIMALS, OFFENCES CONCERNING, see Stat. Crimes, also Dir. & F. § 163-177. DOUBLE OFFENCES, see Dir. & F. § 91 et seq. and places there referred to. DOUBLE VOTING, see Exzction Orrences in Stat. Crimes, and Dir. & F. § 382-400. DRUNKENNESS, as an offence, see Stat. Crimes; Dir. & F. § 373-376. As an excuse for crimes, see New Crim. Law. 130 CHAP. XVIII.] DUELLING. § 304 CHAPTER XVIII. DUELLING. Consult, — for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, II. § 311-317, For the indictment, &c., Dir. & F. § 877-881. And for various incidental questions, see the indexes to this series of books. § 302. Resulting in Death.— There may be a few States in which a killing in a duel is by statute an offence distinct from murder.!' But under our American statutes generally and at the common law it is not,? consequently the procedure for such killing belongs to the title Homicide. Thus, — § 303. Charge of Fighting — (Connected Offences).— The Virginia court deemed the fighting of a duel not a separate offence; hence the simple allegation that the defendant “did fight a duel with pistols” was held ill on demurrer. Yet growing out of a duel there might be an indictable breach of the peace, as affray or assault; or, if death ensued, it would be murder.? § 304. 1. Challenging to a Duel — is a species of solicitation to commit a crime,* so that — 2. The Indictment for Challenging —is constructed in the manner explained for solicitation under the title Attempt.® Archbold has a count drawn on the common law, doubtless adequate, which simply avers that on, &c., at, &c., the defend- ant (“contriving,” &c. an introduction plainly needless ®) “wickedly, wilfully, and maliciously did provoke, instigate, excite, and challenge” a person named “to fight a duel with and against him the said” defendant.’ The books contain forms 1 P. v. Bartlett, 14 Cal. 651. Ellenborough, C. J. in Rex v. Philipps, 6 2 New Crim. Law, II. § 311. East, 464, 470. 3 C. v. Lambert, 9 Leigh, 603; New 7 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. Crim. Law, II. § 311, 312; Rex v. Rice, ed. 604, 19th ed. 911. And see Rex ». 8 East, 581; Reg. v. Young, 8 Car. & P. Philipps, 6 East, 464; C. v. Hart, 6 J. J. 644, Mar. 119, Compare this with ante, § 74. 4 Rex v. Rice, 3 East, 581. And for another form see S, uv. Farrier, 2 5 Ante, § 74-76. Hawks, 487. 6 Yet see the observations of Lord 131 § 307 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. more elaborate,! but in a simple and ordinary case no just reason appears for preferring them to this.? § 805. 1. Setting out Challenge. — Though the challenge is in writing, — as, where it is by letter, — the words need not be set out.? It is sometimes done, and to this there is no legal objec- tion.* Plainly, therefore, where it is verbal,® its particular words are not required to be given. And — 2, That the Parties understood — the written challenge to be such need not be averred.® § 306. 1. Place of Combat — Averring Challenge. — Under the statutory words “give, accept, or knowingly carry a challenge in writing or otherwise to fight in single combat, with any deadly weapon, either in or out of the State,” the place of com- bat is immaterial and need not be alleged.? And the averment that the defendant gave the prosecutor a challenge to fight in single combat was held equivalent to saying that he challenged him to fight.® 2. “In the State” — (Residence). — “Any person, resident in or being a citizen of this State” was by statute prohibited to “send, give, or accept a challenge to fight a duel within this State.” Still the inhibition was held to extend to all persons, residents, citizens or not, who “shall, within this State, send, or give, or accept a challenge to fight a duel.” And the indict- ment for carrying a challenge was held not to require the aver- ment that the person challenging is “a citizen or resident of this State.” 9 § 807. Venue.— Though the duel is to be fought out of the State, the county of the challenge in it must be averred and proved.!° So also must be the county even on a charge of leaving the State to fight a duel.1! “Where the letter containing the challenge was put into the post-office in the county of Middlesex, 1 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 849; 6 Went. Pl. v. C. 4 Met. Ky. 5. And see C. x. Rowan, 461. ‘ 3 Dana, 395. 2 Yet see the form in Dir. & F. § 378. 7 Ivey v. §..12 Ala. 276, And see 8 Brown v. C. 2 Va. Cas. 516; 8. v. Harris v, 8. 58 Ga. 332, Farrier, 1 Hawks, 487. As to Kentucky, 8 Ivey v. S. supra. see Heffren v. C. 4 Met. Ky. 5. 9S. v. Cunningham, 2 Speers, 246. 43 Chit. Crim. Law, 849; Moody v. And see Moody v. C. 4 Met. Ky. 1. C. 4 Met. Ky. 1; C.v. Pope, 3 Dana, 418. 0 C. v. Boott, Thacher Crim. Cas. 390, 5 §. v. Strickland, 2 Nott & McC. 181; 394, 399, 400. See Heard v. Faris, 1 Litt. S. v. Perkins, 6 Blackf. 20, 245; Gordon v. 8.4 Misso. 375, 8 Moody e.C.4 Met. Ky.1; Heffren 4 §, v, Warren, 14 Tex. 406. 132 CHAP, XVIII] DUELLING. § 311 to be delivered to the prosecutor in another county, Lord Ellen- borough held that the party might be indicted in Middlesex; for sending the challenge is the offence, whether it reach the person to whom it is sent or not is immaterial.” ?! § 808. 1. Declarations of Seconds. — When the wrongful com- bination about the duel has been shown,? the declarations of the seconds are admissible against one another and their principals. So are those of the principals against the seconds. Moreover, — 2. Seconds as Witnesses. The seconds may be witnesses against their principals; but unless they accept the position of approvers or accomplices,® they are not compellable to testify.® § 809. What for Jury —- Explaining Note of Challenge. —- It is for the jury to decide whether or not there was a challenge.’ To aid them in this, the note sent from the one party to the other, and parol testimony in explanation, may be produced. § 310. To Provoke or Entice One to Challenge — another to a duel is indictable at the common law.? Archbold’s form for it sets out the words;!° but evidently, within principles already explained in this chapter, they are not necessary. He says: “Add a general count, not setting out the words, but merely charging the defendant with having used threats and opprobrious language to the prosecutor with intent, &c.” § 311. For Carrying a Challenge —to a duel, the indictment should aver a sctenter, and it should be proved.¥ 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. 8 C.v. Hart, 6 J. J. Mar. 119; 8. v. Tay- ed. 604, referring to Rex v. Walhaee, 2 lor, 3 Brey. 243; C.v. Pope, 3 Dana, 418; Camp. 506. Herriott v. S.1 McMul. 126. And see C. 2 Vol. I. § 1248 (2); ante, § 228-230. uv. Hooper, Thacher Crim. Cas. 400. 3 S. v. Dupont, 2 McCord, 334 ; Moody 9 Rex v. Philipps, 6 East, 464. v. C. 4 Met. Ky. 1. 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. 4 C. v. Boott, Thacher Crim. Cas. 390. ed. 605. And see the form in Dir. & F. ‘8 Vol. I. § 1156-1172. § 380. 6 Rex v. England, 2 Leach, 767, Car. 11 U.S. v. Shackelford, 3 Cranch C. C. Crim. Law, 3d ed. 232. 178. 7S. v. Strickland, 2 Nott & McC. 181; Ivey v. 8, 12 Ala, 276. 133 § 313 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. CHAPTER XIX. EAVESDROPPING. Consult, — for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, I. § 1122-1124; for the indict- ment, &c., Dir. & F. § 796,797. And see, for various questions, the indexes to this series of books. Consult also the title Nuisancz. i* § 312. Form of Indictment. — The modern books of precedents appear not to contain any form of the indictment for this nearly antiquated offence. It belongs to the class known as nuisances, consequently the indictment should be constructed after the general manner of this class. The following is suggested : — That A, late of, &c., at, &c., on, &c., and on each and every day thence continually until the day of the finding of this indictment,! was and is a com- mon eavesdropper, and there continually and on each and all of said days and times did listen about the houses and under the windows and eaves of the houses of the people there dwelling, hearing tattle, and repeating it in the hearing of all persons, to the common nuisance, &c., and against the peace, &c. § 313. Evidence. —It may be desirable, and perhaps it is legally necessary,” to prove, at least, three instances of offend- ing; from which, and from the more general evidence, the jury will infer the habit of eavesdropping, wherein probably is the gist of the offence.® 1 Vol. L. § 395; ante, § 103 (1). 2 New Crim. Law, I. § 1102 (2); II. § 65. court. But the species of the offence then under consideration, assuming it to be rightly called eavesdropping, still con- 8 In S. v. Pennington, 3 Head, 299, 75 Am. D. 771, sustaining, in matter and form, an indictment for stealthily ap- proaching a grand-jury room and hearing what was done therein (New Crim. Law, I. § 1123), the idea of repetitions of the act, amounting to a common nuisance, was evidently not in the mind of the sisted in a sort of obstruction of public justice; and there, perhaps, repetitions may not be necessary to the nuisance, — just as a single obstruction of a public way may be indictable, though it does not continue Jong. See the form in this case; somewhat changed in Dir. & F. § 797. For ELECTION OFFENCES, see Stat. Crimes; and Dir. & F. § 382-400. And con- sult the indexes to this series of books. 184 CHAP. XXx.] EMBEZZLEMENT. § 315 CHAPTER XX. EMBEZZLEMENT. § 314. Introduction. 815-330. In General. 831-348. In Particular Cases. Consult, —for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, II. § 318-383. For the forms, Dir. & F. § 401-412. And for collateral things, see the indexes to this series of books. See also the title Larceny. § 314. 1. The Varying Terms of Statutes—and the differing statutory regulations of the procedure, not uniform in the States, and not always continuous in the same State, render the compre- hension of this subject difficult. Hence, — 2. The Practitioner — can accept what is said in this chapter only as a help, not absolutely as a guide; for if he would proceed safely, he must also consult carefully the statutes of his own State, and the decisions of his own courts thereon. 3. How Chapter divided. — We shall consider the subject, I. In General; II. In Particular Cases. I, In General. § 315. The Indictment — charges, besides its formal parts, — 1. That the defendant stood in some fiduciary relation to an- other person named, within the terms of the statute; as, that he was the other’s “servant,” or “clerk,” or “treasurer.” 2. That by virtue of such relation, he received some specified thing of value for and on behalf of his master or employer, of a sort made by the statute a subject of embezzlement. 8. That he did embezzle it, or some specified portion thereof. 4, Under a part, not all, of the statutes, that he did steal, &c. the same, proceeding with the formalities of a count for larceny. We shall see that in principle this allegation is needless; but the practice is to insert it, and it seems to be required by the decisions. 135 § 318 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. 5. All this, and anything else which the particular statute renders material, must be stated with a fulness and in a manner to cover the statutory terms, and apprise the defendant of what he is to answer to, conformably to the rules which govern indict- ments both at the common law and upon, statutes. ! Not proposing to follow the order of the averments, we shall more particularly consider them as to — § 316. Charging simply as Larceny. — Where the statute, like the parent one of 39 Geo. 3,2 provides that whoever embezzles a thing “shall be deemed to have feloniously stolen the same,” it would appear to accord with the Virginia doctrine® to accept as adequate an indictment simply in the common-law form for the larceny thereof. But the English courts, and generally the American, deny this, and require the indictment to set out the statutory elements of the offence. And — . § 817. In Principle — it should be so; because the statute makes punishable a specified act when performed under circumstances it points out, and only on an allegation both of the circumstances and of the act can its criminality be made to appear. The common- law form for larceny avers neither the circumstances of an embez- zlement nor the act. Hence it is wholly inadequate.6 But — § 318. Concluding as for Larceny.— The statutory provision that the defendant shall he deemed guilty of larceny is merely a conclusion of law; and alike in reason and on the rules of criminal pleading accepted in other cases,® no notice of it need be taken in the indictment. The judges know the law;7 and equally well might they require the indictment to inform them of the punishment, or of the terms of the statute whereon it is drawn, or of their duty to defer sentence till the prisoner is con- victed, as, after averring all the facts which the statute makes elements in the new larceny, to tell them it is larceny, or repeat against him the charge of larceny in another form. One setting 1 See forms in Dir, & F. § 401-412; 3 4 Stat. Crimes, § 416, 418, 421, 422; Chit. Crim. Law, 962 et seq.; Archb. Kibs v. P. 81 Ill. 599; C.v. Kirby, 9 Cush. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 19th ed. 482; Rex v. 284; C. v. Simpson, 9 Met. 138; Rex v. Johnson, 3 M, & S. 539, 2 Leach, 1103; Johnson, 3 M. & S. 539; Rex v. Crighton, U.S. v. Clark, Crabbe, 584; C.v. Hussey, Russ. & Ry. 62; C. v. Pratt, 132 Mass. 111 Mass. 432; P. v. Doss, 39 Cal. 428; 246. S. v. Hebel, 72 Ind. 361; C. v. Pratt, 137 5 And see observations by Dewey, J. Mass. 98. | in C. v. Simpson, 9 Met. 138, 142. 2 New Crim. Law, II. § 321. 6 Vol. I. § 329, 509, 514, 515. 8 Ante, § 185 (1). 7 New Crim. Law, I. § 294-300, 311, 312. 136 OHAP. XX.] EMBEZZLEMENT. § 319 out of the facts of one offence is enough.! But evidently by a blunder, the cases generally hold or assume, and so do the books of precedents, that the indictment must aver this conclusion of law, and charge twice over the larceny, once according to the real facts, and again contrary tothem. Yet the author is not able to refer to any case wherein this has been distinctly adjudged on any intelligent consideration of the principles.2 Resulting from this blunder, or as a part of it, — § 819. 1. Contrary to Reason. — The pleader, in setting out one offence, was by the adjudications compelled to follow the conflicting rules governing the allegations for each and both of two differing offences. Thus, — 2. To illustrate. —In common-law larceny the thief takes by trespass an article of personal property out of the possession of its owner. The latter knows what it is, he has handled it, and can describe it, therefore he must describe it. But since the theft was a secret wrong and the prosecutor does not know how it was committed, the pleader need not allege the method. On the other hand, in statutory embezzlement, the thing embezzled has not ordinarily been handled by the master; so he cannot state what it is with such minuteness as though it had heen stolen, and the law should not compel him to. He should be permitted simply to mention the thing in a general way. But as he can set out particularly the relations between himself and the servant, he should be required to do this, so far as it materially affects the offence, or is desirable for its identification. And the like rule should be applied to the other circumstances within the probable knowledge of the prosecutor.? But while the blunder was rightly not permitted to relieve the pleader from alleging anything which the law of embezzlement thus properly required, it wrongly subjected him to the duty also of setting out, in addi- tion, what the common law of larceny demanded, contrary to reason. And this uncalled-for strictness gave facilities for the 1 And see Stat. Crimes, § 420-422; 8. v. Sweet, 2 Or. 127. 2 Rex v. McGregor, 3 B. & P. 106, 2 Leach, 932; Rex v. Johnson, 3 M. & S. 539; Rex v. Crighton, Russ. & Ry. 62. Yet C. v. Pratt, 132 Mass. 246, which holds this conclusion to be necessary, seems to have been pretty fully, if not satisfactorily, considered; at the same time, the real objection to this conclusion appears to have escaped the notice of the judges, certainly there is no attempt to answer it. See also S. v. Lanier, 89 N.C. 517; S, vu. Fain, 106 N. C. 760; S. v. Fricker, 45 La. An. 646; 8. v. Harmon, 106 Mo. 635; S. v. Butler, 26 Minn. 90. 8 See, in Vol. I., the chapter commenc- ing § 493. 137 § 321 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND. THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. needless escape of offenders through the meshes of pleading, till legislation interposed.! § 320. 1. The Description of the Thing Embezzled — was there- fore, in the absence of legislative interposition, required by the courts to be the same as in an indictment for the larceny thereof. So it was under the parent statute of 39 Geo. 3, c. 85, and thence onward; “for the new offence created by the act of Parliament being a larceny, it must be described in the indictment as such, and with all the properties of a larceny.”2 And — 2. The Ownership — must be alleged, and with the same accuracy, and after the same rules, as in common-law larceny.? 3. As to alleging Value, — the case is in principle within expla- nations in the first volume. Some reference to authorities appears in a note.® § 321. 1. In what Part of the Indictment — the description is given of the embezzled thing is immaterial. Thus, if it identifies bank-notes, then states that they were received for the prosecu- tor by the defendant his clerk, then embezzled by the latter, the conclusion may be that “so the defendant did feloniously steal, take, and carry away the bank notes,” laying them as the prosecutor’s.§ 2. Sums of Money. — To say that the thing embezzled was “the sum of one pound eleven shillings” has been held inadequate; because “the indictment ought to set out specifically, at least some article of the property embezzled, and the evidence should support that statement.”7 So, “divers sums of money, amounting in the whole to a large sum of money, to wit, the sum of £10,” 1 As to how it did in England, see post, 332 (1). 2 Rex v. McGregor, 3 B. & P. 106, 109, 2 East P. C. 576; P. v. Cox, 40 Cal. 275, 277; S. v. Muston, 21 La, An. 442; C. v. Butterick, 100 Mass. 1,97 Am. D. 65; S. v. Ward, 48 Ark. 36,3 Am. St. 213; S.v. Thompson, 42 Ark. 517; Bork v. P. 16 Hun, 476. Books or Printed Sheets. — Tf one delivers printed sheets to be bound, to another who embezzles them when he has folded, stitched, and bound them, the indictment should charge them, not as printed sheets, but as books. C. v. Merri- field, 4 Met. 468. 8 Ib.; C. v. Norton, 11 Allen, 110; P. v. Potter, 35 Cal. 110; Reg. v. Robinson, 138 Law Rep. 1 C. C. 80, 10 Cox G. C. 467; U.S. v. Okie, 5 Blatch. 516; Livingston v. §. 16 Tex. Ap. 652; 8. v. Lyon, 16 Vroom, 272; Alden v. S. 18 Fla. 187; S. v. Roubles, 43 La. An. 200, 26 Am. St. 179; S. v. Knox, 17 Neb. 683. See S. ev. Walton, 62 Me. 106. 4 Vol. I. § 540, 541, 567. 5 Cooksie v. 8. 26 Tex. Ap. 72; Reside v.§. 10 Tex. Ap. 675; Gerard v. S. 10 Tex. Ap. 690; P. v. Donald, 48 Mich. 491 ; S. v. Mook, 40 Ohio St. 588. 5 Rex v. Johnson, 3 M.& 8. 589. And see Rex v. Tyers, Russ. & Ry. 402; Reg. v, Parfitt, 8 Car. & P. 288. 7 Rex v. Furneaux, Russ. & Ry. 335. And see Noble v. 8. 59 Ala. 73. CHAP. Xx.] EMBEZZLEMENT. § 322 is insufficient. And the allegation that it was a certain sum in “United States currency ” is not good.2? But — 3. Statutes, — in England and our States have, as above inti- mated, variously modified the rule requiring the description of the thing to be the same as in larceny. Upon them simply, and in conjunction with common-law doctrines, various questions have arisen, not best, on account of their local and changing nature, to be here discussed. 4, Unknown. — Aside from these statutes, something — it is not clear just how much — of the otherwise required particular- ity may be dispensed with by alleging, where it can be truly done, that the further: description is to the grand jurors unknown.4 § 322. Did “embezzle.” —- It is believed that the single statutory words, “did embezzle,” sufficiently indicate the criminal act; just as “did burn” in arson,® “did make an assault” in assault,® “did solicit ” in attempt,’ did “break and enter” in burglary, and “did conspire” in conspiracy,? are alone adequate, being the terms most accurately expressing the idea,!° and requiring and admitting of no aid from circumlocution." Generally the statute itself has one or more other like verbs connected dis- junctively with “embezzle,” —for example, “shall fraudulently embezzle, secrete, or make away with,” in 39 Geo. 3, c. 85, — and then commonly, for practical reasons, the pleader chooses to connect conjunctively with “embezzle” one or more of the other verbs; as, under this statute, he says, “embezzle and 1 Rex v. Flower, 5 B. & C. 736, 8 D. & R. 512. And see Bork v. P. 16 Hun, 476; S. v, Combs, 47 Kan. 136; Reside v. S. 10 Tex. Ap. 675; Gerard ec. S. 10 Tex. Ap. 690; Gady v. S. 83 Ala. 51, 2 Leftwich v. C. 20 Grat. 716. 3 Rex v. Grove, 1 Moody, 447, 7 Car. & P. 635; Reg. v. Sharp, 2 Cox C. C. 181; Reg. v. Balls, Law Rep. 1 C. C. 328, 12 Cox C. C. 96; Block v. 8. 44 Tex. 620; S. v. Smith, 13 Kan. 274; C. v. Concannon, 5 Allen, 502; P. v. De La Guerra, 31 Cal. 416; C. v. Hussey, 111 Mass. 432; C. v. Bennett, 118 Mass. 443; Brown v. S. 18 Ohio St. 496; U.S. v. Laneaster, 2 McLean, 431; Farnum v. U.S. 1 Colo. 309; U.S. v. Clark, Crabbe, 584; Lowen- thal v. S. 32 Ala. 589; Mayo v. S. 30 Ala. 32, 33; S. v. Thompson, 32 La. An. 796; C. v, Wyman, 8 Met. 247; S. v. Carrick, 16 Nev. 120; S.v. Hays, 78 Mo. 600; Fleener v. 8. 58 Ark. 98; Gady v. S. 83 Ala. 51; C. v, Leisenring, 11 Philad. 392. 4 Vol. I § 493-495, 546-553; C. v. Hussey, supra; C. v. Sawtelle, 11 Cush. 142. 5 Ante, § 33, 46. 6 Ante, § 55, 56. T Ante, § 74, 88. 8 Ante, § 140. ® Ante, § 205 (1). 10 Vol. I. § 514. 1 See the precedents referred to, ante, § 315; S. v. Wolff, 34 La. An. 1153; S.v. Combs, 47 Kan. 136. 12 Vol. I. § 434, 436. 139 § 323a@ SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. ‘[BOOK XIL. secrete,” ! though “embezzle” alone would be equally well in law. § 823. 1. Fraudulently.—If “embezzle” is either verbally or by construction? qualified in the statute by “fraudulently,” or any other like word, the qualifying term should, of course, be also in the indictment.? And — 2. “ Feloniously.” — Where, as in most of our States, the offence is felony,‘ the more prevalent opinion requires it to be charged as committed “feloniously,” whether this word is in the statute or not.® But it was adjudged sufficient, under 39 Geo. 3, c. 85, to say in the conclusion that the prisoner “feloniously did steal, take,” &c., though the earlier part of the indictment did not have “feloniously ” before “embezzle.” ® § 823 a. 1. The Fiduciary Relation — sustained by the defend- ant, and by the statute made an element of the offence, must be averred.? But the origin or particulars of the relation, or any- thing more than that the defendant was the injured party’s “agent,” or the like, in that wherein he acted, is unnecessary.® And in the proof, it suffices, for example, to show that the defendant was merely de facto the officer he is alleged to be.® Again, — 2. Received through such Relation — From whom. — Under statutes like 39 Geo. 3, c. 85, it is added in the averment that by virtue of such relation and employment, he received into his possession the thing which he is accused of embezzling. In reason, where, as in England," whether by construction of ‘the 13 Chit. Crim. Law, 963; Rex v. Crighton, Russ. & Ry. 62; S. v. Palmer, 82 La. An. 565. And see Lowenthal v. S. 32 Ala. 589; C. v. Mead, 160 Mass. 319. 2 Dir. & F. § 82. 8 Bridgers v. S.8 Tex. Ap. 145; Evans v. U. §. 153 U. S. 584; 8. v Lyon, 16 Vroom, 272. 4 As to which see New Crim. Law, II. § 380. 5 Vol. I. § 534-536. See P. v. Garcia, 25 Cal. 531. 6 Rex v. Crighton, Russ. & Ry. 62. 7 P. v. Tryon, 4 Mich. 665; P.v. Allen, 5 Denio, 76; Reg. v. Foulkes, Law Rep. 2C. C. 150; Gravatt v. S. 25 Ohio St. 162; S. v. Newton, 26 Ohio St. 265 ; Reg. v. Bayley, Dears. & B. 121; 8. c. nom. Reg. 140 ‘Logue, 160 Mass. 551, 553, v. Bailey, 7 Cox C. C. 179; S. v. Roubles, 43 La. An. 200, 26 Am. St. 179; S. v. Washington, 41 La. An. 778; Fleener v.S. 58 Ark. 98. 8 §. v. Poland, 83 La. An. 1161; S. »v. Nicholson, 67 Md. 1; P. v. Hill, 3 Utah, 334; Terry v. 8.1 Wash. 277; S. v. Mohr, 68 Mo. 303; S. v. Goss, 69 Me. 22; S. v. Meyers, 68 Mo. 266; Ritter v. S. 111 Ind. 324, 9 §. v. Findley, 101 Mo. 217; C. ». And see P. v, Treadwell, 69 Cal. 226, 10 New Crim. Law, II. § 360; 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 962, 963; Reg. v. Bayley, supra. 4. New Crim. Law, II. § 365. CHAP. XX.] EMBEZZLEMENT. § 326 statute or by its terms, the thing to be the subject of embezzle- ment must come to the servant from a third person and not from his master, the indictment should state from whom it was re- ceived, or say it was not from the master ;! still, in practice, the forms do not include this, and it appears not to be deemed neces- sary.2_ There are statutes under which it must be averred that the thing did come from the master.® § 324. Variance.— A charge of embezzling “certain bills, commonly called Exchequer bills,” was not sustained on its appearing that the person who signed them for the government was not authorized; for they were not the things averred.* So an indictment for the embezzlement of printed sheets is not proved by that of bound books. Nor is an agreement to trans- mit a check satisfied by a check on a bank wherein the drawer has no funds, and which the bank declines to pay.® § 825. 1. Joinder. — Counts for larceny may be joined with those for embezzlement.? And — 2. Blection. —If in fact one offence only is meant, the prose- cutor will not be compelled to elect on which counts to proceed.® § 326. The County, in which to bring the indictment, is sometimes within the election of the prosecutor.® Generally it may be either in the one where the prisoner received the thing, or in that wherein he denied its receipt, or neglected to charge himself in the books of account.” 1 And see Alden v. S.18 Fla. 187; S. v. Roubles, 43 La. An. 200, 26 Am. St. 179; Washington v. 8. 72 Ala. 272. 2 Reg. v. Bayley, supra; Rex v. Bea- call, 1 Car. & P. 310; Rex v. Wellings, 1 Car. & P. 454. At the place last cited, Park, J. said to the prisoner: “As the indictments follow the words of the stat- ute, and state that the money was re- ceived by you for your employers, and by virtue of your employments, the judges are unanimously of opinion that that is sufficient, without saying from whom the money was received.” This decision may, therefore, have proceeded on the idea that what was alleged amounted to a negation of the money having come to the servant from his master. If so, the principle is not antagonistic to what is maintained in the text. 8 P. v. Bailey, 28 Cal. 577. But if he takes personal * Rex v. Aslett, 2 Leach, 954,1 New Rep. 1, Russ. & Ry. 67; Rex v. Johnson, 2 Leach, 1103, 1105. 5 C, v. Merrifield, 4 Met. 468. ante, § 320 (1), note. 6 Warriner v. P. 74 Ill. 346. And see further as to variance, C. v. O’Keefe, 121 Mass. 59; Reg. v. Keena, Law Rep. 1 C.C. 113, 11 Cox C. C. 123. 7 Rex v. Johnson, 3 M. & S. 539; Mayo. S. 80 Ala. 32. 8 Vol. I. § 457 (2); S. ». Porter, 26 Mo. 201. See Jackson v.S, 76 Ga. 551; S. v. Malim, 14 Nev. 288; Gravatt v. S. 25 Ohio St. 162. 9 Vol. I. § 61 (2). 10 Reg. v. Rogers, 3 Q. B. D. 28; Rex v. Taylor, 2 Leach, 974, Russ. & Ry. 63, 3 B. & P. 596; Rex v. Hobson, Russ. & Ry. 56, 2 Leach, 975; Reg. v. Murdock, 2 Den. C. C. 298, 8 Eng. L. & Eq. 577; P. 141 See § 327 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL property in one county to deliver in another, he is not liable in the former should the intent to embezzle it not be entertained until he has it in the latter. In the absence of evidence as to when the criminal intent was formed,” and especially of any carrying of the thing into another county,? proof of the receipt of it in the county of the indictment may suffice to the allegation of venue. § 827. The Evidence : 1. Some Questions — relating to what may be deemed the evi- dence, of a nature peculiar to this offence, were considered in “New Criminal Law,” under the inquiry after the act of embez- zlement.6 Aside from them, there is nothing distinguishing it: from others as to the evidence. Thus, 2. All the Blements—of the offence must be proved.§ Hence, — 3. Larceny. — Where the defendant asked a girl to lend him a small sum of money, whereupon she handed him a larger to count in her presence, and he refused to return any, and fled with the whole, embezzlement was held not-+proved; because these facts do not constitute it, but larceny.’ 4, Other Instances — of like embezzlements may be shown in aid of the proofs of the criminal intent.2 And — 5, Straitened Circumstances — of the defendant, creating temp-: tations, and a need of that whereof the embezzlement is charged, may, in connection with other evidence, be admissible.® 6. Books of Account, public documents, and the like, are competent when within the ordinary rules of evidence. ” 7. The Ownership ! — of things embezzled cannot-be proved by the declarations of the alleged owner, though dead.” v. McKinney, 10 Mich. 54; And see Ex 8 Ante, § 189, 235 (2), 261 (2), and the parte Palmer, 86 Cal. 631; Soule v. 8.71 places there referred to; Reg. v. Richard- Ga. 267. son, 8 Cox C. C. 448; C. v. Tuckerman, 1 P. v. Murphy, 51 Cal. 376 Compare 10 Gray, 173, 197; C. v. Shepard, 1 Allen, with this Reg v. Rogers, supra. 575; Jackson v. 8. 76 Ga. 551; P. v. Gray, 2 Rex v. Hobson, supra. 66 Cal. 271; P. v. Neyce, 86 Cal. 393. 8 S. v. New, 22 Minn. 76. 9 Bulloch v.S. 10 Ga. 47,54 Am. D. 4 And see C. v, Concannon, 5 Allen, 369. 502; Reg. v. Rogers, 3 Q. B. D. 28, 14 1 P.v. McKinney, 10 Mich. 54; Shiv- Cox C. C. 22. ers v. S. 58 Ga. 149; Reg. v. Overton, 5 New Crim. Law, II. § 372-378. Dears, 308, 6 Cox'C. C. 277, 8 Thomas v. Dunaway, 30 Ill. 373; 11 Ante, § 320 (2). Ratteree v. 8. 77 Ga. 774. 2 C. v. Sanders, 14 Gray, 394, 77 Am. 7 C. v. O'Malley, 97 Mass. 584. D. 335. 142 CHAP, Xx.] EMBEZZLEMENT. § 329 8. The Delivery — of the property to the defendant sufficiently appears if made through his agent.? 9, The Agreement for Service, — if in writing, should be pro- duced, or its non-production accounted for.? 10. The Permission of the Owner — to convert the thing to the defendant’s use, if it exists, may be shown.? § 328. Differing Terms of Statutes. — Practically the foregoing doctrines are more or less modified under statutes in terms other than those with reference to which they were written.4 The indictment must cover the statute on which it is drawn;° it ordi- narily need do no more. Again, — § 329. Different States. — Partly owing to differing views of judges, and partly to diversities in the general criminal-law legislation of the States, like statutory words may not have in all the same effect. 1S. v. Hinckley, 38 Me. 21. 2 In re Clapton, 3 Cox C. C. 126; P. v. Hust, 49 Cal. 653. 8 Henderson v.§.1 Tex. Ap. 4382. See U.S. . Taintor, 11 Blatch. 374. 4S. v. Walton, 62 Me. 106; C. v. Ben- nett, 118 Mass. 443. 5 S. v. Foster, 11 Towa, 291; S. »v. Munch, 22 Minn. 67; S. v. New, 22 Minn. 76; U.S. v. Okie, 5 Blatch, 516. 6 P. v. Garcia, 25 Cal. 531; Alderman v. §. 57 Ga. 3867; U. S. v. Patterson, 6 McLean, 466. 7 Alabama.— An indictment ‘in the form prescribed by the Code is good. Lowenthal v. S. 32 Ala. 589; Mayo v. S. 30 Ala. 32. Arkansas. — Under a statute to punish embezzlement by every officer ‘‘ who has taken an oath of office,” these statutory words must appear in allegation. Wood v. 8. 47 Ark. 488. -So, an indictment against a county treasurer must allege a settlement of his accounts, &c. S. »v. Govan, 48 Ark. 76. Against -county sur- veyor, Turner v. Blount, 49 Ark. 361. Intent to embezzle, Datson v. 8, 51 Ark. 119; Fleener v. S. 58 Ark. 98. California. — An indictment against a bailee for the embezzlement of gold dust and coin must not only aver ownership and value as in larceny, but also set out particularly the bailment and its charac- ter, and charge the conversion. P. v. In a note,’ some adjudications are given in Cohen, 8 Cal. 42, 43, 44. See further, as to this, Stat. Crimes, § 422. And see P. v. Johnson, 71 Cal. 384. An instru- ment set out in the indictment cannot be proved by copy without accounting for the original and showing its execution. P. v. Hust, 49 Cal. 653. And see ante, § 327. How proceed when a variance has been shown. Ex parte Nicholas, 91 Cal. 640. Georgia. — In an indictment against an officer of a bank for embezzling its funds, bank bills are sufficiently described by amounts, values, issued by what bank, and by whom signed and countersigned, without specifying their numbers and dates. Bulloch v. 8. 10 Ga. 47,54 Am. D. 369. And see generally of the indict- ment, Snell v. S. 50 Ga. 219; Hoyt v. S. 50 Ga. 313; Cory v. §. 55 Ga. 236. Against tax-collector, Fuller v. 8. 73 Ga. 408. Illinois. — Indictment, Ker v. P. 110 Tl. 627, 51 Am. R. 706. Indiana. — 8. v. Smith, 72 Ind. 549. Iowa, — Sufficiency of evidence, S. »v. Baldwin, 70 Iowa, 180. Kansas. — Charge to jury, 8. v, Smith, 13 Kan. 274, 278, 279. Scope of statute, S. v. Small, 26 Kan. 209. Kentucky. — A sufficient indictment, Johnson v. C. 5 Bush, 430. Louisiana. — Ou a charge of embezzle- ment, the defendant cannot be convicted of a breach of trust. S. v. Reonnals, 14 La. An. 278. It suffices to set out all the 143 § 329 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [Book xIt. the order of the States; yet not everything in the note is to be taken as limited in doctrine to the one State. elements of the offence, though not in the words of the statute, if in those of like im- port, 8. v. Eames, 39 La. An. 986. Massachusetts. — For an indictment fa- tally incomplete in its averments, see C. e. Smart, 6 Gray, 15. For one good, see C. v. Hussey, 111 Mass. 432; also, and as to negativing the consent of the owners, C. v. Smith, 116 Mass. 40. And see C. v. Bennett, 118 Mass. 443. An indictment against a bank officer for embezzling its funds or a deposit must aver a specific act of fraud, — only one offence in one count, —and it must be proved as laid. C. v. Wyman, 8 Met. 247. And see C. »v. Shepard, 1 Allen, 575. Also C. v. Con- cannon, 5 Allen, 502; C. v. Tuckerman, 10 Gray, 173; C. v. Butterick, 100 Mass. 1,97 Am. D. 65. Some other cases are, C. v. Gateley, 126 Mass. 52; C. v. Doherty, 127 Mass. 20; C. v. Pratt, 137 Mass. 98; C. v. Sawtelle, 141 Mass, 140. Michigan.—Plea that defendant was attorney-at-law, P. v. Converse, 74 Mich. 478, 16 Am. St. 648. Afinnesota. — Embezzlement by carrier, S. v. Mims, 26 Minn. 191. By bailee, S. v. Comings, 54 Minn. 359. Missouri, — Non-consent to the conver- sion may be inferred from circumstances the testimony of the master is not exclu- sively primary evidence. S. v. Porter, 26 Mo. 201. And see this case as to proving a demand and refusal. By statute, the incorporation of a company employing the accused may be proved by parol. S. «. Cheek, 63 Mo. 364. Compare with Reg. v. Essex, Dears. & B. 369, 7 Cox,C. C. 384. And see, for other questions, S. v. Bittinger, 55 Mo. 596; S. v. Flint, 62 Mo. 393; S. v. Heath, 70 Mo. 565; S. v. Find- ley, 101 Mo. 217, 223; S. v. Manley, 107 Mo. 364. Nevada.— Ex parte Ricord, 11 Nev. 287; Ricord v. Central Pac. Rid. 15 Nev. 167. New Jersey.— An indictment against the cashier of a bank for embezzling its funds need only charge that he ‘con- verted the property of the bank,” with intent wrongfully to make use of it; fol- lowing the words of the statute. Nor 144 need it add that he did this “as cashier,” or that the funds were intrusted to him in this capacity, or that his intent was to defraud the corporation. A count char- ging a conversion of “$19,000 of money and $19,000 of bank-notes” is bad for un- certainty. The number and denomination . of the coins and notes, and the value of the notes, not of the government coins, should be stated. S. v. Stimson, 4 Zab. 9. New York.— An indictment under 2 Rey. Sts. 678, § 59, must aver that the de- fendant was a “clerk” or “servant” of some person (or an officer or agent of a cor- poration), and that the property came to his possession or care by virtue of such employment. A count charging that he received it asthe “agent ” of an individual is bad. Nor is it cured by proceeding to aver that the property came to the defend- ant “as such servant as aforesaid,” and that while he was “such servant” he con- verted it; the construction being that by “such servant” is meant such a servant as an agent may be. The reason is that an indictment on a statute must state all the facts constituting by its terms the offence, so as to bring the accused perfectly within its provisions. P. v. Allen, 5 Denio, 76. For a form against husband and wife for embezzling the property of the superin- tendent of the poor, see Coats v. P. 4 Par. Cr. 662. For other questions, P. v. Lyon, 99 N.Y. 210; Humphrey v. P. 18 Hun, 393. North Carolina. —S&.v. Lanier, 89 N.C. 517. ’ Ohio. —Brown v. §.18 Ohio St. 496; S. v. Morton, 21 Ohio St. 669; Campbell v. S. 35 Ohio St. 70; S. v. Kusnick, 45 Ohio St. 535. Pennsylvania.—C. v. Newcomer, 49 Pa. 478; Culp v. C. 109 Pa. 363. Rhode Island. —S. v. Snell, 9 R. I. 112. Texas.—S. v. Johnson, 21 Tex. 775; Wise v. 8. 41 Tex. 139; S. v. Longworth, 41 Tex. 162; Gibbs v. S. 41 Tex. 491; Griffin v. S. 4 Tex. Ap. 390; Strong v. 8. 18 Tex. Ap. 19; Cohen v. S. 20 Tex. Ap. 224. Vermont. — S. v. Hopkins, 56 Vt. 250. United States. —U. S. v. Hartwell, 6 CHAP. XX.] EMBEZZLEMENT. § 332 § 830. 1. The English Authorities —on this subject are, it should be remembered, all modern, and not binding in our States; though, of course, our courts will look into them with respect. Again, — 2. The Decisions in One of our States — are regarded in another State simply as the modern English ones are, and not conclusive there. Hence — 3. Correcting Errors. — The practitioner need not be quite without hope, while pointing out to his court departures from principle in the adjudications from other States and from England, and urging it not to follow them. II. In Particular Cases. § 831. English. — Some illustrations, condensed from the Eng- lish books, will close this chapter. Early Statute. — By 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, § 47, recited in “New Criminal Law,”1 “any clerk,” &c. was made indictable who should, “by virtue of such employment, receive or take into his possession any chattel, money, or valuable security, for or in the name or on the account of his master,” and “fraudulently embez- zle the same or any part thereof;” one consequence whereof was that he should “be deemed to have feloniously stolen the same from his master.” § 332. 1. As to the Procedure. — By § 48, also given in “New Criminal Law,”? the indictment was simplified’? by providing that “any number of distinct acts of embezzlement, not exceeding three,” committed by the defendant “against the same master, within the space of six calendar months from the first to the last of such acts,” might be charged in the indictment; also, that it should “be sufficient to allege the embezzlement to be of money, without specifying any particular coin or valuable security.” And proof of the embezzlement of any amount should sustain this allegation. 2. With Us. — A statute in substance like this* has been held Wal. 385; U.S. v. Clark, Crabbe, 584; 1 New Crim. Law, IT. § 322. U.S. v. Taintor, 11 Blatch. 374; U.S. v. 2 Th. § 375. Cook, 17 Wal. 168; U. S. v. Hall, 98 U.S. 3 Ante, § 319 (2). 843 ; U. S.v. Benecke, 98 U.S. 447; U.S. 4 Mass. Gen. Sts. c. 161, § 42. v. Fish, 24 Fed. Rep. 585. vou. 11. —10 145 § 334 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. in Massachusetts to be constitutional. And there can be little doubt that such would be the result in our States generally.? § 833. 1. The Allegation thus Authorized — was, that on, &e., at, &c., the defendant, B, “being then and there employed as clerk to A, did, by virtue of his said employment, then and there, and whilst he was so employed as aforesaid, receive and take into his possession certain money to a large amount, to wit, to the amount of ten pounds, for and in the name and on the account of the said A, his master, and the said money then and there fraudulently and feloniously did embezzle; and so the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say that the said B, then and there, in manner and form aforesaid, the said money, the property of the said A, his said master, from the said A feloniously did steal, take, and carry away.” And — 2. Count for other Embezzlements. — If the defendant was to be charged with other embezzlements within six months, a count was added “that the said B afterwards, and within six calendar months from the time of the committing of the said offence in the first count of this indictment charged and stated, to wit, on, &e., at, &c., being then and there employed as clerk to the said A, did, by virtue of such last-mentioned employment, then and there, and whilst he was so employed as last aforesaid, receive and take into his possession certain other money to a large amount, to wit, to the amount of ten pounds, for and in the name and on the account of the said A, his said master, and the said last-mentioned money then and there, within the said six calen- dar months, fraudulently and feloniously did embezzle; and so, &c. [as in the first count to the end].” @ § 334. In Explanation hereof, — Archbold says: “The indict- ment must show, by express words, that the different sums were embezzled within the six months.”* Since the statute, it is not “necessary that the exact amount or value of the thing embezzled should be stated.° The indictment must allege the goods, &c., embezzled to be the property of the master;® and it has been 1 C. v. Bennett, 118 Mass. 443. that the moneys were received within six 2 Vol. I. § 95-112; Hoyt v. S. 50 Ga. months, but also that they were embez- 313. zled within six months. Reg. v. Noake, 3 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. 2 Car. & K. 620. ed. 275, 276. ® Rex v, Carson, Russ. & Ry. 303. * Reg. v. Purchase, Car. & M. 617. ® Rex v. McGregor, 3 B. & P. 106, An indictment containing three charges Russ. & Ry. 23; Rex v. Beacall, 1 Moody, of embezzlement should not only aver 15,1 Car. & P. 454. 146 CHAP, Xx.] EMBEZZLEMENT. § 336 said that it must show the defendant was servant, &c., at the time.!. . . It is not necessary to state from whom the money, &c., was received.” But as this may operate as a hardship upon the prisoner, the judge before whom he is to be tried will upon application order the prosecutor to furnish the prisoner with a particular of the charge.” 8 § 335. Proof of Thing received. — “If,” continues this author, “the indictment allege that the defendant received chattels, the articles described, or some part of them, must be proved as in larceny; but if the receipt of ‘ money’ be alleged, the prosecutor may give in evidence the receipt of any species of coin or valu- able security, or a receipt of any amount, although the particular species of coin or valuable security of which such amount was composed shall not be proved. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29,§ 48 A variance between the indictment and the evidence, as to the amount received, is immaterial.” 5 Again, — § 336. Proof of the Embezzlement. — “The usual presumptive evidence is that the defendant never accounted with his master for the money, &c., so received by him, or denied his having received it. The prosecutor gave to his housekeeper, the defend- ant, a sum of money to pay to the overseer; and upon an indict- ment for embezzling the sum, the overseer proved that he never had received that or any other sum from the defendant; but it was holden that the non-payment of the money to the overseer did not prove an actual embezzlement, but merely a non-applica- tion of the money as directed.* So, where the prisoner charged himself in his master’s book with money received by him, but did not pay it over to the master, Vaughan, B. held that an embezzlement was not proved.’ And if, instead of denying the appropriation of the money, the party in rendering his account admits it, alleging a right in himself, however unfounded, or setting up an excuse, however frivolous, he cannot be convicted of embezzlement, which implies secrecy and concealment;® even though he afterwards abscond and do not pay over the money.® 1 Rex v. Somerton, 7 B. & C. 463. 4 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. See, however, Reg. v. Lovell, 2 Moody & ed. 278-281. R. 236. 5 Rex v. Carson, Russ. & Ry. 303. 2 Rex v. Beacall, 1 Car. & P. 454; 6 Rex v. Smith, Russ. & Ry. 267. ante, § 323 a. 7 Rex v. Hodgson, 3 Car. & P. 422. 8 Rex v. Bootyman, 5 Car. & P. 300; 8 Reg. v. Norman, Car. & M. 501. Rex v. Hodgson, 3 Car. & P. 122. 9 Reg. v. Creed, 1 Car. & K. 63. 147 § 337 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII: So, also, the mere proof of the receipt of the money by the defend- ant, and his not having entered it in his books, without some evidence to show that he has denied the receipt of it, or the like, is not sufficient to convict.1 But — § 337. To Continue.—“ Where it is the servant’s duty to account for and pay over the moneys received by him at stated times, his not doing so wilfully is an embezzlement, although he do not actually deny the receipt of them.?, Where the defendant received payment of a debt from one of his master’s customers in Bank of England notes, but accounted with his master for £6 less than he received; and afterwards delivered some Bank of England notes to his master upon another account; it being argued for the defendant that these must be presumed to be the same bank- notes which were received from the customer, and being actually delivered to the master, could not be said to be embezzled; Bayley, J. ruled that these notes, to the amount of £6, must be "deemed to have been embezzled within the meaning of the act, the moment the defendant accounted for £6 less than he received, and that his afterwards paying these identical notes to his master in another account made no difference; which decision was after- wards confirmed by the judges.2 The difficulty in this case, and in that of Rex v. Hebb,* which arose from the necessity of proy- ing the embezzlement of some specific note or coin, is removed by the recent statute. If the embezzlement be alleged to be of money, without specifying any particular coin or valuable secur- ity, such allegation, so far as regards the description of the property, will be sustained if the offender shall be proved to have embezzled any amount, although the particular species of coin or valuable security of which such amount was composed shall not be proved; or if he shall be proved to have embezzled any piece of coin or valuable security, or any portion of the value thereof, although such piece of coin or valuable security may have been delivered to him in order that some part of the value thereof should be returned to the party delivering the same, and such part shall have been returned accordingly. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29,§ 48. In Rex v. Grove,® a majority of the judges are 1 Rex v. Jones, 7 Car. & P. 833. * Rex v. Hebb, 2 Russ. Crimes, 1st ed. 2 Reg. v. Jackson, 1 Car. & K. 384, 1244, 8 Rex v. Hall, 3 Stark. 67, Russ. & Ry. 5 Rex v. Grove, 1 Moody, 447, 7 Car. 463, & P. 635, 148 CHAP. XX.] EMBEZZLEMENT. § 341 reported to have held that since this statute, an indictment for embezzlement might be supported by proof of a general deficiency of moneys that ought to be forthcoming, without showing any particular sum received and not accounted for. But see Reg. ». Lloyd Jones,! where it was stated that the decision in Rex ». Grove proceeded upon the peculiar facts of that case, and not upon any such general principle.” 2 § 8388. Under other English Statutes : — Embezzlement by Bankers, &c. — By T & 8 Geo. 4, ¢. 29, § 49, it was among other things enacted that “if any money, &c., shall be intrusted to any banker, &c., with any direction in writing to apply such money or any part thereof, or, &c., for any purpose specified in such direction, and he shall, in violation of good faith, and contrary to the purpose so specified, in any wise convert to his own use or benefit such money, &c., every such offender shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,” &c. § 339. An Approved Indictment — on this was that on, &c., at, &c., “A did intrust B [the defendant], the said B then and there being a banker, with a certain large sum of money, to wit, the sum of one hundred pounds, with a direction to the said B, in writing, to apply the said sum of money for a certain purpose then and there specified in the said direction; and that the said B, banker as aforesaid, afterwards, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, in violation of good faith, and contrary to the purpose so as afore- said specified, unlawfully did convert to his own use and benefit _the said sum of money so to him intrusted as aforesaid.” 8 § 340. Direction in Writing. — The indictment must charge that the direction for the application of the money was in writing. § 841. The Evidence. — “Prove,” says Archbold, “that the defendant was a banker, &c., as stated in the indictment — that the money, &c., was intrusted to him — that directions in writ- ing were given for the application of the money, &c.; this must be proved by the production of the directions, or by secondary evidence after notice to produce the original; and, lastly, prove that the defendant, instead of applying the money, &c., as 1 Reg. v. Jones, 8 Car. & P. 288. 8 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. 2 See also Reg. v. Chapman, 1 Car. & ed. 283. K. 119. Compare these several sections * Reg. v. Golde, 2 Moody & R. 425. with New Crim. Law, II. § 372-378, 149 § 343 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII directed, converted it to his own use and benefit. If the par- ticular purpose be stated in the indictment, the evidence must correspond with the allegation. An allegation of a specific direction, to invest the proceeds of valuable securities in the funds, is not supported by evidence of a direction to invest in funds in the event of any unexpected accident occurring.” 4 § 842. Another Form.—- When a “valuable security” is the thing embezzled under this statute, contrary to statutory words not given above, the indictment may charge that on, &c., at, &c., A “did intrust” to the defendant B, for safe custody, the said B then and there being a banker, a promissory note of one J. P. for the payment of twenty pounds, without any authority to him the said B to sell, negotiate, transfer, or pledge the said promissory note; and that the said B, banker and agent as afore- said, on the day and year aforesaid, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, in violation of good faith, and contrary to the object and purpose for which such promissory note was intrusted to him as aforesaid, unlawfully did negotiate and con- vert to his own use and benefit the said promissory note.” ? § 343. Embezzlement by Factor.— Under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 89, $6, not necessary to be here inserted, it may be alleged that on, &e., at, &e., “A did intrust to B [the defendant], the said B then and there being an agent of him the said A, ten bales of cotton, of the value of fifty pounds [‘ intrusted with the posses- sion of goods, or of the documents of title to goods’]; and that the said B, late of the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, agent as aforesaid, on the day and year aforesaid, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, contrary to and without the authority of the said A, for his own benefit, and in violation of good faith, unlawfully did make a deposit of the said ten bales of cotton with one J. P., as and by way of a pledge, lien, and security for a certain sum of money, to wit, the sum of fifty pounds, then advanced by the said J. P. to him the said B.”8 1 Rex v. White, 4 Car. & P. 46. 8 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. 2 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 286. ed, 284, 285, CHAP. XXL] EMBRACERY. § 347 CHAPTER XXI. EMBRACERY. Consult, — for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, I. § 468; II. § 384-389. For the indictment, &c. Dir. & F. § 850, 851. § 344. Not often, —in modern times, is this offence, too frequently committed, and most prejudicial to the administra- tion of justice, made the subject of indictment. Prosecuting officers would discharge an obvious duty should they be vigilant in seeking evidence of it, and bringing the offenders to punishment. § 845. Few Precedents — of the indictment are given in the books. Tremaine has one, adapted by the late Solicitor-General Davis to the Massachusetts practice as he understood the law, and published in his “Precedents.” He said: “It is the only one to be met with either in that collection, or in Coke’s Entries, Stark. Crim. Pl., Cro. C. ©., or Cro. C. A. There are two other precedents in an ancient book, containing precedents of indictments, informations, &c., entitled Offictum Clerici Pacis.” } § 346. As to the Form of the Indictment, — there is more doubt than in offences oftener adjudicated upon, and for which prece- dents have become numerous. In substance it is that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant, knowing a jury to have been impanelled to try an issue described, in a specified court, and “being,” says the form in Tremaine, “a common embracer of jurors,” but the necessity for this is doubtful, and devising, &c. “to hinder the due and lawful trial,” &c., then and there unlawfully, &c., on behalf of the defendant in the cause, “did solicit and persuade one B. 8S. of, &¢., one of the jurors,” &c., knowing him to be such juror ; proceeding to state the particular facts.? § 347. Rendering Verdict.— The form in Tremaine goes on to aver the rendering of a verdict by the jury; but this is unneces- sary, since the attempt completes the offence.? 1 Davis Prec. 113 and note. 8 New Crim. Law, II. § 389; Davis 2 Rex v. Brooks, Trem, P. C. 175. Prec. 114. Compare with Dir. & F. § 850. 151 § 350 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. CHAPTER XXII. ENGROSSING, Consult, —for the law of Forestalling, Regrating, and Engrossing, New Crim. Law, I. § 518-528. § 348. For the Indictment, — Chitty’s precedents are, — ‘¢ That A, late of, &c., on, &c., at, &c., aforesaid, did engross and get into. his hands, by buying of and from divers persons to the jurors unknown, a large quantity, to wit, four thousand quarters, of wheat, with intent to sell the same again for luere, gain, and profit [or at an unreasonable profit], to the evil example, &c., and against the peace,’’ &c. Again: ‘‘ That A, late of, &c., on, &c., at, &c., did unlawfully engross and get into his hands, by buying of and from one S, fifty quarters of wheat, to the intent to sell the same again at an unreasonable profit, to the evil example, &c., and against the peace,’’ &c.! § 849. The Quantity — of each article engrossed must be stated.? Simply to say that it was a great quantity is ill.? § 850. How the Form with Us.—It should not be taken for granted that an indictment in one of the above forms would be good in every one of our States. The law and the allegation must correspond. The pleader should consider what his own court will probably hold the nature of the offence and its limits to be, then draw the indictment accordingly; using the forms here given only as helps, not as absolute guides. 1 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 534, 535. And see Reg. v. Mackarty, 2 Ld. Raym. 2 Rex c. Gilbert, 1 Kast, 588; Anony- 1179, 1181; Rex v. Whider, 2 Bulst. 317 ; mous, Cro. Car. 380, 381. Rex v. Lesingham, 1 Lev. 299; Rex v. 3 Rex v. Foster, 1 Ld. Raym. 475. Wright, 12 Mod. 47. For ENTRY, FORCIBLE, see Forcrste Entry AnD DETAINER. ESCAPE, see Prison Breacn, &c. ESTRAY ANIMALS, see Stat. Crimes. 152 CHAP. XXIII] EXPOSURE OF PERSON. § 352 CHAPTER XXIII. EXPOSURE OF PERSON. Consult, —for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, I. § 1125-1134. For the indictment, &c., Dir. & F. § 802-804. For miscellaneous questions, see the indexes to this series of books. Look also into the title Nursancr. § 851. In drawing the Indictment, — attention should be paid to some differences of opinion as to the law of this offence, explained in “New Criminal Law.”? For a court requires every indict- ment to be adjusted to its own interpretations. An English common-law form charges that the defendant, at a time and place stated, “devising,” &c.,? “on a certain public and common highway [there situate ®], in the presence of divers liege subjects of our lady the queen then and there being, and within sight and view of divers other liege subjects through and on the said high- way then and there passing and repassing, unlawfully, wickedly, and scandalously did expose to the view of the said persons so present, and so passing and repassing as aforesaid, the body and person of him the said J. 8. naked and uncovered, for a long space of time, to wit, for the space of one hour.” 4 § 352. That the Exhibition was seen — seems by the English authorities necessary to be averred.® But in North Carolina it suffices to say that on, &c., in a county stated, the defendant, “being an evil-disposed person, and contriving and intending to debauch and corrupt the morals of the citizens of said county, on a certain public highway in 1 New Crim. Law, I. § 1125 et seq. 2 Doubtless needless. Yet see Dir. & F. § 802. See also Ib. § 803, 804. 8 That these words were better omit- ted, while possibly some courts might hold the proof of the minor locality within the county to be necessary, see ante, § 41, 103 (2), 105 (2), 111, 185; post, § 352; Hazle v. S. 20 Ark, 156; S, v. Gardner, 28 Mo. 90. That the Place was Public — (New Crim. Law, I. § 1128, 1129), must said county did indecently and doubtless always in some way affirma- tively appear. Lorimer v. S. 76 Ind. 495. 4 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 655, 19th ed. 987. An indictment in substantially this form was adjudged good in C. v. Haynes, 2 Gray, 72, 61 Am. D. 437. 5 New Crim. Law, I. § 1126 (2), 1127; Reg. v. Webb, 1 Den. C. C. 338, 2 Car. & K. 938, 3 Cox C. C. 183. 153 § 355 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. scandalously expose to public view the private parts of him the said ” defendant! § 853. 1. “Great Scandal.” — The above English form has, in its conclusion, “to the great scandal of the said liege subjects,” &c. —plainly superfluous. So — 2, “Bvil Bxample.” — The North Carolina form has “to the evil and pernicious example of all others in like case offending,” — words equally needless.? 3. “fo the Common Nuisance.” — This conclusion has been adjudged unnecessary, though the offence is such nuisance. § 354. 1. On a Statute, — the indictment more or less departs from the above forms.* Thus, — . 2. In Texas —it suffices to say that on, &c., at, &c., the de- fendant did “designedly make an obscene and indecent exhi- bition of his person in public.” 5 3. In Missouri, — the allegation has been sustained that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant was “guilty of an open and notorious act of public indecency, grossly scandalous, by then and there exhibiting and exposing his private parts in presence of a male and female;” for, said Richardson, J. “the indictment not only charged the defendant generally, in the words of the statute, with being ‘ guilty of an open and notorious act of public inde- cency, grossly scandalous,’ but specified with sufficient certainty the act that constituted the offence.” 6 § 855. An Arkansas Statute— makes punishable one “who shall appear in public places naked, or partly so, with the intent of making a public exhibition of his nudity, or who shall make any obscene exhibition of his person.” Under the first clause, the allegation may be that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant “un- lawfully did appear in a certain public place, partly naked, with the intent of making a public exhibition of her nudity;” under the second, that, &c., she “unlawfully did make an obscene exhibition of her person.” 7 1 §. v. Roper, 1 Dev. & Bat. 208. Com- 437. And see ante, § 105 (2), note, 200 (2) ; pare this with New Crim. Law, I. § 1126, post, § 862-864. 1127; Reg. v. Webb, supra; Reg. v. Elliot, 4 S. v. Griffin, 43 Tex. 538; Ardery v. Leigh & C. 103; 8. v. Rose, 32 Mo. 560; S. 56 Ind. 398. Moffit v. S. 43 Tex. 346; S.v. Griffin, 43 5 §. v. Griffin, supra, Tex. 538. 5 §. vu. Gardner, 28. Mo. 90. And see 2 Vol. I. § 647 (1). S. v. Rose, 32 Mo. 560. 8 C. v., Haynes, 2 Gray, 72,61 Am. D. 7S. v. Hazle, 20 Ark. 156, 154 CHAP. XXIV.] EXTORTION. § 357 CHAPTER XXIV. EXTORTION. Consult, — for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, II. § 390-408. For the indictment, &c., Dir. & F. § 413-417. For various miscellaneous questions, see the indexes to this series of books. See also the titles MALFEASANCE AND NONFEASANCE In OFFICE, THREATENING LETTERS, &c. § 356. The Elements of this Offence, — to be alleged and proved, are, — 1. That the defendant was an officer, either de jure or de facto.4 2, That he either demanded or received a fee for real or pretended services in his office. 8. That it was in excess of what the law prescribed, or was not yet due, or the law gave none. 4. That herein the defendant acted under color of his office, and from motives deemed in law corrupt.? § 857. The Indictment — charges that on, é&c., at, &c., the defendant, — 1. “Being one of the constables of,” &e., or “treasurer of the county of,” &c., or some other officer specified,® 2. “Did,” &c., setting out the individual transaction so fully and accurately as to 8. Show the demanding or taking of a fee, and what fee, — “did extort, receive, and take,” &c.; its excess above the legal sum, wherein, therefore, the sum which he had earned, if any, should appear; or the fact of no fee having been earned, or the services having been of a sort for which the law provides none; or the legal time for payment not having yet arrived. 4. Charge that this was done “unlawfully, corruptly, deceit- 1 New Crim. Law, IT. § 392. against a toll-collector is not sustained by 2 Tb. § 390 et seq. proof that he was a deputy sheriff. S. vu 8 Sv. Brown, 12 Minn. 490; Territory Bisaner, 97 N.C. 503. y. McElroy, 1 Mont. 86. An indictment 155 § 361 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. fully, extorsively, and by color of his said office,” or words to the like effect. } § 358. 1. “ Bxtort ” — “Color of Office.” — Both of these terms appear to be, under the common law, indispensable.? 2, “ Wilfully,” —found in some of the forms, may be omitted,? unless the indictment is.on a statute employing it.* 3. Due or not. —If no fee was earned, or by law provided, the indictment must say so. much and for what services. appear. If a fee was due, it must state how If not yet payable, that fact must And the sum extorsively taken must be stated. Thus,— § 359. Under this Head, — it suffices to say, for example, that the defendant, as constable, travelled four miles to serve an execution, for which travel he was entitled as mileage to sixteen cents; that corruptly, &c., he extorted thirty-two cents for said mileage, whereas but sixteen were due, &c.® Again, — § 360. 1. For taking more than Due on an Execution, — the in- dictment, it has been held, must set out the recital therein of the judgment on which it was issued, and the names of the, parties thereto. “These averments,” said Dewey, J. “ were necessary in order to enable the party accused to defend himself against a second prosecution for the same offence.” And — 2. The Sum due on the Execution — thus appearing, and being alleged thus descriptively,’ must be proved as laid.® But — § 861. The Sum charged as taken —- extorsively by the defend- ant is not, in this sense, descriptive; and though a sum must be stated in allegation,® any other which will show the offence ” will suffice in proof. An averment, for example, that twenty shillings were got extorsively, will be sustained by proof of one shilling.} 1 See precedents, Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ey. 10th Lond. ed. 581, 19th ed. 891; 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 293-301; S.v. Burton, 3 Ind.93 ; Rex v. Broughton, Trem. P.C.111; Rex v. Johnson, Trem. P. C. 119; Rex v. Newman, Trem. P. C. 123. 2 Train & Heard Prec. 203; P. v. Whaley, 6 Cow. 661. And see Reg. v. Tiddeman, 4 Cox C. C. 387, 389 ; Leeman v. 8. 85 Ark. 438, 37 Am. R. 44. 8 §. v. Cansler, 75 N.C. 442. ** Cor- ruptly,’? —as to, see Reg. v. Tisdale, 20 U.C. Q. B. 272. 4 And see S. v. Packard, 4 Or, 157. ® Halsey v. S. 1 Southard, 324; S. 156 v. Coggswell, 8 Blackf. 54; Reg. v. Tracy, 6 Mod. 30; P. v. Rust, 1 Caines, 133; S. v. Perham, 4 Or. 188; S.v. Packard, 4 Or. 157; S. v. Maires, 4 Vroom, 142; S. v. Brown, 12 Minn. 490; Oliveira v. S. 45 Ga. 555. And see S. v. Smythe, 33 Tex. 546; post, § 362. 8 Emory v. S. 6 Blackf. 106. 7 Vol. I. § 488. 8 Seany v.S. 6 Blackf. 403, 404. 9 Ante, § 358 (3). W Vol. I. § 4885 (2). 11 Rex v. Burdett, 1 Ld. Raym. 148, 149; Spence v. Thompson, 11 Ala. 746; Rex v. Gillham, 6 T. R. 265, 267. OHAP. XXIV] EXTORTION. § 364 § 362. Summary of Doctrine. —In Burn’s Justice, tit. Extor- tion, the doctrine is epitomized, thus: — 1, Joinder of Defendants. — “ Several defendants may be jointly indicted when no fee was due. 2. Time.— “The time of the offence must be alleged.? 8. Pretence. — “If the indictment charge that the defendant, as bailiff of a hundred, under color of office, took a sum of money, without showing more particularly by what pretence it was taken, it will be good, at least after verdict; for perhaps he might claim it generally as being due to him as bailiff, in which case the demand could not be otherwise stated.® 4, Nothing due — Something. — “ Where nothing was due, that fact ought to be averred; and where anything was due, the sum which might have been lawfully taken must be expressed.” 4 § 863. Ownership — of the thing taken by extortion may be laid in a county by name, when the proof is so.® § 864. 1. If on a Statute,— the indictment must conform to its terms.6 Thus, — 2. “Knowingly.” —If the expression is “knowingly takes,” a sctenter must be alleged. And — 8. Proof of Knowledge, — If, while some items are overcharged, proof that the amount taken was less than the law allows will strongly tend to establish the defendant’s honesty of purpose.’ Other extortions cannot be shown.§ 1 Reg. v. Atkinson, 2 Ld. Raym. 1248. 1 Salk 382; Lake’s Case, 3 Leon. 268; Com. Dig. Extortion, C.; East India Company v. Atkins, 1 Stra. 168, 175; 8. c. nom. East India Company v. Atkyns, 1 Comyns, 347. 2 Rex v. Roberts, 4 Mod. 101, 103, 3 Salk. 198. 3 Rex v. Cover, 1 Sid. 91. The extor- tion may be laid generally, “by color of his office,” without specifying that the defendant took the money as fees, or to his own use. P. v. Whaley, 6 Cow. 661. Compare, with this case, S. v. Stotts, 5 Blackf. 460. And see Rex v. Robe, 2 Stra. 999; Reg. v. Tracy, 6 Mod. 30. * Lake’s Case, 3 Leon, 268; Com. Dig. Extortion C. See ante, § 358 (3). 5 §. v. Moore, 1 Ind. 548. 6 Territory v. McElroy, 1 Mont. 86; Oliveira v. S. 45 Ga. 555; McCarthy v. Territory, 1 Wy. 311; U. 8. v. Jackson, 3 Saw. 59; Smith v. S. 10 Tex. Ap. 413; Ferkel v. P. 16 Bradw. 310. And see S. v. Crowley, 10 Vroom, 264; Mann v. 8. 47 Ohio St. 556; Culbertson v. Kinevan, 73 Cal. 68. 7 Cleaveland v. S. 34 Ala. 254, And see Spence v. Thompson, 11 Ala. 746. 8 C. v. Saulsbury, 152 Pa. 554. 157 § 367 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII CHAPTER XXV. FALSE IMPRISONMENT. Consult, — for the law of this offence, and the kindred Kidnapping, New Crim. Law, II. § 746-755a. For the indictment, &c., Dir. & F. § 568-572. And for miscellane- ous questions see the indexes to this series of books. § 365. 1. Assault.—It is permissible! and convenient to charge an assault with the false imprisonment; so that, should the evidence sustain the former but not the latter, the defendant may be convicted without a fresh indictment. 2, The Indictment — alleges that on, &c., at, &c., the defend- ant “did,” &c., setting out an assault and battery on X; “and,” by Archbold’s form, “him the said X then and there unlawfully and injuriously and against the will of the said X, and also against the laws of this realm, and without any legal warrant, authority, or reasonable or justifiable cause whatsoever, did imprison, and detained so imprisoned there for a long space of time, to wit, for the space of ten hours then next following, and (where the fact is so) until he the said X had paid to the said [defendant] the sum of five pounds and five shillings, of the moneys of the said X, for his enlargement.” ? § 366. Assault omitted.— Though the approved precedents charge an assault, still, if false imprisonment does not neces- sarily include it,® the indictment will plainly be good without the allegation. Perhaps it will be good also if false imprisonment does include assault. 4 . § 367. 1. On Statute. — A Texas statute defines false imprison- ment to be “the wilful detention of another against his consent, and when it is not expressly authorized by law.” In Florida 1 Vol. I. § 438 (3); New Crim. Law, Dir. & F. § 569. For other forms, see 3 TI. § 56, 747. See ante, § 63-64. Chit. Crim. Law, 835-840. 2 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. 8 New Crim. Law, II. § 747. ed. 470, 19th ed. 751; 8 Chit. Crim. Law, 4 And see Herring v. S. 3 Tex. Ap. 835. For the form abbreviated, see Archb. 108. New Crim. Pro. 393, And compare with 158 CHAP. XXV.] FALSE IMPRISONMENT. § 368 the words are, “whoever, without lawful authority, forcibly or secretly confines or imprisons another person within this State against his will,” shall, &e. And under each statute the courts require the indictment to negative the authority.! 2, At Common Law —also, the learned Texas judge added: “It was so.”2 And the above form from Archbold? has such negative. But — 3. “ Unlawfully.” — It has been adjudged adequate to say “unlawfully and feloniously imprisoned,” not adding “ without legal authority ;” for the former includes the latter.* Still, — § 368. 1. In Matter of Evidence, —if the imprisonment is proved, its unlawfulness will prima facie be presumed.’ But authority may be shown by the defendant in justification, or it will be equally effectual if it appears among the proofs against him.® 2. Variance. — A detention alleged as by threats is not proved by one by assault.” 3. The Jury, — where the testimony is conflicting, determines from it whether or not the party 1 Redfield v. S. 24 Tex. 183; Barber v. S.13 Fla. 675; Waterman v. §. 13 Fla. 683. And see the Texas cases of Her- ring v. S.3 Tex. Ap. 108; Woods v. S. 3 Tex. Ap. 204; McClure v. S. 26 Tex. Ap. 102. Intent. — Under the Florida statute it must be added, to cover terms not stated in the text, “with intent cither to cause him to be secretly confined or imprisoned in this State against his will, or to cause him to be sent out of this State,” &c. Ross v. 8.15 Fla. 55. 2 Redfield v. S. supra. 3 Ante, § 365 (2). 4 U. S.v. Lapoint, Morris, 146. 5 Archb. New Crim. Pro. 293; Archb. was imprisoned.§ Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 471 ; Floyd v. 8.7 Eng. 48; Kirbie v. S. 5 Tex. Ap. 60; Mitchell v. 8. 7 Eng. 50,54 Am. D. 253, 6 §. vu. James, 78 N. C. 455; Floyd v. 8.7 Eng. 48, 54 Am. D. 250; Coats v. Darby, 2 Comst, 517. And see Phillips v. Trull, 11 Johns. 486; Griswold v. Sedg- wick, 1 Wend. 126; Wait v. Green, 6 Par. Cr. 185; Wood v. Kinsman, 5 Vt. 588; Grenville v. College of Physicians, 12 Mod. 386, 387; Kendall v. Powers, 4 Met. 553; Stone v. Dana, 5 Met. 98; McCully v. Malcom, 9 Humph. 187. 7 Maner v. 8. 8 Tex. Ap. 361. also Harkins v. 8. 6 Tex. Ap. 452. 8 Floyd v. S. supra. See For FALSE NEWS, see New Crim. Law, I. § 472-478, Dir. & F. § 310. FALSE PERSONATION, see Fatse PRETENCES. FALSE PRETENCES, see Corats anp Fatse PRETENCES. FALSE TOKENS, see Cogats anp Fase PRETENCES. FALSE TOLL-DISH, keeping, see Stat. Crimes; Dir. & F. § 981, 982. FARO BANK, exhibiting, see Stat. Crimes. FERRY,.see Way. FIGHT, PRIZE, see ante, § 24 (2) and note. 159 § 371 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL CHAPTER XXVI. FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER, § 369, 370. Introduction. 371-373. Under English Common Law. 374-377. Under Old English Statutes. 378-388. The Modern Procedure with Us. Consult, — for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, II. § 489-516. For the indictment, &c., Dir. & F. § 441-448. And for miscellaneous questions, see the indexes to this series of books. See also ForcisLE Trespass, and Trespass To Lanps, Dir. & F. § 990-995. § 869. Complex — is the law of this offence. For the ancient common law is blended with early English legislation; yet what statutes were accepted as common law with us it would be diffi- cult completely to define, nor would the result be quite the same in all our States.1. And this mixed mass of old law is variously modified and superseded in our different States. Hence arise difficulties in these explanations of the procedure. To disen- tangle the subject as far as may be, — § 370. How Chapter divided.— We shall consider how the procedure is, I. Under the English Common Law;. II. Under Old English Statutes; III. The Modern Procedure with Us. I. Under the English Common Law. § 371. As to Indictment. — Because this offence under the old common law is not perfectly defined,? and from early periods the indictment was on the old English or the modern statutes, the form for it is not quite settled by adjudication. In the old books, the offence is sometimes associated with riot; and many of the precedents charge it substantially as such, setting out the entry or detainer upon the land as the central act.? But this allegation of riot is unnecessary; yet, in its absence, more of 1 New Crim. Law, II. § 492-496. 8 Rex v. Hampson, Trem. P. C. 191; 2 New Crim. Law, II. § 490; 1 Russ. 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 1136 d. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 404. 160 CHAP. XXVI.] FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER. § 373 force must be averred than constitutes a mere civil trespass. The old phrase “with force and arms”! is appropriate in this offence if in any, and doubtless at one time it was essential. But it was never alone sufficiently expressive of the force. The better form of words, held adequate, is that the entry, for example, was “with strong hand.”? Yet they are not so tech- nical that they may not be supplied by others.? § 372. A Form for the Indictment, — leaving out of view the charging of the offence essentially as riot, may be, for a forcible entry, that on, &c., at, &c., the defendants, A, B, and C, unlaw- fully, injuriously, and with a strong hand, entered into a certain orchard ground and barn thereon in the possession and occupancy of X, and him the said X then and there unlawfully, injuriously, and with a strong hand, from the said possession and occupancy of the said premises, expelled and put out, and kept him out, and still keep him out.4 ‘ § 373. 1. Estate and Possession. — “It is not necessary,” says Archbold, “to set forth or prove the particulars of the prosecu- tor’s estate in the messuage, &c., because in this case there is no restitution; stating that X was possessed, and proving his possession, will be sufficient.” But his name must be alleged and proved, if known.® And to aver the possession under a quod cum — “for that whereas ” he was possessed — is, though not the usual form, adequate.’ To lay it in a married woman, not sepa- rated from her husband, is ill.8 2, An Expulsion and Detainer, — Archbold well suggests, need not be proved, “unless where the prosecutor has failed to prove the entry to have been forcible.”® For the offence is evidently. complete when the ill conduct has gone far enough 1 Vol. I. § 502 (1). Holmes, 1 Mod. 783; Rex v. Bathurst, 2 Post, § 380; Rex v. Wilson, 8T.R. Say. 225; C. v. Shattuck, 4 Cush. 141; 357; Rex v. Storr, 3 Bur. 1698; Rex v. C.v. Taylor, 5 Biun. 277; S. z. Tolever, Bake, 3 Bur. 1731; Rex v. Atkyns,3 Bur. 5 Ire. 452; S. v. Morgan, Winst. i. 246; 1706; S. uv. Leathers, 31 Ark. 44, 3 Post, § 379; Reg. v. Dyer, 6 Mod. 96; Rex v. Bathurst, Say. 225; C. v. Taylor, 5 Binn. 277. 4+ Compare with Dir. & F. § 442, 443, and with the last section, and ante, § 16; 2 Burn. Just. Forcible Entry and De- tainer, 28th ed. p. 908; Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 603; Matthews Crim. Law, 475; Rex v. Wilson, 8 T. R. 357; Rex v. Bake, 3 Bur. 1731; Rex ». VOL. 11. — 11 C. v. Jackson, 1 Grant, Pa. 262. 6 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 19th ed. 910; S. v. Speirin, 1 Brev. 119; Rex v. Wilson, 8 T. R. 357; Reg. v. Soley, 11 Mod. 115; Harding’s Case, 1 Greenl. 22; post, § 386; New Crim. Law, II. § 501. 6 Reg. v. Soley, supra. 7 Rex v. Holmes, 1 Mod. 73. See Rex v. Knight, 3 Salk. 186. 8 C. v. Kensey, 2 Parsons, 401. ® Archb. ut sup. 161 § 377 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. to constitute the breach of the peace which this proceeding is to correct.! Il. Under Old English Statutes. § 874. The Statute of 5 Rich, 2, stat. 1, c. 8, —fully given in “New Criminal Law,” 2 in substance merely affirmed the common law, not as to detainers, but simply as to entries, not upon every sort of property as at common law, but upon “lands and tene- ments.” The indictment required slight changes to conform to the statutory terms; but except as to these, it was the samc as at common law.® § 375. 1, Restitution of the Premises —was by subsequent statutes provided for on the proceeding for forcible entry. And 21 Jac. 1, c. 15, extended these statutes “unto tenants for term of years, tenants by copy of court-roll, guardians by knights’ service, tenants by elegit, statute-merchant, and staple, of lands or tenements by them so holden, which shall be entered upon by force, or holden from them by force.” 2. How describe for Restitution. — Where restitution of lands is sought through this proceeding, they “must,” says Archbold, “be described with the same certainty as in a declaration in ejectment.” And he adds, if the estate “were not a fee simple, but an estate in tail, or for life merely, describe it as such.” 5 § 376. The Indictment — appears to be the same where restitu- tion is to be asked, as is the statutory one where it is not, except that this fuller designation of the premises and of the prior pos- sessor’s estate therein is required only in the former case. For a leasehold, under 21 Jac. 1, c. 15, this part of the allegation may be that A, of, &c., “was possessed of a certain messuage with the appurtenances, there situate and being, for a certain term of years, whereof divers, to wit, ten years, were then to come, and are still unexpired,” and being so possessed, &c.® § 377. On the Forcible Detainer Statutes, — as, 8 Hen. 6, c. 9,7 or 21 Jac. 1, c. 15,8 — the indictment, after stating the premises, 1 New Crim. Law, II. § 490, 504, 505 ; 5 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 19th ed. 907, Anonymous, 3 Salk. 187; C. rv. Taylor, 5 referring to Reg. v. Bowser, 8 Dow). P.C. Binn. 277; S. v. Tolever, 5 Ire. 452. 128; post, § 382. 2 New Crim. Law, II. § 492 (2). ® Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond 8 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 602, 19th ed. 909. ed. 600; 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 1136 b. 7 New Crim. Law, II. § 494-496. 4 New Crim Law, II. § 494-496. 8 Ante, § 3875 (1). 162 CHAP. XXVL] FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER. § 379 and an unlawful entry by the defendant into them, or whatever else is necessary to render the detainer indictable,! may proceed to aver that from, &c., until the day of the finding of the indict- ment, the defendant, from the possession of the said premises, did, with a strong hand, unlawfully and injuriously keep out the lawful possessor named, and did then and there unlawfully and forcibly and with a strong hand hold said premises from him, and still does so hold the same.? Ill. The Modern Procedure with Us. § 378. 1. The Common-law Indictment, — of our first sub-title,? is available in any State having common-law crimes, if not expressly or by implication abolished or modified by statute.* So, — 2. On Old English Statutes, — accepted as common law in the particular State, the indictment may be equally founded. Again, — 3. State Statutes, — in nearly all the States, provide a summary proceeding for regaining possession, — generally civil in its nature and form. The mere civil remedy is not for considera- tion here. But in a part of the States the statutes are also criminal.§ 4, In this Sub-title, — not descending into the details of the criminal statutes, we shall take a view of a few questions liable to arise in the various forms of procedure; partly repeating, and enlarging upon, some already mentioned in this chapter. § 379. First. The Allegation of the Force : — 1. A Form of Charging the Force, —held good, was that on, &ec., at, &c., the defendant “with an axe and auger, unlawfully, violently, forcibly, injuriously, and with a strong hand, did enter the dwelling-house of” X, occupied by him and family, 1 See, for illustration, Fitz-Williams’s 4 Cruiser v. S. 3 Harrison, 206; C. v. Case, Cro. Eliz. 915; Rex v. Oakley, 4 B. Shattuck, 4 Cush. 141; S. v. Walker, 5 & Ad. 307, 1 Nev. & M.58; Rex v. Wil- Sneed, 259 For other forms, see C. vw. son, 3 A. GE. 817, 6 Nev. & M. 625; P.. Jackson, 1 Grant, Pa. 262, 4 Went. Pl. v. Carter, 29 Barb. 208; P. v. Fields, 1 149. Lans. 222; Thorn v. Reed, 1 Pike, 480; 5 Dotson v. 8S. 6 Coldw. 545; Wood v. Floyd v. Ricks, 6 Eng. 451. Phillips, 43 N. Y. 152; Hyatt », Wood, 4 2 Archb. Crim. Pl & Ev. 10th Lond. Johns. 150, 4 Am. D. 258; P. v. Runkel, ed. 602; 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 1136 b; S.v. 9 Johns. 147; 8. v. Walker, 5 Sneed, 259; Harvey, 3 N. H. 65. Helm v. Blader, 1 A. K. Mar. 320; Norton 3 Ante, § 371-373. v. Sanders, 7 J. J. Mar. 12. 163 § 881 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. bored into the house, did to it other specified damage, and put the inmates “in fear of their lives.” } 2. “With Strong Hand,” — we have seen,? may be supplied by other words. And an allegation not very dissimilar to the above, with this omission, where the entry was into a dwelling- house to the great disturbance of the persons within, was adjudged good.* The distinction, not inquiring now how impor- tant it is, should be borne in mind, that the place in these instances was a — § 380. 1. Dwelling-house.—In reason,’ and, said Lord Kenyon, “in the cases cited, a distinction seems to have been taken between a forcible entry into a dwelling-house and a forcible entry into other kinds of property, and it has been said that a less degree of force need appear in an indictment in the former case than in the latter.”® But even where the entry is into the dwelling, it will not suffice simply to say “with force and arms.”?’ Still, — 2, Even upon Premises other than the Dwelling-house, — the allegation of force in the entry need, we have seen, be only that it was “with a strong hand;”® while yet these particular words are not essential, though the force necessary under the special facts must in some way appear in averment.! 38. On Statute. — The words of the old English statutes were “manu forti,” with a strong hand; hence an indictment on them, not containing these words, was ill.” § 381. Secondly. Zhe Description of the Premises : — No Restitution. — By the common-law rules, under statutes prescribing a punishment but not restitution of the premises to the rightful possessor, no description of them other than a general designation, with the name of the person occupying or entitled to the game,!2 is necessary; '* unless, as is sometimes 1 Harding’s Case, 1 Greenl. 22. 10 Rex v. Bathurst, Say. 225, 227; Reg. 2 Ante, § 371. v. Dyer, 6 Mod. 96. * C.». Taylor, 5 Binn. 277, And see 1 Rex v. Bake, 3 Bur. 1731. S. v. Tolever, 5 Ire. 452. 12 Rex v. Baker, 11 Mod. 285; War- 4 New Crim. Law, II. § 499; S. v._ ner’s Case, Cro Eliz. 461*. Compare with Morgan, Winst. i. 246. McEvoy v. Igo, 27 Cal. 375; Owen v. 5 See New Crim. Law, II. § 497-499. Doty, 27 Cal. 502; Jarvis v. Hamilton, 16 6 Rex v. Wilson, 8 T. R. 357, 360. Wis. 574. 7 Ante, § 371. 138 Ante, § 372-374, 8 Ante, § 371. 14S. v. Warren, 13 Tex. 45. 9 C.v. Shattuck, 4 Cush. 141; 8S. v Whitfield, 8 Ire. 315. 164 CHAP. XXVI.] FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER. § 382 provided where they are to be restored,! but seldom or never otherwise, more should be required bya statute. § 382. 1. If the Court may order Restitution, — the indictment should enable it to instruct its officer where to find and how to identify the premises to be restored.2, Hence the rule for the description is, we have seen, that it shall be the same as in an action of ejectment.? Within this rule, the words “a certain close of two acres of arable land, situate in Shirley township in the county aforesaid, being part of a large tract of land adjoining lands of Andrew Dimond and Henry Hoshell,” were-held to be adequate; Tilghman, C. J. observing: “It is said that the sheriff will not know the land of which he is to make restitution. Perhaps he will not, until it is shown to him; for it is difficult to give such a description in writing as would enable a man to find out the spot without assistance. The same difficulty often occurs in ejectments. . . . In both, the sheriff receives informa- tion from the party who is to receive possession; and in both, the court, who heard the evidence, will superintend the execu- tion and guard against injustice.”* While this may be so in strict law, a prudent pleader will practically make the descrip- tion more minute and exact.® 2. Prove as laid, — The description of the premises to be restored 1 Lewis v. Steele, 1 Minn. 88. ° Bickley v. Norris, 2 Brev. 252. 8 Ante, § 375 (2); Dean v.C. 38. & R. 418, 419, 420. Certainty to a reasona- ble extent only is required in the descrip- tion. Torrence v. C. 9 Pa, 184. * Dean »v. C. supra. > The following cases may be helpful; A description not giving the number of acres, &c., may be good. Humphrys’ Case, Cro. Eliz. 458*; McNair v. Rempublicam, 4 Yeates, 326. The statutory demarcations of range, township, and section are not es- sential ; the metes and bounds, and objects of notoriety in the neighborhood, will suf- fice. Mead v. Daniel, 2 Port. 86. “ A cer- tain messuage, with the appurtenances, for a term of years, in the district of Sparten- burg,” was too indefinite. S. v. Walker, 2 Brev. 255. But the following was sus- tained: “A certain dwelling-house and woollen factory, or wool-carding and cloth- dressing mill or machine, and also a saw- mill; said dwelling-house situated on,” &c., giving the boundaries at length; “also, ‘said woollen factory, or wool-carding and cloth-dressing mill or machine, being situ- ated,” &e., giving the boundaries; “also, said saw-mill, being situated,” &., setting out the boundaries, —“all of which is situated upon lands of J. I J., in D town- ship, Tioga county, Pennsylvania.” C. v. Jackson, 1 Grant, Pa. 262. So was the following: “A certain messuage and tract of land, situated in the township and county aforesaid, and described as fol- lows, — All that piece of land containing seventy-six acres and oue hundred and fifty perches, and the allowance of six per cent, it being a part of a large tract, known as the Peter Jackson improve- ment, adjoining lands of David Henderson on the east. Vanpool v. C. 13 Pa. 391. See also Clements v. Clinton, Mart. & Yerg. 198; Moore v. Massie, 3 Litt. 296; Ward v. Lewis, 1 Stew. 26; House v, Camp, 32 Ala. 541; Castro v. Gill, 5 Cal. 40; Paul x. Silver, 16 Cal. 73; Moore », 165 § 383 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL must be proved at the trial as laid. Yetin the civil proceeding a separable part only may be shown,” and probably it is the same in the criminal.® § 883. Thirdly. The Estate of the Person dispossessed : — Where Restitution is to be asked,— we have seen‘ that the books require the indictment to set out the estate claimed by him to whom it is to be made. Yet in law, this proceeding settles nothing as to the title;® hence, if this consideration stood alone, the estate claimed need not be averred. But under the old English statutes, and under some of our modern ones, not every sort of possessory right justifies this proceeding; then, of course, the indictment must affirmatively show a right to which the statute is applicable, otherwise no jurisdiction over the case appears. Consequently, in South Carolina, an inquisition under 8 Hen. 6, c. 9, or 21 Jac. 1, ¢. 15, entitling the. ousted person to restitution, must, it is held, aver what estate he had, so that it may appear whether he is within the statutes, which he is not if he is tenant at will or by sufferance; and where the allegation was merely that the prosecutor “was seised and possessed ” of the premises “for a term of time,” without saying for what time, whether for life or years, or whether it was still subsisting, judgment was arrested.’? Hence, with us, on principle, and perhaps on authority, the indictment should be required to set out the estate, or not, according to the terms of the statute.§ Massie, 3 Litt. 296; Applegate v. Apple- gate, | Harrison, 321 ; Allen v. Gibson, 4 Rand. 468; Gorman v. Steed, 1 W. Va. 1. 1 Ball v.S. 26 Ind. 155. 2 Atchley v. Latham, 3 A. K. Mar. 164; Jarvis v. Hamilton, 19 Wis. 187. 8 And see post, § 388, 4 New Crim. Law, II. § 501 (3) ; ante, § 875 (2). 5 Taylor v. Griffith, 7 Mod. 115; Reg. v. Depuke, 11 Mod. 273; Reg. v. Griffith, 3 Salk. 169; Rex v. Wannop, Say. 142; Ward v. Lewis, 1 Stew. 26; Reg. v. Tay- lor, 7 Mod. 123; P.v. Nelson, 13 Johns. 340; Torrence v. C. 9 Pa. 184; Respub- lica v. Campbell, 1 Dall. 354 ; Clements v. Clinton, Mart. & Yerg. 198. 6 P. vy. Leonard, 11 Johns. 504; Beeler v, Cardwell, 33 Mo. 84; Dedman v. Smith, 2A. K. Mar. 260; Smith v. Dedman, 4 Bibb, 192. 166 7S. v. Speirin, 1 Brev. 119. See also Rex v. Holmes, 1 Mod. 73; Rex». Dillon, 2 Chit. 314 ; S.v. Batler, Taylor, 262. In England, the averment that the defend- ants into one messuage, &c., in the pos- session of X, he the said X then and there being also seised thereof, with force of arms, &c., did enter, and the said X from the peaceable possession with force and arms, &c., did put out, was held, after verdict, to show such present seisin of X as would authorize the awarding of resti- tution. Kex v. Hoare, 6 M. & S. 266. And see Respubliea v. Shryber, 1 Dall. 68. 8 P. vy. Leonard, supra; P. v. Reed, 11 Wend. 157; P. v. Van Nostrand, 9 Wend. 50; P. v. Carter, 29 Barb. 208; S. v. But- ler, Conference, 331; McNair v, Rempub- licam, 4 Yeates, 326; Rhodes v. Comer, 2 Sneed, 40; Eastman v. White, 3 Chand. 196; Whittaker v. Gautier, 3 Gilman, 443; CHAP. XXVI.] FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER. § 387 § 384. In Proof,—the seisin alleged is presumed from possession, ——a presumption which may be rebutted.1 So also, it seems, is the alleged fact that the person ousted is lessee for years.” § 385. Nature of Estate.— “It is immaterial,” says Archbold,? “whether the estate thus proved be an estate by right or by wrong; for, even if the defendant have a right of entry, still his asserting that right ‘ with strong hand or with multitude of people,’ is equally an offence within the statute as if he had no right. The statute, however, does not extend to a case where the party ousted had the bare custody of the premises for the defendant; but it extends to the forcible ouster of one joint tenant, or tenant in common, by another.” 4 Evidence of title in the defendant to the land is not admissible.® § 386. 1. Where there is no Restitution, —on a common-law indictment, the possessor’s estate need not be particularized. It is sufficient to aver that he was in quiet possession. ® much, at least, must be alleged.’ And so Then — 2. The Proof — need only establish the possession as thus set out. § 887. Fourthly. Remaining Questions : — 1. That the Defendant entered “as Servant” — is not legally objectionable in allegation, but superfluous; it need not be added by whom commanded, for the command is not a justification or traversable.® 2. Ousted. — By some form of words, it should be alleged that the person entered upon was ousted.10 Beel v. Pierce, 11 Dl. 92; Woodman ». Ranger, 30 Me. 180; Bush v. Dunham, 4 Mich. 339 ; Bryan v. Smith, 10 Mich. 229; Ellis v. Murray, 28 Missis. 129; S. ». Pearson, 2 N.°H. 550; Wall ». Hunt, 4 Halst. 37; Banks v. Murray, 2 Southard, 849; Allen v. Smith, 7 Halst.199; Drake v. Newton, 3 Zab. 111; Dutton v. Tracy, 4 Conn. 79; Fortier v. Ballance, 5 Gilman, 41; Brooks v. Bruyn, 18 Ill. 539; Phil- ips v. Sampson, 2 Head, 429; §. v. Ben- nett, 4 Dev. & Bat. 43; Barnes v. Nichol- son, 1 Penning. 326. 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 600; P. v. Leonard, 11 Johns. 504; P. v. Van Nostrand, 9 Wend. 50. See Jayne v. Price, 5 Taunt. 326, 1 Marshall, 68; P. v. Nelson, 13 Johns. 340. 2 Rex v. Lloyd, Cald. 415. 8 Archb. et sup. * 1 Hawk. P. C. 6th ed. c. 64, § 32, 33. 5 Reg. v. Cokely, 13 U. C. Q. B. 521; P. v. Leonard, 11 Johns. 504. See Rex v. Williams, 9 B. & C. 549, 4 Man. & R. 471. 6 §. v. Speirin, 1 Brev. 119; ante, §373 (1). And see Phelps v. Baldwin, 17 Conn. 209. 7 Corlies v. Corlies, 2 Harrison, 167; Singleton v. Finley, 1 Port. 144; Phelps v, Baldwin, supra. And see C. v. Bige- low, 8 Pick. 31; S. v. Bennett, 4 Dev. & Bat. 43; Burt v. S. 3 Brev. 413. 8 §. v. Wilson, 1 Ire. 32. 9 Rex v. Burgess, T. Raym. 84. 10 Rex v. Waite, 4 Mod. 248; Rex v. Dorny, Holt, 267, 1 Ld. Raym. 610. ‘* Bxpelled ’? — ‘* Disseised.’? — Where the entry is upon a tenant for years, the 167 § 388 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. 8. Witness. —In States where interest disqualifies a witness, one dispossessed by a forcible entry cannot testify against the wrong-doer in any proceeding wherein he may have restitution.? 4, A Verdict —that the defendant “unlawfully and with a strong hand detained,” does not also affirm the entry unlaw- ful.? § 388. 1. Duplicity.— A count charging a forcible entry and forcible detainer has been adjudged not double.? 2. A Conviction for a Separable Part—of what is alleged, and an acquittal of the rest, where all is not proved, say be had as in other criminal cases.* word should be “expelled,” and not “ dis- seised.” Rex v. Waite, supra. But where the person entered upon has a freehold, “ disseised” is the proper word. Reg. v. Griffith, 3 Salk. 169. The allega- tion that the prosecutor was disseised, necessarily implies a previous seisin. C. v. Fitch, 4 Dall. 212. Where Inquisi- tion. — An indictment on 8 Hen. 6, ¢. 9, or 21 Jac. 1, c. 15, need not show that the inquisition was taken at the place alleged to be forcibly entered; otherwise as to a conviction on 15 Rich. 2, c. 2. 8S. wv. Speirin, 1 Brev. 119. 168 1 Rex v. Williams, 9 B. & C. 549, 4 Man. & R. 471; Rex v. Beavan, Ryan & Moody, N. P. 242. 2S. v. Godsey, 18 Ire. 348. And see Sherrill v. Nations, 1 Ire. 325; Altree v. Moore, 1 Or. 850; Boxley v. Collins, 4 Blackf. 320; Raymond v. Bell, 18 Conn. 81. 8 C. v. Miller, 107 Pa. 276. 4C. v. Rogers, 1 S. & R. 124; P. v. Anthony, 4 Johns. 198; Swartawelder v. U.S. Bank, 1 J. J. Mar. 38; S. v. Ward, 1 Jones, N. C. 290; ante, § 382 (2). CHAP. XXVII.] FORCIBLE TRESPASS. § 392 CHAPTER XXVIL FORCIBLE TRESPASS. Consult, — for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, II. § 517-520a; also I. § 536-539. For the indictment, &c. Dir. & F. § 449-452, ' § 389. 1. In this Chapter, — we shall consider the procedure for the offence treated of under the same title in “New Criminal Law.” ' 2. Statutory Trespasses on Land, — and some sorts of what in these volumes is termed malicious mischief, occasionally denomi- nated forcible trespass, are not for this place. § 390. 1. The Common-law Indictment — does not greatly differ from that for forcible entry ;} the breach of the peace being there about real estate, and here personal.2 As to some of the averments, — 2. “ Against his Will.” — The North Carolina court deems that at common law it is not absolutely necessary to lay the taking of the goods as “against the will” of the possessor; yet if these words are not employed, others of like import must be.? Also, — 3. Possession — Strong Hand. — Actual possession of the thing should be averred; adding that the defendant, with a strong hand, took it, &c.4 Again, — ’ § 391. Presence of Owner.—It must be further alleged that the taking was in the presence of the owner, and from his actual possession. To say simply that it was from his possession is, therefore, doubly inadequate.® § 392, Defendant's Knowledge — Breach of Peace. — Where, ina Virginia case, the offence was perhaps not technically a forcible trespass, and the indictment was at cominon law, an allegation that the defendant rescued from the sheriff’s bailee goods which 1 Ante, § 371, 372. 4S, v. Mills, 2 Dev. 420. 2 See, for forms, S. v. Armfield, 5 Ire. 5 S. v. Watkins, 4 Humph. 256. And 207, 208; S. v. Mills, 2 Dev. 420. see S. v. Ray, 10 Ire. 39; S. v. Walker, 10 8S. v. Armfield, 5 Ire. 207. Ire. 234. 169 § 395 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL had been distrained for public dues, not adding that he knew in what right the sheriff held them, was, for lack of this averment, adjudged ill. So also was the mere charge that the taking of a horse was “with force and arms,” and done “unlawfully and injuriously,” because not describing the act as a breach of the peace.! Moreover, — § 393, All the Blements. — It was held inadequate, as not com- prehending all the elements of an indictable offence, to say that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant, with force and arms, one chestnut sorrel mare, the property of John A. Park, did unlawfully and forcibly take from and out of the possession of the said John A. Park.? § 394. On Statute. — The indictment on the Virginia statute may omit the words “but not feloniously,” because they are not a part of the description of the offence.? It must allege that the property taken by the defendant belonged to another, and that the taking was done “knowingly and wilfully without lawful authority,” which are the statutory words.* § 395. 1. Variance — (Deer — Deer Skin). — A charge of taking forcibly a slain deer is not supported by evidence of thus taking a deer’s skin, severed from its body.5 And— 2. Superfluous Averment of Presence. — Where it was alleged that A was present forbidding the trespassers, and this was superfluous because the possession of himself and the presence of his family were sufficient, yet by special verdict he was found to have been absent, the variance was adjudged fatal. Said Nash, J.: “The charge in the indictment, and that set forth in the special verdict, are distinct and several.” § 1 C. v, Israel, 4 Leigh, 675. 4 C. v. Israel, 4 Leigh, 675; C. v. Per- 2 §. v, Farnsworth, 10 Yerg. 261. cavil, 4 Leigh, 686. 8 Dye v. C. 7 Grat. 662. 5 §. v. Hemphill, 4 Dev. & Bat. 109. 6 S. v. Walker, 10 Ire. 234, 236. For FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT, see Neurrauity Laws, New Crim. Law, I. § 481-485, and particularly § 482; Dir. & F. § 759, 760. 170 CHAP. XXVIIL] FORESTALLING. § 397 CHAPTER XXVIII. FORESTALLING. Consult, — for the law of this offence, New Crim, Law, I. § 518-526; and compare with the title Encrossine. § 396. Indictment, — The following is an English form of the indictment for this offence: — “ That A, late of, &c., in the county of, &c., on, &c., at the parish afore- said, in the county aforesaid, unlawfully did buy and cause to be bought, of and from one X, three hundred pounds’ weight of meat, for the sum of eight pounds six shillings, as he the said X then and there was coming towards London, to wit, to a certain market called Newgate Market, in London afore- said, to sell the said meat, and before the same was brought into the said market where the same should be sold; in contempt of our said lady the queen and her laws, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace of our lady the queen, her crown, and dignity.’’ 1 § 397. Under the Title Engrossing, —‘in this volume, are obser- vations and references to places in the books, useful to be con- sulted in the present connection. : 1 Matthews Crim. Law, 476. And see 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 532, 533; Rex ». Waddington, 1 East, 143. 171 §.400 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII CHAPTER XXIX. FORGERY OF WRITINGS AND ITS KINDRED OFFENCES. § 398. Introduction. 899-426. In General of Indictment. 427-436. In General of the Evidence. 437-474. In Particular Forms of Offending and Law. 475-486. Questions of Practice. Consult, — for the law of these offences, New Crim. Law, II. § 521-612. For the indictment, &c., Dir. & F. § 453-480. And compare with the title CouNTERFEITING, &c. For considerable numbers of miscellaneous questions, see the indexes to’ this series of books. § 898. How Chapter dividea.— We shall consider, I. In General of the Indictment; II. In General of the Evidence; III. The Indictment and Evidence in Particular Forms of Offending and of Law; IV. Questions of Practice. | I, In General of the Indictment. § 399. Allied to Attempt — and Cheat. — Forgery being in its origin and nature a cheat, attempted or accomplished,! the indict- ment for it is drawn in a general way after the principles ex- plained under the titles “Attempt” and “Cheats.” But being more illumined by adjudications than those offences, we shall not here have much occasion to look into those titles. § 400. 1. Allege and Prove. — The essentials of forgery proper, to be alleged and proved, are three, — (1) A writing in terms to be apparently of legal efficacy.? (2) An evil intent, of the sort deemed in law fraudulent, in the mind of the defendant.® (8) A false making of such writing.4 2. In the Connected Offences, — as, the uttering and the like,— for the third of these elements is substituted a charge of the par- 1 New Crim. Law, I. § 572 and note; * Tb. § 572-595, 602, 603; affirmed S. II. § 148, 157, 158, 168, 521. v. Gryder, 44 La, An. 962, 32 Am, St. 358; 2 New Crim. Law, II. § 528-571. 8. v. Ford, 38 La. An. 797. 3 Ib. § 596-601. 172 CHAP. XXIXx.] FORGERY OF WRITINGS, ETC. § 403 ticular act which distinguishes the offence, and the defendant’s knowledge that the paper is forged.! § 401. 1. The Indictment for Forgery Proper, — in its ordinary common-law form, where an individual is the intended victim, avers that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant, contriving and in- tending to injure him,? giving his name, did falsely and fraudu- lently [where the offence is felony, say feloniously] forge and counterfeit a certain writing on paper, purporting to be, &c. [for example, a last will and testament, &c.], the tenor whereof is as follows [setting out the writing verbatim], with intent to injure, impoverish, and defraud [or cheat and defraud] the said, &c.? 2. For the Connected Offences — the indictments set out the forged instrument verbatim, the defendant’s knowledge that it is spurious, his criminal intent, and the act distinguishing the particular form of offence.4 § 402. Ordinarily Sufficient —are these allegations; but the offence in all its elements must be made affirmatively to appear. To accomplish which, it is sometimes necessary to set out also an explanatory fact, a foreign law, or other matter special to the individual case, as well as to cover by averment the terms of the statute on which the indictment is drawn. More minutely, — § 403. First. The Setting out of the Forged Instrument : — By its Tenor. — As explained in the first volume,® the indict- ment by the common-law rules, whether for forging a writing, for uttering it, or for having it in possession with the intent to 1 Post, § 425. ‘2 This sort of introduction, evidently superfluous, is not always retained. % See, for illustrative forms, Dir, & F. § 460, 461; Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 391; Train & Heard Prec. 223; 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 1044 et seq.; S. v. Kréeger, 47 Mo. 552; Reg. v. Rinaldi, Leigh & C. 330, 9 Cox C. C. 391; Phelps v. P. 6 Hun, 428, 72 N. Y. 365; Rex v. Reeves, 2 Leach, 808, 819; Meserve v. C. 187 Mass. 109; S. v. Maas, 37 La. An. 292; S. v. Tisdale, 39 La. An. 476; Shannon v. S. 109 Ind. 407; S. v. Fries, 53 Ind. 489; May v. S. 17 Tex. Ap. 213. 4 See S. v. Cook, 52 Ind. 574; Harrison v. S. 36 Ala. 248; P. v. Van Keuren, 5 Par. Cr. 66; Buckland rv, C. 8 Leigh, 732; C. v. Castles, 9 Gray, 123. 5 For illustration, see Reg. v. Rinaldi, Leigh & C. 330; Reg. v. Toshack, 1 Den. C. C, 492, 4 Cox C. C.-38; Rex v. Szu- durskie, 1 Moody, 429; C. v. Spilman, 124 Mass. 327, 26 Am. R. 668; Rembert v. S. 53 Ala. 467, 25 Am. R. 639; Moore v. S. 33 Ga, 225; S. v. Wheeler, 19 Minn. 98; C. v. Hinds, 101 Mass. 209 ; Reg. v. Board- man, 2 Moody & R. 147, 2 Lewin, 181; Rex v. Thompson, 2 Leach, 910; Testick’s Case, 1 East, 181, note; Rex v. Barton, 1 Moody, 141; S. v. Thorn, 66 N.C. 644; Bynam v. 8. 17 Ohio St. 142; Drake v. S. 19 Ohio St. 211; Clarke v. S. 8 Ohio St. 630. And see S. v. Cook, 52 Ind. 574, 8 Vol. I. § 559-563. 173 § 406 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL utter it, must set it out by its tenor; its mere substance, or effect, will not suffice. The object of which requirement is, ‘as usually stated, to enable the court to judge whether or not the instrument is one whereof forgery may be committed.} But — § 404. If the Instrument is Lost or Destroyed, — or in the defend- ant’s possession, or otherwise, where access to it cannot be had, the disabling fact may be averred, whereon the substance will suffice. 2 Yet without, at least, the substance, the indictment will be ill, though alleging all that is possible.? § 405. The Word “Tenor,” —- though the better one in the aver- ment of tenor, is not indispensable,t—a question already considered.® § 406. The Copy, —in a recital by tenor, should closely follow the original.6 Buta variance in the spelling, where the sound is preserved, will not vitiate it.7 1 §. v. Jones, 1 MeMul. 236, 36 Am. D. 257; S. v. Dourdon, 2 Dev. 443; S. v. Atkins, 5 Blackf. 458; Mason’s Case, 1 East, 180, note; Danav. S. 2 Ohio St. 91; S. v. Witham, 47 Me. 165; S. v. Twitty, 2 Hawks, 248; S. v. Bonney, 34 Me. 383; U.S. v. Fisler, 4 Bis. 59; S. v. Covington, 94 N.C. 913, 55 Am. R. 650; Thomas »v. 8.18 Tex. Ap. 213; Smith v. 8. 18 Tex. Ap. 399; U.S. v. Britton, 2 Mason, 464; S. v. Stuart, 61 Iowa, 203; Morris v. S. 17 Tex. Ap. 660. 2 Pp. v. Badgley, 16 Wend. 53; Crox- dale v. 8S. 1 Head, 189; S. v. Parker, 1 D. Chip. 298; Hooper v. 8. 8 Humph. 93; Stephens v. S. Wright, 73; U.S. v. Brit- ton, 2 Mason, 464; Munson v, 8. 79 Ind. 541, 3 Wallace v. P. 27 Ill. 45. See Vol. I. § 495, 497, 498, 547. In New York, the following indictment was sustained on proof that the forged instrument was in the hands of the defendant: That on, &c., at, &c., the defendant, Samuel Kingsley, “did falsely and feloniously make, forge, and counterfeit, and did then and there willingly and feloniously act and assist in the false making, forging, and counter- feiting of a certain false, forged, and counterfeited bond and writing, obliga- tory for the payment of money, bearing date on some day to the jurors aforesaid unknown, in a penal sum to the jurors aforesaid unknown, with a condition there- 174 A bank-note was recited as under written for the payment of a cer- tain sum to the jurors aforesaid unknown, at some day thereafter to the jurors afore- said unknown, with interest thereon to the said Samuel Kingsley, purporting to have been executed by one George Bock- hoven, late of, &c.; which said false, forged, and counterfeited bond and writ- ing, obligatory for the payment of money, is in thé possession and custody of the said Samuel Kingsley ; with intent to de- fraud one John Sinclair, against the form of the statute,” &¢. P. v. Kingsley, 2 Cow. 522, 14 Am. D. 520. Ina Vermont case, where also the writing was alleged to be in the defendant’s possession, so could not be more particularly described, it was held inadequately set out as “a certain writing, purporting to be a bond, with condition thereto annexed, signed, sealed, and executed by A, B, and C, and dated Jan. 8th, 1853.” 8. v. Briggs, 34 Vt. 501. And see C. v. Clancy, 7 Allen, 537; Mathena v. 8S. 20 Ark. 70; C. ». Spilman, 124 Mass. 327, 26 Am. R. 668. 4 Rex ». Powell, 2 W. Bl. 787, 1 Leach, 77; 2 East P. C. 976; S. v, Atkins, 5 Blackf. 458; Dana v.’S. 2 Ohio St. 91; U.S. v. Hinman, Bald. 292; U.S. ». Ma- son, 12 Blatch. 497. 5 Vol. I. § 559 (3), 561. 6 Luttrell v.S. 85 Tenn. 232, 4 Am. St. 760. 7 Vol. IL § 562; S. v. Bean, 19 Vt CHAP. XXIX.] FORGERY OF WRITINGS, ETC. § 407 payable to “E. lymour,” and the note in evidence was to “E. Seymour”: this was ill.1 And the sum, for example, averred in an order, must be exactly the same in the proofs.?_ If the forgery of the name is by initials, the full name in the indictment will work a variance. And in some circumstances, even the mis- spelling of such name will be fatal.4 § 407. 1. The Entire Operative Writing, — even to immaterial words in it, must be set out, yet not what is put around or attached to it for ornament or convenience, unless the pleader chooses.5 Thus, — 2. Figures in the Margin — of a bill of exchange are not a part of it, but an index to it; so that, for example, forgery is not committed by altering them to correspond to the bill itself.® Therefore an indictment for forging such bill need not mention its marginal figures.’ Again, — 3. Ornaments — Number. — The number of a bank-bill, and the devices, figures, and words in the margin, introduced for, orna- ment or to prevent counterfeiting, need not be averred.6 So, — 4, A Signature by Mark? — may appear in allegation without the mark.!® And — 530; Rex v. Crooke, 2 East P. C. 921. Illegible. — How where the word is illeg- ible, see Mathena ev. S. 20 Ark. 70; C. v. Clancy, 7 Allen, 537; Rex v. Woods, Jebb, 115; Buckland v. C. 8 Leigh, 732; U.S. v. Mason, 12 Blatch. 497. 1 Porter v. S. 15 Ind. 433. 2 §. vu. Smith, 78 N.C. 462. And see S. v. Fay, 65 Mo. 490. If it is in figures in the writing, it must be so also in the indictment. Rex v. Powell, Bayley Bills, 5th ed. 562, 563. 3S. v. Fay, supra. Where the initial thus required is given in the indictment, no averment of the name it stands for is necessary. Rex v. Powell, supra. Com- pare with S. v. Bibb, 68 Mo. 286. 4 McClellan v. S. 32 Ark. 609, 5 Griffin v. S. 14 Ohio St. 55, and cases cited in the subsequent notes. That su- perfluous words in the instrument must be set out is evident, because otherwise there will be a variance between allega- tion and proof. Vol. I. § 488, 562; ante, § 406. 6 Smith v. Smith, 1 R. I. 398, 53 Am. D. 652. 7 §. uv. Flye, 26 Me. 312; C. v. Bailey, 1 Mass. 62, 2 Am. D. 3; C. v. Stevens, 1 Mass. 203, 204. See Rex v. Eliot, Bayley Bills, 5th ed. 557; S. v. McKiernan, 17 Nev. 224; U. S. v. Bennett, 17 Blatch. 357. 8 P. v. Franklin, 3 Johns. Cas. 299; Hampton v. 8, 8 Ind. 336; C. v. Taylor, 5 Cush. 605; C. v. Bailey, 1 Mass. 62; C. v. Stevens, 1 Mass. 203; S. v. Carr, 5 N. H. 367; Griffin v. S. 14 Ohio St. 55; S. wv. Wheeler, 35 Vt. 261; Cross v. P. 47 Tl. 152, 95 Am. D. 474; U.S. v. Bennett, 17 Blatch. 357. 9 Bishop Con. § 345. 10 Reg. v. Smith, 1 Salk. 342. So I understand this case, though Starkie states it somewhat differently, then seems to question its correctness. 1 Stark. Crim. Pl. 2d ed. 103. The whole case, as reported by Salkeld, one of the best of the old reporters, is: “ Indictment for forging a deed of assignment of a lease, signed with the mark of one God- dard, cujus tenor sequitur, but sets not down the mark as in the assignment; and this was objected, for that without 175 § 409 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. ‘[BOOK XIL... 5. Though a Revenue Stamp —is by statute required to an - instrument, not made void without it, no allegation of a stamp. is essential in an indictment for forging the instrument. But— § 408, 1. The Pleader may,— if he chooses, set out what is thus unnecessary.?, Then, — 2. Variance. —It being descriptive, and in further particulari- zation of the necessary part,? the averment in this, as in the rest, must correspond with the instrument in proof, or the variance will be fatal.4 § 409. 1. Date. — Though a written contract may be good with- out a date, and the time of making a dated one may be shown to be other than thus appears,® still the date is a part of the instru- ment, and it should be set out with the rest in the indictment.® And — that it could not be a forgery; sed non allocatur.” I cannot doubt the correct- ness in principle of this decision. The defendant, we may assume, said to the court: “As the supposed maker of the assignment could not write, the original could not be good without the mark; therefore the indictment cannot be good unless the mark appears.” But the court replied: “ Assuming your premise to be correct, the result does not follow. The indictment sets out the forged name. The mark indicates the way of executing the signature. Suppose, for illustration, the man could not write an elegant hand, yet could write a bad hand which could be read; then it would have been impos- sible for him to execute-the original un- less he had done it in a bad hand. In such a case, if you had objected that the name in the indictment was written in an elegant hand, therefore it could not be good, we should say, sed non allocatur. It is necessary the indictment should con- tain the name, but not in fac-simile. Moreover, your premise is wrong; the signature would be/in law, just as bind- ing without the mark as with it; for, if A in the presence of B, and at his request, writes the latter’s name to an instru- ment, it is his signature, though there is no mark.” Bishop Con. § 345. And see Cross v. P. 47 Ill. 152. If the pleader chooses, he may set out the mark in the indictment. Rex v. Dunn, Bayley Bills, 5th ed. 551. 176 1 New Crim. Law, II. § 540; S. wv. Haynes, 6 Coldw. 550; Cross v. P. 47 lL. 152; Miller v. P. 52 N. Y. 304, 11 Am. R, 706; Rex v. Hawkeswood, 2 T. R. 606, note; Horton v. S. 32 Tex’ 79. And see Hall v. Jordan, 15 Wal. 393; C. v. McKean, 98 Mass. 9. 2 For example, the name of the en- graver in the margin of a bank-bill alleged to be forged. Thompson v. 8. 9 Ohio St. 354, 356. 8 Vol. I. § 483, 485-487. 4 Griffin v. S. 14 Ohio St. 55, 61; U.S. v. Mason, 12 Blatch. 497. 5 Bishop Con. § 114, 178. 6 C. », Stevens, 1 Mass. 203. Forgery by altering Date.—In some circum- stances, and as to some instruments, the date is so far immaterial that an altera- tion of it will not vitiate the instrument as a contract. S.v. Miller, 3 Gill, 335; Terry zv. Hazlewood, 1 Duv. 104; Miller v. Gille- land, 19 Pa. 119. But generally it is material, and the alteration will be fatal. Getty v. Shearer, 20 Pa. 12; Owings v. Arnot, 33 Mo. 406; Hocker v. Jamison, 2 Watts & S. 438; Lisle v. Rogers, 18 B. Monr. 528. And see Griffith v. Cox, 1 Tenn. 210; Ratcliff v. Planters’ Bank, 2 Sneed, Tenn. 425; Boyd v. McConnell, 10 Humph. 68; Collins v. Makepeace, 13 Ind. 448. Perhaps, in a case of the for- mer sort, a recital in the indictment, omitting the date, may be good. CHAP. XXIX.] FORGERY OF WRITINGS, ETC. § 412 2. Name of State. — On a trial for uttering a forged bank-bill of another State, where the name of such State constituted a part of the date, an omission of it from the allegation was held fatal. “For the words ‘ State of Maine’ ” were deemed “part of the contract. They fix the sttws of the bank, the place where the contract is made and to be performed, and the law by which it is to be interpreted.” ! If the bank was domestic it would not necessarily be so; for then the State might be presumed to be that of the court, as in an allegation of venue.? But even then, standing with the month and day in the instrument, it would seem to be required equally in the setting out, as being a part of the writing.® _ § 410. An Indorsement, — on a note or check which without it is complete, so does not in law constitute a part of it, need not be set out in an indictment for the forgery thereof. For the forgery of the indorsement, the indictment must have such averments as will make the offence affirmatively appear.® § 411. For the Forgery of a Receipt — for money, which refers to a bill of items, they need not be set out in the indictment.® § 412. 1. “Tenor” dispensed with by Statutes. — In England, 2&8 Will. 4, co. 128, §38, made it unnecessary “to set forth any copy or fac-simile” of the forged instrument, and declared suffi- cient any description of it “in such manner as would sustain an indictment for stealing the same.” Archbold states that “this statute has been held to apply even to instruments which are not the subject of larceny either at common law or by statute.”7 It is now superseded by 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, § 42, permitting the instrument to be alleged simply “by any name or designation by which the same may be usually known, or by the purport thereof, 1C. v. Wilson, 2 Gray, 70. 2 Vol. L. § 383. 8 Ante, § 407. 4 Miller », P. 52 N. Y. 304, 305, 11 Am. R. 706; Hess v. S. 5 Ohio, 5, 22 Am. 1). 767; C.v. Ward, 2 Mass. 397; Buckland v. C. 8 Leigh, 732; C.v. Adams, 7 Met. 50. 5 ©. v. Spilman, 124 Mass. 327, 26 Am. R. 668; Cocke v. C. 13 Grat. 750. And see P. v. Marion, 29 Mich. 31. 6 Rex v. Testick, 2 East P. C. 925, 1 East, 181, note; Rex v. Thompson, 2 Leach, 632, note. See post, § 415; Rex VOL. 11. —12 v. Martin, 1 Moody, 483, 7 Car. & P. 549; Rice v. S. 1 Yerg. 432; New Crim. Law, II. § 546 (5). 7 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 357. And see, for various interpreta- tions, Reg. v. Robson, 2 Moody, 182, 9 Car. & P. 423; Reg. v. Collins, 2 Moody & R. 461; Rex v. Martin, 1 Moody, 483 ; Rex v. Burgiss, 7 Car. & P. 490; Rex v. Brewer, 6 Car. & P. 363; Reg. v. Sharpe, 8 Car. & P. 436; Reg. v. Vaughan, 8 Car. & P. 276; Reg. v. Davies, 9 Car. & P.427; Reg. v. Smith, 2 Cox C. C. 358. 177 § 414 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. without setting out any copy or fac-simile thereof, or otherwise describing the same or the value thereof.”! In like manner, — 2. Statutes — in some of our States have variously modified the common-law rule on this subject.? § 413. Secondly. The Purport Clause :— 1. The Name of the Forged Instrument, — where the tenor is set out, need not in reason be given; even if it were important to be known, it is matter of law, and the court can see what it is. Still, many cases seem to assume, while probably it was never judicially held, that the name is necessary. And where, for example, it was given as a “crocket for five packs of linen cloth,” the defendant moved in arrest of judgment on the ground that the quantity of cloth was uncertain. But the court deemed the allegation adequate. The common method of averring the name is by a — 2. Purport Clause — What — Whether Indispensable.— In the ordinary form of-the indictment, we have seen,‘ the instrument is, in a clause preceding the recitation of its tenor, introduced as “purporting” to be a bond, &e., or a bill of exchange, &c., or whatever else it appears on its face to be. This is termed the purport clause. In reason, it is matter, not of fact, but of law, not for the jury, but for the court, and on familiar principles ® it need not be alleged.* Therefore it is believed that this clause in the indictment is never necessary. Jt may contain what if omitted would leave the allegations inadequate ;* but even then, the essential things may be equally well set out in some other form of words. * § 414. For giving the Statutory Name of the Forged Writing, — this clause is appropriate. And in indictments on statutes, it is 1 And see Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 19th * Ante, § 401 (1). ed. 610. 2S. cv. Pons, 28 La. An. 43; S. v. Nel- son, 28 La. An. 46; C. v. McKean, 98 Mass. 9; S. v. Clinton, 67 Mo. 380, 29 Am. R. 506; Coleman v. C. 25 Grat. 865, 879,18 Am. R. 711; S. v. Hill, 30 Wis. 416; Chidester v. S. 25 Ohio St. 433; C. v. Hall, 97 Mass. 570; McGuire v. 8. 37 Ala. 161; Jones v. S. 50 Ala. 161; S. v. Johnson, 26 Iowa, 407, 96 Am. D. 158; S. v. Henderson, 29 W. Va. 147. 8 Reg. v. Browne, 6 Mod. 87; s.c. nom. Reg. v. Brown, 3 Salk. 172, 178 5 Vol. I. § 829-332, 514, 515. 6 The Purport — of a writing is what it appears on its face to be. Hence, among other consequences, the forger can- not change the purport, so as to bring his forgery within the statute, by telling any falsehood concerning it. Rex v. Jones, 1 Leach, 204, 2 East P, C. 883, 1 Doug. 300. See New Crim. Law, II. § 594, note; Rex v. Reading, 2 Leach, 590. 7 Rex v. Wilcox, Russ. & Ry. 50; Snow v. S. 14 Wis. 479. CHAP. XXIX.] FORGERY OF WRITINGS, ETC. § 415 commonly employed, and there, if anywhere, it is essential; because, says Starkie, “it must invariably be shown on the face of the indictment, by proper averments, that the instrument forged is of the particular kind prohibited by the statute upon which the indictment is founded,”! But, observed Buller, J., after explaining that the forms “have varied, and have been different from each other at different periods of time:” “If indictments for forgery were now merely to state that the prisoner ‘ forged a paper writing to the tenor and effect following, &c.,’ and the instrument set out appeared on the face of it to be a bond, or bill of exchange, or any other of the instruments described in the statute, I should, as at present advised, see no objection to such a form.”? And subsequent adjudication has established this dictum in authority; namely, that the statutory name of the forged instrument need not be mentioned, where, on all the allegations, the court can see that it is one the forgery whereof is by the statute made punishable.? Still, — § 415. 1. To Avoid a Variance, -—if the indictment undertakes to give the statutory name, it must do it correctly;* “for instance,” says Archbold,’ “if a bill of exchange be described as a promissory note, the defendant will be acquitted.”® Buta bank-bill may be introduced as a promissory note; because in law it is such.’ And — 1 | Stark. Crim. Pl. 2d ed. 104. 2 Rex v. Gilchrist, 2 Leach, 657, 660, 661. 3 C. v. Castles, 9 Gray, 123; U.S. uv. Trout, 4 Bis. 105; P. v. Clements, 26 N. Y. 193; Fogg v. 8. 9 Yerg. 392; S.v. Fenly, 18 Mo. 445; U.S. v. Williams, 4 Bis. 302. And see Reg. v. Pringle, 9 Car. & P. 408, 2 Moody, 127; S.v. Wheeler, 19 Minn. 98; P. «. Badgley, 16 Wend. 53; S. v. Gardiner, 1 Ire 27 ; Sanderson’s Case, 2 Lewin, 187; Reg. v. Williams, 2 Den. C. C. 61, 4 Cox C. C. 356, 2 Eng. L. & Eq. 533. Clear as thus appears to be the doc- trine which renders the purport clause un- necessary, explained in this section and the last, it is still not certain that all our courts will yield to it their assent. And see S. v. Brown, 4 R. I. 528,70 Am. D. 168. On the other hand, “I conclude,” says McDonald, J. “upon principle and reason, that in no case of an indictment describing a forgery, and setting out the forged instrument in hec verba, is it neces- sary to superadd the purport clause.” U.S. v. Williams, 4 Bis. 302, 304. # Reg. v. Williams, 2 Car. & K. 51; 8S. v. Morton, 27 Vt. 310, 65 Am. D. 201; Reg. v. Williams, 2 Den. C. C. 61, 4 Cox C. C. 856, 2 Eng. L, & Eq. 533; Clark v. C. 16 B. Monr. 206; S. v. Page, 19 Mo, 213. And see S. v. Lytle, 64 N. C. 255; P.», Marion, 28 Mich. 255; C. v. Brown, 147 Mass. 585, 9 Am. St. 736; Labbaite v. S. 6 Tex. Ap 257. But see Johnson v. S. 62 Ga, 299. 5 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 357. See Rex v. Wilcox, Russ. & Ry. 50. 6 See Rex v. Hunter, Russ. & Ry. 511; Rex v. Birkett, Russ. & Ry. 251; C. v. Butterick, 100 Mass. 12, 16; Lloyd v. Oliver, 18 Q. B. 471. 7 Ov. Carey, 2 Pick. 47; Hobbs v. 8. 9 Misso. 855; Stat. Crimes, § 336. 179 § 416 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. 2. Averring Extrinsic Matter.— Where the nature, sort, or effect of the instrument does not affirmatively appear on its face, the extrinsic matter to show this must be alleged! If, for example, by usage, or in consequence of facts known to the parties, a writing incomplete in its terms is treated as a receipt? or an order,® or if initials are employed instead of the full names,‘ allegations supplying the omission become necessary. But “the words ‘ Settled, Sam. Hughes,’ written at the foot of a bill of parcels, were held of themselves to import a receipt of acquittance;” so that no explanatory averment was required.® § 416. Where the Purport is alleged,—as above explained, whether necessarily® or not,’ the allegation must harmonize in terms with the tenor, or the indictment will be ill,* unless it can be rejected as surplusage.? Thus, if however unnecessarily the name of the maker of a forged note appears in the purport clause, yet varies from that in the tenor clause, the repugnance will be fatal.!° So an allegation that a forged check purports to be “on the City Bank of Dallas” is repugnant to a recitation of it as on the “City Bank,” omitting the words “of Dallas;” and it will render the count bad.41_ But where Tristram Tupper was introduced in the purport clause as the maker of a forged writ- ing, and by the tenor clause it appeared to have been signed T. Tupper, then the forgery was charged to have been done to defraud Tristram Tupper, the variance was immaterial.” 1 Stat. Crimes, § 335, 341, 342; New Crim. Law, II. § 546; ante, § 402; post, § 418a; S. v. Briggs, 34 Vt. 501; S. v. Wheeler, 19 Minn. 98; C. e. Hinds, 101 Mass. 209; Hendricks v. S. 26 Tex. Ap. 176, 8 Am. St. 463 ; S. v. Weaver, 94 N.C. 836, 55 Am. R. 647; Jacobs v. 8. 61 Ala. 448; Shannon v. §.109 Ind. 407; Dixon v. 8.81 Ala.61; Sanabriay. P. 24 Hun, 270; C.v. Dunleay, 157 Mass. 386 ; Stewart v. S. 113 Ind. 505; Rembert v. 8. 53 Ala. 467, 25 Am. R. 639; King v. S. 27 Tex. Ap. 567, 11 Am. St. 203. And see McGarr v8.75 Ga. 155; Baysinger v. S. 77 Ala. 63, 54 Am. R. 46. 2 Stat. Crimes, § 342; Rex v. Hunter, 2 Leach, 624, 2 East P. C, 928. 8 Stat. Crimes, § 335. 4 Rex v. Barton, 1 Moody, 141; Bynam v. §.17 Ohio St. 142. 5 Archb. ut sup.; Rex v. Martin, 1 180 : Moody, 483; Rex v. Houseman, 8 Car. & P.180; Reg. v. Vaughan, 8 Car. & P. 276; Reg. v. Boardman, 2 Moody & R. 147, 2 Lewin, 181. See Reg. v. Rogers, 9 Car. & P. 41; Rex v. Thompson, 2 Leach, 910. 6 See, however, S. v. Crawford, 13 La. An. 300. * §. o. Shawley, 5 Hayw. 256. 8S. vo. Farrand, 3 Halst. 333; 8. v. Bean, 19 Vt. 580; Rex v. Gilchrist, 2 Leach, 657; Luttrell vo. S. 85 Tenn. 232, 4 Am. St. 760. See C. v. Welch, 148 Mass. 296; Ham v. S. 4 Tex. Ap. 645; P. v. Mann, 75 N. Y. 484, 31 Am. R. 482. 9 Myers v.S. 101 Ind. 379. 10 §. v. Houseal, 2 Brev. 219, 222. And see Rex v. Reeves, 2 Leach, 808; Rex uv Edsall, 1 East, 180, note. 11 Roberts v. 8. 2 Tex. Ap. 4. 12 §. v. Jones, 1 McMul. 236, 36 Am. D. CHAP. XXIX.] FORGERY OF WRITINGS, ETC. § 418 a § 417. Thirdly. Further of alleging the Forged Writing : — 1. Repugnance — should be avoided.! Thus, — 2. “Signea” —is ill; because if the writing was signed, it was not forged.2 But — § 418. 1. “Forged,” — while not strictly accurate, may be used if in the statute; as, if it is made punishable to “forge any will, or bond, or writing obligatory,” &c., the averment may be, says Starkie,? “that the defendant forged the will,‘ bond, or writing obligatory.”5 On the other hand, — 2. “Forged a Writing purporting.” — Instead of such form, “it is,” continues this author, “in all cases proper and seemingly more correct to aver that the defendant forged and: counterfeited a certain paper writing purporting to be the last will (or other instrument whose forgery is penal).” So that the pleader may elect the form he prefers.6 Again, — 3. Forging Indorsement. — If the structure of a promissory note is such that it becomes complete only by an indorsement, the allegation is good that the defendant forged the indorsement.’ § 418 a. 1. Ambiguities in Instrument. — Since the indictment must show prima facie guilt,? where it is uncertain on the face of a writing whether or not it is of legal efficacy if genuine,® something more than a mere setting out of its tenor is required.” This has been already in part explained.1! For example, — 2. If an Agent's Order on his Principal — constitutes the forgery, and the alleged intent is to defraud him, the authority of the agent thus to bind him must be averred; because otherwise, said Pearson, C. J. “there is nothing from which the court can see that the false paper had a tendency to defraud” this person.” 257. Compare this case with the cases cited in the last note but one. And see 8S. v. Calvin, R. M. Charl. 151; S. ». Gustin, 2 Southard, 749 ; C. v. Hall, 97 Mass. 570; Fogg v. S. 9 Yerg. 392; S. v. Bibb, 68 Mo. 286. 1 Vol. I. § 490 (1); S. v. Cook, 52 Ind. 574. 2 Rex v. Carter, 2 East P. C. 985. And see Vol. I. § 490 (1). 8 1 Stark. Crim. PI. 2d ed. 104, 105. * Rex v. Birch, 1 Leach, 79, 2 East P. C. 980. 5 Dunnett’s Case, 2 East P. C. 985; S. v. Gardner, 1 Ire. 27; P. v. Rynders, 12 Wend, 425. And see S. v. Houseal, 2 Brev. 219. 6 Rex v. Birch, 1 Leach, 79, 2 W. Bl. 790, 2 East P. C. 980. 7 C.v Dallinger, 118 Mass. 439. 8 Vol. I. § 326, 509, 513, 519, 521. ® New Crim. Law, IT. § 545. 10 Clarke v. S. 8 Ohio St. 630, 634; C. v. Hinds, 101 Mass. 209, 211; Rembert v. S. 53 Ala. 467, 25 Am. R. 639; Vincent v. P.5 Par. Cr. 88. And see Williams v. S. 51 Ga. 535; Drake v. §. 19 Ohio St. 211; P. v. Tomlinson, 35 Cal. 503. 1 Ante, § 415. 12 §. v, Thorn, 66 N.C. 644, 645. New Crim. Law, II. § 543, 599. 181 See § 420 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. But doubtless if the intent were laid to defraud the one to whom the order was passed, this authority need not be alleged; because forgery may be committed even of a fictitious name.! Again, — 3, Under Seal — (“ Deed” —“Bond”).—If the instrument is of a sort to have effect only when under seal, or if by the statute it must be a “bond ” or “deed,” where a seal is implied,? terms indicating a seal must be employed in the indictment ;* for which purpose, “deed” alone, for example, will suffice. Where the forgery is of a deed of land, the indictment need not go further and allege that had it been valid it would have conveyed the land.§ § 419. 1. The Altering of an Instrument — makes it in lawa new one. And — 2, The Indictment, — where the forgery consists in altering a genuine writing,’ may lay it as of the whole, according to the legal effect of the transaction, or specially aver the alteration, according to the outward form, at the election of the pleader.® And proof of a material alteration,® or of the forgery of a material part,’ will sustain a charge of forging the entire instru- ment. If the pleader adopts the outward form, and avers that the defendant altered a genuine instrument, he must set it out by its tenor as it was before the alteration, and then distinctly state what alteration was made." § 420. Fourthly. The Allegations of the Fraudulent Intent and of the Person meant to be defrauded : — Essential — (Public Forgeries — Private). — Since forgery is an actual or attempted cheat, !* the fraudulent purpose, and the name of the individual meant to be cheated, must, as in other cheats, 8 1 New Crim. Law, II. § 548,547; post, § 423. 2 Bishop Con. § 105, 108; S. v. Butler, 47 Minn. 483. See also P. v. Dewey, 35 Hun, 308. i 38 Rex v. Newton, 3 Keb. 357, 367, 388, cited 2 Ld. Raym. 921; Reg. v. Goddard, 2 Ld. Raym. 920. 4 Paige ». P. 3 Abb, Ap, 439; S. v. Fisher, 65 Mo. 437. See § v. Lytle, 64 N.C. 255. 5 §.v. Fisher,supra. And compare with U.S. v. Lawrence, 13 Blatch. 211. See also P. v. Van Alstine, 57 Mich. 69. 6 Bishop Con. § 133, 186, 764, 766, 768. 7 New Crim. Law, II. § 528, 573-578, 182 8 Vol. I. § 832-334; S. v, Gardiner, 1 Ire. 27; S. v. Weaver, 13 Ire. 491; Bit- tings v. 8.56 Ind. 101; P. v. Marion, 29 Mich. 31. ® S. v, Gardiner, supra; S. v. Marvels, 2 Harring. Del. 527. 10 C, v. Butterick, 100 Mass, 12,18; P. v. Clements, 26 N. Y. 193. 11 §. », Fisher, 58 Mo. 256; S. v. Bry- ant, 17 N. H. 328; Bittings v. S. supra; Kahn v. 8. 58 Ind. 168. And see Moore v. S. 38 Ga. 225; S. ». Greenlee, 1 Dev. 523, 525; P. v, O’Brien, 96 Cal. 171; S. v. Stephen, 45 La. An. 702. 22 Ante, § 399. 18 Ante, § 158 (2), 159 (1). CHAP. XXIX.] FORGERY OF WRITINGS, ETC. § 423 be charged in the indictment when known, and proved at the trial! If the contemplated fraud is to take effect on the public,? then the allegation should accord with this fact. § 421. How Minutely. — Details, such as how the fraud was to be effected, need not be stated; but “it is sufficient to aver a general intent to defraud a certain person, which intention may be made out by the facts in evidence at the trial.”* This person’s residence need not be given, unless made essential by special terms in the statute.° The intent may be laid to defraud a township named ® or the State,’ if the fact is so. § 422. 1. Defraud whom ?— (Election). — Generally, not always, the averred intent may be to defraud one or another of two or- even more persons or corporations, at the election of the pleader.® Thus, — 2, The Law presumes, — in the forgery of the name of an exist- ing person or corporation, that the forger intended to defraud -him or it, and the indictment may lay his purpose accordingly, whatever be the real fact.® He meant also to defraud the person to whom he passed or attempted to pass the forged writing for value; and the pleader may so state the intent, if he chooses.” But — § 423. Where a Fictitious Name, — whether of a person or cor- poration, is the subject of the forgery, an averment that the l New Crim. Law, II. § 543, 1 Stark. Crim. Pl. 2d ed. 112; Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 358; S. v. Odel, 8 Brev. 552; Harrington v. 8S. 54 Missis. 490; Cunningham v. S. 49 Missis. 685; Reg.-v. Tylney, 1 Den. C. C. 319; Reg. «. Powner, 12 Cox C. C. 235, 4 Eng. Rep. 525; Shinn v. 8. 57 Ind. 144; P. v. Mitchell, 92 Cal. 590. See P. v. D’Argencour, 95 N. Y. 624, 629; S. v. Tingler, 32 W. Va. 546, 25 Am. St. 830. 2 New Crim. Law, II. § 161, 596 (2). 3 Ante, § 210, 233, 248; Gregory v. 8. 11 Ohio St. 329; Cunningham ». 8. supra; S. v. Kimball, 50 Me. 409. 4 Rex v. Powell, 1 Leach, 77, 78, 2 W. Bl. 787, 2 East P. C. 976; Paige v. P. 3 Abb. Ap. 439. See P. v. Marion, 28 Mich. 255. Did forge a promissory note for £50, “on which said promissory note is an indorsement as follows, C. J., with intent to defraud W. R. S.,”. sufficiently charges that the fraud meant was to be effected through the note, not the indorse- ment. Rex v. James, 7 Car. & P. 553. The intent must be charged directly, not as a legal deduction from alleged facts. Drake v. S. 19 Ohio, 211; Vol. I. § 325, 508, 520 (2). 5 §. «. Houseal, 2 Brev. 219, ® Gregory v. S. 11 Ohio St. 329. 7 Cunningham »v. S. 49 Missis. 685. 8 New Crim. Law, II. § 543 (2), 598, 599. 9 Ib.; Rex v. Mazagora, Russ. & Ry. 291; Rex zv. Sheppard, Russ. & Ry, 169; Rex rv. Holden, Russ. & Ry. 154, 2 Leach, 1019, 2 Taunt. 334; Reg wv. Cooke, 8 Car. & P. 586; S. x. Haynes, 6 Coldw. 550; Shinn v. 8. 57 Ind. 144, 10 Tb.; U.S. v. Shellmire, Bald. 370; Rex v. Rushworth, Russ. & Ry. 317, 1 Stark. 396 ; Harris v. P. 9 Barb. 664; Reg. v, Cooke, 8 Car. & P. 586; Rex v. Holden, Russ. & Ry. 154, 2 Leach, 1019, 2 Taunt. 334; Hooper v. S. 8 Humph. 93. 183 § 425 = SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. intent was to defraud such non-existing person or corporation cannot be true in fact or sustained by proof, so that practically it will be ill! Yet the other form remains for a case of this sort. § 424. Where the Intent is to defraud Partners, — the allegation need not be in the form essential in laying ownership. There the indictment must set out all the names of joint owners.2 But here, when the purpose is to defraud two or more, whether consti- tuting a firm or not, the intent is also to defraud each of them; therefore the indictment may lay it as to all, or as to one or more less than all, at the pleader’s pleasure. § 425. 1. Knowledge of the Forgery, — or spurious character of the instrument, must, in utterings, in having in possession with intent to utter, and the like, be averred and proved, being an essential element in the criminal intent. And— 2. The Indictment for Uttering — should give the name of the person to whom the forged instrument was tendered, if known; or if not known, state this in excuse for the omission.® § 425 a. Different Intents — may, to avoid danger of a variance, or difficulties in the proofs, be set out in separate counts, — as, to defraud different individuals or corporations, —a method sometimes recommended.® In reason, this prolixity is unneces- sary; but the intent to defraud any number of victims may be laid in one count, which will not thereby be rendered double, and the allegation will be sustained by proof of it as to any one of them. The writer does not remember to have seen this method practised.’ § 425 6. 1. Legislation in England — has in recent times rendered unnecessary the mention of the name of the person to be defrauded, permitting simply a general allegation of fraudu- lent intent.§ And — Ark, 609; Anonymous, 1 East P. C. 180; Buckley v. S. 2 Greene, Iowa, 162; ante, § 404. 6 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. 1 New Crim. Law, II. § 543. 2 Post, § 723. 88, cv. Hastings, 53 N. H. 452; P. v. Curling, 1 Johns. 320; Dixon’s Case, 2 Lewin, 178; Reg. v. Hanson, 2 Moody, 245; Rex v. Lovell, 1 Leach, 248. See S. v. Harrison, 69 N. C. 143; Labbaite v. S. 6 Tex. Ap. 483. * Anderson v. S.7 Ohio, 2d pt. 250; Anonymous, 11 Mod. 3. 5 Ante, § 250(2); McClellan v. S. 32 184 ed. 358; 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 1048 et seq. 7 Compare ante, § 150, 424; Rex w. Lovell, 1 Leach, 248; Noakes v. P. 25 N.Y. 380, 387, 388. 8 New Crim. Law, IT. § 599 (3) ; Arehb. Crim. Pl. & Ey. 19th ed. 605,611. Stat.14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, § 8, is re-enacted in 24 CHAP. XXIX.] FORGERY OF WRITINGS, ETC. § 426 2, Statutes in some of our States — have adopted this sort of enactment.! § 426. Fifthly. The Allegation of the Criminal Act :— 1. “ Did Forge and Counterfeit” — (“Falsely ”). — It suffices to allege “that the defendant forged and counterfeited, though,” says Starkie, “it is usual to aver that he did falsely forge and counterfeit; for the adverb is sufficiently implied in the former words.” 2 2. Other Adverbs and Verbs — are sometimes connected with these; but obviougly they are unnecessary when these are employed, and the offence is only misdemeanor.? 3. “Ordinary and Concise Language.” — In a few of the States, statutes require every indictment to set out the acts constituting the offence in ordinary and concise language, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended, * — substantially in affirmance of the common-law rule.® Yet under this provision the Kentucky court holds the common- law form, “did forge and counterfeit,” to be inadequate as aver- & 25 Vict. c. 98, § 44; Reg. v. Trenfield, 1 Fost. & F. 43. As to the indictment under 7 Geo. 4, c. 46, see Rex v. James, 7 Car. & P. 553. 1 McClure v. C. 86 Pa. 353; S. ». Tingler, 32 W. Va. 546, 25 Am. St. 830; S. v. Cross, 101 N. C.. 770, 9 Am. St. 53; P. v. Van Alstine, 57 Mich. 69; S. v. Rucker, 93 Mo. 88; S. v. Gavigan, 36 Kan. 322; S. v. Warren, 109 Mo. 430, 32 Am. St. 681; S. v, Phillips, 78 Mo. 49; S. v. Jackson, 89 Mo. 561; S. v. Lurch, 12 Or. 104; S. v. Maxwell, 47 Iowa, 454; 8S. v. Clement, 42 La. An. 583; McDonnell v. 8. 58 Ark. 242. 2 1 Stark. Crim. PI. 2d ed. 98, referring to 2 East P. C. 985; Rex vo. Mariot, 2 Lev. 221; Rex v. Dawson, 1 Stra. 19. See also Reg. v. King, 7 Mod. 150, 1 Salk. 342; Rex v. Johnson, 2 Show. 1; 2 Russ. Crimes, 5th ed. 695. 8 Some of the forms are, “unlawfully, knowingly, and falsely did forge and counterfeit,” Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 391; “feloniously did forge and counterfeit,” 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 1048; “knowingly, falsely, and fraudulently did write and counterfeit,” Rex v. Rutter, Trem. P. C. 127; “subtly, falsely, and fraudulently did make and forge,” Rex v. Ivy, Trem. P. C. 135; “did unlawfully and feloniously falsely make, forge, and counterfeit,” S. v. Kroeger, 47 Mo. 552; “feloniously did forge and counterfeit,” Van Horne v. 8. 5 Pike, 849 ; “did make, forge, and counterfeit,” S. v. Johnson, 26 Iowa, 407, 96 Am. D. 158 ; nearly the same, Rosekrans v. P. 5 Thomp. & C. 467, 3 Hun, 287. The late forms in Archbold have simply “ feloni- ously did forge,” Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 19th ed. 609; Archb. New Crim. Pro. 534. And so the form seems to have been in Rex v. James, 7 Car. & P. 553. Probably it is not necessary, even at the common law, to employ both the verbs “forge” and “ counterfeit ;” and plainly, where the indictment is on a statute, only the statutory term will be required. The expression “ to counterfeit ” carries to the mind the idea of a false making; and East says that “forge” “is always taken in an evil sense in our law.” 2 Kast P.C. 985; Haskins v. Ralston, 69 Mich. 63, 13 Am. St. 376. Compare with Dir. & F. § 460. 4 Stowers v. C. 12 Bush, 342. 6 Vol. I. § 329-335, 508, 514. 185 § 426 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL ring a legal conclusion instead of the required act.1 Doubtless, on the other hand, the majority of our courts would hold the immemorial “forge and counterfeit ” sufficiently to denote an act in distinction from a conclusion of law.? 4, For “ Altering” —a valid instrument,’ there appears to be no settled common-law form, but each case conforms to the special facts. If the statute has the word “alter,” it will almost and perhaps absolutely as of course be employed in the indictment;® and so it may be in an indictment on a statute without this word, if the accompanying averments bring the case within the statute. ® 5. “Feloniously,” — if the forgery is felony, should in most of our States appear in the allegation.’ 6. A Due Connection — should be made between the words indicating the criminal act and the setting out of the false instrument; as, it is ill to say that the defendant forged a writ- ing containing the one forged.® The averment may be that he uttered a “false, forged, and counterfeited bank-note;” these words not being repugnant.® be, but is not, genuine. They signify that it purports to And the allegation may be that the defendant falsely forged a false writing." 7. The Value — of the forged instrument need not be averred.!? But it is sometimes evidence of the fraudulent intent. 8 1C. v. Williams, 13 Bush, 267; Stow- ers v. C. supra. See S. v. Knippa, 29 Tex. 295. 2 See S. v. Foster, 30 Kan. 365. 3 Ante, § 419. 4 An indictment for altering a record set out an entry therein, and averred that the defendant afterward, at a time and place, “falsely, unlawfully, fraudu- lently, and deceitfully did erase, expunge, and entirely obliterate” the same; and afterward, at the said time and place, on another folio, “falsely, unlawfully, fraudulently, and deceitfully did forge, write, enter, and insert” words set out. Rex v. Newman, Trem. P. C. 180. In another case, the averment was that in the writing set out, the defendant altered a word mentioned by erasing certain let- ters and substituting others. The exact 186 charge was that he altered “birch” to “batch” by erasing irc, and inserting atc, and this was held to be proved by showing a substitution of at for ir. S. v. Rowley, Brayt. 76. And see P. v. Palmer, 53 Cal. 615; 8S. v. Thornburg, 6 Ire. 79, 44 Am. D. 67. ® Archb. New Crim. Pro. 535; Rex ». Post, Russ. & Ry. 101. See S. v. Knippa, 29 Tex. 295. 6 Elsworth's Case, 2 East P. C. 986. 7 Vol. I. § 584-536, 8 Rex v. Neck, 2 Show. 472. % Mackey v. 8. 3 Ohio St. 362, perhaps overruling or qualifying Kirby v. S. 1 Ohio St. 185. 10 U.S. v. Howell, 11 Wal. 432. 11 Rex v. Goate, 1 Ld. Raym. 737. 12S, v. Clement, 42 La. An. 583, 18 Berrisford v. 8. 66 Ga. 53. | CHAP. XXIX.] FORGERY OF WRITINGS, ETC. § 428 Il. In General of the Evidence. § 427. 1. The Proofs of this Offence — depend partly on rules special to it, but more on those common to all issues. 2. In this Sub-title, — we shall collect such of the former as were not considered in connection with the indictment; and for convenience in practice bring to view some of the latter. The order is not material. 3. The Intent to Defraud —a person or the public, not neces- sarily a fraud consummated,! must be proved, in general and as to the individual, conformably to the allegation.? The question is for the jury,® who still proceed by rules; thus, — § 427 a. The Intent is presumed, —to defraud the person whose name is forged, without the testimony of witnesses, from the forgery itself. So is the intent to defraud the one to whom the defendant, with knowledge of the forgery,® passed or offered the forged instrument. for value. In aid of this presumption, or as applicable in cases affording no scope for it, other proofs may be adduced;7 as, — § 428. 1. Other Instances. ®—In forgery, as distinguished from the criminal uttering, it is not permissible to show against the defendant that he has committed or confessed another forgery, or uttered another forged instrument.? But on a charge of utter- ing, or of any other kindred form of the offence, if it becomes 1 New Crim. Law, II. § 598; Rex v. Crooke, 2 Stra. 901; Rex v. Goate, 1 Ld. Raym. 737; Bush v. 8. 77 Ala. 83; 8. v. Cross, 101 N. C. 770, 9 Am. St. 538. For forgery being an attempt, the crime may exist though from circumstances unknown to the defendant there can be no consum- mation of the fraud. Rex v. Holden, Russ. & Ry. 154. See New Crim. Law, L § 738-744, 748 (2), 754. 2 Ante, § 420 et seq.; Reg. v. Tylney, 1 Den. C. C. 319. 8 Gooden v. S. 55 Ala. 178. * Ante, § 422 (2); Henderson »v, S. 14 Tex. 503. 5 Ante, § 425 (1). 6 Ante, § 422 (2); Rex v. Carter, 7 Car. & P. 134; Rex v. Sheppard, Russ & Ry. 169; Rex v. Crowther, 5 Car. & P. 316; Rex v. James, 7 Car. & P. 553. See Rex v. Harvey, 2 B. & C. 257; Rex v. Birkett, Russ. & Ry. 86; Reg. v. Cooke, 8 Car. & P. 582; Reg. v. Carter, | Den. C. C. 65, 1 Cox C. C. 170, 1 Car. & K. 741; Edwards v. Buchanan, 3 B. & Ad. 788; Rex v. Jones, 2 East P. C. 991; S. »v. Kimball, 58 Me. 409; C. v. Starr, 4 Allen, 01; Reg. v. Hanson, Car. & M. 334. 7 P. v. Marion, 29 Mich. 31. 8 Vol. I. § 1120-1129. 9 Vol. I. § 1124; P. v. Corbin, 56N. Y. 363, 15 Am. R. 427; Morris v. S. 8 Sm. & M. 762; Dow vz. Spenny, 29 Mo. 386; Reg. v. Moore, 1 Fost. & F.73; Fox v. P. 95 Jl. 71. See Bluff v. S. 10 Ohio St. 547; Manaway v. 8. 44 Ala. 375; Hartford Bank v. Hart, 3 Day, 491, 3 Am. D. 274; S. v. Saunders, 68 Iowa, 370. Perhaps contra, McDonald ». S. 83 Ala. 46; P. uv. Bibby, 91 Cal. 470. ' 187 § 428 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII necessary to prove his knowledge of the falsity of a writing which he may not have forged himself,! other utterings or pos- sessions of like forged instruments are admissible, as explained in the first volume.? The fact of such instruments being forger- ies must be shown; and it would seem the time of the utterings should not be too remote, —a question as to which the discretion of the presiding judge is probably the chief guide.t Some of the cases reject all utterings subsequent to the one on trial, unless a connection is disclosed between them and it;® but the better practice is believed to be, in general, to admit them.* Again, — 2. Conduct, — such as that the defendant made false represen- tations at the time of uttering,’ that he fabricated a deposition to prove the forgery genuine,’ that his statements of the source whence he obtained it were contradictory,® and other like duplici- ties, may be shown against him. So — 3. Confessions, — when sufficiently full,4 are admissible within the ordinary rules.” — Admissions, other utterings, the posses- sion of other forgeries, and the like, by a co-conspirator with the defendant in the delictuwm on trial, are competent on prin- 4, Co-conspirator. ciples already explained.4* Again, — 1 Ante, § 425 (1). See P. v. Dibble, 3 Abb. Ap. 518. And ° Vol. I. § 1126-1128; Reg. v. Salt, 3 see P. v. Wood, 3 Par. Cr. 681; P. v. Fost. & F. 834; McCartney v. 8. 3 Ind. Stewart, 5 Mich. 243; S. ». Freeman, 4 353, 56 Am. D. 510; C. v. Stone, 4 Met. 43; Reg. v. Green, 3 Car. & K. 209; C. ov. Miller, 3 Cush. 243; Rex v. Hough, Russ. & Ry. 120; S. v. Brown, 4 R. I. 528, 70 Am. TD. 168; Steele v. P. 45 Ill. 152; S. v. Williams, 2 Rich. 418, 45 Am. D. 741; Reed v. S. 15 Ohio, 217 ; Lindsey v. S. 38 Ohio St. 507. See U. S. v. Roudenbush, Bald. 514; U. S..v. Doebler, Bald. 519; Bluff v. S. 10 Ohio St. 547. 8 Rex v. Millard, Russ. & Ry. 245; P. v. Dibble, 3 Abb. Ap. 518; Dibble v. P. 4 Par. Cr. 199; S. v. Cole, 19 Wis. 129, 88 Am. D. 676; Reed v.S. supra. * Reg. v. Salt, 3 Fost. & F. 834, 836. And see S, v. Brown, supra; Steele v. P. supra; Rex ec. Balls, 1 Moody, 470; Mc- Cartney v. S. supra; P. v. Frank, 28 Cal. 507; Bersch v. S. 13 Ind. 434, 74 Am. D. 263; Rex v. Millard, supra. 5 Rex v. Taverner, Car. Crim. Law, 3d ed. 195; Dibble v. P. 4 Par. Cr. 199. ‘188 Jones, N. C. 5; Card v. S. 109 Ind. 415; P. v. Van Alstine, 57 Mich. 69. 6 Ante, § 189, Hendrick v.C. 5 Leigh, 707; Rex v. Smith, 4 Car. & P.411. See Rex v. Smith, 2 Car. & P. 633. 7 Rex v. Sheppard, Russ. & Ry. 169. 8 S. v. Williams, 27 Vt. 724. 9 C. 2. Starr, 4 Allen, 301; 8. 2 Humph. 494. 10 Vol. I. § 1249-1254; C. v. Edgerly, 10 Allen, 184; Rex v. Forbes, 7 Car. & P. 224; C. v. Hall, 4 Allen, 305; Lascelles v. 8. 90 Ga. 347. 11 §. v. Knowles, 48 Iowa, 598. 2 Vol. I. § 1254a-1262; P. v. Swet- land, 77 Mich. 53. 3 U. S. v. Craig, 4 Wash. 729. 14 Vol. I. § 1248 (2); ante, § 229, 230; S. v. Spalding, 19 Conn. 233, 237, 48 Am. D. 158; P.v. Thoms, 3 Abb. Ap. 571, 3 Par. Cr. 256; U.S. v. Doebler, Bald. 519; Perdue v. Cc. C. CHAP. XXIX.] FORGERY OF WRITINGS, ETC. § 429 5. Knowledge — whereby the defendant could detect the forgery, may be shown against him on a charge of uttering, to create the inference that he knew the instrument to be forged.} § 429. 1. As to who may be Witnesses, — the rules in our first volume for determining the question generally? are applicable the same in forgery as in other offences. Some particulars, are, — 2. The Person whose Name is forged, — assumed to have an interest in procuring a conviction, and liable to be sued on the forged instrument, could not by the common law of England be a witness against the indicted forger; unless such interest was removed by a release, then he might be. And this doctrine has had a slight American following.* But neither an acquittal nor a conviction in a criminal case is admissible in evidence in a civil, where the parties are different;5 hence, within the rule as to interest now well established,® the person whose name is forged is not, in principle, incompetent;’ and by the nearly unanimous consent of the American courts, contrary to the old English practice, he is admitted. By some, he is so even though he is to receive a part of a fine to be imposed on convic- tion;® others not carrying the concession so far. In England, in 1828, the practice was made what it now is with us, by Stat. 9 Geo. 4, c. 32, § 2, which removed the impediment of interest Reg. v. Farley, 1 Den. C. C. 197, 2 Car. & K. 313, 2 Cox C. C. 82. 1C. v. Hall, 4 Allen, 305; Rex’ v. Harris, 7 Car. & P. 429. 2 Vol. L § 1135-1187. 3 2 East P.C. 993 ; 2 Hawk. P.C. c. 46, § 133-135; Rex v. Rhodes, 2 Stra, 728; Watts’s Case, 3 Salk. 172; notes to Rex v. Whiting, 1 Salk. 288; Rex v. Russel, 1 Leach, 8; Caffy’s Case, 2 East P. C. 995. See Rex v. Boston, 4 East, 572, 582. 4 §. v. Brunson, 1 Root, 307; 8S, v. Blodget, 1 Root, 534; Day’s note to Rex v. Eden, 1 Exp. 97, citing these two Con- necticut cases to the point in my text; S. v. Stanton, 1 Ire. 424, 428 (compare with S. v. Bateman, 3 Ire. 474, and White ce. Green, 5 Jones, N.C. 47. And see Res- publica v. Ross, 2 Yeates, 1, 2 Dall, 239) ; S. v. Hamilton, 2 Hayw. 288. 6 1 Greenl. Ev. § 537. § Vol. I. § 1138; Abrahams v. Bunn, 4 Bur. 2251; Smith v. Prager, 7 T. R. 60. 7 Rex v. Boston, supra; P. v. Howell, 4 Johns, 296. 8 Simmons v. S. 7 Ohio, Ist pt. 116 Pennsylvania v. Farrel, Addison, 246; S. v. Whitten, 1 Hill, S. C. 100; C. ». Hutchinson, 1 Mass. 7; ©. v. Snell, 3 Mass. 82; C. v, Waite, 5 Mass. 261; C.v. Peck, 1 Met. 428; P. v. Dean, 6 Cow. 27; Respub- lica v. Weight, 1 Yeates, 401; Respublica v. Keating, 1 Dall. 110; Pope v. Nance, 1 Stew. 354, 18 Am. D. 60; P. v. Howell, 4 Johns. 296; S. v. Phelps, 11 Vt. 116, 34 Am. D. 672;S. v. Shurtliff, 18 Me. 368. ® Noble v. P. Breeze, 29. 1 S.v. A. W.1 Tyler, 260. See Brad- ley v. Couch, 1 Root, 361; 8. v. Brunson, 1 Root, 307; 8. v. Blodget, 1 Root, 534; S. v, Nettleton, 1 Root, 308. 189 § 431 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL in forgery cases! Later legislation, English and American, has followed in the same line. § 480. 1. Even a Subscribing Witness — need not be called; for the proof may be as well by the person whose name is forged.? Or, — 2, Where the Forged Writing is destroyed, — such person may testify both to the destruction and the forgery of it, though there are pending against him civil suits to which the forgery is the only defence. The judgment in the criminal case could not be given in evidence in the civil. Within this principle, — § 431. 1, Bank Officers —may be witnesses to the falsity of. paper purporting to be their bills.4 But they are not indispen- sable though within reach of process ; for — 2. Other Persons—are also competent witnesses thereto.® And — 8. To other Writings,— signed by private individuals, the same rule applies. ® 4, Doctrine qualified — (Primary and Secondary Evidence). — By the better opinion, this doctrine needs no qualification.’ Yet some courts appear to regard the testimony of third persons as secondary evidence, admissible only after the absence of those whose names are alleged to be forged is accounted for.8 There 1 The following collection of English cases prior to this statute may occasion- ally be helpful; yet to occupy space with a full digest of them would not be profit- able: Rex v. Russel, 1 Leach, 8; Rex v. Crocker, Russ. & Ry. 97, 2 New Rep. 87, 2 Leach, 987; Rex ». Smith, 2 East P. C. 1000, 1 Leach, 333, note; Rex v. Rhodes, 1 Leach, 24; Thornton’s Case, 2 Leach, 634; Rex v. Testick, 2 East P. C. 1000; Rex v. Wells, 2 East P. C. 1000; Rex x. Dodd, 1 Leach, 155; Rex v. Parr, 1 Leach, 434,438; Rex v. Wait, Russ. & Ry. 505, 7 Moore, 473, 1 Bing. 121, 11 Price, 518; Rex v. Pigeon, 1 Car. & P. 98; Rex v. Treble, Russ. & Ry. 164; Rex v. Usher, 1 Leach, 48, 2 East P. C. 999; Rex »v. Akehurst, 1 Leach, 150, 2 East P. C. 1003; Rex v. Taylor, 1 Leach, 214, 2 East P. C. 960; Rex v, Sponsonby, 1 Leach, 332, 2 East P. C. 996; Rex v. Mott, Russ. & Ry. 435; Rex v. Young, Russ. & Ry. 281, note ; Rex v. Peacock, Russ. & Ry. 278. 2 Simmons v. 8. 7 Ohio, 1st pt. 116. 5 C. v. Peck, 1 Met.428, A distinction 190 recognized in Pennsylvania is that the apparent maker of a forged note may tes- tify to the forgery; but not a bond fide indorser, unless he has paid the note. Respublica v. Ross, 2 Yeates, 1, 2 Dall. 239. ' 4 Rex v. Newland, 1 Leach, 311, 2 East P. C. 1001; Bank Prosecutions, Russ. & Ry. 378; Foulkes v. C. 2 Rob, Va. 836. 5 Rex v. Hughes, 2 East P. C. 1002, 1 Leach, 311, note; S. v. Stalmaker, 2 Brev. 1; §S. v. Lawrence, Brayt. 78; Foulkes v. C. 2 Rob. Va. 836; S. v. Ander- son, 2 Bailey, 565; Bank Prosecutions, Russ. & Ry. 378; Hess v. 8. 5 Ohio, 5, 22 Am. D. 767; Johnson v. §. 35 Ala. 370; Martin v. C. 2 Leigh, 745; Clark v. 8. 14 Ind. 26; S. v. Carr, 5 N. H. 367; S. v. Cheek, 13 Ire. 114, 8 Foulkes v. C. supra; Henderson v. 8.14 Tex. 503. And see Ainsworth v. Greenlee, 1 Hawks, 190. 7 Lefferts v. S. 20 Vroom, 26. 8 S. v. Hooper, 2 Bailey, 37; S. v. Tutt, 2 Bailey, 44, 21 Am. D. 508; S. v. Petty, CHAP. XXIX.] FORGERY OF WRITINGS, ETC. § 432 4 is no solid ground for this distinction. Men often mistake forgeries for their own writings; and a witness who testifies to what purports to be his speaks only from opinion, unless the paper has been constantly in his manual possession. Such a witness, therefore, occupies precisely the same position as a third person who, too, is familiar with the subject. In the average instance, his judgment will be better informed than the third person’s; but there are men who can tell the handwriting of some others better than the latter can tell it themselves. § 432. The Proof of any Handwriting, — therefore, which no one remembers to have seen written, is a question of opinion. It is for the jury;! who, on an indictment for forging the writing, must, to convict, starting with the presumption that it is genuine,” be convinced by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it is not. The common methods of proof, always permis- sible, are — § 432 a, Witness to Opinion. — An opinion, to be admissible, must like any other evidence be based on knowledge. And any one who, from having seen another write,* even but once,5 or from corresponding with him,® or from any other opportunity or means, though never seeing him write,’ has acquired some knowledge of his handwriting,® the amount of which knowledge Harper, 59; C. v. Taylor, 5 Cush. 605; C. v, Carey, 2 Pick. 47. See Haun ». S. 13 Tex. Ap. 383. : 1 Mosher v. S. 14 Ind. 261. 2 C. v, Stow, 1 Mass. 54. 8 Vol. I. § 1091-1095. 4 Magee v. Osborn, 32 N. Y. 669; Com- missioners v. Hanion, 1 Nott & McC. 554; Hopkins v. Megquire, 35 Me. 78; Hartung v. P. 4 Par. Cr. 319; Lewis v. Sapio, Moody & M. 39; Eagleton v. Kingston, 8 Ves. 438, 473. 6 Warren v. Anderson, 8 Scott, 384; Willman v. Worrall, 8 Car. & P. 380; Garrells v. Alexander, 4 Esp. 37; Ed- elen v. Gough, 8 Gill, 87; Woodford v. McClenahan, 4 Gilman, 85; Bowman v. Sanborn, 5 Fost. N. H. 87; C. v. Nefus, 185 Mass. 533. 6 U.S. v. Simpson, 3 Pa, (P. & W.) 437; Johnson v. Daverne, 19 Johns. 134,10 Am. D. 198; Tharpe v. Gisburne, 2 Car. & P. 21; Harrington v. Fry, 1 Car. & P. 289, 9 Moore, 344; Rex v. Slaney, 5 Car. & P. 213; Gould v. Jones, 1 W. Bl. 384; Clark v. Freeman, 25 Pa. 133; Southern Ex- press Co. v. Thornton, 41 Missis. 216; Chaffee v. Taylor, 3 Allen, 598; Van Dusen v, Van Dusen, 5 Johns. 144. 7 Hammond’s Case, 2 Greenl. 33, 11 Am. D. 39; S. ». Spence, 2 Harring. Del. 348; Hess v. S. 5 Ohio, 5, 22 Am. D. 767; Smith v. Sainsbury, 5 Car. & P. 196; Mudd »v. Suckermore, 5 A. & E. 703; Cabarga v. Seeger, 17 Pa. 514; U.S. v. Cases of Champagne, 1 Ben. 241; Reid v. Hodgson, 1 Cranch C. C. 491; Page v. Homans, 14 Me. 478; Burnham v. Ayer, 86 N. H. 182; Amherst Bank v. Root, 2 Met. 522; Rayburn v. Belotti, 10 Misso. 597; Tuttle v. Rainey, 98 N.C. 513. Contra, Rex v. Culpepper, Holt, 293. 8 Dubois v. Baker, 30 N. Y. 355; Pope v. Askew, 1 Ire. 16, 35 Am. D, 729; First National Bank of Omaha v. Lierman, 5 Neb. 247; Taylor v. Sutherland, 24 Pa. 333, 191 § 432 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. and the consequent weight of the testimony will vary with the cases,! may give in evidence his opinion whether or not a writ- ing in controversy came from the hand of such person. On principle, and probably on authority, the presiding judge is to determine, as a mixed question of law and fact, whether or not the witness tendered has the necessary knowledge; then, if he is admitted, the jury are to give his evidence the weight they deem just.2 And as to what is adequate in knowledge or oppor- tunity, the cases are probably not absolutely harmonious.2 Not always will what the witness has learned pending the controversy entitle him to testify,* but sometimes it will; the test, as stated by Lumpkin, J. being, whether or not the circumstances show a motive to disguise the hand.® § 432 6, Comparison of Hands. — Where the question is whether or not the defendant wrote a particular instrument or signature, other writings, being in the case for the other purposes of the trial, and conceded to be his, may be brought into juxtaposition and compared with the one in controversy, as a help to the jury in their finding; because, as expressed by Stone, J. they will make the comparison, and the safer course is “to adopt it asa principle, and thus give to the presiding judge the right to instruct” them in the rules to be observed therein. But no writing will be admitted in evidence for the mere purpose of 1 Hartung v. P. supra; Mudd v. Sucker- more, supra. One who has not acquired this knowledge, though he has seen the person write, is not a competent witness. Putnam v, Wadley, 40 Ill, 346; Brigham uv, Peters, 1 Gray, 139; Nelms v. 8. 91 Ala. 97. One who has acquired it is competent, though he cannot himself read or write. Foye v. Patch, 132 Mass. 105. 2 Vol. I. § 979, 989, 989 a, 1147, 1169, 1212, 1286, 1241, 1244. 3 See, and compare, Shitler v. Brewer, 23 Pa. 418; Haynie v. 8. 2 Tex. Ap. 168; U. 8. vo. Johnson, 1 Cranch C. C. 871; Cochran v. Butterfield, 18 N. H. 115, 45 Am. D. 363; Hoitt v. Moulton, 1 Fost. N. H. 586; Mapes v. Leal, 27 Tex. 345; Allen v. 8, 3 Humph. 367; S. v. Carr, 5 N. H. 367; S. .v. Brown, 4 R. I. 528, 70 Am. D. 168; S, v. Allen, 1 Hawks, 6, 9 Am. T), 616; S.v. Candler, 8 Hawks, 393; Jones v. Finch, 37 Missis. 461, 75 Am. D. 192 ; 78; 8S. v. Harris, 5 Ire. 287; Gordon ve. Price, 10 Ire. 885; Pope v. Askew, 1 Ire. 16. # Stranger v. Searle, 1 Esp. 14, 15. 5 Reid v. S. 20 Ga. 681, 683, And see Keith v. Lothrop, 10 Cush. 453. 6 Bishop v. 8. 80 Ala. 34, 41, 42; S.v. Scott, 45 Mo. 802; Moore v. U.S. 91 U.S. 270; Ellis v. P. 21 How. Pr. 356; Hen- derson v. Hackney, 16 Ga. 521; Williams uv. Drexel, 14 Md. 566; Rogers v. Shaler, Anthon, 109; Van Wyck v. McIntosh, 4 Kern. 439; Rex v. Morgan, 1 Moody & R. 134, note; Perry v. Newton, 1 Nev. & P.1,5 A. & E. 514; Griffith v. Williams, 1 Cromp. & J. 47; Hatch v. S. 6 Tex. Ap. 884; P. v. Parker, 67 Mich. 222,11 Am. St. 578; Miles v. Loomis, 75 N. Y. 288, 31 Am. R. 470. See S. v. Dennett, 19 La. An. 395. Contra, Outlaw v. Hurdle, 1 Jones, N.C. 150; Otey v. Hoyt, 8 Jones, N.C. 407, CHAP. XXIX.] FORGERY OF WRITINGS, ETC. § 432 ¢ comparison. In England it is now otherwise by the statute of 28 & 29 Vict. «. 18, § 1, 8, which permits such “comparison of a disputed writing with any writing proved to the satisfaction of the judge to be genuine.” 2 There is some American legisla- tion of the like sort,? and in Massachusetts* and Maine® the same is allowed on common-law principles. And there are relaxations of the strict rule in some of the other States.® § 432 ¢. Experts — may also aid the proofs. It is deemed that not great reliance should be placed on their evidence,’ and some judges have even inclined to reject it altogether. But with minor differences in details, its admissibility is now well estab- lished; as, where a comparison of writings is permitted to the jury,® — not where it is not,!?— an expert in handwriting may express to them his opinion of the result to which it should lead, 1 Ib.; S. v. Givens, 5 Ala. 747; S. v. 4 Horner v. Wallis, 11 Mass. 309, 312; Fritz, 23 La. An. 55; Reg. v. Wilton, 1 C.v. Eastman, 1 Cush. 189, 217, 218, 48 Fost. & F. 391, 392; Reg. v. Aldridge, 3 Fost. & F. 781; Hoyt v. Stuart, 3 Bosw. 447; P. v. Spooner, 1 Denio, 343, 43 Am. D. 672; Reg. v. Shepherd, 1 Cox C. C. 237; Putnam v. Wadley, 40 Ill. 346; Jumpertz v. P. 21 Il. 375; U.S. v. Prout, 4 Cranch C. C. 301; Woodard », Spiller, 1 Dana, 179, 25 Am. D. 139; U.S. w. Craig, 4 Wash. C. C. 729; Knap v. Sacket, 1 Root, 501; Little v. Beazley, 2 Ala. 703, 36 Am. D. 431; Kernin v. Hill, 37 Ill. 209; Shank vw. Batsch, 28 Ind. 19; Pierce v. Northey, 14 Wis. 9; Burr v. Harper, Holt, N. P. 420; Griffits v. Ivery, 11 A. & E. 322; Macferson v. Thoytes, Peake, 20; Rowt v. Kile, 1 Leigh, 216; S. v. Clinton, 67 Mo. 380, 29 Am. R. 506; S. v. Koontz, 31 W. Va. 127; Berryhill v. Kirchner, 96 Pa. 489; Jones v. S. 60 Ind. 241; S.v. Owen, 73 Mo. 440; P. v. Par- ker, 67 Mich. 222, 11 Am. St. 578; S. v. Miller, 47 Wis. 530. See Roe v. Roe, 40 N. Y. Super. 1; Bennett v. Mathewes, 5 S. C. 478; P. v. Hewit, 2 Par. Cr. 20; S. v. Brunson, 1 Root, 307; S. v. Nettleton, 1 Root, 308; Smith v. Fenner, 1 Gallis. 170; Welch v. Gould, 2 Root, 287. 2 And see 3 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 437; Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 19th ed. 294; Wilson v. Thornbury, Law Rep. 17 Kg. 517. 3 Hyde v. Woolfolk, 1 Towa, 159; Baker v. Mygatt, 14 Iowa, 131. VOL. 11.— 138 Am. D. 596; Moody v. Rowell, 17 Fick. 490, 495, 28 Am. D. 317; Martin «. Ma- guire, 7 Gray, 177. 5 Chandler v. Le Barron, 45 Me. 534; Hammond’s Case, 2 Greenl. 33,11 Am. D. 389; S. v. Thompson, 80 Me. 194, 6 Am. St. 172. And see Sweetser v. Lowell, 33 Me. 446. 6S. v. Ward, 39 Vt. 225; Depue v. Place, 7 Pa. 428; Baker v. Haines, 6 Whart, 284, 36 Am. D. 224; Cantey v. Platt, 2 McCord, 260; Adams v. Field, 21 Vt. 256; Gifford v. Ford, 5 Vt. 532; Desbrow v. Farrow, 3 Rich. 382; U.S. v. Larned, 4 Cranch C. C. 312; Hopkins v. Simmons, 1 Cranch C. C. 250; Lyon »v. Lyman, 9 Conn. 55; Jones «. S. 7 Tex. Ap. 457; Long v. S. 10 Tex. Ap. 186; Phillips v. 8. 6 Tex. Ap. 364; Pontius v. P. 21 Hun, 328. 7 1 Greenl. Ev. § 580, note. * P. v. Spooner, 1 Denio, 343, 43 Am. D. 672. 9 P. v. Gale, 50 Mich. 237. 10 U. S. v. Prout, 4 Cranch C. C. 301. See Daniel v. Toney, 2 Met. Ky. 523; Niller v. Johnson, 27 Md. 6; Bank of Pennsylvania v. Haldeman, 1 Pa. (R. P. & W.) 161; Lodge v. Phipher, 11 8S, & R. 8383; Power v. Frick, 2 Grant, Pa. 306. = 193 § 433 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. with the reasons therefor.! So, also, to various other questions this sort of testimony is admissible; but, the rules regulating it being the same in criminal causes as in civil, a further discus- sion of particulars is not advisable here.? § 433, 1. The Forged Instrument must be produced — and put in evidence before evidence of the forgery will be admitted at the trial,’ or its non-production be justified from necessity, as by showing that it is lost or destroyed* or not within reach of the process of the court,° or is in the possession of the defendant. ® And in the last instance, not in the others, reasonable notice must have been given him to produce it.’ 2. Where a Third Person, — within the process of the court, has the instrument, the familiar methods of getting possession of it for the purposes of the trial must be employed, or it cannot be treated as inaccessible.® But if, on the ground that it is privileged,® or otherwise,” this person is properly excused from 1 Moody v. Rowell,.17 Pick. 490, 28 Am. TD. 317; Miles v. Loomis, 10 Hun, 372; Speiden v. 8. 3 Tex. Ap. 156, 159; C. v. Pettes, 114 Mass. 307; Hawkins v. Grimes, 13 B. Monr. 257; Hicks v. Per- son, 19 Ohio, 426; Calkins v. S. 14 Ohio St. 222; Withee v. Rowe, 45 Me. 571; C. uv. Webster, 5 Cush. 295, 52 Am. D. 711; S. v. Shinborn, 46 N. H. 497, 88 Am. D. 224; West vc. S. 2 Zab. 212; Fulton ce. Hood, 34 Pa. 365, 75 Am. D. 664; S. e. Thompson, 80 Me. 194, 6 Am. St. 172; U.S. v. Chamberlain, 12 Blatch. 390. 2 Rex v. Cator, 4 Esp. 117, 145; Reg. v. Williams, 8 Car. & P. 434; Jones v. S. 11 Ind. 357; Johnson v. S. 35 Ala. 870; Pate ». P. 3 Gilman, 644; Johnson rv. 8. 2 Ind. 652; Goldstein v. Black, 50 Cal. 462 ; Phenix Fire Ins. Co. v. Philip, 18 Wend. 81; Thayer v. Chesley, 55 Me. 393; Revett v. Braham, 4 T. R. 497; Gurney v. Langlands, 5 B. & Ald. 330; Goods of Hindmarsh, Law Rep. 1 P. & M. 307; Bacon v. Williams, 18 Gray, 525; Vinton v. Peck, 14 Mich. 287; Swan v. O’Fallon, 7 Misso. 231; S. v. Shinborn, 46 N. H. 497; U.S. v. McMillan, 29 Fed. Rep. 247 ; Hooper v. S. 30 Tex. Ap. 412; Gross v. S. 62 Md. 179; S. v. Lurch, 12 Or. 99; Burress v. C. 27 Grat. 934; Frances v. S. 7 Tex. Ap. 501;.U. S. v. Mullaney, 32 Fed, Rep. 370; Williams v. S, 61 Ala. 33; 194 P. v. Schick, 75 Mich. 592. See P. v. Brotherton, 47 Cal. 388, 8 §. v. Blodget, 1 Root, 534; S. v. Ors- born, 1 Root, 152; U. S. v. Britton, 2 Mason, 464; Manaway v. S. 44 Ala. 875; 8. r. Tompkins, 71 Mo. 613; Dovalina v. 8. 14 Tex. Ap. 312. See Caston »v. S. 31 Tex. Cr. 304. 4 Reg. v. Hall, 12 Cox C. C. 159, 2 Eng. Rep. 212; S. v. Ford, 2 Root, 93; Pendleton v. C. 4 Leigh, 694, 26 Am. D. 342; C. v. Snell, 3 Mass. 82; C. v. Hutch- inson, 1 Mass. 7; Mead ». 8.24 Vroom, 601. 5 Reed v. S. 15 Ohio, 217; S. v. Cole, 19 Wis. 129, 88 Am. D. 678. See Taylor v. Sheppard, 1 Y. & Col. 280. © Ross v. Bruce, 1 Day, 100; Morton v. §. 80 Ala. 527; U.S. v. Doebler, Bald. 519; Henderson v. S. 14 Tex. 503. 7 Rex v. Haworth, 4 Car. & P. 254; S. v. Kimbrough, 2 Dev. 481; S. v. Cole, supra; U. S. v. Doebler, supra; Rex v. Hunter, 4 Car. & P. 128; Foulkes v. C. 2 Rob. Va. 836. 8 Morton v. 8. 30 Ala. 527. 9 Reg. vu. Tylney, 1 Den. C. C. 319; Reg. c. Hayward, 2 Car. & K. 234; Reg. v. Avery, 8 Car. & P 596; Reg. v. Jcnes, 1 Den. C.C. 166. See Reg. v. Farley, 1 Den. C. C. 197; Rex v. Brewer, 6 Car. & P. 363. 0 Rex v. Hunter, 8 Car. & P. 591. CHAP. XX1X.] FORGERY OF WRITINGS, ETC. § 436 producing it, the case is the same as though it were lost or destroyed. Thereupon, — § 434. The Contents of the Instrument, — in any of these ways absent from the trial, must still be proved, yet necessarily by secondary evidence ;! as, by a copy from the records,? by a pho- tograph ? or otherwise,‘ or by the original unexecuted draft.5 If the writing was also not before the grand jury, and they could set out in the indictment only its substance,® this will suffice too at the trial. But if it is alleged by its tenor, such tenor must be proved, equally where it is not produced as where it is, or there can be no conviction.” § 435, Though not in the Maker’s Handwriting, — the instrument or the signature to it may still be genuine; the writer having been authorized. But where execution by procuration does not appear on its face, and all is shown to have been the work of the defendant, and no evidence of his authority or other justifi- cation appears, forgery may be presumed,?® especially in a case of uttering accompanied by falsehood or other inculpatory circumstances. § 436. Other Forms of Evidence — are multitudinous; as, — 1. Presumed. — If a genuine writing is traced to the defendant, and shown to have come thence mutilated, the jury may presume he did it, but they are not to be required to by instruction." So one’s possession of a forged instrument, and his claiming under it, tends to prove the forgery his. 2. That no such Person existed —as represented may be pertinently shown in various circumstances. 8 3, Capacity — to commit the crime, such as skill in imitating 1 §. v, Kimbrough, 2 Dev. 431; Rex v. 9 Schroeder v. Harvey, 75 Ill. 638. See Hunter, 3 Car. & P. 591; Pendleton v. C. Garrett v. Gonter, 42 Pa. 143. 4 Leigh, 694, 26 Am. D. 342. W Reg. v. Hurley, 2 Moody & R. 473; 2 Henderson v. S. 14 Tex. 503. Rex v. Hampton, 1 Moody, 255. 8 Duffin v. P. 107 Ill. 113, 47 Am. R. 1§. v. Flye, 26 Me. 312: Reg. v. 431. James, 4 Cox C.C. 90. See Pennsylvania 4 U.S. v. Britton, 2 Mason, 464; C.v. v. Misner, Addison, 44. Snell, 3 Mass. 82. 12 C, v. Talbot, 2 Allen, 161. See Pear- 5 Rex v. Hunter, 4 Car. & P. 128. son v. 8. 55 Ga. 659; Miller v. S. 51 Ind. 6 Ante, § 404. 405; S.v. Outs, 30 La. An. 1155. 7 Rex v. Hunter, supra; Thompson v. 18 Rex v. Backler, 5 Car. & P. 118; Rex S. 30 Ala. 28; U. 8S. ». Britton, 2 Mason, v. King. 5 Car. & P. 123; C. v. Costello, 464; S. v. Potts, 4 Halst. 26,17 Am. D. 119 Mass. 214; Reg. ». White, 2 Fost. & 449, : F. 554; Rex v. Brannan, 6 Car. & P. 8 New Crim Law, II. § 579(1); Nor- 326. wich University v. Denny, 47 Vt. 13. 195 § 438 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. the peculiarities of signatures, cannot, unless in rebuttal of evidence of incapacity, or by reason of some other special con- dition of the proofs, be shown against the defendant.! Ill. The Indictment and Evidence in Particular Forms of Offending and of Law. § 437. 1. In this Sub-title, — we shall not consider over again what has gone before, but call to mind some particulars relating to statutory forgeries, and forgeries, utterings, and the criminal possession of forged bank-bills, mercantile paper, and the like. First. Where the Indictment is on a Statute : — 2. The Poregoing Elucidations — are largely of statutory pro- ceedings. But — A General Form of Indictment — on a statute is to allege that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant “feloniously [where the offence is felony] did forge a certain [here name the instrument], which said forged ———— is as follows [here set out the instrument verbatim], with intent to defraud one B, against,” &c.? 3. Other Counts — may be added charging the forging as an alteration, or for uttering, and the like, as may appear practi- cally best. The statutes, and the principles explained in the first volume, should be carefully considered together. Under some statutes, a forgery and uttering are but different grades of one offence, so that both may be charged in one count. Under others, they are two distinct offences, and they can be joined only in separate counts.4 § 488. Where “forge or cause to be forged” — are the statutory words, they in the indictment, with the disjunctive “or,” will 1S. v. Hopkins, 50 Vt. 316; Dow v. Spenny, 29 Mo.386. Other Evidence. — For some other questions of evidence, see Rex v. Huet, 2 Leach, 820; Farrington «. S. 10 Ohio, 354; Pagaud v. 8. 55m. & M. 491; Sands v. C. 20 Grat. 800; Wiggins v. 8.1 Lea, 738; Rex v. Buttery, Russ. & Ry. 342; Rex v. Gibson, Russ. & Ry. 343, note; Henderson vr. 8. 14 Tex. 503; Van Sickle v, P. 29 Mich. 61; C. v. Butterick, 100 Mass. 12; Rex v. Wait, 7 Moore, 473, 1 Bing. 121,11 Price, 518; S. v, Foster, 3 McCord, 442; Rex ». Hevey, 1 Leach, 196 232; P. v. Parker, 67 Mich. 222,11 Am. St. 578. 2 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ey. 10th Lond. ed. 355, 19th ed. 609. Compare with Dir. & F. § 460, 461. 3 Thomas v. 8. 59 Ga. 784. 48. ». Snow, 30 La. An. 401. See P. v. Frank, 28 Cal. 507 ; S. v. Morton, 27 Vt. 310, 65 Am. D. 201; S. vo. Keeter, 80 N. C. 472; Barton v. 8. 23 Wis. 587; U.S. v. Nelson, 1 Abb. U. S. 135. And compare with Dir. & F. § 462-480. See post, § 481. CHAP, XXIX.] FORGERY OF WRITINGS, ETC. § 440 be ill.? But “and”? may be substituted ; or “cause to be forged ” omitted, even though the forging was by agent.® § 489. 1. The Name of the Forged Instrument, — as appearing in the statute, though probably it necd not be given where the full tenor is,* must be stated correctly if at all.6 Therefore if the statute has several names united disjunctively, it will not ordinarily be prudent to employ more than one'in a single count, whether connected by “and” or “or.”® For example, — 2. “Bond,” “ Writing Obligatory.” — Where, under 2 Geo. 2, ¢. 25, the instrument forged was laid as a “bond and writing obligatory,” two terms which the statute used disjunctively, the allegation was deemed well enough; because, a bond being a writing obligatory, this instrument was both.’ Yet there could be no advantage to the pleader in such superfluous form. And — 3. “ Warrant,” “ Order.” —If the statutory words are “warrant or order,” the indictment may say “warrant and order;” but the writing set out and produced in evidence must be both.® Where it is not both, the count will be ill,® or will not be sustained in proof.40 Should the pleader deem both words desir- able in allegation, a ready method, obviating all objections, is to make two counts." The statutory “or” will not do. Yet another method is suggested in the first volume. ” § 440. “Forged,” “Counterfeit.” — In a statute against uttering, if the words are “any forged, counterfeited, or falsely altered 1 Vol. I. § 585; ante, § 224; Rex v. Stocker, 1 Salk. 342, 871. — 2 Vol. I. § 586; Rasnick v. C.2 Va. Cas. 356. 3 Vol. I. § 332 (3). 4 Ante, § 413 (1). 5 Ante, § 213-216. ® Vol. I. § 585-592. 7 Dunnett’s Case, 2 East P. C. 985, 2 Leach, 581. 8 Vol. L § 588 (2); S. . Jones, 1 Mc- Mul. 236, 36 Am. D. 257; S. v. Holley, 1 Brev. 35; Rex vc. Crowther, 5 Car. & P. 316. 9 Reg. v. Dixon, 3 Cox, C. C. 289. 10 Reg. v. Williams, 2 Car. & K. 51. ll Reg. v. Autey, Dears. & B. 294, 7 Cox C. C. 329. Contrary to the text, is an English case wherein the indictment termed the forged instrument a warrant, order, and request for the delivery of goods, and recited it in hee verba; the judges held that though it was only a re- quest, the allegation was still good, the other names being rejected as surplusage. “The question,” said Parke, B. “may be very difficult [different] if the indictment sets out the instrument, from what it would be if it merely described it in the terms of the statute. In the former case, the mat- ter which, it is contended, is descrip- tive, may be mere surplusage; for when the instrument is set out on the record, the court are enabled to determine its character, and so a description is need- less.” Reg. v. Williams, 2 Den. C. C. 61, 63, 4 Cox C. C. 356,2 Ing. L. & Eq. 533. 12 Vol. I. § 588 (3). 197 § 444 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL instrument or writing,” the indictment may describe the writing as “forged and counterfeited.”! These two terms are in mean- ing so nearly alike? that no harm could ordinarily or ever come from joining them, yet it would be difficult to suggest a case wherein either would not be as good as both. Under an Ala- bama statute “or” is permissible in such a place. § 441. 1. Expanding the Averments beyond the Statute, — ex- plained in the first volume,‘ is sometimes required. Thus, — 2. A Fraudulent Intent, — as at common law, must be charged though the statute is silent thereon.6 But— 8. For Forging a Deed of Land,—the indictment need not set out the apparent grantor’s interest in the land.® § 442. 1. Blection — (Forging — Uttering).— Where, in fact, the defendant first forged an instrument, then uttered it, he may be indicted for either; or, in some forms of the statutes, for both; and always the two may be joined in separate counts, and some- times in one, as before explained.? 2. Altered. — Since altering an instrument may be charged as forging it, an allegation that the defendant forged an order for a specified sum is sustained by proof of a genuine order for a smaller sum altered by him to the larger.® § 443. 1. The Statutory Terms — must be sufficiently followed, as explained in the first volume.?? Thus, — 2. On a Statute in Two Sections, — the pleader should con- sider within which one is the offence, and adjust his count to its special phraseology.!! And, in short, — § 444, The Statutes differ —in their terms, and what in form seems permanent to-day is changed to-morrow; ‘hence the in- dictments should differ, being always drawn with careful reference to the particular present statute. 2 1 Hobbs v. 8. 9 Misso. 855. 7 Ante, 487 (3); Hoskins v. S. 11 Ga. 2 Ante, § 426 (1), note. 92. And see Rex v. Reeves, 2 Leach, 8 Johnson v. S. 35 Ala. 370. See Vol I. 808, 814. § 587. 8 Ante, § 419 (2). 4 Vol. I. § 623-630; Harrington v. S. 9S. v. Flye, 26 Me. 312. 54 Missis. 490; U.S. v. Schover, 2 Blatch. 10 Vol. I. § 608-622; Rex v. Hall, 2 59. And see U.S. v. Barney, 5 Blatch. East P. C. 895; Powell v. C. 11 Grat. 294, 822; S. v. Watson, 65 Mo. 115; Rex v. 5 Harrington v. 8. supra; Reg. v. Pow- Wonnelly, 1 Moody, 438. ner, 12 Cox C. C. 235,4 Eng. Rep. 525. 11S. v. Hayden, 15 N. H. 355. And see Rex rv. Rushworth, Russ. & Ry. 12 And see Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th 317. Lond. ed. 356, 6 West v. 8. 2 Zab. 212. 198 CHAP. XXIX.] FORGERY OF WRITINGS, ETC. § 448 § 445. Secondly. n+ Forging and Uttering Forged Bank- bills : — The Indictment for Forging, — subject to be varied by the terms of the statute, may charge that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant falsely [feloniously, if a felony] did forge and counterfeit [or did forge] a bank-note [purporting to be a note of the bank of, &ec., an allegation probably unnecessary] of the tenor following [here set out the forged paper verbatim], with intent to defraud one B [or with intent to defraud said hank, perhaps adding, said bank being then and there a corporation, &c. ]} § 446. For Altering, — the indictment, subject to be varied as above explained, may aver that the defendant, on, &c., at, &c., having in his possession a bank-note of the tenor following [here set it out verbatim], did then and there feloniously alter the said bank-note by {here set out the alteration, adding, if the pleader chooses, but this is believed not to be necessary, so that said bank-note, so altered, did then and there become of the tenor following, setting it out verbatim in the altered form], with intent to defraud [as in the last section].2 Generally the prac- titioner will find it more convenient and best to draw the indict- ment simply for forging, as in the last section; setting out the note in its altered form, and saying nothing of it as before the alteration. § 447. For Uttering,— that the defendant on, &c., at, &e., feloniously did offer, utter, dispose of, and put off [or whatever the statutory words may be] a false and forged bank-note [of such a bank, &c., unnecessary] * of the tenor following [here set out the note verbatim], with intent to defraud [as in section. before the last]; he the said [defendant] then and there, while so feloniously offering, uttering, disposing of, and putting off the same, well knowing the same to be false and forged.® § 448. No Purport Clause, — terming the forged writing a bank- bill, is, we have seen,® necessary.” Or, — 1 See, for forms, Archb. Crim. Pl. & £ Ante, § 413-416; post, § 448, 454. Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 369, 19th ed. 625; 3 5 And see forms 3 Chit. Crim. Law, Chit. Crim. Law, 1048; S.v. McLeran, 1 1052; Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. Aikens, 311. Compare with Dir. & F. ed. 369, 19th ed. 609, 625; Wilkinson ». § 465. S.10 Ind. 372; Buckland v. C. 8 Leigh, 2 For forms, see 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 732; C. v. Carey, 2 Pick. 47. Compare 1051; S. v, McLeran, 1 Aikens, 311. In- with Dir. & F. § 466. sufficient, Mount v. C. 1 Duv. 90. 6 Ante, § 418, 414. 8 Ante, § 419. 7 U.S. v. Williams, 4 Bis. 302. 199 § 454 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 449 “Promissory Note” — may ordinarily be given as the name of the instrument; because, in law, a bank-bill is such. So — § 450. “ Bank-bill they may be used interchangeably.? connected by “and.” § 451. “Knowingly,” &c.— The seienter must be averred and proved. Certainly it must be where the indictment is on a statute having the word “knowingly ” or its equivalent,* and the same seems to be required under all circumstances. The: defendant may rebut the government’s prima facie case.® § 452. The Name of the Person — to whom the counterfeit was uttered is not given in the common forms of the indictment for uttering, yet that of the one to be defrauded is.? This appears to be in general sufficient; but if the latter were omitted, the former would be required.2 And perhaps there are circum- stances or statutes under which it will be at all events.® § 453. “ Utter,” “Dispose of,’ &c. — Under the statutory words “utter and publish,” it was adjudged ill to say in the indictment “dispose of and put away.” The former phrase was deemed “more general and comprehensive ” than the latter. § 454. 1. The Existence and Incorporation of the Bank,— whether to allege and prove them, and how, will depend in part on con- siderations stated in the first volume, to which the reader is reterred ;4 also, in part on the terms of the statute, in connection » and “Bank-note””— are synonymous, and Or both may be employed, with principles of the unwritten law. Thus, — 2. The Statutory Words — being, any note of “any bank or g, any y 1 Stat. Crimes, § 336; C. v. Simonds, 14 Gray, 59; S.v. Wilkins, 17 Vt. 151; C. v. Carey, 2 Pick. 47; C. v. Hensley, 2 Va. Cas. 149. 2 Stat. Crimes, § 337; S. v. Wilkins, 17 Vt. 151. 3 Stone vr. S. Spencer, 404, 406. * Henderson v. S. 14 Tex. 503. 5 ‘Ante, § 400 (2), 425 (1); S. . Mor- ton, 8 Wis. 352. As to the form, see Buckland v. C. 8 Leigh, 732. Where the statutory words ‘“ knowing the same to be forged and counterfeited” were omitted from the indictment, the defect was held not to be supplied by the allegation that the counterfeit bill was uttered and given in payment with an “intent to defraud.” 200 S. v. Nicholson, 14 La. An. 785. But at common law it has been adjudged suffi- cient to allege that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant “ did feloniously pass a certain counterfeited bank-note, the tenor of which bank-note is as follows [giving a copy of it], with intent. to defraud” B, the person to whom it was passed. Swain v. P. 4 Scam. 178. 8 §. v. Morton, supra. 7 Ante, § 447, 8 Ante, § 259 (2), And see Buckland e. C. 8 Leigh, 732. ® Buckley v. S. 2 Greene, Iowa 162; Wilkinson v. S. 10 Ind. 372. 1 §. v. Petty, Harper, 59. 11 Vol. I. § 682. CHAP. XXIX.] FORGERY OF WRITINGS, ETC. § 455 banking company which is or shall be established within this State or in any other part of the United States,” an indictment was held good which simply introduced the forged writing as “a certain false, forged, and counterfeit promissory note for the payment of money,” then set it out verbatim, and charged the intent to be to defraud an individual named. It was an ordinary bank-note, wherein the name of the bank appeared. And prob- ably if, in spite of the special terms of the statute, there had been no such bank, the offence would still have been forgery.! The court, replying to the objection that the corporate existence was not averred, said, by Parker, O. J., “that was not necessary, as the indictment states a design to defraud an individual.” 2 But would it have been otherwise if the intent laid had been to defraud: the bank ? § 455. 1. A Corporation, — in respect of the present inquiry, differs from an individual only in that its creator is the law, and its capacity extends over but a part of the circle man.3 And itis as well known judicially to our tribunals that corporate banks exist as that men do. In some of the States, the statutes creating them are, even to their special terms, parts of their public laws, whereof the courts take cognizance without proof; and where this is not so, the result of the argument is the same; namely, — 2. In Reason, — since individuals and banks are equally known to exist, and they differ simply in extent of capacity, the existence of the one may be alleged similarly to that of the other, and be proved by like evidence. And— 3, In Authority, -— though judicial opinions on the question are a little obscure, and some appear opposed to this view, it is, on the whole, reasonably well sustained by them. Of the existence of banks whereof the courts take judicial cognizance, not even proof is necessary. 1 New Crim. Law, IT. § 543. 20. v. Carey, 2 Pick. 47, 50. This indictment had the words “ purport and effect,” where “tenor” should have been employed to indicate the exact recital of the instrument; but the attention of the court was not called to this error, and it was corrected by subsequent decisions. C. v. Wright, 1 Cush. 46; C. v. Tarbox, 1 Cush. 66. 8 New Crim. Law, I. § 417. 4 See, and compare, U.S. v. Williams, 4 Bis. 302; S. v. Hayden, 15 N. H. 355; C. +. Smith, 6 S. & R. 568; Trice v. 8. 2 Head, 591; Williams v. S. 9 Humph. 80; Jennings v. P. 8 Mich. 81; S. v. Carr, 5 N. H. 367; Fergus v. S, 6 Yerg. 345; P. v. Ah Sam, 41 Cal. 645; P. v. Stearns, 21 Wend. 409; P. v. Caryl, 12 Wend. 547; S. »v. Cole, 19 Wis. 129, 88 Am. D. 678; 201 § 457 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS, [BOOK XII. § 456. Where Proof of the Corporate Existence — of the bank is required,! whether domestic or of another State, it may be by an exemplification of the act of incorporation, with evidence of organization thereunder. And in some of the States this method is specially pointed to by statute.? But both on principle and by the better authorities, other methods, usually more convenient, are equally permissible; as, if the statute neither directly nor by implication provides otherwise,’ its mere de-facto existence, the performance of the functions of a bank, to be shown by parol, or even, according to some of the cases, reputation, will suffice.4 And in this way the fact that persons whose names are borne on its bills as officers are such may be made to appear. An admission of the bank’s existence is also implied in the passing of its note as good, and no other proof is necessary.® Still, — § 457. The Special Terms of the Statute — may change all this. Where they were, “‘a bank-bill, or note, or check, or draft upon a bank, or the certificate of deposit of money therein, of any bank or company incorporated by law, in any part of the United States,” these italic words were required to be covered by the allegation.’ It was not enough to say, for example, “one forged and counterfeit bank-bill, of the denomination of three dollars, on the Merchants’ Bank of Massachusetts.” That the bank was by law incorporated must be averred;® it was not an adequate Manaway v. 8. 44 Ala. 375; 8. v. Brown, 4 R. I. 528, 70 Am. D. 168; 8. v. Pierce, 8 Towa, 231; S. v. Morton, 8 Wis. 352; Johnson v. 8. 35 Ala. 370; Murry v. C. 5 Leigh, 720; Hobbs v. 8. 9 Misso. 855; Cady v. C. 10 Grat. 776. In a North Carolina case, a South Carolina bank-bill was described as “a false, forged, and counterfeited promissory note, commonly called a bank-note, purporting to be a good and genuine bank-note of one hun- dred dollars on the Bank of the State of South Carolina.” And this was held to be a sufficient averment of the existence of the bank. S. vo. Ward, 2 Hawks, 443. 1 Ante, § 455; S. v. Pierce, 8 Iowa, 231; Jones v. S. 11 Ind. 357; S. v. Hayden, 15 N. H. 855; C. v. Smith, 6 S. & R. 568. While the existence of a domestic bank may be matter of judicial knowledge, that of a foreign is not, and it must be proved. Owen v. 8, 5 Sneed, 493, 495. 2 Jones v. S, 5 Sneed, 346, 348; Stone 202 zu. S. Spencer, 401; P. v. Stearns, 21 Wend. 409, 28 Wend. 634. 8 Post, § 457; Trice v. S. 2 Head, 591; Jones v. S. 5 Sneed, 346, 348. * P.v. Caryl, 12 Wend. 547 ; S. v. Cole, 19 Wis. 129, 88 Am. D. 678; P. x. Ah Sam, 41 Cal. 645; P. v. Chadwick, 2 Par. Cr. 163; Dennis v. P. 1 Par. Cr. 469; S. zu. Calvin, R. M. Charl. 151; Reed v. S. 15 Ohio, 217, 224; Jennings v. P. 8 Mich. 81; Cady v. C. 10 Grat. 776; Clark v. S. 14 Ind. 26; P. v. Chandler, 4 Par. Cr. 231. 5S. v. Smith, 5 Day, 175, 5 Am. D. 132. ® McCartney v. 8. 3 Ind. 353, 56 Am. 1D. 510; S. v. Brown, 4 R. I. 528, 70 Am. D. 168. See Reg. v. Portis, 40 U. C.Q. B. 214, 7 Kennedy v. C. 2 Met. Ky. 86; C.c. Simonds, 11 Gray, 306. See C. v. Boyn- ton, 2 Mass. 77. ® Kennedy v. C. supra. CHAP. XXIx.] FORGERY OF WRITINGS, ETC. § 459 a substitute to say it was established in the State.1 Under a different form of legislation, an averment of the incorporation of the bank was adjudged unnecessary.2 Again, — § 458. A Needless Allegation of Incorporation, — when descrip- tive in form, requires proof, on a principle explained in the first volume.® Thus, if the forged bill is laid as purporting! to be from a bank duly authorized by the State to issue it, the incor- poration and authority are made descriptive, and they must be proved, even assuming no mention of them to be necessary.® § 459, Explanatory Allegations, — to show apparent legal effi- cacy, may be required. Thus, one was charged in Tennessee with passing a counterfeit note as follows: “This note of seventy- five cents is payable to the bearer at the treasury of North Carolina, agreeably to the act of Assembly of 1823, ¢. 7. Raleigh, 20th July, 1824. J. H., Public Treasurer.” There was here no promise to pay, and the existence of the North Carolina statute, which created the obligation, was not judicially known in Tennessee. Therefore it should have been averred; so the indictment was ill.’ If, in any case, the forged instru- ment does not on its face appear valuable, or its forgery adapted to work a fraud, extrinsic facts must be set out to show the court its fraudulent tendency in law.® § 459 a. The Proof that the Bank-bill is a Forgery —is within previous explanations.® One who has sufficiently practised the handling and judging of bills of the sort to have an enlightened Opinion may, as a witness, state to the jury what itis. But the weight of the opinion will vary with his capacity and means for judging.” He need not know the signatures of the officers, if, for example, he is competent to pass on the character of the engraving, or to decide from the general appearance of the bill.4 1 C. v. Simonds, supra. Am. D. 73; Clark v. 8. 14 Ind. 26; 8. v. 2S. v. Van Hart, 2 Harrison, 327. Candler, 3 Hawks, 393; Johnson »v. S. 2 And see S. v. Carr, 5 N. H. 367. Ind. 652; Pate v. P. 3 Gilman, 644; P. v. 8 Vol. I. § 482, 483, 485-487. Chandler, 4 Par. Cr. 231; Watson v. Cre- 4 Ante, § 416. . sap, 1 B. Monr. 195, 36 Am. D. 572; S. v. 5 S. v. Newland, 7 Iowa, 242,71 Am. Cheek, 13 Ire. 114; Jones v. S. 11 Ind. D. 444. 357; U.S. v. Keen, 1 McLean, 429; S. v. 6 Ante, § 402, 415, 4184. Harris, 5 Ire. 287. * Tait v. 8. 3 Yerg. 449, 450. Ul Jones v. Finch, supra; Allen v. S. 3 8 Reed v. S. 28 Ind. 396. Humph. 367; Johnson v. S. 2 Ind. 652; 9 Ante, § 429-432 c, 435, 436. Johnson v. 8. 35 Ala, 370; S. v. Harris, 5 10 Jones v. Finch, 37 Missis. 461, 75 Ire. 287; P. v. Caryl, 12 Wend. 547;S.z. 2038 § 460 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. e [BOOK XII. Or it suffices if he knows the signatures merely from having seen them on bills in circulation.! But a judgment founded merely on a comparison with bank reporters and directories will not be received.? § 460. 1. Other Points—have been adjudged, yet mainly within prior explanations in this chapter.2 Thus, — 2. Circulate as Money. — That the forged bill was issued to circulate as money need not be alleged.# 3. That it was believed to be Genuine — by the person receiving it, is useless in allegation.® 4, For an Uttering, contrary to 15 Geo. 2, c. 28, by the trick called “ringing the changes,” no averment was required that it was in payment as and for good and lawful money; for the statutory words were in the disjunctive, “utter or tender in payment.” & 5. A Question of Variance, — between allegation and proof, 1s to be submitted under instructions from the court to the jury ;? unless the variance is palpable, in which case it is not.® An allegation that a bank-note is payable to “A, bearer,” is sup- ported by proof of a note payable to “A or bearer.” 9 Ravelin, 1 D. Chip. 295. And see S. v. Candler, 3 Hawks, 393; S. v. Allen, 1 Hawks, 6,9 Am. D. 616. 18. v. Carr, 5 N. H. 367; Allen v. S. supra; May v. 8. 14 Ohio, 461, 45 Am. D. 548. 2S. v. Brown, 4 R. I. 528, 70 Am. D. 168. 3 §. v. Twitty, 2 Hawks, 449; S. v. Wheeler, 35 Vt. 261; S. v. Wilkins, 17 Vt. 151. For example, Person to be de- frauded.— Under the Iowa statute, the intent to defraud a particular person need not be set out. S. v. Barrett, 8 Iowa, 536. The existence of the corporation to be defrauded may be proved though not averred. S. v. Shaw, 92 N.C. 768. An alleged intent to defraud a firm is sus- tained by proof of the same to defraud one partner. Stoughton v. S, 2 Ohio St. 562. And see S. v. Cross, 101 N. C. 770, 9 Am. St. 53. The Tenor— is not re- quired in Alabama. Bostick v. S. 34 Ala. 266. How irregularity as to, cured. C. v. Ervin, 2 Va. Cas. 387. Non-existing Bank. — An indictment to be good under the Tennessee act of 1829, against fraud- 204 ulently passing any note purporting to be a bank-note, when no such bank exists, must aver, 1. That there was no such bank; 2. That the defendant, at the time of passing the pretended bank-note, knew there was none; and 8. That it was with intent to defraud the person to whom passed. Williams v. 8S. 9 Humph. 80. Fraudulent Intent. — The manner in which the defendant read an ambiguous note to the person to whom he was en- deavoring to pass it may be shown in evi- dence of the fraudulent intent. Butler v. 8. 22 Ala. 43. 4 Bostick v. 8. supra; Mathena v. S. 20 Ark. 70. 2 5 Wilkinson v. S. 10 Ind. 372. 6 Rex v. Franks, 2 Leach, 644. 7S. v. Potts, 4 Halst. 26, 17 Am. D. 449; Hess v. S. 5 Ohio, 5, 22 Am. D. 767. 8 Turpin ¢.S. 19 Ohio St. 540, referring to the above cases and May ». S. 14 Ohio, 461, 466, 45 Am. D. 548. 9 Quigley v. P. 2 Scam. 301. Other similar instances are Rooker v. S. 65 Ind. 86; Haslip v. S. 10 Neb. 590. CHAP. XXIX.] FORGERY OF WRITINGS, ETC. § 464 § 461. Thirdly. to pass them : — Not being a Sufficient Criminal Act,! — this is not indictable at common law. So the procedure is always on a statute. § 462. Tenor. — Contrary to the rule where the counterfeited thing is a coin,? the counterfeit bank-bills must be set out by their tenor,® already described.* And if they cannot because in the defendant’s possession, this fact should be laid in excuse. And notice to produce them at the trial is not necessary as foun- dation for the introduction of parol evidence of their contents.® § 463. 1. The Indictment, —in which as just said the tenor must be given, corresponds otherwise to that for possessing counterfeit coin with the intent to pass it, already described.® Being statutory, it must conform alike to general principles and to the terms of the statute.’ 2. Person to be Defrauded. —If, in charging possession of counterfeit coin with intent to pass it, the person to be defrauded need not be mentioned,® the same would seem, in reason, to be the rule in this offence. But some of the forms have this aver- ment, — as, with intent to defraud the bank,®— and there may be statutes under the words whereof it is necessary in principle. § 464, 1. The True Interpretation of the Statute— should be considered by the pleader, who will follow the interpreted terms, not the literal. Thus, — 2. “As True.” — The words of a statute being “with intent to utter or pass the same, or to render the same current as true,” an indictment on the former clause, laying the intent to be simply “to utter and pass the same,” was adjudged inadequate; because, by interpretation, the qualifying “as true” extended to the two clauses alike, and it should have been in this indict- For possessing Forged Bank-notes with Intent 1 New Crim. Law, I. § 204; ante, § 265 Brown v. C. 8 Mass. 59; Townsend v. P. ). 2 Ante, § 250, 265 (2). 8 S. v. Callendine, 8 Iowa, 288. Ses MeMillen v. S. 5 Ohio, 268. 4 Ante, § 403-405. _ § Ante, § 433; McGinnis «. 8. 24 Ind. 500, overruling Armitage v. S. 13 Ind. 441, and Williams v. 8. 16 Ind. 461. See P. v. Stewart, 4 Mich. 655. 6 Ante, § 265 (2). 7 And see, as to the form, 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 1050; P. v. Peabody, 25 Wend. 472; 3 Scam. 326; S. v. Callendine, 8 Jowa, 288 ; P. v. Stewart, 4 Mich. 655; Jones v. S. 11 Ind. 357; Fergus v. 8. 6 Yerg. 345. 8 Ante, § 265 (2). 9 See the cases above cited. 10 In matter of fact, not all the forms have this allegation. It appears. for ex- ample, not to have been in ©. v. Davis, 1L Gray, 4, or C. v. Price, 10 Gray, 472, 71 Am. D. 668. Ul Dir. & F. § 32. 205 § 469 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. ment.! But it was otherwise under a statute differently framed, where “as true,” though inserted, did not qualify the particular clause.2 Again, — § 465. Beyond Statutory Words. — Where the keeping of bank- bills “fraudulently ” was the offence under a statute silent as to any intent beyond, the defendant’s knowledge of their being counterfeit, and his intent to pass them, were held by construc- tion to be an element of the offence. Hence they must be alleged. “This,” said Caruthers, J. “is necessary to make the possession fraudulent.” 4 § 466. 1. Where pass. —It need not be laid that the intent was to pass the spurious notes in the State of the court or even in the county.® 2. “Circulate as Currency.” — If, the statutory offence is the fraudulent possession of forged bank-notes which circulate as currency, it need not be alleged that the genuine ones do thus circulate. ® § 467, Numbers. — Under the words “shall possess at any one time any number [of bank-bills] not less than ten,” the indict- ment was required to charge the defendant with having them at the “same time.” Saying the possession was “on the same day ” is not sufficient.‘ § 468, Proof of Intent.2 — It was in one case observed that the evil intent, which is the gist of this offence, “must, at least in part, be evidenced by some act of the party.”® But while this expression of opinion may be useful in caution to the jury, they are the sole judges of the intent,’ and the law does not limit them to one sort of relevant testimony. § 469, Existence of Bank. — Such questions as whether and 1 P. v. Stewart, 4 Mich. 655, 657. 5 Clark v. C. 16 B. Monr. 206 ; Spence 2 Tb.; Hopkins v. C. 3 Met. 460. And see C. v. Price, 10 Gray, 472, 71 Am. D. 668; C. v. Davis, 11 Gray, 4. 3 Vol. I. § 623-630. 4 Owen v. 8. 5 Sneed, 493,495. And see, as illustrative, ante, § 172. ‘*Felonicusly.”” — Under this statute, the intent need not be alleged to be “felonious.” Perdue v. S. 2 Humph. 494; Vol. I. § 583-536. Subsequent Banks. — These statutes ex- tend to banks established since their enactment. C. v. Swinney, 1 Va. Cas. 150, 151. 206 v. §..8 Blackf. 281; C. v. Cone, 2 Mass. 182. Seealso C.v. Judd, 2 Mass. 329, 3 Am. D. 54; C. v. Price, 10 Gray, 472, 71 Am. 1D. 668; C. v. Davis, 11 Gray, 4. ® §, v, Shelton, 7 Humph, 31. 7 Edwards v. C. 19 Pick. 124. And see C. v. Houghton, 8 Mass. 107; S. v. Bonney, 34 Me. 228; C. v. Thomas, 10 Gray, 483. 8 Vol. I. § 1101; ante, § 420 et seq. ® §. v. Penny, 1 Car. Law Repos 517 10 Perdue v. S. 2 Humph, 494, CHAP, XXIX.] FORGERY OF WRITINGS, ETC. § 472 how to aver and prove the existence of the bank are the same which have been already considered.! It is deemed, for example, that if the bank is foreign, general evidence of its existence will suffice ;? as, that its bills circulate as good. Its charter need not be proved. § 470. Fourthly. As to Promissory Notes and Bills Exchange : — 1. The Form of the Indictment — appears in a general way from the foregoing elucidations.* As to some special questions, — 2. Foreign. —In England an indictment for uttering a forged foreign promissory note need not say it is payable in England.® Such plainly is the rule with us. § 471. An Acceptance — of a bill is distinguished from the bill itself. A charge of uttering a forged bill is not sustained by that of a forged acceptance. ® § 472. 1. Indorsement.’ — On a bill payable to the order of four persons, executors, a charge of the forgery of the name of one of them as indorser adequately sets out an offence.® If the crime consists of forging the body of a note, indorsements, appearing upon it, may be disregarded.? Where the allegation is of utter- ing a promissory note with more than one name falsely indorsed on it, proof of one will suffice. 2, Other Instances may be shown in aid of the proofs of knowledge and criminal intent, within rules already explained.” of 8. Variance — has been already considered.!? 1 Ante, § 454 et seq. 2 Pp, v. Davis, 21 Wend. 309; P. v. Peabody, 25 Wend. 472. 3 Sasser v. S. 13 Ohio, 453. + See, for forms, Archb. Crim. Pl. & Fv. 10th Lond. ed. 372, 373, 19th ed. 627; 3.Chit. Crim. Law, 1071-1074; Dir. & F. § 464, 468, 469; Bevington v. S, 2 Ohio St. 160; Labbaite v. S. 6 Tex. Ap. 257; S. v. Pullens, 81 Mo. 387. And see Rex ov. Reading, 1 East, 180, note. 5 Reg. v. Lee, 2 Moody & R. 281. 6 Rex v. Horwell, 1 Moody, 405, 6 Car. & P. 148. 7 Dir. & F. § 472, 473; U. S. v. Mor- ris, 16 Blatch. 133; Langford v. 8. 33 Fla. 233. 8 Reg. v. Winterbottom, 1 Den. C. C. 41, 2 Car. & K. 37, 9 Perkins ». C. 7 Grat. 651. 10 P. ». Rathbun, 21 Wend. 509. As to laying the intent to defraud, see S. v. Crawford, 2 Ind.28. See, further, as to a forged indorsement, C. v. Welch, 148 Mass. 296. il Ante, § 428; Reg. v. Brown, 2 Fost. & F.559, doubting Reg. v. Cooke, 8 Car. & P. 586. 12 Ante, § 406-408, 416, 434, 460 (5). And see Perkins v, C. 7 Grat. 651,56 Am. D. 123; P.v, Badgley, 16 Wend. 53; May v. 8. 14 Ohio, 461, 45 Am. D. 548; Reg. v. Hawkes, 2 Moody, 60; S. v. Blanchard, 74 Towa, 628; U. S. v. Marcus, 53 Fed. Rep. 784; P. v. Phillips, 70 Cal. 61; Garmire v. 8, 104 Ind. 444; S. 7. Jackson, 90 Mo. 156; Alexander v. S 28 Tex. Ap. 186; S v. Lane, 80 N. C. 407. 207 § 475 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII _ 4, Other Questions of Evidence — have been adjudged, but in- volving no principles special to this branch of the offence.1 § 473. Fifthly. Asto “ Undertakings,” “ Warrants,” “ Orders,” e. 27 : The Indictment — for the forgery, for example, of a “warrant for the payment of money,” on a statute making it felony, may charge that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant feloniously did forge a certain warrant? for the payment of money, of the tenor, &c., with intent to defraud X.# § 474. 1. Variance. — An allegation of an order on a bank corporation is satisfied in evidence by an order on the cashier.® 2. Proof of Request. — That one has received goods does not prove an utterance by him of a forged request for their delivery, where no collateral or connecting evidence appears.® IV. Questions of Practice. § 475. The County for the Indictment : — 1. In the First Volume —is an explanation of the county wherein an offence is to be laid as committed.7 As to— 2. Forged Paper by Mail.— A letter sent by mail from one county to another containing a forged instrument is an uttering of it in the latter county ;° the mail being the utterer’s innocent agent.2 On the other side, if, as the court interprets the statute, the offence is complete only when the forged paper has reached the person to whom it is addressed, no indictment will lie in the 1 Reg. v. Portis, 40 U. C. Q. B. 214; Rex v. Crocker, Russ. & Ry. 97,2 New Rep. 87, 2 Leach, 987; P. v. Blakeley, 4 Par. Cr. 176, 184, 185; Rex v. Peacock, Russ. & Ry. 278; Rex v. Downes, 2 Fast P. C. 997; Reg. v. Beard, 8 Car. & P. 143 ; Koons v. S. 86 Ohio St. 195; S. v, Hop- kins, 50 Vt. 316; Luttrell «. S. 85 Tenn. 232, 4 Am. St. 760. 2 See Stat. Crimes, § 325-343. 3 Ante, § 439 (3). 4 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 374; 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 1054, 1074 et seq.; Dir. & F.§ 470. ‘* Receipt. ’? — As to a receipt, including the evidence, see S, v. Dalton, 2 Murph. 379; Rex v. Thomas, 2 East P, C. 934; Reg. v. Mil- ton, 10 Cox C.C. 364; Henry v. S. 35 Ohio St. 128; 8. v. Henderson, 29 W. Va, 208 147; S. v. Riebe, 27 Minn. 315; Dir. & F. § 471. Order, &c.— Goodson v. S. 29 Fla. 511, 80 Am. St. 135; Carver rv. P. 39 Mich. 786; P.v. Kemp, 76 Mich. 410, 5 U.S. v. Hinman, Bald. 292. And see further as to variance, Abbott v. S. 59 Ind. 70; Rex v. Thomas, 2 East P. C. 934. 6 Reg. v. Johnson, 6 Cox C. C. 18, 7 Vol. I § 45 et seq. Particularly, in forgery, see U. S. v. Britton, 2 Mason, 464; Bland v. P. 3Scam 364; P. v. Rath- bun, 21 Wend. 509; Perkins’s Case, 2 Lewin, 150; McGuire v. 8. 37 Ala. 161; Rex v. Pim, Russ. & Ry. 425. 8 Vol I § 53 (4). ® Bishop vr. S.30 Ala. 34. And see Rex v. Pim, Russ. & Ry. 425, CHAP. XXIX.] FORGERY OF WRITINGS, ETC. § 480 county of the sending.1 But by the opinions of some judges, under some statutes, the deposit of the letter is an uttering, and then the offender is liable equally in the county where he makes such deposit.? § 476. As to the Place of the Forgery, the Presumption — from an uttering in a particular State or county will not alone sus- tain the charge that the instrument was forged there. So it was held on this naked fact where the date of the forged paper was in another State. And — § 477. The mere Fact of Possession, — or uttering, or both, in a county, even under circumstances of some suspicion, has been deemed, not without dissent, to be inadequate proof that the forgery was there committed.4 On the other hand, this has been regarded as evidence tending to such conclusion;® even as strong evidence.* Still, — § 478. The Question is for the Jury, — who yet should find the defendant guilty only on evidence legally sufficient.7 And — § 479. By some American Opinions, — not much, if anything, need be added to possession or uttering in the county of the indictment, to justify the: finding that the forgery was there also. This; “together with the entire want of evidence of a prior possession elsewhere, was,” it was said in one case, “suff- cient in the absence of countervailing testimony.”§ An excep- tion is made of “such papers as pass from hand to hand in the common transactions of life.” As to the other class, “the uttering,” said Ruffin, C. J., “if unexplained, is in sound sense evidence of the forgery of the paper by the utterer; and if the paper, as in this case, was in his hands in an incomplete state, and was produced by him in a completed state, and made in his own favor and produced for his benefit, the proof is cogent and plenary that his was the hand that fabricated it, or, at least, that he was present and wittingly assented.” ® § 480. The Doctrine, — at least of our American courts, we may in conclusion deem, from these and other cases, to be that very 1 P. v. Rathbun, 21 Wend. 509. 6S, o. Yerger, 86 Mo 33. 2 Vol. I. § 61(1); Perkins’s Case, 2 7 Rex ~, Crocker, 2 Leach, 987, 2 New Lewin, 150. Rep. 87, Russ. & Ry. 97; Rex v. Parkes, 8 C. v. Parmenter, 5 Pick. 279. 2 East P. C. 992 * Rex v. Parkes, 2 East P. C. 992; 8 Johnson ». 8. 85 Ala. 370, 379. Rex v. Crocker, 2 Leach, 987, 2 New Rep. ®§. v. Morgan, 2 Dev. & Bat. 348, 87, Russ. & Ry. 97. 352. 5 §. v. Poindexter, 28 W. Va. 805. VOL. 11. —14 209 § 483 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. slight evidence, and by some opinions none, added to the unex- plained fact of a possession or uttering in the county of the indictment, will justify the jury in finding such to have been the place of the forgery.! Yet in reason, each complication of facts, and the law relating thereto, should be specially considered. If, for example, the uttering is punished less heavily than the for- ging, a court could not permit its jury to convict one of the latter on mere evidence of the former. But if the defendant relied on his forgery in the county of the indictment, this might ordinarily be accepted as, in law, a ratification there? of the original for- ging, wherever committed. These are examples of what may be taken into view in connection with differing facts. § 481. Other Questions : — 1. Forging and Uttering — are, where both are punishable, ordinarily, not under all statutes, distinct offences; and-on an indictment for the one there cannot be a conviction of the other.2 But — 2. In Alabama, — for example, it is by statute provided that one “who utters and publishes as true,” &c., “must on convic- tion be adjudged guilty of forgery.” Thereon there can be a conviction of forgery on proof of an uttering.4 ° § 482. Uttering Numbers of Forged Instruments together — con- stitutes, by the better opinion, but one offence, not as many distinct offences as there are instruments; thus, where one passes all, in one parcel, to a bank teller, he should be charged with the whole in one count. So, — § 483. Possessing Numbers. — Under a statute to punish one who shall “have in possession, or receive from, any other person, any forged or counterfeited promissory note or bill, &c., with intent,” &c., only a single offence is committed by thus having, at one time, more counterfeit bank-bills than one, even though 1 Spencer v. C. 2 Leigh, 751. And see U.S. v. Britton, 2 Mason, 464; Bland . P. 3 Scam. 364; S. v. Jones, 1 McMul. 236, 36 Am. D. 257; Headerion v8.14 Tex. 503. 2 Ante, § 236. ® Dir. & F. § 462,476; ante, § 437 (3); Luttrell v. S. 85 Tenn. 232, 4 Am. St. 760; P. v. Van Alstine, 57 Mich. 69; P, v. Me- Millan, 52 Mich. 627; Hooper v. S. 30 Tex. Ap. 412, 28 Am. St. 926; S. »v. Henry; 59 Iowa, 391; S. v. McCormack, 210 56 Iowa, 585; S. v. Zimmerman, 47 Kan. 242; Buren v. S. 16 Lea, 61; Ball v. 8. 48 Ark. 94; Bell v. 8. 57 Md. 108: 4 Bishop v. S. 30 Ala. 34, 39; McGuire v. 8. 37 Ala. 161. 5S. v. Egglesht, 41 Iowa, 574, 20 Am. R. 612, disapproving U. 8. v. Beerman, 5 Cranch C. C. 412, and §. v. Thurston, 2 McMul. 382. See Vol. I. § 437; New Crim. Law, I. § 1060, 1061, 1066; P. »v. Ward, 15 Wend. 231; Rex v. Martin, 2 Leach, 928. CHAP. XXIX,] FORGERY OF WRITINGS, ETC. § £86 on different banks. And a conviction for the possession of one was adjudged a bar as to the others. § 484. On Three Counts, — each charging the forgery of an instrument of the same tenor, if, on the trial, three like instru- ments are offered in evidence, the prosecutor need not show which count was for a particular one; but each count is provable by any of the three.? § 485. The Verdict, — in an old case for forging and publishing, being, says the report, “guilty de transgressione et forgeria pred.,” it was objected to as silent as to the publication, hence insufficient. “Sed non allocatur; de transgressione predicta includes it.” Therefore it was held good. But — § 486. 1. The Special Finding,t — “guilty of publishing and passing the receipt in question, knowing it to be a forgery,” was adjudged inadequate; because not saying whether or not it was published as true, and with intent to defraud.’ Yet“ guilty of at- tempting to pass the note, knowing of the forgery,” was accepted ; since the court will intend whatever it fairly can to sustain a special verdict.6 These two decisions are not easily reconciled.* Again, — 2. A Verdict on Two Counts, —the one for forging a note, and the other for forging an indorsement on a note, being not guilty on the first count, and on the second, “namely, that of uttering a negotiable note knowing it to be forged, we find the prisoner guilty,” — was held too uncertain to authorize a sentence thereon.® 1 §. v. Benham, 7 Conn. 414. 6S. v. Fuller, 1 Bay, 245, 1 Am. D. 2 C. v. Miller, 3 Cush. 243. 610. 8 Rex v. Newton, 2 Lev. 111. 7 And see Page v. C. 9 Leigh, 683. * Vol. I. § 1006-1008. 8 Cocke v. C.13 Grat. 750. And see 5 Couch v. 8. 28 Ga. 367. Anderson v. 8. 65 Ala. 553 ; Sprouse v, C. 81 Va. 374; Rounds v. 8. 78 Me. 42. For FORNICATION, see Stat. Crimes. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES, see Dir. & F. § 481-487. GAMING, see Stat. Crimes. 211 § 488 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII CHAPTER XXX. GAMING-HOUSE. § 487. Introduction. 488, 489. Common-law Offence. 490-494. Statutory Forms of the Offence. Consult, — for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, I. § 1135-1137. For the indictment, &c., Dir. & F. § 805-809. And see the indexes to this series of volumes. Compare with the titles Gamine and Nuisance. § 487. 1. A Public Gaming-house — is a species of nuisance, an offence treated of further on.’ It is also a disorderly house,? the procedure for keeping which has been already explained.® 2, How Chapter divided. — We shall consider, J. The Common- law Offence; II. Statutory Forms of the Offence. I. The Common-law Offence. § 488. 1. The Indictment — is constructed after the manner of that for keeping a bawdy-house?‘ or other disorderly house.® 2. It may allege —that on, &c., at, &c. [with or without a continuando®}, the defendant, to copy from Archbold, “unlaw- fully did keep and maintain a certain common gaming-house, and in said gaming-house [for lucre and gain”], on, &c., there unlawfully and wilfully did cause and procure divers idle and evil-disposed persons to frequent and come, to play together at a certain unlawful game [specified]; and, in the said common gaming-house, on, &c., there unlawfully and wilfully did permit and suffer the said idle and evil-disposed persons to be and remain, playing and gaming at the said unlawful game called, &c., for divers large and excessive sums of money;” concluding as in other indictments for keeping disorderly houses.® 1 Post, § 860 et seq. 5 Ante, § 273. 2 New Crim. Law, I. § 1135; S. »v. 6 Or es at ante, § 312. Lovell, 10 Vroom, 463. 7 Doubtless unnecessary. See ante, 3 Ante, § 272-283. § 274; C. v. Colton, 8 Gray, 488. 4 Ante, § 105 (2). 8 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. 212 CHAP. XXX.] GAMING-HOUSE. § 490 § 489. 1. The Evidence — assumes like forms and is governed by the like principles as for keeping other disorderly houses. 2. Variance. — Allegations of the character of frequenters, games played, swearing, drinking, and the like, need be proved only in substance,? not necessarily in exact form as laid.3 3. As to what is One Offence, — of this or any other continuous delictum, there are nice questions believed not to be fully settled in adjudication. It has been said that keeping a gaming-house “may be a continuous act, and all the time during which” it is progressing till the law steps in, “constitutes one indivisible offence, which can be punished but in a single prosecution. Like a civil cause of action, it cannot be split up in the prosecu- tion of it. But one penalty can be assessed.” § Il. Statutory Forms of the Offence. § 490. 1. The Statutes against Gaming, — and the keeping of gaming-houses,® are in our States diverse and numerous. Not all nicely distinguish gaming-house keeping from simple gam- ing. Hence in the main they are treated of in the chapters in “Statutory Crimes” under the title “Gaming.” ’ Something will here be given, largely in repetition of what is there said. 2. Keeping for Gambling. — On a statute to punish any one who should “keep a room, &c., to be used and occupied for gambling,” it was unnecessary to allege that gambling took place therein; for “it is immaterial whether the prohibited establishment shall find customers or not.” 8 ed. 637. The author adds: “ This prece- dent was holden good in Rex v. Rogier, 2D.&R. 431,1 B.& C. 272. In Rex v. Taylor, 3 B. & C. 502, Holroyd, J. said that in his opinion it would be sufficient merely to have alleged that the defendant kept a common gaming-house.” As to this, see ante, § 275, 276. See also C. c. Crupper, 3 Dana, 466; C. v. Stahl, 7 Allen, 304. For other forms of the indictment, see Dir. & F. § 805, 808 ; 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 674-677; S. v. Haines, 30 Me. 65; Lord v. S. 16 N. H. 325, 41 Am. D. 729; S. v. Maurer, 7 Iowa, 406. And see S, v. Ellis, 4+ Misso. 474. 1 Ante, § 112-118, 278-282. 2 Vol. I. § 488 b-488e ; ante, § 281 (2). * Lord c. 8.16 N. H. 325,41 Am. D. 729. 4 Vol. I. § 402 (2), note. 5S. v. Lindley, 14 Ind. 480, 431, by Perkins, J. 6 Stevens v. P. 67 Ill. 587; Chase v. P. 2 Colo. 509; C. v. Ballou, 124 Mass. 26. 7 Stat. Crimes, § 844-930. 8 S. v. Miller, 5 Blackf. 502; Sowle v. S. 11 Ind. 492. And see Winemiller v. 8. 11 Ind. 516; S. v. Staker, 3 Ind. 570. Otherwise where the indictment is. under another clause, for suffering gambling in the building. Sowle v. S. supra. And see Chase v, P. 2 Colo. 509. 213 § 494 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XH. § 491. 1. For Keeping a Gambling-house, — the indictment will vary with the statutory terms. And — 2. Location. —It need not say how located; but if it states it to be on a particular lot, to avoid a variance it must be so proved.? 3. One Day.— Proof of keeping the gambling-house but for a single day will, in point of time, suffice.? § 492. 1. The Name of the Game,—in a charge of permitting gaming in an unlicensed grocery in Indiana, need not be stated; for, by the statutory terms, it is immaterial what the game is.* It is the same in Texas.6 But — 2. The Names of the Players — should, under the former statute, be averred;® under another Indiana one, against keeping a gaming-house, they need not be.‘ § 493. 1. The Names of the Players, — on an Ohio statute, must be stated ;® not under a Texas one.?® 2. For Keeping a Gaming-house, — the New Hampshire indict- ment need not particularly describe the house, or state the names of the players, or what games, or the amounts. It is not double to allege that the defendant kept the house on a day named, and allowed gaming in it then and on divers days and times before and after. 10 § 494. In “ Statutory Crimes,” — the elucidations wherein cover further ground, now reached, more of this subject appears. ! S. v. Cure, 7 Iowa, 479; S. v. Crogan, 8 Towa, 523. 2 Ante, § 111, 135 (1); S. v. Crogan, supra. 3S. o. Crogan, supra. 4S. v. Dole, 3 Blackf. 294. Crimes, § 896. 5 S. v. Ake, 9 Tex. 332. § Ball v. S. 7 Blackf. 242; Sowle v. 8. 11 Ind. 492. 7 Carpenter v. S. 14 Ind. 109; Dormer v. §. 2 Ind. 308. See Stat. Crimes, § 894, 895. 8 Davis v. 8. 7 Ohio, 1st pt. 204. See Stat. 9 McGaffey v. S. 4 Tex. 156; Horan v. S. 24 Tex. 161. W §, v. Prescott, 83 N. H. 212. And see Montee v. C. 3 J. J. Mar. 132. 11 And see, for various rulings, Montee v. C. 3 J.J. Mar. 1382; C. v. Lampton, 4 Bibb, 261; Buford v. C. 14 B. Monr. 24; Metz v.C. 2 Met. Ky. 14; C. v. Bolkom, 8 Pick. 281; C. v. Arnold, 4 Pick. 251; C. v. Pattee, 12 Cush. 501; C. v. Stowell, 9 Met. 572; S. uv. Brice, 2 Brev. 66; S. «. Foster, 2 Misso 210; S. v. Ames, 10 Misso. 743; S. v. Kesslering, 12 Misso. 565; S. r. Austin, 12 Misso. 576; S. v. Fletcher, 18 Mo. 425; Soltz v. P. 4 Scam. 168. For GAME, see Fis anp Game, Dir. & F. § 435-440, and Stat. Crimes. HAWKERS AND PEDDLERS, see Dir. & F. § 508-510, and Stat. Crimes. HEALTH REGULATIONS, see New Crim. Law, I. § 489-494; Dir. & F. § 511- 514, HIGHWAY, see Way. 214 CHAP. XXXI.] | HOMICIDE — MANSLAUGHTER, ETC. § 498 CHAPTER XXXI. HOMICIDE, AS TO THE ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO MANSLAUGHTER AND MURDER, § 495,496. Introduction. , 497-500. Historical and General View. 501-505. Indictment in Outline. 506-536. Specific Questions. 537-538 a. Where no Assault or Battery. 539. Statutory Changes of Rules, Consult, —for the law of self-defence and of defence of property and of family, which often arises in these cases, New Crim. Law, I. § 836-877. For the law of this offence, Ib. II. § 613-745. For some statutory homicides, Stat. Crimes, § 465-477. For the indictment and connected questions, Dir. & F. § 515-548. And see for multi- tudes of incidental questions, the indexes to this series of volumes. § 495. Divisions of Subject. — For clearness of exposition, and to avoid a chapter too long, the procedure in felonious homicide will be separated into several chapters. § 496. How Chapter divided. — We shall here consider, I. Historical and General View; II. The Indictment in Outline; III. Specific Questions; IV. Where there is no Assault or Battery; V. Statutory Changes of the Common-law Rules. I. Historical and General View. § 497. 1. Changes in Law — (Bnglish).— Adequately to com- prehend the form of the indictment for a felonious homicide, we should bear in mind the early as well as the subsequent law of England, whereof the latter became common law with us. Also, — 2.. American. — Since we are inquiring after the indictment of to-day with us, we should not overlook our own modifying statutes and decisions. As to the — § 498. English — (23 Hen. 8).— Prior to 1531, the date of the statute of 23 Hen. 8, c. 1, § 3, there was in the mother country only one form of felonious homicide, being that now known as 215 § 500 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII, manslaughter, and including the malicious killings since termed murder.! All homicides now punishable were nominally capital, but clergy was allowed for all. This statute took away clergy from those committed “wilfully and of malice aforethought,” to which the name of murder was subsequently given.2, Upon this statute, the distinction between murder and manslaughter has ever since rested, both in England and this country.? § 499, 1. The Effect of this Statute, —in a case which was to be excluded from clergy by force of it, upon the indictment for the homicide thereby raised to murder, was, under the rule that every fact pertaining to the punishment must appear in allega- tion,‘ to require the indictment to be expanded beyond its prior forms to cover the phrase “ wilfully and of malice aforethought;” else, says Hawkins, “the offender shall have his clergy; ” 5 in other words, the charge will be only manslaughter. But — 2. The Conclusion “against the Form of the Statute” — was not deemed necessary in any case where the provision, instead of creating a new offence, modified the punishment for an old one.* Hence, though there are in the books distinctions which might create some doubt if the question were new, it became the established practice not to attach this conclusion to the indictment for murder.’ § 500. American Changes. — We shall see, in the chapter after the next, that precisely as the statute of 23 Hen. 8, ¢. 1, § 3, divided the felonious homicides into those which were there- 1 New Crim. Law, IT. § 623-628. 2 T have stated the history thus shortly that it may be easily understood. The exact words of this statute are “that no person nor persons which hereafter shall happen to be guilty after the laws of this land for any manner of petit treason, or for any wilful murder [the term murder denoting, at this period, any felonious homicide] of malice prepensed, or for, &c. [mentioning several other felonies] shall from henceforth be admitted to the ben- efit of his or their clergy, but utterly be excluded thereof, and suffer death in such manner and form as they should have done for any the causes or offences abovesaid if they were no clerks; such as be within holy orders, that is to say, of the orders of sub-deacons or above, only 216 except.” And see, for explanations, New Crim. Law, IT. § 623-628. 3 In explanation of the way in which this statute became common law in our States, consult the second edition of this volume, § 500,—the contents of which have given place to other matter in this edition. And see post, § 561-565. * Vol. I. § 77 et seq. 5 2 Hawk. P. C. cc. 33, § 25. 6 Vol. I. § 595-599; Stat. Crimes, § 167; 2 Hawk. P. C. ¢. 25, § 4. 7 2 Hawk. P. C. ¢. 38, § 25. “ Where any person is to be ousted of his clergy by virtue of any act of parliament, two things are always requisite: 1. That the indictment bring the fact within the stat- ute, but need not conclude contra formam statuti,” &c. 1 Hale P. C. 535. And seo 2 Hale P. C. 190, 191. CHAP. XXXI.] HOMICIDE — MANSLAUGHTER, ETC. § 502 after called murder, and left the rest to the new name of man- slaughter (the distinction between them being that the former were committed “wilfully and of malice aforethought,” to be so charged ‘in the indictment, while the latter remained where all felonious homicides were before); so in the greater number of our States has a statute created out of murder a higher form known as murder in the first degree, comprehending a part of what was murder before, and left the rest to remain what it was before the statute, under the new name of murder of the second degree. Yet to a lamentable extent have our courts, not con- sulting the teachings of our books of the law, or resorting to accurate reasonings, done, upon the subject of the indictment, the very highest champion blundering. Il, The Indictment in Outline. § 501. Manslaughter and Murder — we see, therefore, are charged precisely alike in the indictment, except that the latter is en- larged by the allegations which the statute of 23 Hen. 8, ¢. 1, § 8, requires, —to be treated of in the next chapter. So that the elucidations in this chapter concern equally the indictment for murder and for manslaughter. § 502. A Good Outline of the Indictment, — omitting what is made necessary by 23 Hen. 8, ¢. 1, § 8, when the punishment for murder is sought, appears in an old form for manslaughter. The needless parts will be pointed out as we proceed : — “That A, late of, &c. (not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil), on, &c. (with force and arms), at, &c, 1. in and upon one X (in the peace of God and our said lord the king then and there beinug),in the king’s highway there 9. feloniously and wilfully did make an assault, and 3. a certain cart (of the value of five pounds), 4, then and there drawn by two horses (of the value of ten pounds), which he the said A was then and there driving in and along the said highway, 5. in and against the said X feloniously did force and drive, and him the said X did thereby, then and there, throw to and upon the ground, and did then and there feloniously force and drive one of the wheels, to wit, the off-wheel of the said cart, against, upon, and over the head of him the said X then lying upon the ground, and 6. thereby did then and there give to the said X,in and upon his head, one mortal fracture and contusion, 217 § 506 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. 7. of which the said X 8. then and there instantly died. 9. And so the jurors, &c., do say, that the said A him the said X in manner and by means aforesaid feloniously did kill and slay, against the peace, &c.””} § 503, 1. “Seduced by Devil” — unnecessary.” 2. “With Force and Arms,” —needless with us, whatever was the former law in England.? Hawkins tells us that these words were unnecessary in appeals of murder, “because. they are so fully implied.”4 They would seem to be equally supplied by the other allegations in indictments for felonious homicide.® § 504. “In Peace,” &c.—not necessary. “Perhaps he was not in peace, but fighting and breaking the peace.” Yet to kill him without lawful occasion would be felony.? Still, on an indictment for the murder of a British subject abroad, it was deemed that assuming the allegation of his being such to be required, the words we are considering sufficed.® § 505. 1. The Value of the Instrument — which caused the death, or the fact of its being valueless, was formerly averred in the English indictments; because, says Hale, it “is a deodand forfeited to the king, and the township shall be charged for the value if delivered to them. But this seems not to be essential.” ® 2. Parliament abolished, —in 1846, by 9 & 10 Vict. c. 62, this forfeiture and the averment. With us, deodands being un- known,’ such allegation is seldom” seen, certainly is never necessary. 12 III. Specific Questions. § 506. In this Sub-title, — we shall consider the averments special to homicides by violence, as in the above form; thus, — First. How describe Person slain —“in and upon one X :” — 1. The Name — must be given if known.® That by which he 1 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 783. 8 Rex v. Sawyer, 2 Car. & K. 101, 118; 2 Vol. L § 501; Dir. & F.§ 44. Russ. & Ry. 294. 8 Vol. I. § 502 (1); Dir. & F. § 43. 9 2 Hale P. C. 185. * 2 Hawk. P. C. ¢ 23, § 85. 10 New Crim. Law, I. § 827, 968 (2), 5 See Ib. c. 25, § 90-93; 2 Hale P.C. 970. 187; 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 751, note. NS. v. Smith, Phillips, N. C. 340. 8 Vol. I. § 502 (2); ante, § 57 (2); Dir. & 22 Dukes v. S. 11 Ind. 557, 71 Am. D. F.§ 47; Dumas v. S. 63 Ga. 600. 370. 1 Heydon’s Case, 4 Co. 41a; C. v. 18 2 Hawk, P. C. c. 28, § 78, Murphy, 11 Cush, 472. 218 CHAP. XXXI.] | HOMICIDE — MANSLAUGHTER, ETC. § 508 is commonly called suffices.1 In California, an error in the middle name was held immaterial,? but this might not be so everywhere. The jury is to decide, under instructions from the court, whether the name averred is the true one. 2. The Addition,> — the official character,® or the fact that such person was a human being,’ even under a statute making the offence to consist of taking the life of a “human being,” ® need not be averred. ; § 507. 1. If the Name is unknown—to the grand jury, the indictment may so state instead of alleging it.® It is not indis- pensable even to aver the sex. Thus, — 2. For Killing a Bastard Child —on an indictment in this form, the child appearing at the trial to have been twelve days old and not baptized, a verdict of guilty was sustained though the mother had said she would like its name to be Mary Ann, and she had once or twice called it by this name.!! This case proceeded on the opinion of the jury that the child was unnamed. If its name had been averred as Mary Ann, and the proof had been that it had acquired this name by reputation, the verdict would have been equally good. Now, — § 508. A Bastara — does not take the surname of its mother or its father, though by reputation it may acquire either. If it is baptized by a particular Christian name, whereby afterward it is called, an indictment for its murder, describing it by this Christian name, with the mother’s surname added, is not good 1 Pp. v, Freeland, 6 Cal. 96; Vol. I. § 686 (1). 2 P. v. Lockwood, 6 Cal. 205. 3 Vol. I. § 683 and note, 685. 4S. vo. Angel, 7Ire. 27. Repetitions —of the name, to the several averments, should follow when required by the rules of pleading. Vol. I. § 689 a; S. v. Brab- son, 38 La. An. 144; Alford v. C. 84 Ky. 623. 5 Vol. I. § 671, 672, where it appears that the addition was required, even tothe name of a party, only by the Statute of Additions, and that this statute did not ex- tend to third persons. A needless addi- ‘tion may be rejected as surplusage. Vol. I.§ 687. But the Alabama court held that the needless description of the person slain as a free negro cannot be rejected, and it must be proved. Felix v. S. 18 Ala. 720. § Boyd v. S. 17 Ga. 194; Wright vo. 8S. 18 Ga. 383. 1 §. v. Stanley, 33 Iowa, 526. " Bean v. S. 17 Tex. Ap. 60; Merrick v. 8. 63 Ind. 327; Bohannon v. 8. 14 Tex. Ap. 271; Ogden v.S. 15 Tex. Ap. 454; Palmer v. P. 138 Tl. 356, 32 Am. St. 146. So, that the person slain was a convict need not be stated in an indictment for killing him, though under a statute con- taining the word. S. v. Brown, 119 Mo. 527. ® Vol. I. § 495 (2), 546-552; 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 23, § 78; 1 East P. C. 345; S.c. Richmond, 42 La. An. 299. 10 §. v. Morrissey, 70 Me. 401. 11 Rex v. Smith, 1 Moody, 402, 6 Car. & P. 151. 219 § 512 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. unless it has further acquired such surname by actual reputa- tion.! “The proper description,” it was said in one case, “would have been Harriet, the base-born child of the-prisoner.” Nor, in such a case, can an indictment charging that the name was to the jurors unknown be sustained.” § 509. Presumably not named. — On a charge against a single woman for killing her bastard child on the day of its birth, it was adjudged unnecessary to state its name, or that it was un- named, or its name was unknown. For the judges deemed “ that a bastard child had no name but by acquisition; that where the indictment stated nothing from which the duration of life for more than an instant could be necessarily inferred, there was no presumption that any name had been acquired, either by bap- tism or reputation; and that to state that the name was unknown to the jurors inferred that the child had acquired some name.” 3 § 510. Not named in Fact. — When, therefore, the child has no name, and the grand jury are so informed, the correct allegation is, not that its name is unknown, but that it is “not named.” “Not baptized ” will notdo; for without it, it may have a name. § 511. 1. The Proof of the Name — must correspond with the allegation.® Thus, if it is averred to be Melville, and the name in evidence is Melvin, the variance will-be fatal.® 2. Where there is no Contest—about the name at the trial, but it is assumed to be as laid, the jury may be satisfied with very little evidence.’ But— 3. The Deceased being described — in the indictment as “a cer- tain Wyandott Indian, whose name is unknown to the grand jury,” it was not enough to prove the name to be unknown, he must also be shown to have been of the Wyandott race.8 § 512. Secondly. C. v. Hersey, supra. § 2 Hale P. C. 185. Pigeonry, 7 Mod, 149. T Ante, § 514 et seq. ® Carter v. 8. 2 Ind. 617. 9 Bilansky v. S. 3 Minn. 427, 435. 10 Vaux’s Case, 4 Co. 44a, Mr. Thomas And see Reg. v. CHAP. XXXIL] HOMICIDE — COMMON-LAW MURDER. § 559 § 557. In Murder by Starving : — The Indictment — is constructed like that for other murders, . but in conformity to the special facts. These facts differ, so that there is no one form universally appropriate.! § 558. 1. Duty. —If the defendant’s guilt came from neglect- ing or violating a legal duty, — as, to furnish food, clothing, or shelter, — such duty must be alleged. For example, — 2. Against a Married Woman, — for the murder even of her illegitimate child, by neglecting to supply food to it, the indict- ment must aver that the husband had provided the food; because, said the learned judge, “in these cases the wife is in the nature of the servant of the husband. It does not at all turn upon her natural relation of mother.” Then the neglect may be alleged against her. “There is no distinction between the case of an apprentice and that of a bastard child.” ® § 559. Variance — must be avoided; as, where the charge was an assault by the defendant on his wife, a removal of her by force from his dwelling-house, and then leaving her, whereby she came to her death, it-was not supported by proof that he beat her and went to bed, whereupon she voluntarily left the house and remained needlessly has the following note: “ When this case was cited in Rex v Aylett, Mich. 26 Geo. 3, Mr. Justice Buller said it had been con- siderably shaken ; for, on his authority, a motion was made in arrest of judgment in Rex v. Ring, 1 Vent. 23; and although in that book the decision does not appear, yet in 3 Keb. 51 the rule for arresting the judgment was discharged. MS. note of the late H. Bosanquet, Esq., of Lin- cecln’s Inn.” . 1 See, for forms, Matthews Crim. Law, exposed in the open air.* 499; Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 431; 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 777; Reg. v. Bubb, 4 Cox C. C. 455. Compare with Dir. & F. § 520, 525, 530. 2 Reg. v. Edwards, 8 Car. & P. 6113. Rex v. Ridley, 2 Camp. 650; Reg. v. Crompton, Car. & M. 597; Reg. v. Pin- horn, 1 Cox C. C. 70. And see ante, § 538 a. 3 Rex v. Saunders, 7 Car. & P. 277, 279, before Alderson, B. * §. v. Preslar, 3 Jones, N. C. 421. 239 § 562 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. CHAPTER XXXIII. HOMICIDE, AS TO THE INDICTMENT AND VERDICT FOR MURDER UNDER STATUTES DIVIDING IT INTO DEGREES. § 560. Introduction. 561-589. The Indictment. 590-596. The Verdict. Consult — the places cited introducing the chapter before the last. § 560. How Chapter divided. We shall consider, I. The Indictment; II. The Verdict. I. The Indictment. § 561. 1. In “ Directions and Forms” — an exposition of this subject is given, condensed yet sufficiently full and plain to satisfy inquirers who will carefully read it and look and think.} Still, in the present condition of judicial things, the unfoldings of this sub-title, which is longer than the author would wish, become indispensable. 2, The Statutes, — dividing murder into degrees, are shown in “New Criminal Law.”? If the reader will compare them with the old English ones, now common law with us,® dividing what was felonious homicide into the two degrees afterward known as murder and manslaughter,’ he will see that this early English legislation and our modern are in exact similitude, and they should be judicially treated alike. Thus, — § 562. The Statute of Henry — separated felonious homicides into murder and manslaughter by taking clergy from those com- mitted of “malice aforethought;” making them murder, and leaving the rest to be manslanghter.® Precisely so did, for example, a Massachusetts statute provide that “murder com- 1 Dir, & F.§ 516,517, 520, 522-526, 8 That is, 23 Hen. 8,c. 1,§1, and 1 582, 546 and note. Edw. 6, c. 12,§ 10. Ante, § 544, 545. 2 New Crim. Law, II. § 723-725. 4 Ante, § 498 and note,'545 and note. 8 Ante, § 498, 499. 240 CHAP. XXXIIL] HOMICIDE — DEGREES IN MURDER. § 565 mitted with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought ” should be murder in the first degree, leaving all murder not within the words “deliberately premeditated ” to be murder in the second degree.1_ Hence, — § 563. As the Indictment for Murder — was framed by incor- porating into the settled form for felonious homicide the words of the statute of Henry, leaving the unaltered old to remain an indictment for manslaughter;? so, in reason and sound law, should the indictment for murder in the first degree, under an American statute like that above stated, be made from the indictment for murder, simply by incorporating into it the statutory words, and leaving the unaltered old to remain an indictment for murder in the second degree. Thus, — § 564. Under the Statute we are considering, — an ordinary indictment for murder, as settled before its enactment, charges murder in the second degree. To take from it the averment “with malice aforethought” reduces it to an indictment for manslaughter. To prefix to “malice aforethought” the words “deliberately premeditated” raises it to an indictment for murder in the first degree.* § 565. The Conclusion “against the Form of the Statute,” — as it was not necessary in the indictment for murder under the statute of Henry,*® so it is not in this for first-degree murder. For neither the statute of ‘Henry nor this American one is regarded as creating a new offence;‘ cach simply regulates the punishment of what was before indictable at the common law, according to the mental condition of the offender. And the distinction is that every fact which enters into the punishment of any offence, whether at the common law or not, must be averred;® but not, therefore, is the indictment to conclude in all cases against the form of the statute.® 1 New Crim. Law, II. § 725. 2 Ante, § 540, 541. 8 Ante, § 500. This is made plain hy forms in Dir. & F. for example, at § 517, 520. * For further illustration, the reader can look into Green v C. 12 Allen, 155, wrongly decided becwuse the judgment was for murder in the first degree, and neither the words “ deliberately premedi- tated” nor any substitutes appeared in allegation. He will see at a glance the VOL. 11. — 16 effect of adding these words, and the dif- ferent effect of abstracting “ malice afore. thought.” For other forms, see Robbins v, 8. 8 Ohio St. 181; S. v. Wood, 53 N. H.- 484; Dukes ». 8.11 Ind. 557, 71 Am. D. 370; Veatch v. §. 56 Ind. 584, 26 Am. R. 44, 5 Ante, § 499 (2). 8 White». C. 6 Binn. 179, 6 Am. D. 443. T Ante, § 499 (2). 8 Vol. I. § 77 et seq., 98a, 102. 9 Vol. L. § 596-598. 241 § 568 | SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 566. Ill-considered Legislation as to the Procedure and Form of the Indictment, and how interpreted : — If our Statutes —had been kept within the proper limits of legislation, simply providing the rule of law and leaving the procedure to the ordinary course, it is not probable that even courts unfamiliar with criminal pleading would have had much difficulty with them. But they went further; and undertook to say what, in some respects, the procedure should be. Then the judges, looking upon it as something new, whether really so or not, were embarrassed, and led into utterances and even deci- sions, some of which are extraordinary. Not all have erred. But the errors made are of the disastrous sort, disturbing even the foundations of our jurisprudence, and violating guaranties written in our constitutions. Thus, — § 567. 1. The Parent American Statute, — being the Pennsy]- vania one of 1794, after saying what murders shall be of each degree,! proceeds: “And the jury, before whom any person indicted for murder shall be tried, shall, if they find such person guilty thereof, ascertain in their verdict whether it be murder of the first or second degree; but if such person shall be convicted by confession, the court shall proceed by examination ot witnesses to determine the degree of the crime, and to give sentence accordingly.” 2 2. In the other States, — the statutes which have adopted this sort of legislation depart more or less from this form; as, in Tennessee, that of 1829 provides that if the defendant confesses the charge, the court, instead of itself passing on the question of fact, “shall proceed by the impanelling of a jury and exami- nation of testimony to find and determine the degree of the crime, and to give sentence accordingly.”° It contains also the express provision that the common-law forms of the indictment shall be sufficient. And in some of the States the statutes in pretty direct terms declare the indictment for the first degree of murder good without any allegation of the facts which in law constitute it such.6 Now, — § 568, In mere Interpretation, — a statute, the unwritten law, and the written constitution should be read together, and given 1 New Crim. Law, II. § 723. * Hines v. S. 8 Humph. 597. 2 Pa, Stat. April 22, 1794, § 2. 5 Noles v. S. 24 Ala. 672, 688. 8 Tenn. Stat. of 1829, § 3. 242 CHAP. XXXIII.] | HOMICIDE—- DEGREES IN MURDER. § 570 the meaning which the combined provisions indicate.!_ Especially should not the statute, unless by words which cannot be bent otherwise, be suffered to overturn a fundamental principle in our jurisprudence; fur if the legislature had intended this, it would have said so in terms unequivocal and direct. More especially should it not be rendered in a way to become null by violating the written constitution, when any other meaning is possible, or when it can be made unobjectionable by incorporat- ing with ita principle of the constitution or of the common law.2. Thus, — § 569. 1. Determining Degree. —It being a rule both of the common law and of our written constitutions? that allegation must precede proof, and without the former the latter cannot be produced, the provision that the jury shall determine the degree of the murder, or the court shall when the plea is guilty, should be interpreted as applying only to a case where there is averment whereon to proceed. If the indictment does not charge the facts which constitute the first degree of murder and distinguish it from the second degree, it would be a perversion alike of justice, of the common law, and of our constitutions, to permit either the judge or jury to declare the defendant guilty in the first degree. But — 2. Plain as are these Propositions, — it was early and still is held in Pennsylvania,* that on an indictment silent as to any intent or act showing the murder to be in the first degree, a verdict and judgment of murder in this degree, to be followed by sentence of death, may be given; and in some of the other States,® like words have received a like interpretation; whereby conviction, sentence, and execution take place wholly without any justifying averment. Again, — § 570. Common-law Form.— A provision like the Tennessee one,® known also in some of the other States, that the common- law form of the indictment shall be sufficient, need not and should not be construed to overturn alike the common-law and constitutional requirements as to its form. What is a common- 1 Stat. Crimes, § 88-90, 123, 131-138. Am. TD). 448; C. v. Flanagan, 7 Watts & S. 2 See, for the leading canons of inter- 415,418; Johnson v. C. 24 Pa. 386. pretation, Stat. Crimes, § 70-146. 5 For example, Davis v. 8. 839 Md. 355 ; 8 Vol. I. § 77-88, 95-112, 325, 329, 331, S. v. Millain, 3 Nev. 409. 509, 513 a, 517-519, 521-525, 6 Ante, § 567 (2). 4 White v.C.6 Binn. 179, 182, 188, 6 : 243 § 570 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. law indictment for this felony? In the chapter before the last, we saw the various forms when the charge is manslaughter; and in the last chapter, we saw how the common law requires them to be expanded when the homicide is divided by a statute into degrees, making the first degree murder and leaving the second to be manslaughter. When, therefore, another statute divides murder in like manner into the first and second degrees, declar- ing it to be in the first degree when committed of “deliberately premeditated malice aforethought,” the “ common-law form of the indictment” for this must contain the words “deliberately pre- meditated” as well as “malice aforethought.” The common law is a system of rules and principles; and to say that a form which violates its fundamental rules and most sacred principles is the “common-law form ” is absurd. Yet there are judicial utterances to the effect that such a form is permitted by these statutory words! 1 1 It seems to be so, for example, in Tennessee. See and compare Poole v. S. 2 Bax. 288 (in which ‘Turney, J. p. 290, observing that he dissents from the ma- jority of the court, says, “In my opinion, while an indictment at common law is also good under the statute, it is only good to support a conviction four murder in the second degree, unless it contain words of like significant import with those of the statute”); Williams rv. 8. 3 Heisk. 37; Hines «. S. 8 Humph. 597; Mitchell v. S. 5 Yerg. 340; Mitchell v. 8. 8 Yerg. 514. In Massachusetts, the pro- vision is in slightly different words; namely, “Nothing herein shall be con- strued to require any modification of the existing forms of indictment.” Gen. Stats. cv. 160, § 6. It is interpreted the same by the judges. C, c. Gardner, 11 Gray, 438; Green v. C. 12 Allen, 155,170. Now, in strictness, there were at the time of the passing of this statute no “ existing forms” of the indictment; but it was framed in each instance after “existing ” rules (in which sense the word “ forms” would seem to be employed in the stat- ute) applied to the law and the special facts. This statute simply affirms, as is common with legislation, the common- law doctrine of the indictment, by per- mitting the old course to be continued. The course was to allege, in it, the malice 244 which the law required to be shown in evidence. If, therefore, the ‘existing forms” are to be continued, and the case is one wherein “deliberately premedi- tated malice aforethought” must be proved, the indictment must charge it. There never had been known in Massa- chusetts, at the time when this statute was enacted, an indictment for murder held good if it came short of this. If the statute was not to be interpreted by the common and constitutional law, and in harmony therewith, a different conclusion might perhaps be reached. But the legis- lature is always presumed to’ mean that .its enactments shall be construed by the previously existing rules; which rules, said Shaw, C. J., “are as much a part of every statute as its text.” C.¢. Churchill, 2 Met. 118, 124. And see Stat. Crimes, § 74, 75, 82, 88-90 et seq. Such is the proper interpretation of any like statute. But the Massachusetts one has another provision conclusive of this result. It is that “ murder not appearing to be in the first degree is murder in the second de- gree.” See, for the entire statute, New Crim. Law, II. § 725. If, then, the charge of a homicide is simply that it was com- mitted of “malice aforethought,” which were the former common-law words, it does not “appear” to he more, —it does not “appear” to be of “deliberately pre- CHAP. XXXIII.] HOMICIDE — DEGREES IN MURDER. § 573 § 571. Confused and Contradictory Language from Courts : — TIll-considered Words unthinkingly followed. — The unfortunate judicial conclusions, stated and to be stated in this chapter, have proceeded on no uniform line of argument. At first, a bench of excellent judges made a mistake, perhaps because not duly enlightened by reasonings from the bar; the next court tried to support the error, mistaking it for res judicata, and argued for it as well as mortals could, in behalf of what admitted of no sound argument; another court tried some new prop, equally weak, to sustain what could not be upheld; and thus, step by step, the muddle has proceeded. But, to specify, — § 572. Punishment not changed. — Some have admitted that every element on which the punishment for an offence depends must be averred;! because else, as said in one case, “the accused would not be informed of the offence with which he was charged, or of the penalty to which he was liable.” And then, as in this case, they have proceeded to nullify what they thus truly said, by adding: “These reasons do not apply to a statute neither creating an offence nor enhancing its penalties, but dividing a common-law offence into degrees, and diminishing the punish- ment.” Such is no uncommon way of putting the doctrine; but, outside of the cases now in review, there is not, in the whole literature of the law, — in the English books, the Irish, the American, or any other, — one decision, one dictum, or one utterance of any kind, to support the exception thus made to the acknowledged general rule. On the other hand, as already explained in this series of chapters, it has been settled by thou- sands of decisions and universal practice that when a statute does, as did 23 Hen. 8, c. 1, § 8, and 1 Edw. 6, c. 12, § 10,3" divide a felonious homicide “into degrees and diminishing the punishment” (for so, as truly understood, did those statutes deal with manslaughter), the statutory words distinguishing the degrees must be set out in the indictment for the higher. And — § 573. In Principle, — if the question were without authority, meditated malice aforethought” — does 2 Davis v. S. 39 Md. 355, 373. And not “appear” to be in the first degree,— see White v. C. 6 Binn. 179, 6 Am. D. therefore, says the statute, it “is murder 443; C. v, Flanagan, 7 Watts & S. 415. in the second degree.” 3 Ante, § 498 and note, 545, 562, 1 Ante, § 565, and the places there referred to. 245 § 574 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. after a statute has divided an offence into two degrees, distin- guishing them by certain words, it makes no difference as to the necessity of employing them in allegation, whether the punish- ment for one of the degrees is made heavier, or that for the other lighter, than was before ordained for the undivided offence. If the prosecuting power means to inflict the heavier punishment, the defendant will no more be informed of its purpose, on an indictment not pointing to either punishment, when the statute had reduced that for the inferior degree than on one raising it for the superior. It is truly a novel principle, founded on no reason, no prior authority, no forewarning dictum, — unheard of in all the realms of the law before, — that the form of the indict- ment is to be this or that, in obedience to what was once the law, but is not now! A repealed law governing present pro- ceedings! The contrary is the established doctrine.! Some, not denying this, assert, — § 574. That “Malice aforethought ” denotes Highest Degree. — Perhaps the most absurd assumption — certainly the one most readily demonstrated to be false —is that to charge a homicide as committed of “malice aforethought” is to aver that it was of “ deliberately premeditated malice aforethought.”? In other words, the proposition is that “malice aforethought” and “ deliberately premeditated malice aforethought” are exact synonyms, and the words “deliberately premeditated” mean nothing; though they are the exact and only words whereby the statute designates the first degree. To state the proposition in still other terms, ever since murder was known to our law, as a form of felonious homicide, every one of the thousands upon thousands of adjudi- cations upon it has, whether we look to the statutes of Henry and of Edward or not, settled the doctrine that every felonious homicide is murder when committed of “malice aforethought,” and every one not of “malice aforethought” is manslaughter. Now, assuming the expressions “malice aforethought” and “deliberately premeditated malice aforethought” really to be identical in meaning as thus claimed, the Massachusetts statute before quoted? makes “murder committed with malice afore- 1 Stat Crimes, § 175, 177. v, Bannigan, 1 Dak. 451; P.«. Ah Choy, 2 Green ». C. 12 Allen, 155; Hilly. P. 1 Idaho n.s, 317; S. v. Hing, 16 Nev. 1 Col. 436; S. v. Lessing, 16 Minn. 75,78; 307. Fitzgerald v. P. 49 Barb. 122; Territory 8 Ante, § 562. 246 CHAP. XXXIIL] HOMICIDE — DEGREES IN MURDER. § 575 thought” to be murder in the first degree, and all other murder, of which there can be none, murder in the second degree. In still another form of language, the provision is that all the felonious homicides which are committed of malice aforethought are now divided into two degrees, the first degree consisting of those committed of malice aforethought, and the second degree consisting of those not of malice aforethought. Did ever before infantile prattle like this, admirably suited to a place with Mother Goose in the nursery, put on spectacles, and ascend to the judgment seat on the judicial bench? It serves to help us retain some respect for the wisdom of the past to know that not in this shape did the early adjudications of the mistaken sort on this question startle the legal world; but it was boldly claimed that though a homicide charged simply of “malice aforethought ” does not appear of the first degree, the jury in finding the first degree on such an indictment proceed, as the judges deemed they might, without averment.! § 575, The Beginning — of this particular blunder as to the meaning of words was, so far as the author has observed, ina celebrated Massachusetts case.2 The indictment charged a murder only as of “malice aforethought,” omitting the statutory “deliberately premeditated;” the court held—such was the very point on which the case turned —that a conviction of murder in the first degree, which could be only when the malice was “deliberately premeditated,” followed by the death sentence, was right. It was judicially admitted and by the court claimed in this case that if the statute was construed as authorizing this conviction without allegation of the particular matter which made the murder to be in the first degree, it would be a void attempt to violate the constitution. But the learned chief . justice, who delivered the opinion, declared it to be “the logical and necessary conclusion from” two prior cases cited,‘ that 1 Johnson v. C, 24 Pa. 386; Rhodes »v. C. 48 Pa. 396; Mitchell v. S. 8 Yerg. 514, 533. And see S. v. Thompson, 12 Ney. 140, 148. 2 Green v. C. 12 Allen, 155, upon Mass, Gen. Stats. c. 160, § 1, quoted New Crim. Law, II. § 725. 8 In an earlier case, the same learned chief justice who delivered the opinion of the court in this one well observed that a verdict cannot “be properly received and recorded, convicting the defendant of any lesser offence than the felony set out in the indictment, unless such minor offence was substantially charged by the residue of the indictment, after striking out that portion of which the defendant was ac- quitted.” C.v. Murphy, 2 Allen, 163, 164. 4 Page 171; C. v. Gardner, 11 Gray, 438 ; C. v. Desmarteau, 16 Gray, 1. 247 § 576 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. “malice aforethought” was a synonym for “deliberately pre- meditated malice aforethought.” So this case, without recurring to the baby reasoning stated in our last section, or to the law dictionaries, or to the overwhelming line of adjudication, and without a thought that there could be such a thing as judicial blundering, or that the words “deliberately premeditated malice aforethought” could not mean one thing in the statute and quite another thing in the indictment upon it, had recourse to a very little of a very modern “logic,” and stumbled. The strange argument was that if the indictment did not charge murder in the first degree, either the statute was unconstitutional or the decision in review was wrong, hence it did! But— § 576. Means either — Uncertain which. — Some, under pressure of the argument, have fled to another position even less tenable. It is that the term “malice aforethought,” when employed in the indictment, may mean either what it did prior to the statute, therefore indicating only murder in the second degree, or it may mean the “deliberately premeditated malice afore- thought ” of the first degree, according as the verdict shall be for the one degree or the other; its signification remaining in abeyance till the final disposition of the case.!_ This is inform- ing a defendant of the “nature and cause of the accusation against him”? witha vengeance! Beyond question, the common law and our written constitutions alike demand that at the arraignment, by the finding of the grand jury, not by verdict of the petit jury after all opportunity of defence is over, the prisoner shall have disclosed to him the precise charge, not that he is accused either of one thing or else of another.2 Yet — 1 I do not remember to have seen these exact words in any case, but their mean- ing may be found in many of the judicial utterances. And see Kennedy v. P. 39 N. Y. 245, 250. 2 Vol. I. § 88, 104, 105, 110. 38 A legal gentleman writes me: “In your various discussions relating to the usual common-law form of indictment charging murder in the first degree under certain statutes, I have not observed the following argument in support of your position; namely, If the usual common- law form of indictment charges both de- grees equally, how can it be ascertained from the record that the grand jury have 248 indicted a party for murder in the second degree, assuming they have done so? Or, to put it in other words, how can a grand jury indict such party for murder in the second degree, and the court ju- dicially be apprised of it? Because I do not suppose the law contemplates that a court can look at anything else than the form of indictment.” This suggestion derives its force from the idea that it is uncertain which form of murder is meant till the verdict comes in. A case is en- tered of record, the party is arraigned, he pleads, the evidence is heard ; and after all is over, the petit jury tell the party and the judge, neither of whom knew before, CHAP. XXXIII.] HOMICIDE — DEGREES IN MURDER. § 578 § 577. Means both.— Others put it that the term “malice aforethought ” means, equally and both, “malice aforethought ” as its words are, and “deliberately premeditated malice afore- thought ” as its words are not; that is, it alleges murder in the first degree and murder in the second, and neither one more than the other.1 We have seen? that it does not charge the higher degree, therefore it does not charge both it and the lower. Then they say that proof of either degree will satisfy the alle- gation. Will it? Where words may be rejected from an indict- ment as surplusage, proof merely of what is not thus disposed of will sustain it. Butin no other way is an averment main- tainable by showing less than its entire meaning. Now, if we take from “malice aforethought ” anything, however minute, the indictment ceases to charge murder, it is manslaughter.? Hence there is no possible surplusage here; and both degrees must, if such is the meaning of the averment, be proved. In other words, murder of the first degree must always appear in evi- dence, so the law has ceased to know such an offence as murder in the second degree. Again, — , § 578. Asin Murder and Manslaughter.- Some put it that to state the killing as of “malice aforethought” is to aver both degrees of murder “in like manner,” they say, “as the common- law indictment charges both murder and manslaughter.” ¢ That this is not so appears in explanations with which this. chapter opens.5 It has also been shown that murder at the common law can be alleged only by the words “malice -afore- thought,” nothing Jess sufficing.® If we diminish this allega- tion, the offence charged becomes manslaughter. If anything less than is meant by these words is proved, the offence is only manslaughter. They indicate the measure of malice which must. be added to manslaughter to make murder. How, then, has their meaning become suddenly enlarged to denote the higher degree of malice which distinguishes the first degree of murder ? and only in the indictment, not also in the statute ? what it was the grand jury had been 389. And see Hill v. P. 1 Colo. 436, and “driving at”! Let us leave the solution various other cases. of this apparent difficulty to the wisdom 2 Ante, § 574, 575. of the future. 8 Ante, § 541 et seq. 1 Cluverius v. C. 81 Va. 787, 848. 4S. v. Verrill, 54 Me. 408. “The language [malice aforethought] 5 Ante, § 562-564. applies as well to the second as to the 6 Ante, § 544. first degree.” Johnson v. C. 24 Pa. 386 : 249 § 580 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 579, No New Offence — The Old “ divided.” — It is often said that this statute has created “no new offence,” but simply “divided” the old murder into two degrees, providing for each its appropriate punishment. The two degrees, continues the utterance, still remain, as before, “one offence.” Hence it is assumed, without pausing or looking to see whether there is any or what ground for the assumption, that an allegation of murder as at the common law charges equally the two degrecs of murder under the statute! Admitting the correctness of what is thus premised, at least for the purposes of the argument, the assumed consequence does not follow, but the reverse. The law abounds in instances wherein one offence is subjected to differing punishments, according to the aggravations attending its commission; yet always, without exception, the particular aggravating matter is required to be set out in the indictment. We saw, in the first volume, under the title “ Duplicity,” 2 what is “one offence.” For example, assault, battery, manslaughter, murder,®? assault or assault and battery with intent to kill, and the same with a dangerous weapon,‘ are all one offence, chargeable in one count without making it double. Yet these varying forms of the one offence are not provable under an indictment drawn as at the common law for an assault. On the other hand, the aggravating matter must in every instance be alleged.£ But — § 580. Simply Different Punishments. — By many it is said that the statute relates only to the punishment, only provides different punishments for differing degrees of guilt; hence their conclu- sion, drawn without reflection or argument, that therefore the element distinguishing the degrees need not be averred.® But, as already shown,’ the law draws herefrom the direct contrary 1 White c.C. 6 Binn. 179, 6 Am. D. 2 Vol. I. § 432. 443; Davis v. S. 39 Md. 355: C. v. Flana- 8 Th. § 433; ante, § 63, 63a, 512. gan, 7 Watts & S. 415, 418; S. rv. Verrill, 4 Ante, § 63. 54 Me. 408, 415. Jn precisely this way, 5 Vol. I. § 80, 82, 83, 102; ante, § 63, the statutes which divided felonious homi- cides into murder and mansiaughter were said to have created no new offence; while still the courts held that the statu- tory words “with malice aforethonght,” not necessary before the division, must be employed in the indictment to justifv a conviction for the higher degree called murder. Ante, § 499 (1), 565. 250 63 a. 6 White v. C 6 Binn. 179,6 Am. D. 443; C. v. Flanagan, 7 Watts & S. 415, 418; Bergemann ». Backer, 157 U.S. 655; Graves v. S. 16 Vroom, 203. 7 Vol. I. § 77 et seq.; ante, § 565, 572. CHAP. XXXII] HOMICIDE — DEGREES IN MURDER. § 583 result. The sole object of the indictment is punishment, the grounds for which must be alleged. § 581. Not Rule of Pleading. — It was in one case said “that the statute is not a rule of pleading, but a guide to the conduct of the trial and to the instructions to be given to the jury;” therefore, among other consequences, the matter distinguishing murder in the first degree, and making it more heavily punish- able, need not be alleged.1_ This is but the old proposition, in another form, that the statute commands the court to take from the jury a verdict of guilty without allegation.2. Under our con- stitutions, no court should suffer itself to be thus commanded. § 582. Unconstitutional : — ; In the Earlier Cases — on this subject, we have seen, no ques- tion was made of the constitutionality of the statute as the courts construed it.2 They simply took it for granted that a _ judge might sentence to the gallows one against whom appeared no allegation of what alone justificd the hanging.+ Afterward some judges discovered that this was not so; and, instead of accepting the truth that the former decisions were wrong because of their overlooking what was not thought of, invented the sophistry, already pointed out, that “malice aforethought” charges “deliberately premeditated malice aforethought,” since otherwise men would appear to have been hung unconstitu- tionally.© For the irregularity of taking life on a record show- ing nothing to justify it, was so obvious as to cause them to shrink from admitting that during many past years it had been habitually done. Thus, — § 583. In Massachusetts, — on a conviction for murder in the first degree where only “malice aforethonght” was alleged,’ the court by its chief justice said, if this “form does not charge murder in the first degree, then it would follow, not only that 1 Kennedy v. P. 39 N. Y. 245, 250. above, to put the reader in a position to Perhaps the meaning of the court was not, in this case, as I have thus given it in the text, and “ malice aforethought” was deemed to charge murder in the first degree. Where unsound reasons are em- ployed in any argument, it is impossible for another to follow it and point out its fallacies, without subjecting himself to the possible charge of misrepresentation, I have endeavored, in the several sections answer the fallacious reasoning in gen- eral, rather than trace any particular ab- surdity to its source. 2 Ante, § 569, 570. 8 Ante. § 567-570. 4 Vol. I. § 80, 98a; ante, § 574. 5 Ante, § 574, 575. 6 Vol. T. § 102. 7 Ante, § 564 and note. 251 § 584 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. the statute contravenes the Declaration of Rights, but it would be impossible for a jury to find a party charged on such an indictment guilty of the crime. It is an elementary principle of the criminal law that a want of averment cannot be helped by evidenee, and that a jury cannot convict a person of any crime, however clearly it may be proved, unless it is duly and techni- cally set forth in the indictment. A verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree on an indictment drawn in the form con- templated by the statute} would therefore be invalid and inopera- tive, unless it be held that the indictment in the common form does duly charge in apt and proper words this grade of the offence.” 2 And other courts, in the later periods of this sort of legislation, have reached the same conclusion.’ It was, indeed, suggested in Nevada that this may not be so under a constitu- tion destitute of any special provision like that in Massachu- setts;4 but it is believed that the doctrine properly admits of no such qualification.> Still, — § 584. Judicial Determinations on the Entire Question, and Duty of the Courts : — That “Malice aforethought” is enough. — The seemingly greater number of our American courts, overlooking the true considera- tions because not pointed out to them by counsel, or refusing to examine and comprehend an argument which would satisfy them if they understood it, therefore reasoning in the muddled, confused, and contradictory way already described, have held that under our entire statutory provisions, construing those which relate to the procedure with the rest, one charged with a felonious killing of “malice aforethought” merely, may be con- victed of murder in the first degree.® On the other hand, — 1 As to how this statute ought to be interpreted, see ante, § 568-570, note. 12 Ney. 300; Leschi v. Territory, 1 Wash. 23; McAdams v. 8. 25 Ark. 405; S. v. 2 Green v. C. 12 Allen, 155, 171. 8 Vol. I. § 102. 4S. v. Millan, 3 Nev. 409, 443, 449. For the Massachusetts provision, see Vol. I. § 101. 5 Vol. L § 79-84, 86-88, 98 a-110. 6S, v. Pike, 49 N. H. 399, 6 Am. R. 533 (two judges dissenting); Davis v. S. 39 Md. 355; Weighorst v. S. 7 Md. 442; Ford v. S. 12 Md. 514; S. v. O'Flaherty, 7 Nev. 153, 157; S. v. Thompson, 12 Nev. 140; S. v. Millan, 3 Nev. 409; S. v. Crozier, 252 Dumphey, 4 Minn. 438, 443; S. v. Lessing, 16 Minn. 75; S. v. Stokely, 16 Minn. 282 ; Hill v. P. 1 Colo. 436; Redus v. P. 10 Colo. 208; Fitzgerrold v. P. 37 N. Y. 413 (Bacon, J. dissenting, opinion at p. 685) ; Kennedy v. P. 39 N, Y. 245, 250; perhaps Hogan v. 8. 80 Wis, 428 (Dixon, C. J. dissenting) ; Territory v. Stears, 2 Mont. 324; Noles v. S. 24 Ala. 672, 688 (under an express statute); C. v. Desmarteau, 24 Law Reporter, 155, 166, 16 Gray, 1, 15; S. v. Verrill, 54 Me, 408, 415; S. wv CHAP. XXXL] HOMICIDE — DEGREES IN MURDER. § 585 § 585. 1. Not enough.— A very considerable, respectable, and constantly increasing number of our courts, though perhaps still a minority, looking more carefully into the question, hold that the indictment, to justify a conviction for murder in the first degree, must allege whatever the statute makes essential to this degree of murder; and they have not seen that an averment of “malice aforethought” sets out, for example, “ deliberately premeditated malice aforethought,”! when these words “de- liberately premeditated” were used in the statute expressly to distinguish the higher degree from the lower, and provide for the higher a heavier punishment than for the lower.? Now, — 2. Majority — Minority. — This is one of those rare yet supremely important questions, which are in no wise influenced by the number of courts or of Cleveland, 58 Me. 564; C. v. Flanagan, 7 Watts & 8. 415; C. e. Miller, 1 Va. Cas. 310, 311; Wicks vw. C. 2 Va. Cas. 387; Livingston v. C. 14 Grat. 592, 596; P. v. Doe, 1 Mich. 451; P. ». Potter, 5 Mich. 1, 71 Am. D. 763; Slaughter v. S. 24 Tex. 410; Cockrum v. S, 24 Tex: 394; Wall v. S 18 Tex. 682, 70 Am. D. 302; Burrell v. 8. 16 Tex. 147; White v. §. 16 Tex. 206; Gehrke v. S. 13 Tex. 568; P. v. Halliday, 5 Utah, 467 (compare with Davis v. Utah, 151 U.S. 262); P. v. Giblin, 115 N. Y. 196 ; Cargen v. P. 39 Mich. 549; Chase v. S. 50 Wis. 510; Sneed v. P. 38 Mich. 248; P.v. Ah Choy, 1 Idaho, nw. s. 317; S. v. Hing, 16 Nev. 307; Territory v. Bannigan, 1 Dak. 451; Sharpe vo. S. 17 Tex. Ap. 486; Bohannon x. S. 14 Tex. Ap. 271, 300; Penland v. 8.19 Tex. Ap. 365 ; Green v. S. 27 Tex. Ap. 244; Graves v. S. 16 Vroom, 203 (compare with Bergemann v. Backer, 157 U. 8. 655. See Hogan v. S. 30 Wis. 428, 11 Am. R. 575; Hines ». S. 8 Humph. 597; Mitchell v. 8. 5 Yerg. 340; Mitchell «. 8. 8 Yerg. 514; Greer v. 8. 3 Bax. 321; Witt v. 8. 6 Coldw. 5; Williams v. 8. 8 Heisk. 37; Poole v. S. 2 Bax. 288; P. v. Wallace, 9 Cal. 30; P. v. Cox, 9 Cal. 32; P. v. Dolan, 9 Cal. 576; P. v. Lloyd, 9 Cal. 54; P. v, Vance, 21 Cal, 400; P. v. Marquis, 15 Cal. 38; S. v. Dowd, 19 Conn. 388; P. v. Enoch, 13 Wend. 159, 27 Am. D. 197; P. uv. Butler, 3 Par. Cr. 377; Bilansky v. 8. 3 Minn. 427; Smith v. 8.50 jurists on the one side or the Conn. 193; S. v. Hamlin, 47 Conn. 95, 36 Am. R. 54; P. v. De La Cour Soto, 63 Cal. 165; Fisher v. 8. 10 Lea, 151; Taylor v. S. 11 Lea, 708, 724. 1 Ante, § 574. 28. v. Lowe, 93 Mo. 547, 572-574; Cannon v. 8. 60 Ark. 564; Jones v. S. 58 Ark. 390; §. v. Townsend, 66 Iowa, 741; S. v. Shelton, 64 Iowa, 333; Denham v. S. 22 Fla. 664; Wiggins v. S. 23 Fla. 180; Simmons v. § 32 Fla. 387; Schaffer v. S. 22 Neb. 557; Blanton v. S. 1 Wash. 265; Plake v. S. 121 Ind. 433, 16 Am. St. 408; S. +. Fooks, 29 Kan. 425; Leonard v. Ter- ritory, 2 Wash. Ter. 381; S. v. Brown, 21 Kan. 38; Smith v. 8. 1 Kan. 365; S. v. McCormick, 27 Towa, 402; S. v. Watkins, 27 Towa, 415; S. v. Boyle, 28 Iowa, 522; S. v. Knouse, 29 Towa, 118; S. v. Thomp- son, 31 Iowa, 393 (holding that the full averment of malice must extend to the killing, and not alone to the assault) ; Fouts «. S. 4 Greene, Iowa, 500 (some- times supposed to have been overruled by S. v. Johnson, 8 Towa, 525, 74 Am. D. 821); Bower v. S. 5 Misso. 364, 32 Am. 1. 325; S. v. Jones, 20 Mo. 58; Robbins rv. S. 8 Ohio St. 131; Fouts v. S. 8 Ohio St. 98; Kain v. S. 8 Ohio St. 306; Hagan v. S. 10 Ohio St. 459; Loeffner v. S. 10 Ohio St 599, 615; Snyder v. S. 59 Ind. 105. See Hogan v. S. 30 Wis. 428, 11 Am. R. 575; Tenorio v. Territory, 1 New Mex. 279. 253 § 586 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL other. Ina case like this, as now and then of some others, no number or unanimity of decisions from a court, high or low, can make law of a contradiction, or of an impossibility, or of anything else contrary to what God has built into our framework of things.! If all earthly tribunals should concur in holding that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, still this luminary of heaven would come up fresh every morning and proclaim from his seat in the east, as he always has done, that God’s will is superior to the devices of man. Or if any number of our tribunals should undertake to overturn the doctrine, as a prob- able majority, we have seen in this sub-title, has undertaken, that the part of a thing is less than the whole, still the boy who should give his companion the half of an apple saying it was the whole of it, “for so my papa, who is a lawyer and knows, says the courts have settled the question,” would in fact part with but the half. In this way, we have seen, a probable major- ity of our courts have dealt with the phrase “deliberately pre- meditated malice aforethought,” when used in the indictment. The words “deliberately premeditated” are not treated by them as surplusage in the statute, but as those distinguishing murder in the first degree from that in the second, and requiring a capital punishment instead of imprisonment. Then they tell us that if in the indictment we divide this whole into halves, and cast aside “deliberately premeditated,” the “ malice-afore- thought” half is equal to the whole. .But it is not in the power of all the creature tribunals in the universe thus to stamp out an eternal principle which the Creator has made and retains; the part of anything will still remain, in spite of the most ponderous words from the bench, less than the whole. Again, the attempt thus to discriminate, and make the part of a thing less than the whole in the statute and equal to the whole in the indictment thereon, is an endeavor to establish as law a con- tradiction, which judicial tribunals can never do; as well as to overturn the principle pervading the entire universe, that everywhere and in all things without exception, a part is less than the whole. The views of this. paragraph are ap- plicable also to some other of the questions considered in this sub-title. § 586. Second Degree. — It is agreed on all sides that whichever 1 See observations in the Preface to Vol. I. 254 CHAP. XXXII] HOMICIDE — DEGREES IN MURDER. § 587 form of the indictment is employed, the defendant may be con- victed on it for murder in the second degree.! § 587. 1. How, in Future, it should be. — It results from the foregoing that the decisions we have been criticising have not succeeded in making a new rule of law, which has overturned fundamental axioms of all earthly existence. The axiom, there- fore, that a part is less than the whole, or the other one that a contradiction cannot stand, binding as each.does all things, consequently binding the courts, sweeps away these erroneous decisions; and every judge, under his duty to administer the law and nothing contrary thereto, is required to decide the old question, not after these new and null utterances, but after the old, the present, and unchangeable law that the part of a thing is less than the whole, and mortals cannot establish contradictions. Even, — 2. If this were not so,— but the question were an ordinary one which judges had the power to decide in a way to bind their successors, we should still be conducted to a like conclusion. An examination of the cases here deemed incorrect discloses that in no one did the court have in mind the unanswerable objec- tions stated in the foregoing sections. Nor did the various judges by whom the opinions were pronounced agree-in their reasonings. It is familiar doctrine that a decision from a court overlooking a controlling statute, or any other pivotal thing, is not a rule for the future under the maxim stare decisis. Nor is an oversight like that now in contemplation unprecedented. “T recollect,” said Bolland, B., sitting in the English court, “that the late recorder (Mr. Knowlys) took an objection to an indictment, the form of which had been used since the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The point was as clear as daylight, but it was a blot that had never been hit before.”2 Nor did the English judges fear to face and erase such a blot. Nor does any strong judge anywhere. The feeble only are they who grow pale and turn away. The courts have always deemed that a decent respect for the opinions of mankind, a regard for the 1 Hogan v. S. 30 Wis. 428,11 Am. R. Templeton v. S. 5 Tex. Ap. 398; S. »v. 575: Morehead v. S. 34 Ohio St. 212; Grant, 7 Or. 414; Giskie.v. 8S. 71 Wis. Keefe v. P. 40 N. Y. 348; C. v. Herty, 612; Allen v. 8. 37 Ark. 433; Smith v. 8. 109 Mass. 348; S.v. Lessing, 16 Minn.75; 68 Ala, 424. And see Brown v. 8. 31 Fla. Davis v. S. 39 Md. 355; C. v. Gardner, 11 207. Gray, 438; S. v. Ostrander, 30 Mo, 13; 2 Rex v. Austin, 7 Car. & P. 796, 797. 255 § 587 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. feelings and even the prejudices of litigants, and the duty of making known the law for the instruction alike of our own times and the future, demand of them to set down the reasons for their decisions. If counsel make an unsound argument, they point out its fallacy; or if a previous case is misinterpreted, they show what the true interpretation is. Is there, then, no judge who, confident of the correctness of the deductions here repre- sented to be false, will enlighten the judicial mind of the country by answering the objections, and so stating the true doctrine that it will be appreciated and followed by all here- after?! It is vain to appeal to the respect entertained by every legal person for the learning and integrity of those judges who have delivered former opinions; for there is among us no man who does not know that learning and integrity may overlook a view to which they would have yielded had they seen it, and that to say this implies no lack of respect. Said Blackburn, J., 1 In the Texas case of Sharpe v. S. 17 Tex. Ap. 486, decided in 1885, wherein a bench of three judges divided on this question, one of them concurring with the present author, and the other two render- ing an opinion which is here deemed un- sound, the dissenting judge, Hart, said: “ After a very careful reading of all the arguments accessible in support of the af- ‘firmative of this proposition, I am im- pelled to the conclusion that the argument of Mr. Bishop upon this question has not been, nor can be, answered.” p. 501. The other two judges showed conclusively, by internal evidence appearing in their opin- ions, that they had not so read as to under- stand either my expositions or those of any other person on this side of the question. And the same is true of every opinion I ever read, and J think I have read all, de- livered on what I regard as the wrong side, will prove to be my final revision of this book. In a long life of law-writing, it has been a duty which I have endeavored to discharge to point out oversights and mistakes of courts, — limited to such as I saw could properly be and would be cor- rected by them. How many instances of this sort have occurred, no living man knows or will know. There remain but a few of these pointings-out which have not already been successful in their ob- 256 I am now making what I suppose: ject. There was never one which did not prevail with every judge who would so read as to understand it. And my books are written, not for a supeiior race of he- ings, nor for intellects of « very inferior sort, but for the particnlar grade of men who enter the legal profession and prac- tise at the bar or preside on the bench. In pursuance of an imperative duty, I pointed out the errors which have occu- pied us in this chapter. I knew when I wrote, and I know now, that there was never a man on the bench who would not agree with the views presented if he would read them, and read them in a way and with such collateral helps, if any were necessary, as would lead him truly to un- derstand them. There are throughout the country many lawyers who know that I would not consume space in my books with any discussion which would not carry conviction to every mind that truly under- stood it. I deeply regret the necessity of using so many pages in this chapter; but I have only done what I clearly saw to be my duty. It would be pleasing to me to know that when the anxieties of life are ended with me, the profession for whose benefit I have expended the exer- tions of a long life would so far appreciate my labors as to give my writings a candid consideration. CHAP, XXXIII.] HOMICIDE — DEGREES IN MURDER. § 588 speaking for the court in an English case, and referring to an opinion which the judges had before given: “We should not presume to dissent from that opinion if it were not that we find this point was not argued, and the opinion seems to have been hastily adopted without considering the reasons, which, we think, would have brought those learned persons to an opposite opinion, and which certainly lead us, without any doubt, to hold,” &c.4 Does neither our country now, nor will it in future, contain any judge who will consider and refute the reasons which have induced legal persons to dissent from what has been laid down by the majority ? A Book not exceeded in wisdom by any in the catalogue of the law points out the evil of a “haughty spirit.” And nowhere is condescension more effective for good than on the bench. If, in this case, no real answer is given to the views which have led to the dissent explained in this chapter, and if it continues to be as certain as it has been that none in the majority have even the faintest understanding of what they con- demn, judicial harmony on this question must be postponed; for the human mind will not be convinced without reasons. The doctrine of stare decisis, we have seen, is not applicable here; nor have rights been acquired under the wrong decisions to be impaired by a change.? 3. To save Space, — some of the elucidations which appeared in the last two editions, yet might be helpful to the reader, are omitted from this.® § 588. Murdet committed in the Perpetration of other Offences specified in the Statute : — 1. In the foregoing Sections, —the author, for perspicuity, has refrained from any allusion to another part of these statutes; namely, that making it murder in the first degree to take life in committing or attempting some other felony named, or to take it with extreme atrocity or cruelty.* 2. The Indictment, — under this class of the statutes, must somewhat depend on the statutory terms, which vary with the 1 Reg. v. Castro, Law Rep. 9Q, B.350, to this section, and another to § 575, of 363. the last edition. 2 Ridsdale v. Clifton, 2 P. D. 276, 306, 4 New Crim. Law, II. § 727, 728; How- 307 ; Fairfield v. Gallatin, 9 Cent. L. J. ell v. C. 26 Grat. 995; Singleton v. S.1 467, 469, 470 (U. S. Sup. Ct.); New Crim. Tex. Ap.501; Palmorev. 8. 29 Ark. 248; Law, I. § 93-98. ; S. v. Garrand, 5 Or. 216; §. v. Foster, 61 ‘8 Tn particular, I refer toa long note Mo. 549. VOL. 11.——17 257 § 591 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL States, and practically it will vary also with the views of the judges on questions already in this chapter considered. The reader has before him the controlling principles, and the author does not propose to enter minutely into the subject. Doubtless, in many cases, an indictment after the common-law precedents, drawn by one who had no thought of the statute, would charge a murder within one of these statutory provisions, therefore in the first degree, under any view of the foregoing questions. But should it come short of this, it still seems to be the majority doctrine that the verdict and sentence may be for the first degree.!_ Not uniformly would the minority admit this.? § 589, In Principle, — under the form of doctrine which requires the allegation to be as broad as the verdict, yet maintains that. “deliberately premeditated malice aforethought” is charged by the words “malice aforethought,” if for the moment we admit such a thing to be possible in principle, an indictment to be good for this sort of murder in the first degree must set out matter to bring the killing within the statutory terms. It has been so intimated judicially.’ II. The Verdict. § 590. Differences. — The statutory provision requiring the jury or the court to find, in circumstances pointed out, the degree of the murder, is in differing terms in the several States, and variously construed by the tribunals. § 591. The Proper Form — for the verdict, in true propriety, is that the defendant is guilty, &c. “in the first degree;” or guilty, &c. “in the second degree;”® or, “not guilty.” Concerning such a verdict, no question can arise. But— 1 C. v. Flanagan, 7 Watts & S. 415, 418; Sharpe v. S. 17 Tex. Ap. 486; Penland v. 8.19 Tex. Ap. 365; S. v. Meyers, 99 Mo. 107 ; Titus v. S. 20 Vroom, 36; P. v. Gib- lin, 115 N. Y. 196. 2 But see S. v. Meyers, supra; S. e. Johnson, 72 Iowa, 393. 8 Hill v. P.1 Colo. 436, 445. And see, on various questions, Bechtelheimer v. 8. 54 Ind. 128; C. v. Hersey, 2 Allen, 173; Cox v. P. 80 N. Y. 500; Pliemling v. S. 46 Wis. 516. 4 For something of the statutes, see Sanders v. S. 18 Tex. Ap. 372; Cluverius 258 v. C. 81 Va. 787; Zwicker v. S. 27 Tex. Ap. 539; Parrish v. 8S. 18 Neb. 405; S. v. Lindsey, 19 Nev. 47, 3 Am. St. 776; Por- ter v. 8.57 Ark. 267; Morehead ». §. 34 Ohio St. 212; S. v. Weese, 53 Iowa, 92; Hall v. S. 31 Fla. 176; Lovett v. S. 31 Fla. 164; Murphy »v. S. 31 Fla. 166; P. v. Rugg, 98 N. Y. 537. 5 Lane v. C. 59 Pa. 371; S. v, Meyers, 99 Mo. 107, ® Rhodes v. C. 48 Pa. 396; Weighorst v.S. 7 Md. 442; C. v. Herty, 109 Mass. 348. CHAP. XXXIII.] HOMICIDE— DEGREES IN MURDER. § 595 § 592. When the Finding is simply Guilty, — not specifying the degree, and the court receives and records this irregular verdict (as it should not do unless persisted in after due explanations), there are diverse opinions as to its effect; thus, — § 593, First or Second as Allegation is. — If apt words in the indictment charge the first degree, they are by some opinions to be deemed a part of the verdict, and to satisfy the statute; so that sentence may be pronounced for this degree.? Or, in the absence of such apt words, the defendant is by some opinions deemed to be convicted in the second degree? The proper scope for this distinction is where the words of the indictment are held to mean simply what they purport to, not where the term “malice aforethought” is judicially regarded as charging “deliberately premeditated malice aforethought.” § 594. If the Allegation is held thus to mean what it does not say, —the courts differ as to the verdict upon it. In New York, they then logically hold that a verdict of guilty as charged, on an averment only of “malice aforethought,” justifies a sentence for the first degree. In Maine, contrary to logic, yet in accord with reason, this is denied. But — § 595. That the Verdict is Imperfect and Void, — when silent as to the degree, is the doctrine of the great majority of the authori- ties, and probably the most in harmony with the reason of the thing; namely, that the legislature intended this provision to be mandatory to make sure of the jury’s taking into their special consideration the distinguishing features of the degrees, and passing thereon. Therefore, if the verdict fails to state on its face the degree, the court cannot give judgment on it, but must award a second trial.? 1 Vol. I. § 1004, 1012; Adams v. 8. 29 Ohio St. 412; Rhodes v. C. 48 Pa. 396; Lane v. C. 59 Pa. 871; Ford uv. 8. 34 Ark. 649; Green v. S. 55 Missis. 454. 2 C. v. Miller, Lewis Crim. Law, 398; C. uv. Earle, 1 Whart. 525; Leschi v. Ter- ritory, 1 Wash. Ter. n.8.13; Cook v. Ter- ritory, 3 Wy. 110; S. v, Weese, 53 Iowa, 92; P.v. Rugg, 98 N. Y. 537; Territory v. Romine, 2 New Mex. 114; Territory v. Yarberry, 2 New Mex. 391. 3 Johnson v. C. 24 Pa. 386, 389, 390. See also Rhodes v. C. 48 Pa. 396. 4 Kennedy v. P. 39 N. Y. 245, 250. 5 S. v. Cleveland, 58 Me. 564. See 8. v. Verrill, 54 Me, 408. 6 Ante, § 569. * Colbath r. S$. 2 Tex. Ap 391; Isbell v. 8. 81 Tex. 138; Brown v. 8. 3 Tex. Ap. 294; Krebs v. 8. 3 Tex. Ap. 348; Buster v. 8. 42 Tex. 315; Slaughter v. S, 24 Tex. 410; Cockrum v. S. 24 Tex. 394; Wall v. S. 18 Tex. 682, 70 Am. D. 302; Burrell v. 8. 16 Tex. 147; White v. 8. 16 Tex. 206; Gehrke v. S. 13 Tex. 568; Dick v. S. 3 Ohio St. 89; Parks v. S. 3 Ohio St. 101; Hogan v. 8. 30 Wis. 428, 11 Am. R. 575; Hall v. S. 40 Ala. 698; Robertson 259 § 596 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 596. The Jury — have the absolute power to fix the degree; as, if in the opinion of the court which it should state for their guidance,” the cvidence proves, however conclusively, the first degree, they can still return a verdict for the second. The defendant has no ground of complaint. Of course, the proofs must establish murder, of one sort or the other.4 v. 8. 42 Ala. 509; Murphy v. §. 45 Ala. 32; Edgar v. 8.43 Ala. 312; Weatherford v. 8. 43 Ala. 319; Cobia v. S. 16 Ala. 781, 783; Johnson v. S. 17 Ala. 618; Noles v. S. 24 Ala. 672; Noles v. S. 26 Ala. 31, 62 Am. D. 711; Harrall v. S. 26 Ala. 52; Ex parte Howard, 30 Ala. 43, 44; S. v. Flanigin, 5 Ala. 477; S. v. Jones, 5 Ala. 666; Trammell v. S. 26 Ark. 534; Neville vo. 8. 26 Ark. 614; Thompson v. S. 26 Ark. 323; Allen v. 8. 26 Ark. 333; Wil- liams v. S. 6 Neb. 334; S. v. Rover, 10 Nev. 388, 21 Am. R. 745; P. v. Campbell, 40 Cal. 129 (and see In re Brown, 32 Cal. 48; P.v. Noll, 20 Cal. 164); McPherson v. 8. 9 Yerg. 279; Kirby v. S. 7 Yerg. 259 (and see Greer v. S. 3 Bax. 321); S. v. Upton, 20 Mo. 397, 400; McGee »v. S. 8 Misso. 495; S. v. Ball, 27 Mo. 324; S. v. Phillips, 24 Mo. 475; Thomas v. S. 5 How. Missis. 20, 32; Tully v. P. 6 Mich. 273; S. v. Moran, 7 Iowa, 236; S. v. John- son, 8 Iowa, 525, 74 Am. D. 321; Zwicker v. S. 27 Tex. Ap. 539; Kendall v. 8. 65 Ala. 492; Storey v. S. 71 Ala. 329; Par- 260 rish v. S. 18 Neb. 405; P. v. O’Neil, 78 Cal. 388; Kearney v. P. 11 Colo. 258; S. v. Montgomery, 98 Mo. 399; Dover »v. S. 75 Ala. 40; Johnson v. §. 30 Tex. Ap. 419, 28 Am. St. 930; Hall v. S. 31 Fla. 176; Lovett v. S. 31 Fla. 164; Murphy v. S. 31 Fla. 166; S. v. Jackson, 99 Mo. 60, Under the somewhat different Indiana statute, the conclusions are not entirely the same. Kennedy v. 8S. 6 Ind. 485; Moon v. 8. 3 Ind. 488, 439, dissenting from Wills v. 8. 4 Blackf. 457. For some related questions, see Porter v. 8. 57 Ark. 267; Doran v. 8. 7 Tex. Ap. 385; Jordan v. 8. 81 Ala. 20; Ford v. 8. 34 Ark. 649; S. v. Anderson, 89 Mo. 312; Price wv. C. 83 Grat. 819, 36 Am. R. 797; Kannon ». S. 10 Lea, 386. 1S. v. Carr, 53 Vt. 37; Westcott v. S. 81 Fla. 458. 2 §, v, Hanley, 34 Minn. 430. 8 §. v. Lindsey, 19 Nev. 47,3 Am. St. 776. See Fagg v. 8. 50 Ark. 506. 4 Turner v. S. 20 Tex. Ap. 56. CHAP. XXXIV.} HOMICIDE — THE EVIDENCE. § 599 CHAPTER XXXIV. HOMICIDE, AS TO THE EVIDENCE. § 597. Introduction. 598-608. Presumptions and Burden of Proof. 609-627. Character, Conduct, and Utterances of Deceased. 628-630. Same of Defendant and his Relations with Deceased. 631,632. Expert Testimony. 633-637. Other Questions of Evidence. Consult — the places cited introducing the first chapter on Homicrpe; namely, ¢e. 31. § 597. The Whole Subject of Criminal Evidence — is treated of in a series of chapters in the first volume.! Still, both in that volume and this, we consider incidentally special questions of evidence in connection each with its particular topic. In felonious homicide, considerable numbers of such questions present themselves. § 598. 1. The Authorities, — within the scope of this chapter, are multitudinous, and contradictory to a degree somewhat dis- turbing. They have immensely accumulated since the last edition was published; so that it is neither possible nor desirable to cite absolutely all. 2, How Chapter divided. — We shall consider, I. The Presump- tions and Burden of Proof; II. The Character, Conduct, and Utterances of the Deceased; III. The Same of the Defendant, and his Relations with the Deceased; IV. Expert Testimony; V. Other Questions of Evidence. I. The Presumptions and Burden of Proof.? § 599. 1. Burden Shifting. — The old books, largely followed in the modern cases, seem to maintain that when prima facie - proof of an alleged homicide has been adduced, if the defendant 1 Vol. I. § 1045 a-1262, and inciden- 1096-1101, 1102 et seq. And see New tally in other places. Crim. Law, II. § 673-673 6. 2 Compare with Vol. I. § 1048-1051, 261 f § 600 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. relies on a justification, — as, that what he did was in self- defence,! or under a provocation reducing the guilt to man- slaughter,2— the burden of proof shifts from the State to him.® Or, if he asserts that the death proceeded, not from a proven wound in itself adequate, but from malpractice in its treatment, he has the burden to show this.# 2. A Preponderance of Evidence, — as in civil cases, will sus- tain such defence; it need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Still, — 3. By the Better Doctrine, — the burden of proof never shifts from the State to the defendant; the former must make out its case throughout. And so, at least, are many and it is believed most of the modern decisions; yet the jury should give effect to the various presumptions of fact, the same as to the testimony of witnesses, and convict when, and only when, satisfied, on due consideration of the whole, that beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty.® § 600. State’s Witnesses or Prisoner's. — There are cases seem- ing to hold that the burden shifts or not, according as the evi- dence for the defendant comes from his witnesses or the State’s.7 Perhaps this is not meant; certainly there is no ground for this distinction. 1 Silvus v. S. 22 Ohio St. 90; P. v. Stonecifer, 6 Cal. 405; P. v. Schryver, 42 N. Y. 1,1 Am. R. 480; Weaver v. 8. 24 Ohio St. 584; S. v. Jones, 20 W. Va. 764; Gibson v. S. 89 Ala. 121, 18 Am. St. 96; S. v. Hill, 69 Mo. 451; S. v. Jones, 78 Mo. 278; P. v. Hong Ah Duck, 61 Cal. 387; Stitt v. S. 91 Ala. 10, 24 Am. St. 853. See post, § 606, note. 2S. v, Smith, 77 N. C. 488. 3 C. v. Webster, 5 Cush. 295, 305, 52 Am. D. 711; U. S. v. Knowles, 4 Saw. 517; S. v. Haywood, Phillips, N. C. 376 ; S. v. Willis, 63 N.C. 26; Cook v. Terri- tory, 3 Wy. 110; Territory v. McAndrews, 3 Mont. 158; P. ». Raten, 63 Cal. 421; S. v. Jones, 98 N. C. 651; Hogan v. S. 61 Ga. 43; P. v. Langton, 67 Cal. 427 ; Cleve- land v. 8S. 86 Ala. 1; Vann v. 8. 83 Ga. 44. 4 §. v. Briscoe, 30 La. An. 433. 6 Vol. I. § 1095; Silvus v. S. supra; P. v. Schryver, supra; P. v. Stonecifer, supra; Weaver c. §. supra; P. v. Hong 262 Ah Duck, supra; 8. v. Jones, 20 W. Va. 764; S. v. Whitson, 111 N. C. 695. § Vol. I. § 1048-1051 ; post, § 606, note; S. v. Porter, 34 Iowa, 1381; Ake v. 8.6 Tex. Ap. 398, 32 Am. R. 586; S. v. Mor- phy, 33 Iowa, 270,11 Am. R. 122; S. ». Bartlett, 43 N. H. 224, 232,80 Am. D. 154; S. v. Hodges, 50 N. H. 510, 526; S.. Mitchell, 64 Mo. 191; S. v. Lane, 64 Mo. 319; Perry v. 8.44 Tex. 473; Murray v. S. 1 Tex. Ap. 417; Hiland v. S. 52 Ala. 322; P. v. West, 49 Cal. 610; S. v. Alex- ander, 66 Mo, 148; P. v. Elliott, 80 Cal. 296; S. v. Donahoe, 78 Iowa, 486; P. v. Downs, 128 N. Y. 558; Richardson v. S. 9 Tex. Ap. 612; S. v. Deschamps, 42 La. An. 567, 21 Am. St. 392; S. v. Hickam, 95 Mo, 322, 6 Am. St. 54. 7 Pixon v. 8.13 Fla. 636; Gladden v. S. 18 Fla. 623; McDaniel v. S. 8 Sm. & M. 401, 417, 47 Am. D. 93; Alexander v. P. 96 Ill.96. And see P. v. West, 49 Cal. 610; S. v. McCluer, 5 Nev. 132; Tweedy v. 8.5 Iowa, 433, CHAP. XXXIV.] HOMICIDE — THE EVIDENCE. § 602 § 601. Where the Death is from a Deadly Weapon, — the law ordinarily holds the killing to be murder as distinguished from manslaughter.) And it is but another form of the proposition to say that in matter of evidence, a homicide thus committed is, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, presumed to be murder.2, How far this presumption is of law and conclusive, and how far of fact and within the control of the jury, we have in a measure considered elsewhere. Properly viewed, the ques- tion is a mixed one of law and fact, upon which, of necessity, the jury are to pass.¢ It would be inaccurate to tell them that they are legally compelled to find murder.’ And on this ques- tion, they are to take into the account the circumstances special to the case.® The killing may, for example, be manslaughter.’ § 602. As to the Degree of Murder, — if the deadly weapon is used in a way to take life, the not-conclusive presumption is that the party meant this result;® so that the first degree of the offence is, under most of our statutes, shown. ® But a mere kill- ing with such weapon, with nothing more, is not murder in the first degree. 10 And where the statute requires a more distinct premeditation, or more intense malice, the verdict can be only for the second degree.™ 1 New Crim. Law, II. § 680, 681. 2S. v. Gillick, 7 Iowa, 287; S. v. Mer- rill, 2 Dev. 269; U.S. v. Mingo, 2 Curt. C.C. 1; Kilpatrick v. C. 31 Pa. 198; U.S. v. Wiltberger, 3 Wash. C. C. 515; Hill v. C. 2 Grat. 594; Bivens v.8. 6 Eng. 455; Mask v. S. 36 Missis. 77; S.v. Ward, 5 Harring. Del. 496; S. v. Willis, 63 N.C. 26; S. v. Evans, 65 Mo. 574; Hadley p. 8. 55 Ala. 31; Murphy ve. 8. 37 Ala. 142; S. v. Alexander, 66 Mo. 148; Murphy v. 8. 31 Ind. 511; S. v. Shippey, 10 Minn. 223,88 Am. D. 70; S. v. Musick, 101 Mo. 260; Hawthorne v. 8.58 Missis. 778 ; Gib- son v. S. 89 Ala. 121, 18 Am. St. 96; Vann v. S, 33 Ga. 44; S. v. Deschamps, 42 La, An. 567, 21 Am. St. 392; Cochran v. 8. 28 Tex. Ap. 422; Brown v. 8. 83 Ala. 33,3 Am. St. 685; S. v. Byers, 100 N. C. 512; S. v. Levelle, 34S. C. 120, 27 Am. St. 799; S. v. Jackson, 36 S. C. 487, 31 Am. St. 890. 8 New Crim. Law, II. § 673-673 b, 679- 681. 4 S. v. Zeibart, 40 Iowa, 169; Eiland v. But it should be borne in mind that the 8. 52 Ala, 322; S. v. Gilman, 69 Me. 163, 31 Am. R. 257; S. v. Bohanan, 76 Mo. 562. 5 Clem v. 8. 31 Ind. 480; Kingen ». 8. 45 Ind. 518; Smith v. C. 1 Duv. 224; Field ». §. 50 Ind. 15. 6 §. v. Harrison, 5 Jones, N. C. 115; Rex v. Freeman, 1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 681. 7 §. v. Smith, 77 N. C. 488. 8 Thomas r. P. 67 N. Y. 218, 225; Kil- patrick v. C. 81 Pa. 198, 216; Moon v. §. 68 Ga. 687; S. v. Ah Lee, 8 Or. 214. 9 New Crim. Law, II. § 728; Handley v. 8. 96 Ala. 48, 38 Am. St. 81;-S. ». Doyle, 107 Mo. 36. 10 Burris v. S. 38 Ark. 221; Patterson v. S. 85 Ga. 181, 21 Am. St. 152; S. v. McKinzie, 102 Mo. 620. 11 §. v. Testerman, 68 Mo. 408; 8. »v. Mitchell, 64 Mo. 191; S. v. Talmage, 107 Mo. 543; S. v. Landgraf, 95 Mo. 97, 6 Am, St. 26. And see the next section; Perry v. S. 44 Tex. 473; Murray v. S. 1 Tex. Ap. 417; S. v. Lane, 64 Mo. 319. 268 § 604 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. circumstances and statutes differ, and the jury is to pass on the question.! § 603. Presumption from mere Killing. —In numerous cases it is laid down that a bare taking of life, unattended by any explanatory circumstance, —no deadly weapon, nothing in aid of an inference appearing, — the law presumes it murder ;? or, if by statute there are two degrees of murder, that it was in the second degree, not the first.® § 604. 1. This Doctrine is not cases never disclose a mere taking of the life and no more. But — Practical, — because the facts of No killing can be proved without something appearing as to the cause, the means, or the manner of it. does appear, this doctrine is not applicable to the case. And, as we have seen,® a judge has no right mere abstraction. Then, if this something It isa to give in charge to the jury anything, however correct, not relevant to the evidence under consideration. That it has often been done in this class of cases does not alter the question; for, in practice, many things are 1 See also S. v. Norwood, 115 N. C. 789; Chrisman v. 8. 54 Ark. 283, 26 Am. St. 44; P. v. Carlton, 115 N. Y. 618; S.v. Dickson, 1% Mo. 438; Territory v. Ro- mine, 2 New Mex.114; Hendrickson v. C. 85 Ky. 281, 7 Am. St. 596; Farris vu. C. 14 Bush, 362; Wood v. S. 27 Tex. Ap. 393; Adams v. S. 28 Fla. 511; Hicks v. S. 25 Fla. 535. 2 Witt v.S.6 Coldw. 5; Milton x. 8. 6 Neb. 136; S. v. Brown, 12 Minn. 538; Dietz v. Langfitt, 63 Pa. 234; Clarke v. S. 35 Ga. 75; Clements v. S. 50 Ala, 117; Davis v. 8. 25 Ohio St. 369; Reg. ¢. Ma- loney, 9 Cox C. C. 6; Brown v. 8. 4 Tex. Ap. 275; S.v. Smith, 77 N. C. 488; Dra- per v. S. 4 Bax. 246; Gray v. 8. 4 Bax. 331; P. v. March, 6 Cal. 543; 8. r. Knight, 43 Me. 11, 187; S. e. Town, Wright, 75; Pennsylvania v. Lewis, Addison, 279, 282; Pennsylvania v. McFall, Addison, 255; U.S. v. Armstrong, 2 Curt. C. C. 446; S. v. Johnson, 3 Jones, N. C. 266; Green »v. S. 28 Missis. 687; C. v. York, 9 Met. 93; Mitchell v. S. 5 Yerg. 340; S. v. Ander- son, 2 Tenn. 6, 5 Am. D. 648; Hague 2, 8. 34 Missis. 616; Rex v. Greenacre, 8 Car. & P. 35; Murphy v. P. 87 Ill. 447; S. v. Alexander, 30 S. C. 74,14 Am. St. 879; Wilson v.S. 69 Ga. 224; ‘Tiffany v. 264. done without objection, which C. 121 Pa. 165, 6 Am. St. 775; Grant v. S. 62 Ala. 233; P.v. Knapp, 71 Cal. 1; Newton v. S. 21 Fla. 53; Brown v. S. 4 Tex. Ap. 275; P. v. Callaghan, 4 Utah, 49. 8 Witt v. S. supra; Mitchell »v. S. su- pra; McCue v. C. 78 Pa. 185, 21 Am. R. 7; 8. v. McCormick, 27 Iowa, 402; Hall zv. 8.40 Ala. 698; S. v. Underwood, 57 Mo. 40; Stokes v. P.53 N. Y. 164, 13 Am. R. 492; Prenit v. P.5 Neb. 377; Dukes v. 8. 14 Fla. 499; S. v. Gassert, 65 Mo. 352; Richarte vr. S.5 Tex. Ap. 359; Far- rer v. S. 42 Tex. 265; Hamby v. 8. 36 Tex. 523; S. v. Holme, 54 Mo. 153; Hin v C. 2 Grat. 594, 598; S. v. Turner, Wright, 20; Witt v. S. 6 Coldw.5; 8S. ce. Tabor, 95 Mo. 585; Willis v. C. 32 Grat. 929; Douglass ». S. 8 Tex. Ap. 520. And see Cathcart v. C. 37 Pa. 108. Or, the presumption may be simply that the kill- ing was murder, the jury to infer the degree from the facts proved. P. «. Gib- son, 17 Cal. 283; P. v. Belencia, 21 Cal. 544. 4C. v. Hawkins, 3 Gray, 463; C. r. York, 9 Met. 93; S. v. Patterson, 45 Vt. 308, 12 Am, R. 200; Hampton ». S. 45 Ala. 82. ¢ 5 Vol. I. § 978; Hampton v. S. supra. CHAP. XXXIV. ] HOMICIDE —THE EVIDENCE. § 605 would not be suffered were objection made. Therefore, assum- ing this doctrine to be abstractly right, no judge is authorized to give it in charge to the jury, unless by consent. Again, — 2. It is not True. —It is said to grow out of the proposition that “as men seldom do unlawful acts with innocent intentions, the law presumes every act in itself unlawful to have been criminally intended, until the contrary appears.” 1 Here the unlawfulness of the killing is assumed, contrary to the general fact. Though there are unlawful killings, there are incompa- rably more lawful ones. Indeed, the common course of taking life among us is lawful; for instance, it is so when the regularly educated and licensed physician unintentionally kills his patient, and there are many more deaths of this sort than murders. It is so when one takes life in self-defence; in preventing the com- mission of a felony; in battle; in the infliction of the death- penalty adjudged by the law; and in numerous other circum- stances. Since, therefore, in most instances in which the life is taken, it is lawfully done, we violate one of the familiar principles in the law of evidence,? when, contrary to the common course of things, we presume it to be unlawful. Or, if we do presume it unlawful, whence the further presumption that it is felonious? Or, if we presume it felonious, why not stop with manslaughter — why add to the presumption the malice afore- thought of murder? Or, lastly, if we presume it murder, why stop with the second degree — why not presume that the murder was in the first degree? And — 8. The better considered Modern Cases — reject this presump- tion as a practical rule;? though, of course, if the attending cir- cumstances appear, the greater or less unlawfulness of the killing is presumed or proved. Moreover, — § 605. In Conflict with other Presumptions — is this one; as, with that of innocence, whereby an act which can be attributed equally to either of two causes, the one rendering it lawful and 1 1 Greenl. Ev. § 34; 1 Taylor, Ev. § 108. 21 Greenl. Ev. § 34, 40-42, 370; 1 Bishop Mar. Div. & S. § 927, 931, 935, 945. And see Vol. I. § 1103-1106. 3 Gardner v. P. 106 Ill. 76, 84; S.v. Trivas, 32 La. An. 1086, 36 Am. R. 293; Kent v. P. 8 Colo. 563; S. v. Swayze, 30 La. An, 1323; S. v. Deschamps, 42 La, An. 567, 21 Am. St. 392; Robinson v. S. 16 Tex. Ap. 347; Fallin v, 8. 83 Ala. 5. 4 McClain v. C. 110 Pa. 263; U.S. v. Boyd, 45 Fed. Rep. 851; S. «. Levelle, 34 S.C. 120, 27 Am. St. 799; Fallin v. S. 83 Ala. 5. See Tiffany v. C. 121 Pa, 165, 6 Am. St. 775; S. v. Brown, 41 Minn. 319; Vann v. S. 83 Ga. 44; Bryant v. S. 7 Bax. 67. 265 § 606 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL the other unlawful, is by the law referred to the former.! Since, in some circumstances, the taking of life is lawful, and in others not, the presumption from the mere taking should always be that it was under the former circumstances, not the latter. Again, such presumption and the doctrine of reasonable doubt ? cannot exist together; for, when a mere unexplained killing is shown, with no indication of its circumstances, manner, or occasion, it is impossible any jury of sane men should be thereby convinced it was murder, beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the killing were assumed to be unlawful, and the unlawfulness were assumed to amount to crime, to take the further step and pre- sume it murder would violate the rule that each aggravation of an offence must be so affirmatively proved as to satisfy the jury of it beyond a reasonable doubt.2 Once more, — § 606. Attending Facts. — Though it is admitted that this pre- sumption is not applicable where any fact besides the mere tak- ing of life appears, yet, as no other case exists, it is always in practice applied where its irrelevancy is conceded. Indeed, the common statement of the presumption exhibits it mingling with explanatory evidence; as, said Sir Michael Foster: “In every charge of murder, the fact of killing being first proved, all the circumstances of accident, necessity, or infirmity are to be satisfactorily proved by the prisoner, wnless they arise out of the evidence produced against him;® for the law presumeth the fact to have been founded in malice, until the contrary appeareth.” ® Now, if the explanatory fact is that the killing was with a deadly weapon, a presumption already stated applies;‘ and though it leads to the same result as this one, it is different, and necessarily supersedes it. Or if such fact is that the death was caused by excessive chastisement, yet with a rod not deadly, this raises the presumption of manslaughter,® and necessarily supersedes the presumption under consideration. And if we should consider thus every possible form of explanatory matter, we should find that each had its presumption, superseding the one now in question. So that, in conclusion, and to sum all up, 1 1 Bishop Mar. Div, & S. § 1026-10381. 6 Foster, 255; Williams v. S. 6 Neb. 2 Vol. I. § 1091-1095. 834; Clarke v. S. 35 Ga. 75; S. v. Smith, 8 Vol. I. § 1095; Warren v. C. 87 Pa, 77 N. C. 488; C. v. Webster, 5 Cush. 295, 45. 52 Am. J. 711. 4 Ante, § 603. 7 Ante, § 601, 602. 5 See ante, § 599, 600. 8 New Crim. Law, II. § 690 (1, 2). 266 CHAP. XXXIV.] HOMICIDE — THE EVIDENCE. § 607 this presumption is wrong in principle, it is directly contrary to other and well-established presumptions which annihilate it, and if it were true there is no possible case to which it can be applied.? § 607. Continuing Malice. — In a case proper for presumptions,? if the malice of murder is shown of a date prior to the homi- cide, its existence at the time of it may be presumed unless the 1 J cannot better illustrate in what cases this question has unnecessarily and improperly arisen than by the famous one of C. v. York, 9 Met. 93, in which a very able bench of judges disagreed. York had killed his victim with a very deadly weapon, a dirk knife, plunged to the heart. It was contended for him that the killing was either in self-defence or in a heat of passion, reducing it to manslaughter. So there was no scope for a presumption ap- plicable where only a mere causing of death appears. The trial court instructed the jury that “when the fact of killing is proved to have been committed by the accused, and nothing further is shown, the presumption of law is that it is malicious, and an act of murder.” p.94. But here, it is seen, more was shown, yet the tri- bunal of review, by a majority, held the instruction correct. Said Shaw, C. J.: “The case to which the rule we are now considering applies, is one where the life of the deceased has been taken by the accused by a voluntary act, a wound in- flicted with great violence, with a deadly weapon, and upon a vital part.” p. 102. But the reader sees that the rule is for a case quite outside such facts. That the doctrine actually adjudged was as above stated, further appears from the subse- quent case of C. v. Hawkins, 3 Gray, 463. The dissenting opinion in York’s Case, by Wilde, J., presents the following conclu- sions: “1, That when the facts and cir- cumstances accompanying a homicide are given in evidence, the question whether the crime is murder or manslaughter is to be. decided upon the evidence, and not upon any presumption from the mere act of killing. 2. That if there be any such presumption, it is a presumption of fact, and if the evidence leads to a reasonable doubt whether the presumption be well founded, that doubt will avail in favor of the prisoner. 38. That the burden of proof, in every criminal case, is on the Commonwealth to prove all the material allegations in the indictment; and if, on the whole evidence, the jury have a rea- sonable doubt whether the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, they are bound to acquit him.” p. 133. And see Goodall v. S. 1 Or. 333, 80 Am. D. 396; McDaniel v. S. 8 Sm. & M. 401, 47 Am. D. 93; S.v. Hodge, 50 N. H. 510, 526; U.S. ce. Armstrong, 2 Curt. C. C. 446; S. v, Patterson, 45 Vt. 308, 12 Am. R. 200; Tweedy v. S. 5 Iowa, 4383; S. v. McCluer, 5 Nev. 182; P. v. West, 49 Cal. 610; P.v Wolf, 95 Mich. 625. In a Michigan case, Christiancy, J. well observed: “To give the homicide the legal character of mur- der, all the authorities agree that it must have been perpetrated with malice pre- pense, or aforethought. This malice is just as essential an ingredient of the of- fence as the act which causes the death ; without the concurrence of both, the crime cannot exist; and, as every man is presumed innocent of the offence of which he is charged till he is proved to be guilty, this presumption must apply equally to both ingredients of the offence —to the malice as well as to the killing. Hence, though the principle seems to have been sometimes overlooked, the burden of proof, as to each, rests equally upon the prosecution, though the one may ad- mit and require more direct proof than the other; malice, in most cases, not being susceptible of direct proof, but to be established by inferences more or less strong, to be drawn from the facts and circumstances connected with the killing, and which indicate the disposition or state of mind with which it was done.” Maher v. P. 10 Mich. 212, 218, 81 Am. D. 781. 2 See U.S. v. Armstrong, 2 Curt. C.C. 446; Bird v. S. 14 Ga. 43; P. v. Bodine, 1 Denio, 281. 267 § 610 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [Book XI. contrary appears.!_ Intervening facts may strengthen, weaken, or remove this presumption;? or the defendant may show that the killing proceeded from a sudden provocation, not from the prior malice. § 608, Other Presumptions — there are ;* but they are in general such as are explained in our treatment of the law of the offence in “New Criminal Law,” or are common to all departments of the law of evidence. Or they may be within the expositions of the first volume.® II. Zhe Character, Conduct, and Utterances of the Deceased. § 609. In General : — Except under Special Facts, developed in the particular case, proof of the character, conduct, or utterances of the deceased is not admissible in trials for homicide. For nothing of this sort will ordinarily even extenuate a killing. But the ex- ceptional circumstances now to be explained may require a departure from the rule. Thus, — § 610. Under a Claim of Self-defence,-— where the necessity of the defendant’s resorting to it should be judged of by the facts as they appeared to him, whatever they truly were,’ he may give in evidence whatever he knew of the character, prior conduct, threats, or other utterances of the person with whom he was contending, which, not as showing that the man was bad, but that in the special instance and circumstances he was dangerous, might reasonably have place among the considerations guiding his actions.? On the other hand, — 1 §. v., Johnson, 1 Ire. 354, 35 Am. D. 5 Vol. I. § 1096-1131. 742; 8. v. Hildreth, 9 Ire. 429, 51 Am. D. 364; Weed v. P. 3 Thomp. & C. 50; Faire v. §. 58 Ala. 74. See S. v. Tilly, 3 Tre. 424; Long v. 8. 52 Missis. 23. 2 McCoy v. S. 25 Tex. 33, 78 Am. D. 520. 8 §. v. Johnson, 2 Jones, N. C. 247, 64 Am. D. 582; S. v. Barnwell, 80 N.C. 466. 4 Blackburn v. S. 23 Ohio St. 146; C. v. Harman, 4 Pa, 269; Watt v. P. 126 Ill. 9; Williams v. S. 64 Md. 384; Johnson v. 8.17 Ala, 618; Tiffany v. C. 121 Pa. 165, 6 Am. St. 775; S. v. Ching Ling, 16 Or, 419; Davidson v. S. 135 Ind. 254. 268 6 §. v. Hogue, 6 Jones, N. C. 381; Newcomb z. 8. 37 Missis. 383; S. v. Bar- field, 8 Ire. 344; Quesenberry v. S. 3 Stew. & P. 308; C. v. Ferrigan, 44 Pa. 386; Chase v. 8. 46 Missis. 683, 703. 7 New Crim. Law, I. § 303, 305, 874; II. § 653, 654; Childers v. S. 30 Tex. Ap. 160, 28 Am. St. 899. 8 §. v. Turpin, 77 N. C. 473; 8. v. Bryant, 55 Mo. 75; S. v. Keene, 50 Mo. 357; S. v. Dodson, 4 Or. 64; Niland v. s. 52 Ala. 322; Horbach v. S. 48 Tex. 242; P.v, Lonibert, 17 Cal. 316; Palmore v. S. 29 Ark. 248; P. v. Williams, 17 Cal. 142; S. v. Robertson, 30 La. An. 340; S. 2. t CHAP. XXXIV.] HOMICIDE — THE EVIDENCE. § 613 § 611. What was Unknown — to the defendant cannot thus be shown; because it is impossible he should have acted upon it.! We have seen that one may rely upon what he did not know? when its effect is to prove the absence of any wrong or injury ; because then the criminal act did not concur with the criminal intent, both of which are essential in crime. But here, where the aci, namely, the homicide, has been committed,‘ and the further inquiry relates simply to the mental condition prompting it, only what the doer knew is relevant; for that alone could have influenced his mind, or in any way contributed to the doing.® To particularize, — § 612. Specially of the Character of the Deceased : — The Prosecutor — cannot affirmatively show® that the person slain was of good or peaceable character.’ But in rebuttal this evidence is competent if the opposite has been testified to for the defence,® or sometimes if self-defence is in issue,® but not a character acquired after the homicide ” or too long before. § 613. 1. Not even the Defendant, —it is believed, may bring forward in evidence the bad character of the deceased in general, where he does not particularize the trait, or prove an evil trait not related to the special matter of the defence.4 Even he can- not show the trait until a foundation for it is laid in the conten- tions and other proofs of the case.® Matthews, 78 N. C. 523; Long v. S. 52 Missis. 23; Holloway v. C. 11 Bush, 344; Howell ov. S. 5 Ga. 48; U.S. v. Rice, 1 Hughes, 560; Powell v. S. 52 Ala. 1; P. v. Anderson, 39 Cal. 703; Noles v. S. 26 Ala. 31, 62 Am. D. 711. 1 P. v. Osmond, 138 N. Y. 80; Polin v. S. 14 Neb. 540; S. v. Downs, 91 Mo. 19; S. v. Rollins, 118 N. C. 722; C. v. Straes- ser, 153 Pa. 451; Redus v. P. 10 Colo. 208; Grissom v. §. 8 Tex. Ap. 386. 2 New Crim. Law, I. § 325, 434. 8 Ib, § 204 et seq., 438, 440, 441. 4 Ante, § 609. 5 S. v. Meader, 47 Vt. 78; S. v. Dum- phey, 4 Minn. 438; Carr v. S 14 Ga. 358 ; P. v. Henderson, 28 Cal. 465; Peterson v. S. 50 Ga. 142; S. v. Maloy, 44 Iowa, 104; “§$. v. McCoy, 29 La. An. 598; Edgar v. S. 43 Ala. 45; S. v. Gregor, 21 La. An. 473 ; Atkins v. S, 16 Ark. 568; 8S. v. Smith, 12 Rich. 480. But — 6 §, vu. McCarthy, 43 La. An. 541. 7 §. v. Potter, 13 Kan. 414; Dock v. C. 21 Grat. 909 ; Pound v. S. 43 Ga. 88; P. v. Anderson, 39 Cal. 703; Ben v. S. 37 Ala. 103; P. v. Bezy, 67 Cal. 223; Mc- Keone v. P. 6 Colo. 346; Jones vu. P. 6 Colo. 452, 45 Am. R. 526. 8 Pound v. S. supra; Graves v. 8.14 Tex. Ap. 113. 29 §. v. Pettit, 119 Mo. 410. 10 Skaggs v. 8. 31 Tex. Cr. 563. 11 Vol. I. § 1118; May v. P. 8 Colo. 210. 12 Plasters v. S. 1 Tex. Ap. 673, 683; Fahnestock v. S. 23 Ind. 231, 238; S. v. Smith, 12 Rich. 430, 443; Abbott v. P. 86 N. Y. 460; Spivey v. S. 58 Missis. 858 ; Bowles v. 8. 58 Ala. 335; S. v. Mitchell, 41 La. An. 1073. 18 Stevens v. S. 1 Tex. Ap. 591; S. v. Riddle, 20 Kan. 711; S. v. Brien, 10 La. An, 458; S. v, Dumphey, 4 Minn. 438; 8. 269 [BOOK XII § 615 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. 2. When the Foundation — is thus laid,!—as, when he, claim-: ing to have acted in self-defence, has shown that the deceased attacked him,2— he may then give evidence of a generally known evil trait of a sort which might properly influence his conduct;3 as, that the attacking person was in character quarrelsome and dangerous. On the other hand, — § 614. Where the Defendant made the Attack, — as appearing on the direct proofs, and he persisted in the quarrel, evidence of the quarrelsome character of the deceased is not admissible.® For one has no greater right to attack or kill a quarrelsome body than a peaceable; but in self-defence, a man set upon may adapt his measures to the seeming danger, which increases with the dangerous character of the assailant. § 615, Limits of Doctrine. — These cases, wherein it is plain which party made the attack, with the conclusion that the deceased’s quarrelsomeness may be shown when the one did, not when the other, present the doctrine clearly and justly. But evidence to the dangerous character may be admissible though it is not proved from which side the original aggression came.® v. Meader, 47 Vt. 78; P. v. Williams, 17 Cal, 142; Eiland v. 8. 52 Ala. 322; Wesley v, 8. 87 Missis. 327, 75 Am. D. 62; S.z., Jackson, 12 La. An. 679; S. v. Thawley, 4 Harring. Del. 562; Jolly v. 8. 13 Sm. & M. 223; S. v. Tilly, 8 Ire. 424; 8. v. Dun- can, 6 Ire. 236; Drake v. 8. 75 Ga. 413; Walker v. S. 28 Tex. Ap. 503; Roten v. S. 31 Fla, 514; Evers v. S. 31 Tex. Cr. 818, 37 Am. St. 811; S. v. Labuzan, 37 La. An. 489; S. v. Janvier, 37 La. An. 644; S. v. Jackson, 37 La. An. 896; Oder v. C. 80 Ky. 82; Williams v. S. 14 Tex. Ap. 102, 46 Am. R. 237; 8. v. Birdwell, 36 La. An. 859; 8. v. Watson, 36 La. An. 148; S. v. Jackson, 33 La. An. 1087; Roberts v. S. 5 Tex. Ap. 141; 8 w. Chavis, 80 N.C. 353. 1 Ib.; Palmore v. S. 29 Ark. 248; Hor- bach v. S. 43 Tex. 242; S. v. Downs, 91 Mo, 19; Jackson v. 8. 90 Ala. 590; S. x. Turner, 29 S.C. 34, 18 Am. St. 706; Lang v. S. 84 Ala. 1, 5 Am. St, 324; Gardner v. 8. 90 Ga. 810, 35 Am. St. 202 ; Garner v. S. 28 Fla. 113, 29 Am. St. 232; King v. S. 90 Ala. 612; Hudson v. 8. 6 Tex. Ap. 565, 82 Am. R. 598; King v. S. 55 Ark. 604; S. v. Hayden, 83 Mo. 198; P. v 270 Stock, 1 Idaho w.s. 218; S. ce. Ford, 37 La, An. 448. 28. v. Robertson, 30 La, An. 340; Reg. v. Macarthy, 3 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 361, note; Davidson v. P. 4 Colo. 145, And see the argument of counsel in Pfomer v: P. 4 Par. Cr. 558, 580 et seq. 8 Ante, § 610; Reg. v. Macarthy, su- pra; Martin v. S. 90 Ala. 602, 24 Am. St. 844, 4 §. v. Robertson, supra; 8. v. Meader, 47 Vt. 78; S. v. Keene, 50 Mo. 357; S. v. Bryant, 55 Mo. 75; S. », Turpin, 79 N. C. 473; Childers v. §. 830 Tex. Ap. 160, 28 Am. St. 899; 8. v. Graham, 61 Iowa, 608; Doyal v. S. 70 Ga. 184, 147; Williams ».: 8. 74 Ala. 18; Moore v. S. 15 Tex. Ap. 1; S. v. Gooch, 94 N. C. 987. 5 P. v. Garbutt, 17 Mich. 9,97 Am. ‘D. 162; Pritchett v. S.22 Ala. 39, 58 Am. D. 250. But see 8. v. Nett, 50 Wis. 524; 8S. v. McNeely, 34 La. An. 1022. ® See and compare S. v. Bryant, 55 Mo. 75; S. v. Turpin, 77 N.C. 473; S. v. Harris, 59 Mo. 550; C. v. Flanigan, 8 Philad. 480; P. v. Edwards, 41 Cal. 640; Fields v. 8. 47 Ala. 603, 11 Am. R. 771; 8. v. Keene, 50 Mo. 357; Quesenberry »v. CHAP. XXXIV.] HOMICIDE — THE EVIDENCE. § 618 Then the question becomes more difficult. We have seen what is the principle; namely, that the character of the one party, as known to the other, may be shown when, and only when, it might lawfully influence the latter’s conduct.. The facts of cases vary, and so in a degree will the opinions of different judges on the same facts. A minuter looking into the varying cases would little benefit the reader.! Still, — § 616. Attacking Party Uncertain. — It is reasonably well estab- lished, in a case of doubt by which party the attack was made, yet the defendant claims to have acted in self-defence,? that then, the whole evidence being circumstantial,? he may prove what he knew of the dangerous character of the person whose life he todk.+ those just explained. This case seems to stand on reasons other than § 617. The Nature and Proof of “Character” — were, as to another question, explained in the first volume.® Here, as there, character does not consist of individual acts, and they cannot be shown in evidence. ® While differing from reputation, it is evidenced thereby; so that a witness should testify to what others say of it, not to his own opinion thereon.’ § 618. Prior Conduct and Acts of the Deceased : — In General Terms, — prior acts of the deceased, when con- nected with the transaction in which his life was taken, are competent in explanation of the killing; ® as, that the day before, 8.3 Stew. & P. 303; Rippy v. 8. 2 Head, a1. 1 Thomas v. P. 67 N. Y. 218; P. z. Lombard, 17 Cal. 316; Pridgen v. 8. 31 Tex. 420; S. v. Elkins, 63 Mo. 159; S. v. Brown, 63 Mo. 439; Marts v. 8. 26 Ohio St. 162; Pritchett v. S. 22 Ala. 39; S. v. Matthews, 78 N.C. 528; S. v. Field, 14 Me. 244, 249, 31 Am. D. 52; C. v. Mead, 12 Gray, 167, 169, 71 Am. D. 741 (partly overruled in C. v. Barnacle, 134 Mass. 215, 217); Franklin v. S. 29 Ala. 14, 17; Dupree v. 8. 33 Ala. 380, 73 Am. D. 422; Payne v. C.1 Met. Ky. 370; Rippy ». S. 2 Head, 217; Pfomer v. P. 4 Par. Cr. 558; S. v. Floyd, 6 Jones, N. C. 392; S. v. Tackett, 1 Hawks, 210; Cotton v. 8. 31 Missis, 504; P. v. Butler, 8 Cal. 435; Haynes v. 8.17 Ga. 465; C. v. Hilliard, 2 Gray, 294. 2 Monroe v. 8S. 5 Ga. 85; 8S. v. Hicks, 27 Mo. 588; Quesenberry v. S. 3 Stew. & P. 308. 3 S, v. Barfield, 8 Ire. 344. * Dukes v. S. 11 Ind. 557, 565, 71 Am. D. 370; P. v. Murray, 10 Cal. 309. See Fahnestock v. S. 23 Ind. 231, 237, 238; Wise v. S. 2 Kan. 419, 85 Am. D. 595; Harman v. 8. 3 Head, 243; S. v. Turpin, 77 N. C. 473; S. v. Pearce, 15 Nev. 188. 5 Vol. I. § 1117, 1118. 6 Alexander v. C. 105 Pa. 1; 8S. vw Peffers, 80 Iowa, 580. 7 Vol. I. § 1117; Harrison v. C. 79 Va. 874, 52 Am. R. 634; Jackson v. 8.77 Ala. 18; Branch v. 8. 15 Tex. Ap. 96; Eggler v. P. 56 N. Y. 642; Pratt v. 8. 56 Ind. 179; S. v. Baker, 30 La. An. 1134; Franklin v. S. 29 Ala. 14; Thomas v. P. 67 N. Y. 218, 223; S.v. Glass, 5 Or. 73; Wright v. S. 43 Tex. 170; Carr v. S. 14 Ga. 358. 8 Pp, v, Harris, 95 Mich. 87; Myers v. S. 271 § 621 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. he had been quarrelsome and violent, had attacked a third person, and on the defendant’s interfering to separate them, had threatened him.! More particularly as to — § 619. Threats by the Deceased -— One has no Right — to seek out and kill another who has threatened his life. The law’s step for him is rather to compel the other to find sureties of the peace or lie in prison. Or, if the two meet, he must not inflict on the other any violence as in self-defence until there has been some overt act evincing a present purpose to carry out the threat. But when such act is done, and the danger appears imminent, the self-defence may begin.? Therefore, — — § 620. 1. When not Admissible. — If in violation of this rule, the threatened person kills the other who has made no overt demonstration against him, he cannot even lay before the jury the known threats on which he thus unlawfully acted. So that — 2. Only after a Foundation —for the admission of threats has been laid in the contentions or proofs, showing special grounds, will they be received.4 But — § 621. 1. If the Defendant's Contention — is, for example, that the alleged killing was in self-defence, or was only manslaughter, he may prove that before the encounter the deceased had made threats against his person or life, and they had been communi- cated to him; “as tending,” said Coleman, J.,5 “to show that in 62 Ala. 599; S.v. Smith, 12 Rich. 430, 443; Lister v. 8. 3 Tex. Ap. 17; S. ». Testerman, 68 Mo. 408; Reynolds v. 8. 1 Kelly, 222. For circumstances in which they are not competent, see S. v. Jefferson, 43 La, An.995; Brinkley v. S. 89 Ala. 34, 18 Am. St. 87; P. v. Clark, 84 Cal. 573; S. v. Sullivan, 51 Iowa, 142; Bond v. 8. 21 Fla. 738. 1S. v. Smith, supra. And see Camp- bell v. P. 16 Ill. 17; Holler v. S. 37 Ind. 57,10 Am. R. 74; P. v. Turley, 50 Cal. 469; Bird v.S. 55 Ga. 317; Kelsoe v. 8. 47 Ala. 573; Holloway v. C. 11 Bush, 344; Fahnestock v. S, 23 Ind. 231, 238; S. v. Dodson, 4 Or. 64. 2 Nash». 8. 2 Tex. Ap.362; Holloway v. ©. 11 Bush, 344; U.S. v, Rice, 1 Hughes, 560; Peck v. S. 5 Tex. Ap. 272 611; Pritchett v. S, 22 Ala. 39,58 Am. D. 250; P.v. Arnold, 15 Cal. 476; Allen v. 8. 17 Tex. Ap. 637; P. v. Cook, 89 Mich. 236,33 Am. R. 380; Alexander v. S. 25 Tex. Ap. 260, 8 Am. St. 438; S. v. Spell, 38 La. An. 20. , 8 S. v. Alexander, 66 Mo. 148; S. v. Brown, 63 Mo. 439; S. v. Taylor, 64 Mo. 358; Holly v. S. 55 Missis. 424; U. S. v. Leighton, 3 Dak. 29; U.S. v. Knowlton, 3 Dak. 58; Turpin v. S. 55 Md. 462. And see P. v. Turley, 50 Cal. 469; Bird v. 8. 55 Ga. 317. * Ante, § 609-611, 613; S. +. Ridgely, 2 Har. & McH. 120,1 Am. D. 372; 8. ». Jackson, 17 Mo. 544, 59 Am. D. 281; Hal- bert v. 8.31 Tex. 357; P. v. Glenn, 10 Cal. 82; Williams 7. S. 2 Tex. Ap. 271. 5 Powell v. S. 19 Ala. 577, 581. CHAP. XXXIV.] HOMICIDE — THE EVIDENCE. § 623 the assault on the deceased he may have acted under a just fear of danger to his own life.”* Yet — 2. If he did not know — of the threats, the ground of their admissibility fails, and, at least under all ordinary circum- stances, they should be rejected.2. Also, — 8. Recent — must be the threats to be thus admissible. The decisions have fixed no limit of time ;? probably none is possible. In reason, they should not be of so long ago that presumably the prompting evil mind has relented. Hence, — § 622. If there are Repeated Threats, — extending through a considerable period, and together they constitute one series of acts, the earlier may be shown in connection with the later, when any are admissible.6 And if a part only are known to the prisoner, the uncommunicated ones may be given in evidence with the others. The doctrine of the res geste’ and some other considerations support this proposition. § 623. Threats and other Uiterances of the Deceased as of the Res Geste and as Dying Declarations : — 1. Not a Party — to the prosecution is the deceased person, so that the law looks upon his utterances as hearsay. And except as to dying declarations,’ the 1 Pitman v. S. 22 Ark. 354,357; Hud_ gins v. S, 2 Kelly, 173; Williams v. P. 54 Til. 422; Dupree v. 8.33 Ala. 380,73 Am. D. 422; Monroe v. 8.5 Ga. 85; S. v. Harrington, 12 Nev. 125; 8S. v. Lee, 66 Mo. 165; Howell v.S. 5 Ga. 48; Powell v. 8. 52 Ala. 1; S. v. Dodson, 4 Or. 64; 8. v, Abbott, 8 W. Va, 741; King v. 8S. 9 Tex. Ap. 515; S. v. Coella, 3 Wash. 99; Wood v. S$. 92 Ind. 269; S. v. Harrod, 102 Mo. 590; P. v. Travis, 56 Cal. 251; Hawthorne v. 8. 61 Missis. 749. And see P. v. Rector, 19 Wend. 569; Campbell v. P, 16 Ill. 17; Ballard o. 8. 31 Fla. 266. Even communicated threats are not in all circumstances admissible. Payne v. 8. 60 Ala. 80; Thomas v. 8. 11 Tex. Ap. 315; P.v. Taing, 53 Cal. 602; Leigh v. P. 113 Il. 372; West v. S. 18 Tex. Ap. €40; Smith v. S. 25 Fla. 517; P. v. Halli- day, 5 Utah, 467; Hinson v. S. 66 Missis. 532. 2 Ante, § 611; Keener v. S. 18 Ga. 194, 63 Am. D. 269; Atkinsv. 8. 16 Ark. 568 ; Newcomb »v. S. 37 Missis. 383 ; Lingo v. 8. voL. 11.—18 fact that he is dead does not \ 29 Ga. 470; Coker v. S. 20 Ark. 53; Pow- ellv. 8. 19 Ala. 577; Carrv. S. 14 Ga. 358 ; P. v. Henderson, 28 Cal. 465; Peterson v. S. 50 Ga. 142; S. v. Gregor, 21 La. An. 473; S. v. McCoy, 29 La. An. 593; 8. v. Maloy, 44 Iowa, 104; Edgar v. S, 43 Ala. 45; P. v. Arnold, 15 Cal. 476; S. v. Harris, 59 Mo. 550; Hudgins v. S. 2 Kelly, 173; S. v. Jackson, 17 Mo. 544,59 Am. D, 281; S. v. Ridgely, 2 Har. & McH. 120,1 Am. D. 372; P. v. Garbutt, 17 Mich. 9, 97 Am. D. 162; S. v, Ryan, 30 La, An. 1176. See post, § 627; Fuller v S. 30 Tex. Ap. 559. 3 Monroe v. 8. 5 Ga. 85; S. v. Jackson, 17 Mo. 544; S. v, Hays, 23 Mo, 287. ‘See Keener v. 8. 18 Ga. 194. * And see Vol. I. § 1110, 1111. 5 S. v. Sloan, 47 Mo. 604, 610. 6 Cornelius v. C. 15 B. Monr. 539; S. v. Turpin, 77 N. C, 473; Davidson v. P. 4 Colo. 145. And see Thrasher v. 8. 3 Tex. Ap. 281; Aycock v. 8. 2 Tex. Ap. 381. 7 Vol. I. § 1083, 1084. 8 Vol. I. § 1207 et seq. 273 § 625 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL render admissible what would not be if he had survived and the prosecution were for the battery.1 The case is the common one of lost evidence, the recovery whereof is beyond human power. Therefore — 2. The Declarations of the Deceased, as of any other third person, when not of the res gestw,? or dying declarations, or communicated to the defendant so as possibly to influence his conduct, are excluded by rules which are supposed to promote justice on the whole; at all events, which have become parts of the common law, not within the discretion of the courts to set aside. Hence, they are not admissible.2 But — § 624. The Dying Declarations — of the deceased are, in these cases of homicide, and within limits explained in the first volume, admissible as an exception, and the only one, to the rules governing other criminal causes.4 Common to all causes, criminal and civil, are the doctrines of the — § 625. 1. Res Geste.— A general view of the law of the res geste — that is, of the admissibility in evidence of the whole of a transaction any part of which is duly shown to the jury — appears in the first volume. The transaction need not be on one day, but it may be continuous, from day to day. Within which doctrine, — 2, Contemporary Utterances, — including threats and declara- tions of the deceased, not on other principles admissible, are often competent. Yet it is impossible to state, on the authori- ties, they being not altogether harmonious, any practical and clearly defined rule to distinguish those which will be received: from those which will not. In general accord with the com-. bined adjudications, and on principle, the declarations of the deceased, or of any other third person who participated in the transaction which ended in death, including utterances from 1 Vol. I. § 1082; C. v. Densmore, 12 Allen, 535, 537, 538; Lund v. Tyngsbor- ough, 9 Cush. 36, 40. 2 Vol. I. § 1083-1087. * Faire v. 8. 58 Ala. 74; Donnelly v. S. 2 Dutcher, 463,601; Binns v. 8. 57 Ind. 46,26 Am. R. 48; C. v. Densmore, 12 Allen, 535; P. v. McLaughlin, 44 Cal. 435; S. v. Dula, Phillips, N. C. 211; Ar- mistead v. 8. 18 Ga. 704; Jackson v. 8. 52 Ala. 305; S.v. Vincent, 24 Iowa, 570, 95 274 Am. D. 753; Denton v. S. 1 Swan, Tenn. 279; Kirby v. 8. 9 Yerg. 383, 30 Am. D. 420; S. v. Patrick, 3 Jones, N. C. 443; S. v. Rash, 12 Ire. 382, 55 Am. D. 420. # Vol. I. § 1207-1216; S. v. Brunetito, 18 La. An. 45; S. v. Williams, 67 N. C. 12; Nelms v. S.18 Sm. & M. 500, 506, 53 Am. D. 94; Binns wv. S. 46 Ind. 311; Smith v. 8. 53 Ala.486; P. v. Ybarra, 17 Cal. 166; S. v. McEvoy, 9 S. C. 208. 5 Vol. L § 1083-1087, 1111, 1125 (2). ' CHAP. XXXIV.] HOMICIDE — THE EVIDENCE. § 625 all sources within the same reason, may be shown when either. they, or some fact which they tend to explain, may be deemed a part of such transaction, whether the same were performed on one day or extended through many days; and provided that either the declaration, or the fact it would illustrate, is pertinent to the main inquiry.! 1 Numerous minor questions have arisen within the scope of this paragraph. Thus, in a treason trial, the cry of a mob to which the defendant was privy, was admitted against him. Rex v. Gordon, 21 How. St. Tr. 485, 535. In a murder case, it appearing that the last time the deceased was seen alive she was leaving her lodgings, the witness was permitted to be asked whether or not she then made a statement, yet not what it was. Reg. vo. Wainwright, 13 Cox C.C. 171, 172, 14 Eng. Rep. 623, 625; s. p. adjudged by Bovill, C. J. Reg. v. Pook, 13 Cox C. C. 172, note, 14 Eng. Rep. 625, 3 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 351, note. This seems to be contrary to Carroll v. 8.3 Humph. 315. But other American cases are more or less in accord with this ruling. Kirby v. 8. 9 Yerg. 383, 30 Am. D. 420; S. v. Dula, Phillips, N.C. 211; P. v. Williams, 3 Abb. Ap. 596; S. v. Vincent, 24 Iowa, 570, 95 Am. D. 753; Territory v. Couk, 2 Dak. 188. See Hunt v. P. 3 Par, Cr. 569; Burns », S. 49 Ala.370; Reynolds v. 8. 1 Kelly, 222; Campbell v. P. 16 Il. 17; Autauga v. Davis, 32 Ala. 703; S. v. Howard, 32 Vt. 380. Again, a transaction which ends in death often extends through a series of days, or even of months. Then, while it is in progress, what is said by one or both of the parties thereto will, if the necessary other facts concur, be deemed of the res geste. Consequently, threats by the deceased, or other declarations by him, when duly connected with any part of such transaction, may be shown in the defence. Pitman v. 8, 22 Ark. 354; P. v. Arnold, 15 Cal. 476; Monroe v. S. 5 Ga. 85; Williams o. P. 54 Il. 422; Campbell v. P. 16 Ill. 17; Dixon v. 8. 13 Fla. 636; S. v. Sloan, 47 Mo. 604; and other cases to be cited as we proceed. There may be a question whether particular facts are within or without this rule. Where, in England, a man was tried for the murder of his wife, and it was in evidence that having often beat her, he killed her with a. poker, it was shown against him that a week before the killing she came to the house of the witness with a carving-knife and a large axe, ‘Thereupon the witness was permitted to state what she said; namely, “Please to put them up, and when I want them I’ll fetch them ; for my husband always threatens me with these, and when they are out of the way I feel safer.” Reg. v. Edwards, 12 Cox C. C. 230, 4 Eng. Rep. 518 Mr. Moak has attached to this case, as reprinted in 4 Eng. Rep., a note questioning, on many authorities, this decision. ‘The report of the case is brief; but assuming that a series of threats and assaults had been shown, extending down to the time of the fatal blow, making the evidence that the woman carried the knife and axe to a neighbor’s house admissible as a part of the connected series, it seems to me that what she said while performing this act was of the res geste, and therefore properly admitted. But such mere words, unconnected with any act, would not be competent. So it was held in Indiana, as to mere declarations of the deceased; the court, by Pettit, J. observing: “ We think the books may be searched without success, to find a case where the state- ments of a murdered man, made before he came in sight or hearing of his slayer, can be given in evidence against the ac- cused on his trial.” Cheek v. S. 35 Ind. 492,494. In a Connecticut case, the de- ceased was an aged woman with whom the defendant lived as her hired man; she had been found lying on her face dead, in a pool near the house, and the theory of the defence was that she had fallen into it in a fit. The court rejected evidence of her declaration, made about a year before, that she was subject to fits, and had sev- eral times when taken with them fallen on her face. S. v. Dart, 29 Conn. 153, 156, 76 Am. D. 596. So the courts have 275 § 626 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 626. 1. The Bodily Condition or Sufferings — of the deceased is another thing upon which his declarations may be admissible, rejected the declarations of a deceased wife, for the murder of whom the husband was on trial, that she had been guilty of adul- tery. S. v. Rash, 12 Ire. 382, 55 Am. D. 420. Also declarations of the deceased that he was afraid another person than the prisoner would killhim. S. v. Patrick, 8 Jones, N.C. 443. A declaration made in connection with an act is not admis- sible unless the actis also. P. v. Williams, 3 Abb. Ap. 596. And see S. v. Harris, 59 Mo. 550. If two persons, each in the ab- sence of the other, prepare for a hostile encounter, and on their meeting one is killed, such preparations would seem in reason to be parts of the criminal transac- tion. Then, on a trial for the homicide, the declarations of the respective parties, while making the preparations, would appear to be of the res gesta. In proper circumstances, therefore, why should they not be admissible? Thus, in a California case, it appearing that the deceased had a pistol, the defendant was permitted to prove what he said at the time of procur- ing it. P. v. Arnold, 15 Cal. 476, 481, 482. So, in another California case, where, on the day of the homicide, the deceased ex- hibited to a witness a pistol which was present at the affray, the witness was per- mitted to testify to threats then made by the deceased against the defendant though not communicated to him. The doctrine appears to be that the exhibiting or pro- curing of the pistol being a part of the transaction which ended in death, so like- wise was what the man said while doing it; all was of the res geste. Still, this sort of evidence is admissible only when relevant. PP. v. Scoggins, 37 Cal. 676, 686. A case like these two California ones is Wiggins v. P. 93 U.S. 465, de- cided by the Supreme Court of the United States. There, in a series of transactions which ended in murder, the deceased, just before receiving the fatal blow, showed a pistol to the witness, who was thereupon permitted to testify to his accompanying words; namely, that with it he should shoot the defendant before morning. For further cases relating to this question, see S. v. Jackson, 17 Mo. 544, 59 Am. D. 281; 276 Holler v. S. 37 Ind. 57, 10 Am. R. 74; Kirby v. 8. 9 Yerg. 383; Carroll v. 8. 3 Humph. 315; Bassham v. §. 38 Tex. 622; Campbell v. P. 16 Ill. 17; Keener v. S. 18 Ga. 194, 68 Am. D. 269; Lingo v. S. 29 Ga. 470. In these cases, the reader should bear in mind, there was a relevant act accompanying the declaration. That is essential. S. v. Gregor, 21 La. An. 473; Lund v. Tyngsborough, 9 Cush. 36, 44; Tomkies v. Reynolds, 17 Ala. 109; Sessions v. Little, 9 N. H. 271; Robertson v. Smith, 18 Ala. 220; C. v. O’Connor, 11 Gray, 94; Gilbert v. Gilbert, 22 Ala. 529, 58 Am. D. 268; Fail v. McArthur, 31 Ala. 26; Pat- ten v. Ferguson, 18 N. H. 528; Morrill v. Foster, 32 N. H. 358; Currier v. Boston, &e. Rid. 34 N. H. 498; P. vx. Williams, 3 Par. Cr. 84; Bassham v. 8. 38 Tex. 622. But doubtless the two need not be in the strictest sense simultaneous. If a man should say, ‘“‘I am going to shoot A, for he has insulted me,” then should reach out his hand, take a gun, and discharge it; or, if he should shoot first, and add, “T have shot A, for he has insulted me,” his words, in-either case, would be as truly of the res geste as if spoken while his finger was drawing the trigger. But how long before or after an act may the words be spoken and still be of the res geste ? The courts have never answered this question by a rule, and it is not probable they ever can. “At or about the time,” or “ near,” or “shortly before,” or “shortly after,” or “immediately after,” is as exact as 'they have come to the solution of the difficulty by any statement of time. Pit- man r. §. 22 Ark. 354; Campbell v. P. 16 Ill. 17; Reg. v. Johnson, 2 Car. & K. 354; Little ». C. 25 Grat. 921; Hill v. C. 2 Grat. 594; Reynolds v. S. 1 Kelly, 222; Dixon v, 8.18 Fla. 636; Burns v. 8. 49 Ala. 370; Reg. v. Lunny, 6 Cox C. C. 477; Meek v. Perry, 36 Missis. 190; Mayes wv. S. 64 Missis. 329, 60 Am. R. 58; S. v. Estoup, 39 La. An. 219; P. v. Wong Ah Foo, 69 Cal. 180; Green v. 8S. 69 Ala. 6; Von Pollnitz ». S. 92 Ga. 16, 44 Am. St. 72. The inquiry would appear to be answered more correctly in another form by saying, as observed in the first volume, that the CHAP. XXXIV.] HOMICIDE — THE EVIDENCE. § 627 as being of the res geste.1 Thus, his statements after receiving a wound, explanatory of the injury, are competent; but not as to who inflicted it, or with what weapon.? And in general terms, where the health of the deceased at a given time is a relevant subject of inquiry, what he then said of it may be shown.? In like manner, — 2. Love or Hate. — Where it is permissible to prove the mutual relations of the defendant and deceased,! the latter’s declarations indicating love or hatred may be received in connection with the other facts; the same as, in an action for criminal conversation, where the terms on which the husband. and wife cohabited become important, her letters and verbal declarations may be given. But — § 627. Threats neither Communicated nor of Res Geste.—- Accord- ing to the current of the authorities,® under no circumstances declarations “are competent whenever near enough to the act, either before or after it, to be probably prompted by the same motive, not an after thought, and apparently to constitute of it a part.” Vol. I. § 1086 (1); West v. S. 2 Tex. Ap, 460; Insurande Co. v. Mosley, 8 Wal. 397; Newcomb v. 8. 37 Missis. 383; Johnson v. Sherwin, 3 Gray, 374; P. v. Vernon, 35 Cal. 49,95 Am. D. 49; Mitchum v. S. 11 Ga. 615; Handy v. Johnson, 5 Md. 450; Goodwin v. Harrison, 1 Root, 80; Rutland t. Hathorn, 36 Ga. 380; Hart v. Powell, 18 Ga. 635; Monday v. 8. 32 Ga. 672, 79 Am. D. 314; S. v. Dominique, 30 Mo. 585; P. v. Henderson, 28 Cal. 465. In one case it was held that a person on trial for murder cannot give in evidence his own conversa- tions, had after going half a mile from the place of the homicide. Gardner v. P. 3 Scam. 83. See Caw v. P. 3 Neb. 357; Carroll v. S. 3 Humph. 315; Denton vr. S. 1 Swan, Tenn. 279; Reg. v. Lunny, 6 Cox C.C. 477; C. v. Hackett, 2 Allen, 136; Binns v. S. 57 Ind. 46, 26 Am. R. 48; Entwhistle v. Feighner, 60 Mo. 214; Armistead ». S. 18 Ga. 704; Jackson v. S. 52 Ala. 305; Monday v. S. 32 Ga. 672; Hunt v. P. 3 Par. Cr. 559; Faire v. 8. 58 Ala. 74; C. v. McPike, 3 Cush. 181, 50 Am. D. 727. There are numerous other cases on this class of questions, but it must suffice to cite only afew. Sayres v. C. 88 Pa, 291; S, vu. McCoy, 111 Mo. 517; Reg. v. Buckley, 18 Cox C. C. 293; Means v. 8.10 Tex. Ap. 16, 38 Am. R. 640; Cox v. §. 8 Tex. Ap. 254, 34 Am. R. 746; Dickson v. 8. 39 Ohio St. 73; P. v. Carl- ton, 57 Cal. 83, 40 Am. R. 112; Cluverius v. C. 81 Va. 787; Thomas v. S. 67 Ga. 460. 1 Vol. I. § 1111; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 102; Insurance Co. v. Mosley, 8 Wal. 397; S. v. Harris, 63 N. C. 1; Iinois Central Rld. v. Sutton, 42 Ill 438; Looper v, Bell, 1 Head, 373 ; Phillips v. Kelly, 29 Ala. 628; Gray v. McLaughlin, 26 Iowa, 279 ; Hyatt v. Adams, 16 Mich. 180; Baker v. Griffin, 10 Bosw. 140; Caldwell v. Murphy, 1 Kern. 416; 8. v. Moxley, 102 Mo. 374. 2 Denton v. S. 1 Swan, Tenn. 279; S. v. Estoup, 39 La, An. 219. And see Smith v. S. 53 Ala. 486; P. v. Robinson, 2 Par. Cr. 235; S. v. Wagner, 61 Me. 178; S. v. Davidson, 30 Vt. 377, 73 Am. D. 312; Vol. I. § 1111. 3 Reg. v. Johnson, 2 Car. & K. 354; Johnson v. 8.17 Ala. 618; Howe v. Plain- field, 41 N. H 135; Perkins vo. Concord Rid., 44 N. H. 223; Huntv. P. 3 Par. Cr. 569; Lush v. McDaniel, 13 Ire. 485, 57 Am. D. 566; Kent v. Lincoln, 32 Vt. 591. * Post, § 630. 5 Trelawney v. Coleman,1 B. & Ald. 90; Palmer v. Crook, 7 Gray, 418. And see Preston v. Bowers, 13 Ohio St. 1, 82 Am. D. 430. 8 Ante, § 619-621. 277 And see cases § 628 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. are the mere uncommunicated threats of the deceased — not of the res geste whereby they might assist to explain the trans- action or some pertinent fact connected therewith, nor known to the defendant so as possibly to have influenced his conduct in even the slightest degree — admissible in his behalf. But of late a considerable number of the courts have held that if the evidence is only circumstantial as to what occurred at the fatal meeting, and it is important to know from which party the blows or other violence commenced, a prior threat from the deceased, neither communicated nor of the res geste, may be received to this particular question only, as of some, not much, weight among the presumptions.! For this modern extension of the rules of evidence reasons of some weight have been assigned, and equally good reasons could be given for numerous ‘other extensions, especially in this way could the whole doctrine which excludes hearsay be overturned. A fundamental principle in our law of evidence is that since it is presented to a lay jury, it must be kept within such bounds that men unused to judicial discriminations will not be liable to misapply it; as here, it would not be easy so to instruct the panel that they would not give to the uncommunicated threat a weight to which it was not entitled. Ill. The Character, Conduct, and Utterances of the Defendant, and his Relations with the Deceased. § 628, 1. In the First Volume — were considered most of the questions within this sub-title; as, — cited at § 621; 8. v. Maloy, 44 Iowa, 104; 8S. v. Elliott, 45 Iowa, 486, 490; Levy v. 8. 28 Tex. Ap. 203, 19 Am. St. 826; Vaughn v. S. 88 Ga. 731; S. v. Vance, 32 La. An. 1177; Combs v. §. 75 Ind. 215; P.v. Campbell, 59 Cal. 243, 48 Am. R. 257; S. v. Fisher, 83 La. An. 1344; Harris v. S. 34 Ark. 469; P. v. Jackson, 111 N. Y. 362; S. ve. Jackson, 32 S. C. 27. 1 It is impossible to say precisely what cases ought to be cited to this proposition ; but perhaps a writer arguing in favor of it would set down the following, with, it may be, some others: Stokes v, P. 53 N. Y. 164,13 Am. R. 492; Wiggins v. P. 93 U.S. 465 (where are also cited Keener v. 8.18 Ga. 194, 63 Am. D. 269; Campbell v. P. 16 Ill. 17; Holler v, 8.37 Ind. 57, 10 278 Am. R. 74; P. v. Arnold, 15 Cal. 476; P. v. Scoggins, 37 Cal. 676) ; Johnson v. §. 54 Missis. 430; S. v. Elkins, 63 Mo. 159; Pitman v, §. 22 Ark. 354; Stapp v. S. 1 Tex. Ap. 734, 739; Little v. 8. 6 Bax. 491; S. v, Brown, 22 Kan. 222; Brown v. 8. 55 Ark. 593; S. v.. Bailey, 94 Mo. 311; Hart v. C. 85 Ky. 77,7 Am. St. 576; P. v, Alivtre, 55 Cal. 263; May v. S. 90 Ga. 793; Wilson v. 8. 30 Fla. 234; Garher v. S. 28 Fla. 113, 29 Am. St. 232; Levy v.S. 28 Tex. Ap. 203, 19 Am. St. 826; S. z. McNally, 87 Mo. 644; Palmer v. P. 138 Til. 356, 32 Am. St. 146. See Riddle «. Brown, 20 Ala. 412,56 Am. D. 202; Ruby v. 8. 9 Tex. Ap. 353; S. v, Depass, 45 La. An. 1151; S. v. Walsh, 44 La, An, 1122; Roberts v. S. 68 Ala, 156. CHAP. XXXIY.] HOMICIDE —THE EVIDENCE. § 629 2. Putting the Defendant's Character —in evidence. ! 3. Showing another Crime — against him.? Not often in homi- cide is this evidence relevant.2 Yet where it brings to view a series of crimes illustrating one another, whereof the homicide is one,‘ or discloses a motive for the killing,5 and in various other circumstances,® it is competent. 4, Confessions and Admissions — by the defendant are explained in the first volume.? Also, — § 629. 1. The Defendant's Conduct, — after the offence is sup- posed to have been committed, as to its effect in evidence is considered in the first volume.§ important; as, — 2. His Prior Threats — are relevant.® So his conduct before may be And — 3. His Prior Malice — toward the deceased is always competent in proof. It need not be intense, but it is likewise admissible when it extends simply to the lower degrees of ill feeling.10 Remoteness of time will weaken the effect of this evidence, and in some cases justify its exclusion.” motive; and — 1 Vol. I. § 1112-1119; P. v. Garbutt, 17 Mich. 9, 97 Am, D. 162; Hall v. 8. 40 Ala. 698; Hogan v. 8.36 Wis. 226; Carr v. 8, 135 Ind. 1, 41 Am. St. 408. 2 Vol. I. § 1120-1129. 8S. v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245, 24 Am. R. 69; S. v. Hoyt, 13 Minn. 132; Hall v. U.S. 150 U. 8.76 ; S.v. Martin, 74 Mo. 547. * Reg. v. Cotton, 12 Cox C. C. 400, 5 Eng. Rep. 479; Reg. v. Roden, 12 Cox C. C. 630,10 Eng. Rep. 511; Poe v. S, 10 Lea, 673; Reg. v. Flannagan, 15 Cox. C. C. 403; Painter v. P. 147 Ill. 444; Makin v. Attorney-General, 17 Cox C. C. 704; Blackwell v. S. 29 Tex. Ap. 194; Goersen v. C. 99 Pa. 388, 106 Pa. 477, 51 Am. R. 534; P. v. Rogers, 71 Cal. 565. See Reg. v. Winslow, 8 Cox C. C. 397; Shaffner v. C. 72 Pa. 60, 13 Am. R. 649; Glory v. 8. 13 Ark. 236. 5 Mask v. S. 32 Missis.405; Burnett v. S. 14 Lea, 439. See Stafford v. S. 55 Ga, 591. ® Templeton v. P. 27 Mich: 501; Dunn v. 8. 2 Pike, 229, 85 Am. D. 54; P.v. Johnson, 139 N. Y. 358. 7 Vol. I. § 1216 a-1262; S. v. Jones, Its office is to show the 79 N.C. 630; Clough v. S. 7 Neb. 320; S. v. Williams, 68 N.C. 60; Aikin v. S. 35 Ala. 399; Meeks v. S. 51 Ga. 429; S. v. Shuford, 69 N. C. 486; S. v. Graham, 68 N. C. 247; Kehoe v. C. 85 Pa, 127. 8 Vol. I. § 1247-1254; C.v. James, 99 Mass. 438; S. v. Hinkle, 6 Iowa, 380; Dillin v, P. 8 Mich. 357; St. Louis v. 8. 8 Neb. 405; Morrow v. S. 48 Ind. 432; P. v. Bodine, 1 Denio, 281 ; Campbell v. S. 23 Ala. 44; C.v. Hersey, 2 Allen, 173; Waybright v. 8. 56 Ind. 122. 9 VoL I. § 1110; McPherson v, S. 22 Ga. 478; S. v. Walsh, 5 Nev. 315; S. v. Brown, 63 Mo. 439; C. v. Madan, 102 Mass. 1; Johnson v. C. 9 Bush, 224; Vin- cent v. 8. 3 Tex. Ap. 678; Jones v. S. 57 Missis. 684 ; Morgan v. C. 14 Bush, 106; Miller v. S. 31 Tex. Cr. 609, 37 Am. St. 836; Cheatham v. S. 67 Missis. 335, 19 Am. St. 310; S. v. Birdwell, 36 La, An. 859; S. v. Guy, 69 Mo. 430; 5S. v. Nugent, 71 Mo. 136; S. v. Grant, 79 Mo. 113, 49 Am. R. 218; P. v. Jones, 99 N. Y. 667; Schoolcraft v. P, 117 Ill. 271; S.v. Belton, 24S, C. 185, 58 Am. R. 245. 10 Mimms v. 8. 16 Ohio St. 222; Long 11 Reg. v. Hagan, 12 Cox C. C. 357, 4 Eng. Rep. 606; Terrell », C.13 Bush, 246. 279 § 630 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII 4, Any Motive, — rendering the killing probable, or explain- ing it against inherent improbabilities, or otherwise helpful to the jury as a circumstance, may be proved against the defend- ant. Yet it is not indispensable to a conviction that a motive should appear.? § 630. 1. The Mutual Relations — of the defendant and deceased, at and before the time of the killing, are important on the ques- tion of motive;? including their temper and feelings toward each other.4 Thus, on a charge against a husband for murdering his wife, it may be shown that they quarrelled,® or that he ill- treated her,® or she complained of him before a magistrate as a disorderly person,’ or he thought her unfaithful to his bed. A prior difficulty, yet not irrelevant particulars, between any de- fendant and the deceased, may be shown. Again, — 2. The Relative Strength —of the defendant and deceased, where the other facts render it material, may be shown.!° v. S. 52 Missis. 23; S.cv. Anderson, 4 Nev. 265; Stone v. S. 4 Humph. 27; S. v. Dris- coll, 44 Iowa, 65; Aycock v. S. 2 Tex. Ap. 381; P. v. Kern. 61 Cal. 244; P.v. Kemm- ler, 119 N. Y. 580; Coxwell v. S. 66 Ga. 309; McMeen v. C. 114 Pa. 300. 1 Vol. I. § 1107; Fraser v. 8. 55 Ga. 825; Howser v. C. 51 Pa. 332; St. Louis v. 8. 8 Neb. 405; Templeton v. P. 27 Mich. 501; Noles v. S. 26 Ala. 31,62 Am. D. 711; Rex v. Clewes, 4 Car. & P. 221; Stout v. P. 4 Par. Cr. 71; Dunn v. S. 2 Pike, 229, 85 Am. D. 54; Binns ». S. 57 Ind. 46, 26 Am. R. 48; Carroll». C. 84 Pa, 107; Campbell v. ©. 84 Pa. 187 ; John- son v. 8S. 17 Ala. 618; S. v. Green, 35 Conn. 203; S. v. Hinkle, 6 Iowa, 380; Coward v. 8. 6 Tex. Ap. 59; Hester v. C. 85 Pa. 189; Baalam v. S. 17 Ala. 451; Kennedy v. P. 39 N. Y. 245; S. v. John- son, 30 La. An. 921; S. v. Cross, 68 Iowa, 180; Marler v. S. 67 Ala. 55, 42. Am. R. 95; Turner v. S. 70 Ga. 765; Nelson v. S. 61 Missis. 212; S. v. Senn, 32 S. C. 392; Harris v.S.31 Tex. Cr. 411; Mack v. S. 48 Wis. 271; S. v. Kline, 54 Iowa, 183; McManus v. C. 91 Pa. 57; S. v. Morris, 84 N. C. 756; S. x. Cole. 63 Iowa, 695; Boyle v. §. 61 Wis. 440; Ettinger v. C. 98 Pa. 838; Johnson v. 8. 24 Fla. 162; Marler v. S. 68 Ala. 580; Stricklin v. C. 83 Ky. 566; Pierson v. P.79 N. Y. 424,35 Am. R. 524; St. Louis v. S. 8 Neb. 405 ; Mor- 280 rison v, S. 84 Ala. 405; S. v. Reed, 53 Kan. 767,42 Am.St. 322; P.v. Harris, 136 N.Y. 423 ; Siebert v. P. 143 Ill. 571. 2 Pointer v. U. S. 151 U.S. 396. % §. v. Mahly, 68 Mo. 315; Turner v. C. 86 Pa. 54, 27 Am R. 683; Wellar v. P. 30 Mich. 16, 22; Hunter v. S. 43 Ga. 483; Rutherford v. C. 13 Bush, 608; Ste- phens v. P. 4 Par. Cr. 396; Commander v. 8. 60 Ala. 1; P. v. Horton, 4 Mich. 67; Murphy »v. P. 63 N. Y¥. 590; Hendrickson uv. P. 6 Seld. 13, 61 Am. D. 721; S. v. Leabo, 84 Mo. 168, 54 Am. R. 91; Billingslea v. S. 68 Ala. 486. 4 Haynes v. 8.17 Ga. 465; S. v. Ford, 1 Speers, 146; Breen v. P. 4 Par. Cr. 380; Haile v. 8.1 Swan, Tenn. 248; McMillen v. 8. 18 Mo. 30; P. v. Dennis, 39 Cal. 625. 5 §. v. Langford, Busbee, 436; Koerner v. §. 98 Ind. 7. 6 §. », Rash, 12 Ire. 382, 55 Am. D. 420. 7 P.v, Williams, 3 Par. Cr. 84. And see McCann v. P. 3 Par. Cr. 272. 8 Fisher v. P. 28 Ill. 283, 285, 295; McCann v. P. supra. ® Tarver v. S. 43 Ala. 354; Pound v. 8. 43 Ga. 88; McLean v. S. 16 Ala. 672. See also S. v. Watkins, 9 Conn. 47, 53, 54, 21 Am. D. 712; S. v. Green, 35 Conn. 208. 10 Wellar v. P. 80 Mich. 16; Wise v. S. CHAP, XXXIV.] HOMICIDE — THE EVIDENCE. § 631 IV. Expert Testimony. § 631. 1. The General Doctrine —is explained in the first volume; and more appears in this one under the title “Insan- ity.”? Experts are often called in homicide cases; as, — 2. Poisons. — The. effects of different poisons, alike on the system generally and in the individual instance, applied inter- nally or externally, may be shown by expert evidence.® 8. Wounds, — when and how made, their probably mortal nature or otherwise, how they severally contributed to the death, and whatever else of the sort is within the special range of medical and surgical knowledge and skill, may be in the same way explained when pertinent to the issue.4 4, Pregnancy — may be proved by experts.® 5, Blood Stains, —or stains claimed to be such, may be ex- plained by them. And persons not experts may testify whether or not spots appeared to be from blood,® and whether or not the blood was fresh.? 6. Cause of Death. — An expert may say what, upon assumed facts, he deems the cause of the death.® 2 Kan. 419, 85 Am. D. 595; S. v. Brous- sard, 39 La. An. 671; C. v. Barnacle, 134 Mass. 215, 45 Am. R. 319; Stephenson v, S. 110 Ind. 358, 59 Am. R. 216. See S. v. Shoultz, 25 Mo. 128, 146. 1 Vol. I. § 1179. 2 Post, § 683-687. § 432 c. 3 Rex v. Long, 4 Car. & P. 398; P. v. Williams, 3 Par. Cr. 84; S. v. Cook, 17 Kan. 392; Hartung v. P. 4 Par. Cr. 319; P. v. Hartung, 4 Par. Cr. 256; Stephens v. P. 4 Par. Cr. 396; S. v. Hinkle, 6 Iowa, 380; S. v. Bowman, 80 N. C. 432; Pierson v. P. 18 Hun, 239; Siebert v. P. 143 IIL 571; Simons v. P. 150 IIl. 66. * Rumsey v. P. 19 N. ¥. 41; Curry v- S. 5 Neb. 412; Wilson v. P. 4 Par. Cr. 619; Linsday v. P. 63 N. Y. 143; 8. v. Morphy, 33 Towa, 270, 11 Am. R. 122; Davis v. S. 38 Md. 15, 43; P. v. Rogers, 13 Abb. n. 8. 370; C. v. Piper, 120 Mass. 185; Rosenbaum v. S. 33 Ala. 354; S. v. Knight, 43 Me. 11; Henry v. 8. 11 Humph. 224; P. v. Kerrains, 1 Thomp. & C. 333 ; Saunders v. 8. 37 Tex. 710; S. v. Harris, And see ante, But commonly or 63 N. C.1; Kennedy v. P. 39 N. Y. 245, Wendell v. Troy, 39 Barb. 329; Fort v. Brown, 46 Barb. 366; Anthony v. Smith, ‘4 Bosw. 503; Wood v. S. 31 Tex. Cr. 5713 Weeks v. S. 79 Ga. 36; P. v. Hare, 57 Mich. 505; S. v. Cross, 68 Iowa, 180; Hopt v. Utah, 120 U. 8. 430; Territory v. Egan, 3 Dak. 119; Everett v. S. 62 Ga. 65; P.v. Fish, 125 N. Y. 136; Batten v. S. 80 Ind. 394. 5 S.v. Smith, 32 Me. 369, 54 Am. D. 578. 6 P. v. Gonzalez, 35 N. Y. 49; C. vw. Sturtivant, 117 Mass. 122, 19 Am. R. 401; P. v. Bell, 49 Cal. 485; S. ». Knight, 43 Me. 11; Rickerson v. S. 78 Ga. 15; S. v. Robinson, 117 Mo. 649; Dillard v. S. 58 Missis. 368; Greenfield v. P. 85 N. Y. 75, 39 Am. R. 636. 7 Pp. v. Loui Tung, 90 Cal. 377. 8 §. v. Bowman, 78 N.C. 509; Shelton v. 8. 84 Tex. 662; S. v. Smith, 32 Me. 369; C. v. Livingston, 14 Grat. 592; S. v. Jones, 68 N. C. 443; S. v. Bailey, 4 La. An. 376; Carthaus v. 8. 78 Wis. 560; Ebos v. §. 34 Ark. 520; Boyle v. S. 61 Wis. 281 § 633 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. often the jury may be sufficiently informed thereof without this help.? 7. One not an Expert — may testify to what is within common observation ;? as, that an injured person’s health is failing,® that a piece of paper has the appearance of wadding from a gun, that the defendant manifested anger.® § 632. An Expert —is any person specially versed in the sub- ject under inquiry.6 Oftenest, in homicide cases, he is a prac- tising physician or surgeon; but, on many questions, chemists are equally, and, on some, more, competent.’ And in these cases there may be other experts; as, one accustomed to pre- pare corpses for burial,® one familiar with fire-arms,® one expe- rienced in comparing and judging of handwritings.” V. Other Questions of Evidence. § 633. 1. The Remaining Questions — of evidence in homicide are chiefly such as pertain equally to all offences and civil causes; not therefore for any full treatment here. 2. Res Geste.— Not only in circumstances stated in prior elucidations," but in others, it is important, where so much depends on circumstantial evidence as in most homicide cases, to lay the whole of the transaction before the jury,” together 440; S. v. Clark, 15 S.C. 403. See S. x Morgan, 95 N. C. 641; Williams v. 8. 64 Md. 384; P. v, Barker, 60 Mich. 277, 1 Am. St. 501. 1 Stafford xv. S. 55 Ga. 591. 2 Hubbard v. 8. 72 Ala. 164; Alabama Great South. Rid. v. Yarborough, 8&3 Ala. 238; S. v. Stackhouse, 24 Kan. 445; Wynne v. 8. 56 Ga. 113. See Rash v. 8. 61 Ala. 89. 3 Louisville, &c. Ry. v. Wood, 118 Ind. 544. 4 P. v. Manke, 78 N. Y. 611; Manke v. P. 17 Hun, 410. 5 §. v. Shelton, 64 Towa, 338. ® Vol. I. § 1179; Tullis v. Kidd, 12 Ala, 648; Tatum v. Mohr, 21 Ark. 349; Rowell v. Lowell, 11 Gray, 429 ; Emerson v, Lowell Gas Light Co. 6 Allen, 146, 83 Am. D. 621; New Orleans, &c. Rid. v. Allbritton, 38 Missis. 242, 75 Am. D. 98; Lush v. McDaniel, 13 Ire. 485, 57 Am. D. 566; S. v. Terrell, 12 Rich. 321; Bierce v. Stocking, 11 Gray, 174. 282 7 Hartung v. P. 4 Par. Cr. 319; S. v. Cook, 17 Kan. 392; Reg. v. Holden, 8 Car. & P. 606; S. v. Hinkle, 6 Iowa, 380; Johnson v. §. 20 Tex. Ap. 178; Soquet v. S. 72 Wis. 659; Mitchell v. S. 58 Ala. 417; S. vu. Cole, 63 Iowa, 695. 8 §. v. Moxley, 102 Mo. 374. ® Meyers v. S. 14 Tex. Ap. 35; S. vu Jones, 41 Kan. 309. 10S. v. DeGraff, 113 N. C. 688. 1 Vol. IL. § 1083-1087; ante, § 625-627. 12°C. v. Sturtivant, 117 Mass. 122, 19 Am. R. 401; O’Mara v. C. 75 Pa, 424; S. v. Testerman, 68 Mo. 408; Fernandez v. S. 4 Tex. Ap. 419; Brown v. C. 76 Pa. 319; P. v. Murphy, 45 Cal. 137; Hawkins v. S, 25 Ga. 207, 71 Am. D. 166; Hofler v. §. 16 Ark. 584; P. v. Swenson, 49 Cal. 388; Harris v. S. 53 Ga. 640; Kehoe v. C. 85 Pa. 127; P. v. Shea, 8 Cal. 538; Aaron v. 8. 31 Ga. 167; Gatlin v. §.5 Tex. Ap. 531; Ruloff v. P. 45 N. ¥Y. 213; Wynne v. S. 56 Ga. 118; C. v. Woodward, 102 Mass. 155; Russell v.C. 78 Va. 400; C.u CHAP. XXXIV.] HOMICIDE — THE EVIDENCE. § 635 with all helpful exhibits.? and the surroundings may in general be properly shown.? may be wounds not mentioned in the indictment.2 And — 3. What is done or said by a Third Person, — and his feelings toward the parties, will be competent in some circumstances, not in others, — questions depending on the general rules of evidence. # 4, That a Third Person, — in no wise connected with the defend- ant,® committed the homicide is competent.® - 5. That Suicide, — not murder, caused the death is a frequent defence. Hence when it is, a suicidal disposition may be shown.’?, Or, in proper circumstances, a declaration by the deceased of his intention to commit self-murder is admissible.® § 684. Drunkenness — of the defendant may be testified to under circumstances and with an effect explained in another connection.® § 635. A Prior Conviction for Assault,— when afterward the injured person dies of the wound within a year and a day, we have seen is not a bar to the indictment for the homicide.” Yet on a trial for the latter, the record of the former conviction is competent evidence of the fact thereof," and is conclusive of Even the condition of the ground So the unjustifiable character of the battery.” Abbott, 130 Mass. 472; Jamison v. P. 145 Ill. 357; Lewis v. S. 29 Tex. Ap. 201, 25 Am. St. 720; P. v. Hawes, 98 Cal. 648 ; Grigsby v. S. 4 Bax. 19; King v. S. 65 Missis. 576; Jeffries v. 8.9 Tex. Ap. 598; Hodge v. 8. 98 Ala. 10, 39 Am. St. 17; P. v. Pallister, 188 N. Y. 601; P. v. Parker, 137 N. Y. 535; Leeper v. S. 29 Tex. Ap. 63. 1 Thomas v. S. 67 Ga. 460; S. v. Stair, 87 Mo. 268, 56 Am. R. 449; Hodge v. S. 97 Ala. 37, 88 Am. St. 145; Davidson v. S. 135 Ind. 254; P.v. O’Brien, 78 Cal. 41; King v. 8. 13 Tex. Ap. 277; Hart v. 8. 15 Tex. Ap. 202, 49 Am. R. 188. 2 Caw v. P. 3 Neb. 357; Reg. v. Leg- gett, 8 Car. & P. 191; P. v. Johnson, 140 N. Y. 350; Watkins v. 8. 89 Ala. 82. 3 §. v. Hoyt, 13 Minn. 132. 4 Boothe v. 8.4 Tex. Ap. 202; Camp- bell v. S. 23 Ala. 44; Hackett v. P. 54 Barb. 370; Crawford v. S. 12 Ga. 142; Crookham v. S. 5 W. Va. 510; Rufer v. 8. 25 Ohio St. 464; S. v. Davis, 77 N. C. 483; Mershon c. S. 51 Ind. 14; Davis v. 8.3 Tex. Ap. 91; Newcomb v. 8. 37 Missis. 383; Walrath v. S. 8 Neb. 80; Banks v. S. 72 Ala. 522; Walker v. 8. 6 Tex. Ap. 576; S. v. Johnson, 31 La. An. 368; Alex- ander v. U.S. 138 U.S. 353; S. v. Lam- bert, 93 N. C. 618. 5 S. v. Jacobs, 107 N. C. 873. 6 S. v. Pritchett, 106 N. C. 667. 7 Boyd v. S. 14 Lea, 161. 8 C. v. Trefethen, 157 Mass. 180. Com- pare with Siebert v. P. 143 Ill. 571. See C. v.Felch, 132 Mass. 22; S. v Lentz, 45 Minn. 177. 9 New Crim. Law, I. § 397-416; S. v. White, 14 Kan. 538; Smith v. S. 4 Neb. 277; Pirtle v. S. 9 Humph. 663; S. v. Ta- tro, 50 Vt. 483; Cluck v. S. 40 Ind. 268; Achey «. S. 64 Ind. 56; McGinnis x. C. 102 Pa. 66; Armor v. §. 63 Ala. 173; C. v. Cloonen, 151 Pa, 605. 19 New Crim. Law, I. § 1059. 11 C. vy. McPike, 3 Cush. 181, 50 Am. D. 727. 12 C, v. Evans, 101 Mass. 25. 283 Compare § 637 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 636. The Name of the Deceased, we have seen, must be proved as laid,! and we have seen something of the evidence.? In one case, he was shown to have been at an inn three days. The innkeeper asked him his name, and he made answer; then letters came directed to the name thus given, and he received them; and it was ruled that the innkeeper might be permitted to state what this name was. “I think,” said Patteson, J. “it is evidence to show the.name by which he was usually known.” 8 § 637. The Combined Evidence — must cover the whole case,* and be adequate in general and as to all the parts.® with Reg. v. Morris, Law Rep.1C.C.90, 41 Tex. 530; Lilley x. S. 41°Tex. 439; 10 Cox C: C. 480. Marshall v. 8. 5 Tex. Ap. 273; Cox v. S. 1 Vol. I. § 488 (3), 681-689 b. 5 Tex. Ap. 493; Powell v. S. 3 Tex. Ap. 2 Ante, § 506-511; Rutherford v.§. 11 630; Green v. C. 83 Pa. 75; Williams v. Lea, 31. 8.3 Tex. Ap. 123; Lopez v.8. 2 Tex. Ap. 3 Rex v. Timmins, 7 Car. & P. 499. 204; P. v. Ah Kong, 49 Cal. 6; P. v. * Vol. I. § 1052-1055. Shay, 4 Par. Cr. 344; Kelsoe v. 8, 47 Ala. 5 Linsday v. P. 63 N. Y. 143; Reg. v. 573; Stiles v. S, 57 Ga. 183; P. v. San Hopkins, 8 Car. & P.591; Wilson v. S. Martin, 2 Cal. 484; Monroe v.S. 28 Tex. 43 Tex. 472; Clough v. S.7 Neb. 320; 210,76 Am. D. 58; P. v. Hartung, 4 Par. Weeden v. S. 41 Tex. 84; Garrett «. S. Cr. 256; Treadwell v. 8, 16 Tex. Ap..560, 284 CHAP. XXXV. ] HOMICIDE —- QUESTIONS OF PRACTICE. § 638 a CHAPTER XXXV. HOMICIDE, AS TO QUESTIONS OF PRACTICE. Consult — the places cited introducing c. 31; also the chapters on each particular topic in Vol. I. § 638. 1. In the First Volume — the practice is so fully con- sidered in its larger aspects that little remains for this place. 2. The County —or other locality wherein the indictment is to be brought, and the allegations and proof of it, are in that volume and in “New Criminal Law” considered both as to the general doctrine, and in a measure as to homicide in particular.} Evidence that the defendant and the deceased were in the even- ing seen together going from one county toward another, where the dead body was found, was held to show venue in the latter.? § 638 a. The Charge to the Jury —should follow the rules stated in the first volume.? Thus, it should accurately give the law of whatever degree of the offence the evidence tends to prove, but not of other degrees.t And in other particulars it should state, and correctly, all the law applicable to the indi- vidual case, as appearing in the allegations and proofs; but none which, though abstractly correct, is not applicable.® 1 Vol. I. § 45 et seq., 360 et seq.; New Crim. Law, I. § 110-117; Rex v. Helsham, -4Car. & P. 394; Rex v. Sawyer, Russ. & Ry. 294; U. 8. v. Imbert, 4 Wash. C. C. 702; S. v. Dunkley, 3 Ire. 116; Rex »v. Depardo, 1 Taunt. 26, Russ. & Ry. 134; C. v. Linton, 2 Va. Cas. 205; Reg. v. Grand Junction Ry. 3 Per. & D. 57, note, 11 A.& E. 128, note; Reg. v. Azzopardi, 1 Car. & K. 203, 2 Moody, 288; Riley v. S. 9 Humph. 646; Bauson v. Offley, 3 Salk. 38; Stoughton v. S.13 Sm. -& M. 255; Nash v. S. 2 Greene, Iowa,.286; C. v. Parker, 2 Pick. 550; Dula v. 8. 8 Yerg. 511; Rex v. De Mattos, 7 Car. & P. 458; U. 8. v. Magill, 1 Wash. C. C. 463; 8. c. nom. U. S. v. McGill, 4 Dall: 426; Reg. -v. Lewis, Dears. & B. 182,7 Cox C. C. 277; Rex v. Coombes, 1 Leach, 388, 1 East P. C. 367; Robbins v. 8. 8 Ohio St. The 131; U.S. v. Demarchi, 5 Blatch. 84; S. v. Testerman, 68 Mo. 408. 2 Beavers v. 8.58 Ind. 530. And see Riggs v. 8. 30 Missis. 635. 3 Vol. I. § 976-982 a. * Vol. I. § 980 (2) ; Hodges v. S$. 3 Tex. Ap. 470; S. v. Green, 66 Mo. 631; S. v. Wieners, 66 Mo. 13; Futch v. 8. 90 Ga. 472; P. v. Palmer, 96 Mich. 580; S. ». Lewis, 118 Mo. 79; P. v. Lee Gam, 69 Cal. 552; S. v. Simms, 71 Mo. 538; Brownell v. P. 38 Mich. 732; Clark v. C. 123 Pa 555; C. v. Crossmire, 156 Pa. 304; Lewis v. S. 90 Ga. 95; Jackson vw. 8. 88 Ga. 784; S.v. Miller, 112 N.C. 878; McKenna». P. 81N. ¥Y. 360. But see Jones v. 8. 29 Ga. 594, 5 Ante, § 604 (1); Lister v. S. 3 Tex. Ap. 17; Gladden v. S. 12 Fla. 562; S. v. Jones, 79 N. C. 630; Williams v. S. 3 285 § 642 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [Book XII. charge need not extend to what is presumed to be known equally to the jury and the court.? § 689. The Verdict :— 1. Inthe First Volume —the general law of the verdict is considered.2 And — 2. In First and Second Degrees—-of murder, we saw in a chapter just back how it should be.® 8. On a Charge of Murder, —the verdict may be for man- slaughter. * If the murder indictment sets out, as is common, assault and battery, the verdict may be only for either one of these ;5 except where prevails the common-law rule that there can be no conviction of misdemeanor on an indictment for felony.® § 640. Simply “Guilty ” — convicts the defendant of the highest degree alleged; for example, of murder.’ “Guilty of the murder of B.”® It is the same of Where there are more defend- ants than one, the verdict must, to convict one only, specify which one.® § 641, “Guilty of Manslaughter” — is probably a good verdict therefor on a murder indictment; yet a better form would be, “Not guilty of the malice aforethought alleged, but guilty of the residue of the indictment.” ” § 642.1. The Verdict is good —if its meaning can be reason- ably ascertained, and it can be legally carried into effect; otherwise, not.” 2, A Verdict contrary to Instructions, — for a less degree of the offence than the evidence proves, must be received and carried out. Tex. Ap. 316; Hodges uv. S. 3 Tex. Ap. 470; Stuart v.S.1 Bax. 178; P. v. Har- ris, 95 Mich. 87; Warren v. S. 31 Tex. Cr. 573; Calton v. Utah, 130 U. S. 88; Mc- Laughlin v. S. 10 Tex. Ap. 340; P. v. Macard, 73 Mich. 15. , 1 Flournoy v. 8. 16 Tex. 31, 32. 2 Vol. I. § 1000 a-1016. 8 Ante, § 590-596. . * New Crim. Law, I. § 794; Vol. I. § 1009; S. v. Fleming, 2 Strob. 464; Roy v. 8, 2 Kan. 405; Evans v. 8. 33 Ga. 1, 5 New Crim. Law, I. § 803. — 6 New Crim. Law, I. § 804-808, * PP. v. March, 6 Cal. 543; Vol. I. § 1005 a (2). See Revel v. S. 26 Ga, 275; Frolich v. S. 11 Ind. 213, 215; Wilson v. S. 18 Ohio, 148, 286 A new trial cannot be ordered. 8 > McGuffie v. 8. 17 Ga. 497. Upton, 1 Dev. 513. 9 §. v. Bradley, 9 Rich. 168. 10 Jordan v. S. 22 Ga, 545; Dias v. S. 7 Blackf. 20,39 Am. D. 448. And see S. v. Raines, 3 McCord, 533; S. v. Waters, 39 Me. 54. ‘ 11 Vol. I. § 1010, 1011. 12 For illustrations, see S. v. Waters, 39 Me. 54; Wall v. S. 23 Ind. 150; Beck- with v. P. 26 Ill. 500; S. v. White, 45 Towa, 325; Morman v. §. 24 Missis. 54; Short v. S. 7 Yerg. 510; Camp v. S. 25 Ga. 689; S. v Posey, 4 Strob. 108, 141; Donnelly v. S. 2 Dutcher, 463, 601; Noles v. 8. 26 Ala. 31,62 Am. D. 711; Harrall v. §. 26 Ala. 52; Noles v. S, 24 Ala. 672. 18 Jordan v. S. 22 Ga, 545. See S. v. CHAP. XXXVI] HOMICIDE — ATTEMPT. § 644 CHAPTER XXXVI. HOMICIDE, AS TO THE ATTEMPT. § 648. Introduction. 644-650. By Poisoning. 651-663. By Violence. Consult — the places cited introducing c. 31; and the chapters on ATTEMPT, and ASSAULT AND Battery. Also Dir. & F. § 549-559. § 643. 1. In the Two Chapters — just referred to there is much that would be equally appropriate here. Remaining for this chapter, — 2. How Chapter divided. — We shall consider, I. The Attempt by Poisoning; II. The Attempt by Violence. I. The Attempt by Poisoning. § 644. 1. On a Statute, — if, as commonly, the procedure is, the particular statutory words, and their construed meaning, should be carefully considered alike as to the form of the indict- ment and the proofs. Thus, the English 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 85, § 2 & 3 (now repealed, and substantially re-enacted in 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, § 11, 14), made it, in § 2, an offence to “admin- ister” to one “any poison or other destructive thing,” “with intent to commit murder;” and in § 8, to “attempt to adminis- ter” the same, with the like intent. Here the indictment and proofs were required to be different, according to the section on which the prosecution was founded. A New York statute is the same as the above § 2, yet adding, what is not in the above, “and which shall have been actually taken by such” person.? 2. The Indictment, — on the latter statute, should cover these words; yet one on the Massachusetts statute, which omits them, more nearly following the English,? need not. 1 La Beau ». P. 6 Par. Cr. 371. 2C. v. Galavan, 9 Allen, 271; C. v. Bearse, 108 Mass. 487. 287 § 645 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII § 645. 1. In Form,—the indictment on a statute like the above § 2 may charge, for example, that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant “feloniously [in a State where the offence is felony] and unlawfully did administer to one X a large quantity of a certain deadly poison! called white arsenic, to wit, two drachms of the said white arsenic,? with intent then and there and thereby feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought the said X to kill and murder.”® Under a statute like that in New York, the distinguishing words above stated should be added to these.* 2. If the Person to be Poisoned — is in doubt, Archbold recom- mends an added count “stating the intent to be to ‘ commit murder’ generally.”5 But it is believed that courts particular as to forms would not accept this. It is safer to say, “with intent to murder some person to the jurors unknown.” 8. “ Administer.” — Though the indictment, on a statute like the above English one, need not aver that the poison was taken into the stomach,’ the proofs must show it so, at least the con- trary must not appear, —its passing into the stomach being inseparable from the act of “administering.” § 4. The Hand of the Defendant — need not deliver the poison; it is the same if left for the victim to find and take, or pointed out to him, or transmitted through the agency of another,® or received and swallowed by a person other than the one for whom it was meant.’? Nor is it material whether or not the person 1 Shackleford v. S. 79 Ala. 26, 2 Ante, § 553; Dir. &F. § 139-141, 2138, 533, 714. 8 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 438, 19th ed. 706; C. v. Bearse, 108 Mass. 487; C. v. Galavan, 9 Allen, 271; Sarah v. S. 28 Missis. 267, 61 Am. D. 544; C. v. Hobbs, 140 Mass. 443. And see Madden v. S.1 Kan. 340; Johnson v. S. 90 Ga, 441. 4 La Beau v. P. 6 Par. Cr. 871. see P. v. Hartung, 4 Par. Cr.-256. pare this form with Dir. & F. § 558. 5 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev, 19th ed. 706, referring to Reg. v. Ryan, 2 Moody & R. 213. And see subsequent note. 8 Ante, § 77 (4), 82. 7 Par. 1 of this section. 8 Stat. Crimes, § 225; Rex ». Cad- man, 1 Moody, 114, Car. Crim. Law, 8d 288 And Com- ed. 237; Rex v. Harley, 4 Car. & P. 369, 371; Sumpter. v. S. 11 Fla. 247, In the above case of Rex v. Harley, Park, J. speaking of Rex v. Cadman as reported by Moody, said: “Iam inclined to think that some mistake has crept into that report. It is there stated that the judges thought the swallowing of the poison not essential; but my recollection is that the judges held just the contrary.” And Car- rington’s report accords with this recollec- tion; so does Greaves’s statement that a pardon was recommended, which other- wise would not have been. 1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 924, note. 9 Rex v. Harley, 4 Car. & P. 369; Reg. v. Michael, 2 Moody, 120, 9 Car. & P. 356 ; Reg. v. Dale, 6 Cox C. C. 14, 10 Reg. v. Michael, supra; Rex v. Lewis, 6 Car.& P. 161. “In Reg, v. Ryan, 2 CHAP. XXXVI] HOMICIDE — ATTEMPT. § 648 taking it acted voluntarily, or was induced by deception, or compelled by force.! 5. Other Instances — of administering to the same person, at other times, are in the evidence admissible to the question of intent.? § 646. 1. Doing or Attempting. — Where the statutory words are “attempt to administer,” instead of “administer,” ® an approved English form substitutes in the allegation the former words for the latter; not specifying in what the attempt con- sisted. Probably there is no English adjudication directly in point. But we have seen that in apparently analogous cases the act wherein the attempt consisted should in principle, and by the better-considered of our American decisions, be stated.® 2. An Assault —is no part of this offence, and need not be alieged.® § 647. Do or Cause. — Under the statutory words “administer or cause to be administered,” the allegation may be “adminis- tered and (not or") caused to be administered,” without render- ing the count double.® But the neater way is to frame the count on one only of the alternative phrases.® § 648. 1. Poisonous — Name. —If, on an indictment which avers the effect of the poison,!° we assume it not necessary to state the poisonous quality of attempt’ to commit murder by Moody & R. 218, however, Parke, B. after consulting Alderson, B. expressed an opinion that an indictment for causing poison to be taken by A, with intent to murder A, was not sustained by evidence showing that the poison, though taken by A, was intended for another person; and doubted the propriety of the decision in Rex v. Lewis; and accordingly, after the defendant had been convicted, he directed a fresh indictment to be pre- ferred, charging the intent to be generally ‘to commit murder;’ upon which the defendant was again tried, convicted, and sentenced. See, however, Reg. x. Smith, Dears. 559.” Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 19th ed. 706, 707. This question, it is seen, relates only to the person to be named as the intended victim. See New Crim, Law, IJ. § 741 (4). Practically, the pleader will charge it both ways. VOL. 11. —-19 the thing, still in one for an poison where the allegation is 1 Blackburn v. S. 23 Ohio St. 146, 150, 162. 2 Rex v. Mogg, 4 Car. & P. 364. 8 Ante, § 644. 4 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 440, 19th ed. 708. 5 Ante, § 87-92; post, § 651. In Ten- nessee, an indictment in the English form was sustained; but the objection here stated was not made, and it does not ap- pear to have occurred to the court. Col- lins v. 8. 8 Heisk. 14. 6 Ante, § 554 (1); Garnet v. S. 1 Tex. Ap. 605, 28 Am. R. 425; Collins v. 8. supra. 7 Vol. I. § 436, 484 (2), 585 (3), 620 (2). 8 Ben v. S. 22 Ala. 9, 58 Am. D. 234. 9 Ante, § 438. 10 Yet, for form, see ante, § 553-556. 289 § 651 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR. INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. silent as to the effect, such poisonous quality, showing a real or apparent danger,! must appear; simply to state the name of the drug does not suffice.2 But — 2. Defendant's Knowledge. —It need not be charged that the defendant knew the thing to be poisonous: so the Massachusetts court held,? and such we have seen to be the English form.* Yet this averment was in North Carolina adjudged necessary, on the ground that in the absence of such knowledge there would be no offence.5 The answer to which reasoning is, in principle, that while the premise is true, the forbidden and, injurious act set out carries with it the doer’s criminal intent prima facie ; and if he would excuse himself because of ignorance, he must bring it forward in defence. § 649, Wife as Witness. — Though this is not a case of personal violence, the same reason seems to apply; and the Irish court held that the wife may be a witness against her husband charged with giving her poison to take her life.® § 650. 1. Variance. — Probably the rule in murder by poison, permitting a different kind to be proved from that charged,?® applies also to these cases. So that on an Irish indictment for administering sugar of lead mixed with flour, where the jury in returning their verdict of guilty told the court they could not ‘determine what was the poisonous substance in the mixture, the conviction was adjudged to be right. Still, — 2. A Chemical Analysis — of the contents of the stomach is, if it may be had, practically in all cases desirable.™ II. The Attempt by Violence. § 651. 1. The Principles — governing the indictment are ex- plained in the title “Attempt.” As to particulars, — 2, Attempt to Murder by Drowning. — Under the English 7 Will. 4& 1 Vict. c. 85, § 8 (re-enacted in 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, § 14), to punish the “attempt to drown, suffocate, or strangle 1 New Crim. Law, I. § 738 et seq. 8 Rex v. Wasson, 1 Crawf. & Dix C. C. 2 Anthony v. 8. 29 Ala, 27, 29; Rex v. 197. Powles, 4 Car. & P. 571. 9 Ante, § 555. 8 C. v. Galavan, 9 Allen, 271. 10 Rex v, Shannon, Jebb, 209, See Joe 4 Ante, § 645 (1). v. 8. 6 Fla. 591, 65 Am. D..579. 5 §. v. Yarborough, 77 N. C. 524. 1 Joe v. S, supra. 6 Vol. I. § 521-525; ante, § 538 (1). 12 Ante, § 77-93. 7 Ante, § 69. 290. CHAP. XXXVI] HOMICIDE —~ ATTEMPT, § 653 any person, with intent to commit the crime of murder,” an approved form of the indictment avers that on, &ec., at, &c., the defendant, A, “feloniously and unlawfully did take one X into both the hands of him the said A, and then and there feloniously and unlawfully did cast, throw, and push the said X into a certain pond wherein there was a great quantity of water, and did thereby then and there feloniously and unlawfully attempt the said X to drown and suffocate, with intent then and there and thereby feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought the said X to kill and murder.” 4 § 652. Shooting to Murder. — Under another clause of the same statute, forbidding one to “shoot at any person,” with the like intent, the indictment might charge that on, &c., at, &c., A, the defendant, “a certain gun, then and there loaded with gun- powder and divers leaden shot, which he the said A in both his hands then and there had and held, at and against one X then and there feloniously and unlawfully did shoot, with intent,” &c., as in the last section.? § 653. Attempt to discharge Loaded Arms to Murder. — By another clause of the same statute, it is indictable to, “by drawing a trigger or in any other manner, attempt to discharge 1 Archb. Crim Pl. & Ey. 10th Lond. ed, 446, 19th ed. 709. It is perceived that the acts constituting the attempt to drown are here set out, as by the better American authority they probably ought to be. Ante, § 646. See also Dir. & F. § 558. 2 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 447, 19th ed. 709. And see Reg. »v. Brown, 10 Q. B. D. 381, 15 Cox C. C. 199. Evidence. — Archbold deems it necessary to prove that the gun was loaded in a way to do execution. Referring to Rex »v. Carr, Russ. & Ry. 377; Rex v. Kitchen, Russ. & Ry. 95; Rex v. Hughes, 5 Car. & P, 126; Rex v. Coates, 6 Car. &. P. 394. ‘This would plainly be so under the clause in our next section against discharging “Joaded arms;” since otherwise the “arms” would not be “loaded.” But under this clause, it seems in principle that nothing is required of the gun fur- ther than that the defendant did “shoot.” He continues: “ Prove, also, the intent. In Reg. v. Jones, 9 Car. & P. 258, Patte- son, J. appeared to think it doubtful whether, upon this section of the statute, it must not appear, in order to make out the intent to murder, that that intent ex- isted in the mind of the defendant at the time of the offence [that the intent must be an actual one, existing, in fact, in the mind of the prisoner, see New Crim. Law, I. § 729, 735; II. § 741], or whether it would be sufficient if it would have been murder had death ensued. He said, how- ever, that the circumstance that it would have been murder if death had ensued would be a good ground whence the jury might infer the existing intent, as every ‘man must be taken to intend the neces- sary consequences of his acts.” As to similar American statutes and the pro- cedure thereunder, see S. v. Smith, 41 La. An. 791; Whitman v. S. 17 Neb. 224; C. uv. Patrick, 80 Ky. 605; P. v. McFadden, 65 Cal. 445; P. v. Lee Kong, 95 Cal. 666, 29 Am. St. 165; Pugh v. 8. 2 Tex. Ap. 539; P. v. Raher, 92 Mich. 165, 31 Am. St. 575. 291 § 655 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII any kind of loaded arms at” one, “with the intent to murder.” Thereon the indictment may charge that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant A “did, by drawing the trigger of a certain pistol, then and there loaded with gunpowder and one leaden bullet, which said pistol the said A in his right hand then and there had and held, feloniously and unlawfully attempt to discharge the said pistol at and against one X with intent,” &c., as in the preceding forms.! § 654, Stabbing to Murder. — Under the words of the before- mentioned 7 Will. 4&1 Vict. c. 85, § 2, “stab, cut, or wound any person, with intent to commit murder,” the allegation might be that on, &c., at, &c., A, the defendant, “one X, in and upon the right side of the belly, between the short ribs of him the said X, then and there feloniously and unlawfully did stab, cut, and wound, with intent,” &c., as in the preceding forms.? § 655. A General Form of the Indictment, — under our somewhat varying American statutes, to the particular words whereof it must be made to conform, would be that, on, &c., at, &c., the defendant A did (feloniously, if a felony *) make an assault on X, or did do some other thing specified by the statute, after the 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 448, 19th ed. 710. See further as to the indictment, S. v. Young, 26 Iowa, 122; Harrison v. S. 2 Coldw. 232; Pontius v. P. 82 N. Y. 339; S. v. McDonald, 39 La. An. 959; S. v. Gainus, 86 N. C. 632; Cross v. 8. 55 Wis. 261; Douglass v. S. 26 Tex. Ap. 109. Evidence. — Archbold adds: “Prove that the defendant pre- sented a pistol or gun at X, and attempted, by pulling the trigger, to discharge it at him. Where, upon an indictment for at- tempting to discharge a gun at one, it appeared that the yun was loaded, but the jury found that it was not primed, a ma- jority of the judges considered it equiva- lent to a finding that it was not so loaded as to be capable of doing mischief by pulling the trigger, and were, therefore, of opinion that it was not loaded within . the meaning of the statute. Rex ». Carr, Russ. & Ry. 377. See Reg. v. Baker, 1 Car. & K. 254; Reg. v. James, 1 Car. & K. 530. So, if a pistol be loaded with pow- der and a bullet, but the touch-hole be plugged so that it cannot possibly be fired, 292 it is not ‘loaded arms’ within the meaning of the statute. Rex «. Harris, 5 Car. & P. 159.” As to the meaning of the term “ Loaded Arms.” see Stat. Crimes, § 322; New Crim Law, I. § 758 (2). As to the common-law offence, see Usher xv. C. 2 Duy. 394. And see March «. S. 3 Tex. Ap. 107. 2 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 449. And see C, v. Nutter, 8 Grat. 699. Archbold proceeds: “The instru: ment or means by which the wound was inflicted need not be stated; and if stated, do not confine the prosecutor to prove a wound, &c., by such means. Rex v. Briggs, 1 Moody, 318. Evidence of a stabbing only will not support an allega- tion of cutting only. Rex v. McDermott, Russ. & Ry. 356. . . . It is not necessary that the prosecutor should be cut in a vital part; for the question is not what the wound is, but what wound was in- tended. Rex 7. Hunt, 1 Moody, 98; Rex v, Griffith, 1 Car. & P. 298.” 8S. v. Yates, 21 W. Va. 761. CHAP. XXXVI.] HOMICIDE — ATTEMPT. § 657 principles pointed out under the title “Attempt,” ! with intent feloniously and of his malice aforethought to murder the said X, or with such other form of the intent as will satisfy the legisla- tive terms.? § 656. 1. The Weapon— with which the assault was made? need not be stated, unless required by the phraseology of the statute. And — 2. The Manner in which it was held — need not ordinarily be averred.? 3. Different Means, — whereby the assault was made, may be alleged in one count or several, to be determined by the terms of the statute, the particular facts, and the rules of good pleading; then, on the trial, the court will not ordinarily require any elec- tion from the prosecuting officer, but permit him to submit his whole case to the jury.® § 657. 1. “Malice Aforethought.” — If the killing meant was murder, it would be, at least, proper to charge the assault as of “malice aforethought;” for if this degree of malice did not in fact prompt it, the offence would not be assault with intent to murder. Yet the foregoing English forms do not so aver the assault, though they do the intent.® opinions, the latter, at least, require it.® 1 Ante, § 71 et seq. 2 American cases before cited to this sub-title; Montgomery v. S. 4 Tex. Ap. 140; Stewart v. S. 4 Tex. Ap. 519; S.v. Jennings, 35 Tex. 503; Greenwood v, Ss. 35 Tex. 587; Harrison v. 8. 2 Coldw. 232; S. v. O’Connor, 11 Nev. 416; Jarrell x. S. 58 Ind. 293; Cole v. 8.5 Eng. 318; Reg. v. Burgess, Leigh & C. 258; C. v. Nutter, 8 Grat. 699; Rex v. Giles, 7 How. St. Tr. 1129; McCoy v. S. 3 Eng. 451: Nixon v. P. 2 Scam. 267, 35 Am. D. 107; S. v. ‘Johnson, 9 Nev. 175; Thurmond ». S. 55 Ga. 598; S. v. Thomas, 29 La. An. 601; S. v. Greenhalgh, 24 Mo. 373; P. v. Pettit, 3 Johns. 511; Cronkhite r. S. 11 Ind. 307; S. v. O'Flaherty, 7 Nev. 153; S. v. Rode- rigas, 7 Nev. 328; Garcia v. S, 19 Tex. Ap. 389; Cupp v C. 87 Ky. 35; 8. v. Melton, 102 Mo. 683; S. v. Saylor, 6 Lea, 586; Allen v. S. 13 Tex. Ap. 28; Davis v. S. 45 Ark. 464. 3 Hines v. S. 3 Tex. Ap. 483; Payne 2. By some American is necessary.’ Others do not Practically, in the absence of distinct adjudica- 8.5 Tex. Ap. 35; Montgomery v. S. 4 Tex. Ap. 140; Harrison v. S, 2 Coldw. 232; 8. cv. McClure, 25 Mo. 338. 4 §. « MeDonald, 67 Mo. 1; Ash v. S. 56 Ga. 583; S. v. Smith, 2 Humph. 457. 5 ©. v. Creed, 8 Gray, 387 ; Southworth v. 8. 5 Conn. 325; Rex v. Towle, Russ. & Ry. 314, 2 Marshall, 466 ; Reg. v. Strange, 8 Car. & P. 172; Wilson v. S. 18 Ohio, 143; S. v. McDonald, 67 Mo. 1. 6 Ante, § 645 (1), 651-654. 7 Sarah v. S. 28 Missis. 267, 61 Am. D. 544; 8. v. Wilson, 7 Ind. 516. And see Rice xv. S. 16 Ind. 298. So, also in Georgia. §. v. Howell, 1 Ga. Decis. 158. See likewise McCoy v. 8. 3 Eng. 451; Curtis v. P. Breese, 197. 8 Kilkelly v, S. 43 Wis. 604; P. v. Pet- tit, 3 Johns. 511; S.v. Jennings, 35 Tex. 503; Harrison v. S. 2 Coldw. 232; 8S. v. Forney, 24 La. An. 191; 8. v. Phelps, 24 La. An. 493. 293 § 661 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. tions in the particular State, it is best to insert, in the indict- ment for assault to murder, the words descriptive of murder, and in the part of it declaratory of the intent. Where the crime meant is less than murder they are unnecessary.! 2. “Unlawfully” — not being required in the indictment for murder,? a fortiort it is not in this for the attempt.@ § 658, If needlessly a Battery —is alleged, not being within the statutory terms, the indictment is not consequently ill.* § 659. Variance. — Since the substance of the issue only must be proved, a charge of assault with a “basket knife” will be sustained by evidence of an assault with a basket iron; because the two weapons produce like injuries, which is the test as to variance. § 660. The Verdict —is shown in a previous chapter.? Where the particular intent alleged is not proved, it may be, guilty of simple assault, or of assault and battery.8 In some of the States, on an indictment for assault with intent to commit murder, there may be a finding of guilty of assault with intent to commit manslaughter; in others, not.2 In Wisconsin, on such an indictment, a verdict of assault with intent to maim or disfigure would be ill.” § 661. 1. The Evidence — is, in the main, considered in con- nection with that of the substantive offence.!! 2. The Intent— must be proved to have been in fact, not merely as a presumption of law, the same which is alleged.” 1§. v. Greenhalgh, 25 Mo. 373; Rob- inson ». C. 16 B. Monr. 609. And see 8. v. Moore, 65 Mo. 606. 2 Ante, § 543 (2). 8S. v. Williams, 3 Fost. N. H. 321. # Cole v. 8. 5 Eng. 318. 5 Ante, § 555, 650 (1). 8 S. v. Dame, 11 N. H. 271, 35 Am. D. 495. See C.v. ‘Walsh, 182 Mass. 8. For other questions of variance, see S. v. Mel- ton, 102 Mo. 683; Lacefield v. S. 34 Ark. 275,36 Am. R. 8; P. v. Raher, 92 Mich. 165, 81 Am. St. 575; McGehee v S. 62 Missis. 772, 52 Am. R. 209. 7 Ante, § 640-642; Wilson r. 8. 62 Ga. 167, 8 New Crim. Law, I. § 794, 795; Foley v. 8.9 Ind. 863; Reynolds v. S. 11 Tex. 120; S. v. Scannell, 39 Me. 68; S. »v. Burns, 8 Ala. 313; Mooney v. S. 33 Ala, 294 419; Johnson v. S. 17 Tex. 515; S. v. Bowling, 10 Humph. 52; P. v. Vanard, 6 Cal. 562; Whilden v. S. 25 Ga. 396, 71 Am. D. 181. 9 §. v. White, 45 Iowa, 325; Jarrell v. S. 58 Ind. 293; S. v. Connor, 59 Iowa, 357, 44 Am. R. 686. And see S. v. Phin- ney, 42 Me. 384. Second Jeopardy. — Where there can be no conviction for the minor offence, an acquittal of the higher will not bar a fresh indictment for the lower. S. ». Wightman, 26 Mo. 515. 10 Kilkelly v. 8. 43 Wis. 604. And see Long v. 8, 46 Ind. 582. 1 Ante, § 597 et seq. As to what is adequate for a conviction, see Tatum 7. S. 59 Ga. 638; Madden v. S. 58 Ga. 563. And see P, v. Keefer, 18 Cal. 636; Mur- ray v. S. 36 Tex. 642. 1 New Crim. Law, I. § 735 (2), 736 (1); CHAP. XXXV1.] HOMICIDE — ATTEMPT. § 663 Yet practically a third person cannot directly swear to it,! so the jury will infer it from any appropriate evidence.? § 662. Proof of Another Fight — between the same parties will be admissible if both are so connected that the one is of the res geste of the other; otherwise, not. The length of the interval between the two is immaterial. In one case, where, under special circumstances, it was but a half hour, the evidence was ‘rejected ;* in another, where it was two years.® But doubtless there may be instances justifying the contrary result, though the interval is even greater than the longer of these periods. § 663. In Conclusion, — the practitioner should bring before him the general rules, the statutes of his own State, and the practice special to his own court, then shape his prosecution or defence, not by the demands of one, but of all combined. Gilbert v. S. 90 Ga. 691; Davis v. S. 15 Tex. Ap. 475; Hudgins v. S. 61 Ga. 182; Ala. 29; Sullivan v. S. 31 Tex. Cr. 486, 37 Am. St. 826; Yanke v. S. 51 Wis. 464; Scott v. S.49 Ark. 156; Chrisman v. S. 54 Ark. 283, 26 Am. St. 44; Friede- rich v. P. 147 IIL. 310. 1 Drake v S. 29 Tex. Ap. 265. ° Vol. I. § 1101; Revels v. S. 38 Fla. 308; S. v. Hickam, 95 Mo. 322, 6 Am. St. 54; Bateman v. S. 64 Missis. 238; S. v. Sanders, 106 Mo. 188; Henderson wv. 8. 70 ‘Walker v. S.85 Ala 7,7 Am. St. 17; P. v. Niles, 44 Mich. 606; McGuire v. S. 10 Tex. Ap. 125. 3 Ante, § 625. 4 Whilden v. S. 25 Ga.396,398, 71 Am. D. 181. 5 Hatcher v. §..18 Ga. 460. For HORSE RACING, see Stat. Crimes. HORSE STEALING, see Stat. Crimes; also Larceny. HOUSE-BREAKING, see BURGLARY AND OTHER BREAKINGS. HOUSE-BURNING, see Arson. HOUSE, DISORDERLY, see Disorperty Howse. HOUSE OF ILL-FAME, see Bawpy Hovsz. ILLEGAL MEETING, see UnLaAwFuL AssEMBLY, IMPRISONMENT, FALSE, see FatsE ImprisonMENT. INCEST, see Stat. Crimes. INDECENT EXPOSURE, see Exposure oF Person. 295 § 666 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. CHAPTER XXXVI. INSANITY IN DEFENCE, § 664,665. Introduction. 666-668, Practice on Preliminary Inquiry. 669-675. Presumptions and Burden of Proof on Main Issue. 676-687 b. Witnesses, their Testimony, and other Evidence. Consult, — for the law of insanity, New Crim. Law, I. § 374-396. For forms in setting it up in defence, Dir. & F. § 1061-1063. § 664. Insanity — will either exempt the defendant from being tried,1 or, on the trial, rebut the charge of guilt. § 665. How Chapter dividea.— We shall consider, I. The Practice on the Preliminary Inquiry; II. The Presumptions and Burden of Proof on the Main Issue; JII. The Witnesses, their Testimony, and the other Evidence. I. The Practice on the Preliminary Inquiry. § 666. 1. Counsel. — Present insanity implies a disability to employ, control, or discharge counsel. And the doctrine is believed to be that when the court sees a reasonable ground to institute or persevere in this defence, it will take care that the prisoner has suitable counsel therein, whom it will not permit ‘him to reject, restrain, or dismiss.” 2, When and How. — An insane man cannot even plead to an indictment ;* therefore, if, at the arraignment, counsel have reason to suppose their client too insane to take his trial, they should then make the objection, which, it is believed, can be adequately done orally to the court. Or the objection may ..proceed from a third person on affidavit.6 Or the court may 1 Vol. I. § 950c; New Crim. Law, I. 8 1 Hale P. C, 34, 35; C. » Braley, 1 § 396; Taylor v. C. 109 Pa. 262; S. v. Mass. 103. Reed, 41 La. An. 581; Reg. v. Keary, 14 * Reg. v. Southey, 4 Fost. & F. 864; Cox C. C.143; Green v. S. 88 Tenn. 634. Reg. v. Turton, 6 Cox C. C. 385. 2 Vol. J. § 303; Rex v. Frith, 22 How. 5 Guagando v. S. 41 Tex. 626. St. Tr. 307; P. v. Goldenson, 76 Cal, 828; ; Reg. v. Pearce, 9 Car. & P. 667. 296 CHAP, XXXVII.] INSANITY IN DEFENCE. § 667 take it on its own observations.! It is not technically too late at any subsequent stage of the cause, prior to the commencement of the trial.2 When the trial has begun, there are obvious reasons against stopping it; and it is, at least, within the dis- cretion of the court to let it proceed, and submit the two issues to the jury together. , 3. How tried. — This question of present insanity is properly, and in practice is generally, submitted to a jury;* which may be either one of the regular juries attending on the court, or one specially impanelled for the purpose. But this course is not imperative; the court has the discretion, on its own inspection of: the prisoner’s mental condition, and without the aid of a jury’s finding, to decline the trial on the main issue, or direct the question to be tried with the plea of not guilty.§ § 667. 1. The Time —to which this inquiry relates is, it is perceived, the present, — what is the mental condition now, not what it was when the offence was committed. And — 2. The Test of Insanity — is not precisely the same as on the 1 Rex v. Frith, 22 How. St. Tr. 307, 311; Reg. v. Whitfield, 3 Car. & K. 121; Rex v. Pritchard, 7 Car. & P. 303; Kexv. Dyson, 7 Car. & P. 305. See C. v. Bra- ley, 1 Mass. 103; C. v. Meriam, 7 Mass. 168; Green v. S. 88 Tenn. 634. 21 Hale P. C. 35; Freeman v. P. 4 Denio, 9. 3 Reg. v. Southey, supra. And see Reg. v. Berry, 1 Q. B. D. 447. After Conviction, — the inquiry as to insanity is not too late; for there can be neither sentence nor any other step against a man while insane. Bonds v. 8. Mart. & Yerg. 142,17 Am. D. 795; C. v. Buccieri, 153 Pa. 535, 570; Ex rel. Chandler, 45 La. An, 696; S. v. Reed, 41 La. An. 581; S. v. Hebert, 39 La. An. 319. * Guagando »v. 8. 41 Tex. 626; Rex v. Frith, supra; Reg. v. Dwerryhouse, 2 Cox C. C. 446; Bonds v. S. Mart. & Yerg. 142, 17 Am. D. 795; P. v. Farrell, 31 Cal. 576; C.v. Braley, 1 Mass. 103; S. v. Har- ris, 8 Jones, N. C. 136,78 Am. TD. 272; P. v. Lake, 2 Par. Cr. 2153 Shultz +. 8, 13 Tex. 401. 5 Webber v. C. 119 Pa. 223, 4 Am. St. 634; Crocker v. S. 60 Wis. 553. When William Freeman was in 1846 tried for murder (New Crim. Law, L § 376 (4) note), the first inquiry was whether he was sufficiently sane to take his trial. See, on this and other particulars, P. v. Freeman, Hall’s Trial of Freeman. This question was submitted to a jury as the more dis- creet course; though, in point of law, it was deemed competent for the judge to adopt any other suitable method of ascer- taining the fact. Freeman v.P. 4 Denio, 9, 47 Am. D. 216. The verdict of the jury negatived the insanity ; he was tried on the merits and convicted; a new trial was granted; then, when he was about to be tried a second time on the merits, the judge visited him in his cell, and there satisfied himself of his present deranged condition, and without referring the ques- tion toa jury, or making further public inquiry, refused to try him. New Crim. Law, I. § 376 (4) note, par. 9. See also Jones v. 8. 13 Ala. 153; In re Ross, 38 La. An. 523; Marler ». S. 67 Ala. 55, 42 Am. R. 95; Hoiss v. 8,79 Wis. 513; Mc- Quinn’s Petition, 65 N. H. 84; Bennett ». S.57 Wis. 69, 46 Am, R. 26; French v. S. 85 Wis. 400, 39 Am. St. 855; P. v. Mc- Elvaine, 125 N. Y. 596; Perry v. S. 87 Ala. 30. % §. v. Arnold, 12 Iowa, 479. 297 § 669 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. main issue; it is whether the prisoner can make a rational defence. § 668. 1. The Evidence, — it seems, need not be limited by the judge within strict rules, its purpose being to enlighten a discre- tion. Thus, the prisoner may be permitted to make statements and observations to the court and the jury, and what they see and hear of him they may take into the account. He cannot challenge jurors peremptorily, but he may for cause. 2, The Hearing — may probably, if deemed best, be private.* 8. The Finding, — on this preliminary question, that the pris- oner is not insane, is not receivable against him on the trial ot the main issue.® Il. The Presumptions and Burden of Proof on the Main Issue. § 669, 1. The Indictment — does not in terms charge that the accused is of sound mind, even when on a statute having the words “of sound memory and discretion.”® For sanity,-though essential to crime, therefore necessary to be in some way alleged, is sufficiently so by mere averment of the criminal act; because it is the prima facie condition of mankind.’ Hence also, — 2. A Plea of Insanity —is not required where this defence is relied on, but it may be shown on “not guilty,” ® which in its very nature includes it. Now, — 3. This is not a Special Defence, — like, for example, a former jeopardy, wherein by all opinions the defendant takes the burden of proof.® On the other hand, — 4. A Mere Denial of Guilt — is the defendant’s contention that he was insane when he did the act; for it is simply a claim that he had not the criminal intent, which is an indispensable element in every crime.” It is the same defence as that he had 1 New Crim. Law, I. § 396; Freeman 5 Freeman v. P. 4 Denio, 9, 39,47 Am. v. P. 4 Denio, 9; Reg.v, Berry,1Q. B.D. D. 216. And see Shultz v.§. 13 Tex. 401. 447, 450; Rex v. Pritchard, 7 Car. & P. 6 Fahnestock v. S. 23 Ind. 231; Snell 303. v. 8.50 Ind. 516. For this statute, see 2 Rex v. Frith, 22 How. St. Tr. 307; New Crim. Law, II. § 724 (1). Reg. v. Goode, 7 A. & EB. 536. 7 Post, § 672, 673; Armstrong v. S. 30 8 Freeman v. P. 4 Denio, 9,47 Am. D. Fla, 170; O’Connell-. P. 87 N. Y 877,41 216. Am. R. 379. 4 Reg. v. Davies, 6 Cox ©. C. 326, 3 8 P. v. Olwell, 28 Cal. 456; Danforth Car. & K.328. And see, as to the course v. 8. 75 Ga. 614, 58 Am R. 480. of the hearing, this case and Reg v. ‘Fur- ® Vol. I. § 1048 (2). ton, 6 Cox C. C, 385. 10 New Crim, Law, I. § 375 (1), 881 (2). 298 CHAP, XXXVII.] INSANITY IN DEFENCE. § 670 hot the requisite age,! or that he acted under an innocent mis- take of fact,? or that being a wife her husband coerced her.? In other words, it is a part of the plea of not guilty to the govern- ment’s accusation. Hence, — 5, The Burden of Proof —is, in principle, not shifted from the State to the defendant. But on the whole evidence, considered in connection with the presumptions, which are equivalent to evidence, and especially the presumption of sanity, the jury should convict him if satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he did the act alleged, and that therein he was impelled by the law’s criminal intent, which he could not have been if insane. Otherwise the verdict should be not guilty.4 Especially, — 6. The Issue of Guilty or not Guilty, — which is the only issue of record, should not be treated, either by court or jury, as a collection of minor issues, of which that of sanity or insanity is one, but it should be regarded in the proofs, the same as in the record, as simply a call to the jury to say whether or not the defendant is guilty of the crime (not of being of this or that mental capacity), beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, — § 670. 1. That such is the Law,—as to the issue, burden of proof, and duty of the jury, we have thus seen to be settled in reason, in the form of the record, and our embodied criminal procedure. If, under this minor head of the defence of in- sanity, there are judicial utterances or decisions contrary to what is just stated, they are contradictory to fundamental doctrine; and we saw, a little way back, that a contradiction in the law cannot stand.* Still, it will be helpful to the reader, in the midst of a maze of conflicting things, to see something of the judicial utterances and decisions, and be referred to the cases. 2. That the Burden of Proof shifts —is widely maintained in one or the other of two forms, either that nominally the burden is cast on one who sets up insanity in defence to prove it as a separate issue, or else to overcome in this manner the law’s presumption of sanity; though the evidence, it is conceded, may 1 New Crim. Law, I. § 367 et seq. 5 Vol. 1.§ 1049-1051, 1093, 1095. where 2 Tb. § 801-310. the rule, as embodied in our general crimi- 3 Tb. § 362 et seq. nal law, is carefully stated. And see 4 Vol. I. § 1048-1051; ante, § 599; Hornish v, P. 142 Til. 620. post, § 673. 6 Ante, § 585 (2), 587 (1). 299 § 672 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII come as well from the government’s witnesses as from his own.! But — § 671. Weight of Evidence. — Assuming the burden to be thus on the defendant, still, by the correct doctrine, as explained in the first volume,? a mere preponderance of the evidence over the presumption of sanity, as in civil cases, which does not exclude ‘reasonable doubt, suffices. Most of those who deem the burden thus to shift so hold;# but there are exceptional cases which seem to require defendants to establish this contention beyond a reasonable doubt,* and perhaps others which occupy a sort of middle ground between these two outer propositions;® for example, that the proofs must be simply satisfactory.® § 672. 1. The Presumption of Sanity, — the authorities properly 13Greenl. Ev. § 5; C. v. Heath, 11 Gray, 303, a case of idiocy, the court re- serving the question whether the same rule would apply in a case of insanity proper ; Newcomb ». S. 37 Missis. 383 ; P. v. Robinson, 1 Par. Cr. 649; 8. v. Brin- yea, 5, Ala. 241; S. v. McCoy, 34 Mo. 531, 86 Am. D. 121; P. v. Myers, 20 Cal. 518; P. v. Coffman, 24 Cal. 230; Boswell ev. C. 20 Grat. 860, 875; S. v. Klinger, 43 Mo. 127; Bergin v. 8. 31 Ohio St. 111; P.v. Bell, 49 Cal. 485 ; Humphreys v. S. 45 Ga. 190,192; Lynch uv. C. 77 Pa, 205; S. v. Lawrence, 57 Me. 574; Bond v. 8. 23 Ohio St. 349; Reg. v. Layton, 4 Cox C.C, 149; Reg. v. Stokes, 3 Car.,& K.185; Mc- Kenzie v. S. 26 Ark. 334; 8.v, Felter, 32 Jowa, 49; S.v, Hundley, 46 Mo. 414; 8S. v. Coleman, 27 La. An. 691; S. v. Brown, 12 Minn. 538; S. cv. Stickley, 41 Iowa, 232; S. v. Redemeier, 71 Mo, 173, 836 Am. R. 462; Mendiola v. S. 18 Tex. Ap, 462; P. v. Walter, 1 Idaho, n. 8. 386; S. v. Hoyt, 46 Conn. 330; S. v. Coleman, 20S. C. 441; Baccigalupo ». C. 38 Grat. 807, 36 Am. R. 795. In civil cases, the doctrine is very clearly so. Van Dusen v. Van Dusen, 5 Johns. 144; Cadwell v. King, 4 Cow. 207; Armstrong v. Timmons, 3 Harring. Del. 342; Burton v. Scott, 3 Rand. 399; Myatt v. Walker, 44 Tll. 485. 2 Vol. I. § 1095, ® Carter v. S. 56 Ga. 463; S. ». Hund- ley, 46 Mo. 414, 417; P. v. Wilson, 49 Cal. 13; S. v. Felter, 32 Towa, 49; Bond v. §. 23 Ohio, St. 349, 357; Meyers » C. 83 Pa. 131; P.v. Bell, 49 Cal. 485; S. uv. 300 Strauder, 11 W. Va. 745, 823; Bergin v. S. 31 Ohio St, 111; Pannell v. C. 86 Pa. 260; P.v. McCann, 16 N. Y. 58, 62,69 Am. D. 642; P. v. Myers, 20 Cal. 518; S. v, Klinger, 43 Mo. 127; C. v. Rogers, 7 Met. 500, 41 Am. D. 458; S. v. McCoy, 34 Mo. 531, 536, 86 Am. D. 121; S. v. Starling, 6 Jones, N. C. 366; P. v. Coffman, 24 Cal. 230, 237; Coates v. S. 50 Ark. 330; P. v. Messersmith, 61 Cal. 246; C, v. Gerade, 145 Pa. 289, 27 Am. St. 689; P. v. Ward, 105 Cal. 335; Lovegrove v. S, 31 Tex. Cr. 491; Parsons v. S. 81 Ala. 577, 60 Am. R. 193; Bolling v. 8.54 Ark. 588; Fisher v. 8. 30 Tex. Ap. 502; S. v. Paulk, 18 S. C. 514; S.c. Trout, 74 Iowa, 545, 7 Am. St. 499; S. uv. Grear, 29 Minn. 221; Gunter v. 8. 83 Ala. 96; Williams v. S. 50 Ark. 511; Rather v. S. 25 Tex. Ap. 623; S. v. Potts, 100 N. C. 457; S. v. Williamson, 106 Mo. 162; S. v. Lewis, 20 Nev. 383; S. v. Alex- ander, 30 S. C. 74. : 4S. v. Spencer, 1 Zab. 196; Danforth v. 8. 75 Ga. 614,58 Am. R. 480. In P. v. Schryver, 42 N. Y. 1, 1 Am. R. 480, are stated, and overruled, cases in which it was so held. 5 S. v. Brinyea, 5 Ala. 241; S. v. Mar- ler, 2 Ala. 43, 36 Am. D. 398; S. v. Hut- ing, 21 Mo. 464; McNaghten’s Case, 10 Cl. & F. 200; P. v. Hamilton, 62 Cal. 377; 8. v. Payne, 86 N. C. 609. And see Smith v. 8.19 Tex. Ap. 95,111; Johnson v, S.10 Tex. Ap. 571. 6 §. v, Harrigan, 9 Houst. 869; C. v. Woodley, 166 Pa, 463. CHAP. XXXVII.] INSANITY IN DEFENCE. § 673 ‘ agree, in some way, attends the proven acts of the defendant so as to create against him a prima facie case.1 Hence, — 2, The Defendant must prove — the insanity on which he relies,? —a proposition not necessarily the same as that the burden of proof shifts to him. The difference, not stated in quite uniform terms in the cases, is, on the whole, this: when the burden is said to shift to the defendant,’ the meaning is that he must prove the insanity as an issue distinct from not guilty, and as a separate question; the jury, to acquit, being obliged to find affirmatively that the defendant was insane, though it is admitted the finding need not appear thus formally in the verdict. On the other side, — § 673. 1. Burden on State — Presumption. — The doctrine of principle,* sustained by a large part of our courts, and rapidly becoming general, is that, as the pleadings inform us, insanity is uot an issue by itself, to be passed on separately from the. other issues, but, like any other matter in rebuttal, it is involved in the plea of not guilty, upon which the burden of proof is on the prosecuting power;® the jury to convict or not according as, on the whole showing, they are satisfied or not, beyond a rea- sonable doubt, of the defendant’s guilt.6 Of course, — 2. This Major Proposition — covers the minor ones within it,? —the degree of the offence,® the sanity of the offender,? the doing of the overt act, and all the rest. But it is not the same as to detach a single item from the general issue," and tell the 1 Graham v. C. 16 B. Monr. 587; U.S. P.4 Neb. 407; S. v. Smith, 53 Mo. 267: v. McGlue, 1 Curt. C.C.1; 8. v. Starling, S. v. Crawford, 11 Kan. 32; Westmore- 6 Jones, N. C. 366; Webb v. S.5 Tex. Ap. land. S. 45 Ga. 225; Hornish ». P. 142 596; U.S. vc. Holmes, 1 Clif. 98; McKen- zie v. S. 26 Ark. 334; Humphreys v. S. 45 Ga. 190, 192; P. v. Kirby, 2 Par. Cr. 28; Walter v. P. 32 N. Y. 147, 164; C. v. Heath, 11 Gray, 303; Fisher v. P. 23 Ill. 283. And see the cases cited to the last two sections. 2 Cases cited ante, § 670 (2); Mc- Naghten’s Case, 10 Cl. & F. 200; S. vo. Smith, 53 Mo. 267; Ortwein 1, C. 76 Pa. 414, 18 Am. R. 420; Boswell v. C. 20 Grat. 860; S. v. Coleman, 27 La. An. 691; Baldwin v. 8.12 Mo. 223, 3 Ante, § 670 (2). 4 Ante, § 669. 5 Ante. § 669 (6). 8 Vol. I. § 1050 (2), 1051; Wright v. IIL 620. See Jamison v. P. 145 Til. 357. 7 Vol. I. § 1052-1054, 1095. 8 Vol. I. § 1095. 9 Wright v. P.4 Neb. 407, 410; S. v. Crawford, supra; Stevens v. S. 31 Ind. 485, 99 Am. D. 634; Bradley v. S. 31 Ind. 492; McFarland’s-Trial, 8 Abb. Pr. wn. s. 57,93; S. v. Bartlett, 43 N. H. 224, 80 Am. D. 154; Chase v. P. 40 Ill. 352. 1 Dove v. §. 3 Heisk. 348. UT understand that the charge of a court toa jury on a criminal trial should never be thus upon a part of the facts, or a part of the case, but always upon the entire facts and case. Vol. I § 978; ante, § 599 (3). 301 § 674 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. jury that the defendant need only create in their minds a reason- able doubt of his sanity to secure an acquittal, — a proposition which many have denied. Still, — 3. This Latter Proposition, — applied in a case where admittedly the defendant is guilty if he was not insane, does not essentially differ from the true doctrine, and it has considerable judicial approval.2. Again, — 4. Another Form of the Doctrine,— not differing essentially from this, except in being more expanded and full, is that, while the presumption of sanity must be overcome by proofs,? if such normal condition of the mind is denied to have existed in the particular instance, then, if evidence is produced in support of the denial, the jury must judge of it and its effect on the main issue of guilty or not guilty; and if, considering all the evidence, and considering the presumption that what a man does is sanely done, and suffering the evidence and the presumption to work together in their minds, they entertain a reasonable doubt whether the prisoner did the act, in a sane state of mind, they are to acquit, otherwise they are to convict. Nice though these distinctions may seem, they are believed to be the only ones consistent with a harmonious interpretation and application to this particular question, of the larger rules of criminal plead- ing, evidence, and practice.® § 674. 1. The Time —to which the insanity proved must relate, . 1 Ortwein v. C. 76 Pa. 414,18 Am. R. 420; Boswell v. C. 20 Grat. 860; Kriel v. C. 5 Bush, 362; S. v. Coleman, 27 La. An. 691; Lynch v. C. 77 Pa. 205; S. v. Strau- der, 11 W. Va. 745, 823; S. v. Huting, 21 Mo. 464; P. v. Myers, 20 Cal. 518; West- moreland v. 8, 45 Ga. 225, 280. 2S. v. Marler, 2 Ala. 48, 36 Am. D. 398; Armstrong v. 8.30 Fla. 170; Hodge v. §. 26 Fla. 11; P. e. Calton, 5 Utah, 451; S. v. Mahn, 25 Kan. 182; Brotherton v. P.75 N. Y. 159; Walker v. P. 88 N. Y. 81; S.v. Nixon, 32 Kan. 205; Armstrong v. §. 27 Fla. 366, 26 Am. St. 72; Polk »v. 8.19 Ind. 170; Bradley v. S,31 Ind. 492; McDougal v. S. 88 Ind. 24; Plake v.S, 121 Ind. 433, 16 Am. St. 408; S. v. Hanley, 34 Minn. 430, 432; O’Connell v. P. 87 N. Y. 377,41 Am. R. 379; King v. S. 91 Tenn. $17; Ballard v. 8.19 Neb. 609. 302 8 Ante, § 672; Walter v. P. 32 N. Y. 147, 164. 4 S.v, Smith, 53 Mo. 267; S.v. Klinger, 48 Mo. 127. 5 Consult observations, of Metcalf, J. in C, v. Eddy, 7 Gray, 583, 584. See also C. v. Rogers, 7 Met. 500, 506, 41 Am. D. 458; Bonfanti v. S.2 Minn. 123. Also observations of Bowen, J., in P. v. Mc- Cann, 16 N. Y. 58, 62,69 Am, D. 642; but questioned in P. v. Schryver, 42 .N. Y. 1,8,1 Am. R. 480. To the like effect, consult what Bellows, J. said in S. v. Bart- lett, 43 N. H. 224, 228-230; approved in S. v. Jones, 50 N. H. 369. For other and some conflicting opinions, see Loeffner v. S. 10 Ohio St. 598, 616; Fisher «. P. 23 IIl. 283; Hopps v. P. 31 TIl. 385, 398, 394, 83 Am. D. 231; Polk v. S. 19 Ind. 170,81 Am. D, 382; Bradley v. §. 31 Ind. 492; Chase v. P. 40 Ill 352. CHAP. XXXVII.] INSANITY IN DEFENCE. § 674 is when the act complained of was committed; it not being sufficient that the defendant.was insane before or after, if not also then.! Yet — 2. Presumptions. — In a case of permanent insanity, its exist- ence at the trial,? or at any other time after or especially before the commission of the act,’ creates the presumption that it existed also at the time of the offence.‘ Still, if the one period is very remote from the other, either the court will reject the evidence,*® or its weight with the jury will be impaired.6 And — 3. Not Permanent. — “Some species of insanity are not pre- sumed to be continuing in their nature;” to them the fore- going doctrine does not apply.? And one, for example, who sets up delirium tremens must show its existence when he did the act; there is no presumption of it from antecedent fits from which he has recovered. 1 New Crim. Law, I. § 380, 385, 396 (2); Jones v. 8.13 Ala. 153; Graham v. C. 16 B. Monr. 587; S. v. Windsor, 5 Harring. Del. 512; P. v. Kleim, Edm. Sel. Cas. 13; P. v. Divine, Edm. Sel. Cas. 594; S. v. Coleman, 27 La. An. 691. 2 Freeman». P. 4 Denio, 9,47 Am. D. 216; McAllister v. §. 17 Ala. 434, 52 Am. D. 180. 3 New Crim. Law, I. § 385; Peasleev. Robbins, 3 Met. 164; Vancev. C. 2 Va. Cas. 132; Grant v. Thompson, 4 Conn. 203,10 Am. D.119; Kinne v. Kinne, 9 Conn. 102, 21 Am. D. 732; Bryant v. Jackson, 6 Humph. 199; Webb »v. S. 5 Tex. Ap. 596; Reg. uv. Layton, 4 Cox C.C.149; S. v. Kring, 64 Mo. 591; S. v. Reddick, 7 Kan. 143; Carpenter v. Car- penter, 8 Bush, 283 ; s. v. Wilner, 40 Wis. 304; Frazer v. Frazer, 2 Del. Ch. 260; U.S. v. Holmes, 1 Clif. 98; P. v. March, 6 Cal. 543; Watson v. Anderson, 11 Ala. 43; Hendrix v. Money, 1 Bush, 306. Peaslee v. Robbins, 3 Met. 164; Dickin- son v. Barber, 9 Mass. 225. See C. uv Lynch, 3 Pittsb. 412. Some courts receive this evidence under greater restrictions when it relates to a time subsequent to that in controversy than When before. C, v. Pomeroy, 117 Mass. 143. Compare with ante, § 428, and the places there referred to. And see Kinne v. Kinne, 9 Conn. 102. It: is the same of insanity ¢ Armstrong v. Timmons, 3 Harring. Del. 342; Cadwell v. King, 4 Cow. 207; Wray v. Wray, 33 Ala. 187; Van Dusen v. Van Dusen, 5 Johns. 144; Cook » Cook, 53 Barb. 180; Emery v. Hoyt, 46 Tl. 258; Myatt v. Walker, 44 Ill. 485; Achey v. Stephens, 8 Ind. 411; Crouse v. Holman, 19 Ind. 30; Lee v. Lee, 4 McCord, 183, 17 Am. D. 722; S. v. Davis, 27 S. C. 609; Green v. 8. 88 Tenn. 614, 630; Grubb v.S. 117 Ind. 277, 285. See P. v. Smith, 57 Cal. 180; S. v. Pritchett, 106 N. C. 667. 5 C. v. Pomeroy, 117 Mass. 143; Lang- don v. P. 188 Ill. 382. And see Harden v. Hays, 14 Pa. 91; Wilkinson v. Pearson, 23 Pa. 117. But see Blackburn v. S. 23 Ohio St. 146, 165; Clinton v. Estes, 20: Ark. 216. 6 Sanchez ». P. 22 N. Y. 147; Dickin- son v. Barber, 9 Mass. 225, 6 Am. D. 58; Exum +. Canty, 34 Missis, 533. See S. v. Scott, 1 Hawks, 24. 7 Stewart v. Redditt, 3 Md. 67, 81; P. v, Francis, 38 Cal. 183; Carpenter v. Car- penter, 8 Bush, 283; S. v. De Rance, 34 La. An. 186, 44 Am. R. 426; Wagner vz. S. 116 Ind. 181. See Overall v. S. 15 Lea. 672. 8 S. v. Sewell, 3 Jones, N. C. 245. See Reg. v. Leigh, 4 Fost. & F. 915; Stuart v. 8. 1 Bax. 178; Rafferty v. P. 66 Ill. 118; Casat v.S. 40 Ark. 511; P.v. Packenham, 115 N. Y. 200; Ward v. S. 19 Tex. Ap, 303 § 675 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. caused by violent disease.! Still, liability to intermittent insanity may be relevantly shown in connection with other evidence.? § 675. 1. Showing a Cause — in operation tending to produce insanity 3— as, that the defendant had been informed of his wife’s infidelity *— does not alone raise the presumption, and- alone is inadmissible. But evidence of this sort,® or of the absence of motive to commit the proven act,® may be competent in connection with other facts. Thus, — 2, Insanity in One’s Ancestry, — standing quite alone, does not raise the presumption.’ But if it is proved by experts to be transmissible,® and probably if it is not, the fact being one of common observation known to the jury,® mental unsoundness in a blood relation!°—for example, a brother," the father,” or grandfather *— will be competent. a learned judge, “evidence of the highest character.” 14 “Tt is notin any case,” said And in general, but in reason not necessarily always, the insanity to be explained by this evidence should be of a permanent sort. It should also be of a species like that wherewith the other mem- bers of the family were afflicted.1® 664; S.v. Donovan, 61 Iowa, 369; S. v. » Hurley, 1 Houst. Crim. 28; P. v. Miles, 143 N. Y. 383. 1 Hix v, Whittemore, 4 Met. 545 ; Cor- bit v. Smith, 7 Iowa, 60, 71 Am. D. 481. As to Epilepsy, — see Guetig v.S. 63 Ind. 278; Lovegrove v. 8. 31 Tex. Cr. 491; C. v. Buccieri, 153 Pa. 535; P. v. Barber, 115 N. Y. 475; S. v. Townsend, 66 Iowa, 741; S.v. Hockett, 70 Iowa, 442; Walsh v. P. 88 N. Y. 458. 2 Reg. v. Richards, 1 Fost. & F. 87. And see Real v. P. 42 N. Y. 270 8 Carter v. 8. 56 Ga. 463; Gillespie v. Shuliberrier, 5 Jones, N. C. 157; Willis v. P. 82 N. ¥.715; P.v. Garbutt, 17 Mich. 9,97 Am. D.162. See Jumpertz v. P.21 Ill. 375. 4 Sawyer v. 8. 35 Ind. 80, 84. 5 Reg. v. Richards, 1 Fost. & F. 87; Laros v.C. 84 Pa, 200. 304 * Reg ». Layton, 4 Cox C. C. 149; Reg. uv. Vyse, 3 Fost & F. 347, 7§. v. Simms, 68 Mo. 305; Cole’s Trial, 7 Abb. Pr. nN. 8.321; Bradley v. 8. 31 Ind. 492; Snow v. Benton, 28 Ill. 306; Mather v. Whitefoot, 8 Car. & P. 270, 8 Reg. v. Tucket, 1 Cox C. C. 103. 9 Vol. I. §975 (2). “The transmission of this predisposition to insanity is matter | of general observation, and is recognized by the best medical authorities.” Thomas, J. in Baxter v. Abbott, 7 Gray, 71, 81. 0 §. v. Windsor, 5 Harring. Del. 512. See Dejarnette v. C. 75 Va. 867. 11 Pp. v. Garbutt, 17 Mich. 9, 97 Am. D. 162; Hagan v. 8.5 Bax. 615. 22 §. v. Felter, 25 Iowa, 67. 18 Reg. v. Tuckett, supra. M4 P.v, Pine, 2 Barb. 566, 572, opinion by Barculo, J. . 1 §. v. Christmas, 6 Jones, N. C. 471. 16 Tb, CHAP. XXXVIL] INSANITY IN DEFENCE. § 677 III. The Witnesses, their Testimony, and the other Evidence. Under this sub-title we shall consider — § 676. First. Opinions from Non-expert Witnesses : — Only Opinion, — we saw in the first volume, is, philosophically and truly, the testimony of a witness to what we term fact.! Yet both in legal and non-professional language we call certain classes of opinion fact, and other classes opinion; and the legal rule, to which there are exceptions, is that a witness can speak only to fact, not to his opinion.2 The exceptions proceed, a learned judge has observed, “from necessity alone,” and this species of evidence is not favored.? § 677. Opinions supplementing Facts. — One of the exceptions, spoken of in the first volume, is that the witness may supple- ment his statement of the facts leading to an opinion by the opinion itself, where, in the nature of the transaction, such facts can be but imperfectly transmitted to the minds of the jurors.* Within this exception, are questions of personal identity,® dis- tances, dimensions, quantities,® value,’ intention,’ health as 1 Vol. I. § 1073, 1096, 1177. 2 Tb. § 1177; S. v. Folwell, 14 Kan. 105; Fundy v. 8. 30 Ga. 400; Zantzinger ce. Weightman, 2 Cranch C, C. 478; Mas- sey v. Walker, 10 Ala. 288; Cooper uv. S. 23 Tex. 331; S.v. Rhoads, 29 Ohio St. 171; 8S. o. Brunetto, 13 La. An. 45 ; Jones v. Hatchett, 14 Ala. 743; Keener v. S. 18 Ga. 194, 63 Am. TD. 269; Iglehart v. Jer- negan, 16 Ill. 513; Saltmarsh v. Bower, 84 Ala. 613; Albatross v. Wayne, 16 Ohio, 513, Gregory v. Walker, 38 Ala. 26; Morehouse v. Mathews, 2 Comst. 514; Morse v. 8. 6 Conn. 9; Berry v. S. 10 Ga. 511; Lewis v. Brown, 41 Me, 448; Daniels v. Mosher, 2 Mich. 183; Sowers v. Dukes, 8 Minn. 23. 8 Selden, J. in De Witt v. Barly, 17 N. Y. 340, 351; Whittier v. Franklin, 46 N. H. 23. * Vol. IL. § 1178; S. v. Folwell, 4 Kan. 105; Lewis v. S. 49 Ala. 1; C. v. Thomp- son, 3 Dana, 301; S. v. Shinborn, 46 N. H. 497,88 Am. 1); 224; Curtis -. Chicago, &e. Ry. 18 Wis. 312; Brennan . P. 15 Il. 511; C. v. Sturtivant, 117 Mass. 122, 19 Am. R. 401; Bryan v. Walton, 20 Ga. 480; Wynne v. 8. 56 Ga. 113; Parker v. Chambers, 24 Ga. 518; Campbell v. S. 28 Ala. 44; S.v Avery, 44 N. H. 392; Gen- try v. McMinnis, 3 Dana, 382; S. v. Stick- ley, 41 Iowa, 232; Kent v. Tyson, 20 N. H. 121; McKee v. Nelson, 4 Cow. 355, 15 Am. D. 384. 5 Gentry v. McMinnis, supra; Good- wyn v. Goodwyn, 20 Ga. 600; Woodward v. 8. 4 Bax. 322. 8 Hackett v. Boston, &c. Rld. 35 N. H. 890; Woodward ». Gates, 38 Ga. 205; Detroit, &c. Rid. v. Van Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99; Eastman ve, Amoskeag Manuf. Co. 44 N. H. 143, 82 Am. TD. 201. 7 Holten v. Lake, 55 Ind. 194; Tate ». Missouri, &c. Ry. 64 Mo. 149; Carpenter v. Robinson, 1 Holmes, 67,73; Burger ™., Northern Pacific Rld. 22 Minn. 343; Tif- fany v. Lord, 65 N. Y. 310; Pennsylvania, &c. Rid. and Canal v. Bunnell, 81 Pa. 414; Ray v. 8. 50 Ala. 104; Riggins v. Brown, 12 Ga. 271; Joy v. Hopkins, 5 Denio, 84; 8 Eastwood v. P. 3 Par. Cr. 25, 56; Pierce v.S 53 Ga. 365; Stanley v. S. 26 Ala. 26. VOL. 11. — 20 805 § 679 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. appearing to the uneducated observation,’ and various other things of the like sort. Hence, — ‘$678. A Non-expert Witness, — in a criminal case wherein insanity is set up in defence, may first state what he personally knows of the party’s sayings and doings indicating insanity, then, yet not before, he may add his opinion of such party’s mental condition; and it appears to be no objection that in some degree the opinion is based on facts of such a nature that he could not transmit, them to the jury. Yet he can deliver no opinion from facts not within his own observation.2 But — § 679. Adequate Means of Observation — must have been pos- sessed by the non-expert, to render his opinion admissible ;3 it is not enough that he could testify to some relevant fact. The question of what are such adequate means is not technical; but Merrill x. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 594; Ward Thomas v. S. 40 Tex. 60; Dennis v. v, Reynolds, 32 Ala. 384; Illinois, &c. Rid. v. Van Horn, 18 Ill. 257; Ohio, &c. Rid. v. Irvin, 27 [1.178 ; Whitfield v. Whitfield, 40 Missis. 852; Harris v. Panama Rid. 3 Bosw.7. See Toledo, &c. Rid. v. Smith, 25 Ind. 288 ; Thorn v. Couchman, 28 How. Pr. 95; Sinclair v. Roush, 14 Ind. 450. 1 Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Wilkinson, 53 Ga. 535; Milton v. Rowland, 11 Ala. 732; Barker v. Coleman, 35 Ala. 221; Blackman v. Johnson, 35 Ala. 252; Ben- nett v. Fail, 26 Ala. 605; Norton v. Moore, 3 Head, 480. See McLean ev. 8. .16 Ala. 672; Bell v. Morrisett, 6 Jones, N. C. 178; Seibles 7. Blackwell, 1 McMul. 56; Wil- lis v. Quimby, 11 Fost. N. H. 485. 2 De Witt v. Barly, 17 N. Y. 340, 348; O’Brien v. P. 36 N. Y. 276; Deshon ». Merchants Bank, 8 Bosw. 461 ; Dunham’s Appeal, 27 Conn. 192, 197; Grant ». Thompson, 4 Conn. 203, 208,10 Am. D. 119; Clary v. Clary, 2 Ire. 78, 80, 81; Real v. P. 42 N. Y. 270, 282; Clapp v. Fuller- ton, 34 N. Y. 190, 195, 90 Am. D. 681; Gardiner v. Gardiner, 34 N. Y. 155; Crowe v. Peters, 63 Mo. 429; Baldwin v. S. 12 Mo. 223; Hardy v. Merrill, 56 N, H. 227, 22 Am. R. 441 (overruling Boardman v. Woodman, 47 N. H. 120, S. ». Pike, 49 N. H. 399,6 Am. R. 533, and S. v. Archer, 54 N. H. 465,468); Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Wilkinson, 53 Ga. 535 ; McClackey v. S.5 Tex. Ap. 320; Hickman », S, 38 Tex. 190; Dove » §S. 8 Heisk. 348; 306 Weekes, 51 Ga. 24; Holcomb ». S. 41 Tex. 125; Pierce v. 8. 53 Ga. 365; Pow- ell. $8.25 Ala. 21; Florey r. Florey, 24 Ala. 241; Norris v. 8. 16 Ala.776; Clark v, §. 12 Ohio, 483, 40 Am. D. 481; Wil- kinson v. Pearson, 23 Pa. 117; Baldwin v. S. 12 Misso. 223; Jerry v. Townshend, 9 Md. 145; Pelamourges v. Clark, 9 Towa, 1; White v. Bailey, 10 Mich. 155; Stack- house v. Horton, 2 McCarter, 202; Run- yan v. Price, 15 Ohio St.1, 13, 86 Am. D. 459; Farrell v. Brennan, 32 Mo. 328; Cram v. Cram, 83 Vt. 15; Mahoney v. Ashton, 4 Har. & McH. 63 ; C. v. Gerade, 145 Pa. 289, 27 Am. St. 689; Armstrong v. 8. 80 Fla. 170; Parsons v. S. 81 Ala. 577, 60 Am. R. 193; S.v Lewis, 20 Nev. 333; 8. v. Pennyman, 68 Iowa, 216; P. »v. Packenham, 115 N. Y. 200; S. v. Néew- lin, 69 Ind. 108. 3 §. uv. Potts, 100 N. C. 457; S.v. Bry- ant, 93 Mo. 273; Sage v. 8. 91 Ind. 141; Wood v. S. 58 Missis. 741; P. v. Lane, 101 Cal. 513; S. v. Hayden, 51 Vt. 296; S. v. Maier, 36 W. Va. 757; Jamison v. P. 145 Ill. 357 ; Territory v. Roberts, 9 Mont. 12; C. v. Buccieri, 153 Pa. 535; P. ve. Bor- getto, 99 Mich. 336; Upstone c. P. 109 Til. 169. 4 Florey v. Florey, 24 Ala. 241; Sut- ton v. Reagan, 5 Blackf. 217, 33 Am. D. 466. And see Jerry v. Townshend, 9 Md. 145, CHAP. XXXVIL] INSANITY IN DEFENCE. § 683 the witness must have had the opportunity of forming an accurate judgment as to the existence of the insanity, considered with reference to its supposed character or degree.! § 680. The Weight of the Evidence — with the jury will depend on a variety of circumstances. For example, “if the reasons are frivolous or inconclusive,” to employ the rather strong language of Williams, J. “the opinions of witnesses are worth nothing.”3 Yet— § 681. To the Law —a witness cannot testify,‘ and no question involving his ideas of what it is can properly be admitted. The interrogatories should be shaped to avoid this objection. § 682. Contrary to the Foregoing, — it is in two or three of our States denied that a non-professional witness to insanity can supplement his testimony to facts by his opinions.© In Massa- chusetts where this is.so, Thomas, J., after stating the practical ill workings of the rule on which the denial is founded, said: “Tf it were a new question, I should be disposed to allow every witness to give his opinion; subject to cross-examination upon the reasons upon which it is based, his degree of intelligence, and his means of observation. § 683. Secondly. 1 Powell v. S. 25 Ala. 21; Stuckey v. Bellah, 41 Ala. 700 ; ‘Townshend v. Towns- hend, 7 Gill, 10; Weems v. Weems, 19 Md. 334; Beller v. Jones, 22 Ark. 92 ; Mc- ‘Dougald v. McLean, Winst.i. 120. There are circumstances, perhaps not fully like those contemplated in the text, wherein the witness detailing a particular transac- tion, may state whether or not the party appeared rational. P. ». Taylor, 138 N.Y. 398; P. v. Wreden, 59 Cal. 392; S. »v. Erb, 74 Mo. 199. And see Nevling v. C. 98 Pa. 322. 2 And see Norris v. S. 16 Ala. 776; Emery t. Hoyt, 46 Ill. 258; Tatum v. Mohr, 21 Ark. 349; Lakev. P, 1 Par. Cr. 495, 541. 8 Kinne v. Kinne, 9 Conn. 102, 21 Am. D. 732. 4 Elder v. Ogletree, 36 Ga. 64. 5 De Witt v. Barly, 17 N. Y. 340; Runyan v. Price, 15 Ohio St. 1. See Aiman v. Stout, 42 Pa. 114; Wilkinson v. Pearson, 23 Pa. 117 ; ‘Walker v. Walker, 34 Ala. 469. 7 Experts and their Testimony : — 6 C. v. Fairbanks, 2 Allen, 511; Bax- ter v. Abbott, 7 Gray, 71; Buckminster r. Perry, 4 Mass. 593; Hathorn v. King, 8 Mass, 371, 5 Am. I). 106; C. v. Wilson, 1 Gray, 337; S. v. Coleman, 27 La. An. 691; S. v. Hays, 22 La. An. 39. See Gehrke v. 8.13 Tex. 568. Witness to Will —A subscribing witness to a will is, alike in these and the other States, an exception to the general rule. On a question of the testator’s mental condition at the time of executing it, he may give an opinion, even without prefacing it with a statement of facts. Poole v. Richardson, 3 Mass. 330; Needham v. Ide, 5 Pick. 510; Ware v. Ware, 8 Greenl. 42; Robinson v. Adams, 62 Me. 369,16 Am. R. 473; Logan r. Me- -Ginnis, 12 Pa. 27; Titlow v. Titlow, 54 Pa. 216,93 Am. D, 691; Gibson v. Gib- son, 9 Yerg. 329; Van Huss v. Rainbolt, 2 Coldw. 139. 7 Baxter v. Abbott, supra, p. 79. C.v. Brayman, 136 Mass. 438. See 307 § 685 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. 1. In the First Volume — is considered the general doctrine of: expert testimony.? . 2. Own Observation. — An expert, from his acquaintance with the party, from having attended him as physician, or from hav-: ing examined him for the purpose, may give to the jury, in con- nection with his testimony to the facts, his opinion of the mental condition.2 Like a non-expert, he must state the facts and reasons leading to the opinion.? Hearsay is not a fact; there- fore he cannot express an opinion made up in part from what was said to him out of court. So, — § 684. Hypothetical — Whether the expert testifies to his per- sonal examinations or not, and though he has not seen the prisoner, he may give the results of his professional skill to aid the jury in their verdict. His conclusions do not bind them; and should they judge differently from him, their verdict is to follow, not his opinion, but their own. Nor is any evidence of this kind essential to a conviction. § 685. 1. an Expert’s Opinion —is not admissible either to what are the facts of the case,’ or what is the law.§ His province extends merely to such questions of science or skill as, being within the sphere of knowledge special to him, are pertinent to what the jury will deem the facts, and the court adjudge the law, to be.® Yet since, at the time when he is testifying, it cannot be known what will be the jury’s view of the facts, and since the court determines what ones any given evidence tends to prove,” the expert, when the testimony is all in, may be asked 1 Vol. I. § 1179. 2 C. v. Rogers, 7 Met. 500, 41 Am. D. 458; McAllister v. 8.17 Ala. 434, 52 Am. TD. 180; In re Vanauken, 2 Stock. 186; Baxter v. Abbott, 7 Gray, 71; Lake v. P. 1 Par. Cr. 495; PY v. Lake, 2 Kern. 358; Pigg v.S. 43 Tex. 108; C. » Rich, 14 Gray, 335, 337; S. v. Felter, 25 Iowa, 67; 8S. v. Hayden, 51 Vt. 296; Taylor v. S. 83 Ga. 647; P. v. Kemmler, 119 N. Y. 580; McCann v. P. 3 Par. Cr. 272; Brown v. C. 14 Bush, 398; P. v. Sliney, 187 N. Y. 570. 8 Clark v.S 12 Ohio, 483,40 Am. D. 481; Dickenson v. Barber, 9 Mass. 225, 227,6 Am. D. 58. 4 Heald v. Thing, 45 Me. 392; Guetig vr, S. 66 Ind. 94,32 Am. R, 99. See An- derdon v. Burrows, 4 Car. & P. 210. 308 § Vol. I. 1179 (3); McAllister, v. S.17 Ala. 434, 52 Am. D. 180; Watson v, An- derson, 13 Ala. 202; Luning v. S. 1 Chand. 178,52 Am. D. 153; Westmore- Jand v. 8. 45 Ga. 225; In re Vanauken, 2 Stock. 186; Reed v. P. 1 Par. Cr. 481; P. v. Lake, 2 Kern. 358; C. v. Rogers, 7 Met. 500, 504, 41 Am. D. 458; Temple- tonv. P.6 Thomp. & C. 81, 3 Hun, 357; Wagener v. S. 116 Ind. 181; Pannell ec. C. 86 Pa. 260. 6 Reg. v. Dart, 14 Cox C.C. 143. 7 C. v, Rogers, 7 Met. 500, 505, 41 Am. TD. 458. 8 Ante, § 681; S. v Klinger, 46 Mo. 224; Walker v. Walker, 34 Ala. 469, 9 Vol. I. § 1179 (4). 19 Vol. I. § 978. CHAP. XXXVIL] INSANITY IN DEFENCE. § 685 what, assuming the existence of such and such facts which the evidence tends to prove,} was in his opinion the mental condition of the party. Strictly and in principle, this is the exact rule; but the practice will often be more or less varied to suit the convenience of the trial.2 Thus, — 2. When the Evidence is all in, — if the facts are not disputed, not if they are,* the court in its discretion will admit the expert’s opinion as to the result of the whole.6 An approved form of the question is: “You have heard all the evidence in this case — supposing the jury to be satisfied that the facts and circumstances testified to by the other witnesses are true, what is your opinion, as a medical man, of the state of the prisoner’s mind at the time of the commission of the alleged crime? Was the prisoner, in your opinion, at the time of doing the act, under any and what kind of insanity or delusion, and what would you expect would be the conduct of a person under such circum- stances ?” § 1 Champ v. C. 2 Met. Ky. 17, 27, 74 Am. D. 388; Stuart v. S. 1 Bax. 178, 189; Fairchild v. Bascomb, 35 Vt. 398. 2 See the cases cited to the last section, and the subsequent ones to this; P. v. Thurston, 2 Par. Cr. 49; Reed v. P. 1 Par. Cr. 481; McCann v. P.3 Par. Cr. 272; Spear v. Richardson, 37 N. H. 23 ; Russell v. 8. 53 Missis. 367. 3 Vol. I. § 966 (2), 966 a. 4U. S. v. McGlue,1 Curt. C. C.1; Coyle v. C. 104 Pa. 117. 5 Rex v. Searle, 1 Moody & R. 75. And see P. v. Aikin, 66 Mich. 460, 11 Am. St. 512; P. v. McElvaine, 121 N. Y. 250, 18 Am. St. 820; S. v. Coleman, 20S. C. 441; Lake v. P. 1 Par. Cr. 495. 6 §. v. Windsor, 5 Harring. Del. 512, 534;'s. Pp. C. v. Rogers, 7 Met. 500, 505. See Pannell v. C. 86 Pa. 260. 7 McNaghten’s Case, 10 Cl. & F. 200; s.c. nom. McNaughten’s Case, 1 Car. & K. 130, 136. Lord Chief Justice Tindall, in answer to the judges (see New Crim. Law, I. § 384, note), said, among the rest: “The question lastly proposed by your lordships is, — ‘Can a medical man, con- versant with the disease of insanity, who never saw the prisoner previous to the trial, but who was present during the Not as of right, but only as of favor and from con- venience, is this form of questioning admissible.” The question whole trial and the examination of all the witnesses, be asked his opinion as to the state of the prisoner’s mind at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, or his opinion whether the prisoner was con- scious at the time of doing the act that he was acting contrary to law, or whether he was laboring under any and what delusion at the time?’ In answer thereto we state to your lordships that we think: the medi- cal man, under the circumstances supposed, cannot in strictness be asked his opinion in the terms above stated ; because each of those questions involves the determination of the truth of the facts deposed to, which it is for the jury to decide, and the ques- tions are not mere questions upon a mat- ter of science, in which case such evidence is admissible. But where the facts are admitted, or not disputed, and the ques- tion becomes substantially one of science only, it may be convenient to allow the question to be put in that general form, though the same cannot be insisted on as a matter of right.” p. 135 of the report in 1Car. & K. See also P. v. Lake, 2 Kern. 358; Spear v. Richardson, 37 N. H. 23. On a trial in England before Alderson, B. and Cresswell, J. these learned persons refused to exercise the discretion thus 309 § 687 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS [BOOK XIL cannot be thus put as to a part of the evidence, the witness must have heard the whole.!_ Nor can the interrogatory be whether or not the prisoner is guilty, but what is or was his mental con- dition in respect of sanity or insanity.2. Nor, again, can he be asked whether he has doubts of the prisoner’s sanity. He is to give opinions. He may be inquired of as to the results to be deduced from such and such appearances, proved ‘by other wit- nesses.4 And on cross-examination, a considerable range of interrogation will be permitted as to what is to be inferred con- cerning the mental condition from specific facts. Also any other queries, within the principles laid down in the first. volume,® are competent. § 686. Results of Reading — Books. As seen in the first volume,® the expert may give to the jury the benefit of his knowledge derived, not only from experience, but also from books. ° Yet the books themselves cannot in strictness be read. to the jury, though this is sometimes: done in practice. 1° § 687. A Witness’s Competency as an Expert —is determined by the court. Insanity being a disease, the judges commonly admit any practising physician ; ? sometimes even an experienced spoken of and permit the question to be put. And Alderson, B. said as to this point in McNaughten’s Case: “Iam quite sure that decision was wrong. The proper mode is to ask what are the symptoms of insanity, or to take particular facts and, assuming them to be true, to ask whether they indicate insanity on the part of the prisoner. To take the course suggested is really to substitute the witness for the jury, and allow him to decide upon the whole case. The jury have the facts be- fore them, and they alone must interpret them by the general opinion of scientific men.” Reg. v. Frances, 4 Cox C. C. 57, 58. 1 P. v, Lake, supra; C. v. Rogers, 7 Met. 500. 2 P. v. Thurston, supra. v. Wright, infra. 8 Sanchez v. P. 22 N. Y. 147. 4 Rex v. Wright, Russ. & Ry. 456. And see Stephens v. P. 4 Par. Cr. 396; Perkins v. Concord Rid. 44 N. H. 223; S. v. Powell, 2 Halst. 244; Goodwin »v. S. 96 Ind. 550. And see Rex 310 5 Pp. v. Lake, supra; Clark v. 8. 12 Ohio, 483,40 Am. D. 481. 6 Vol. I. § 1179. 7 Coyle v. C. 104 Pa. 117; P. v. Os- mond, 138 N. Y. 80. 8 Vol. I. § 1180. 9S. v. Terrell, 12 Rich. 321. 10 C.v. Wilson, 1 Gray, 337, 338, where this is explained by Shaw, C. J., referring to Collier v. Simpson, 5 Car. & P. 73; Cocks v. Purday, 2 Car. & K. 269; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 440, note. See also Luning v.S, 1 Chand. 178,52 Am. D. 153; S.r. O’Brien, 7 R. I. 336. Some courts per- mit the reading. Bales v. S. 63 Ala. 30, 38; S. v. Hoyt, 46 Conn. 330. If the book is read to the jury, still they cannot take it with them when retiring to deliberate on their verdict. §. v. Gillick, 10 Iowa, 98, 101. Tullis v. Kidd, 12 Ala. 648. 2 Clark v. §.12 Ohio, 483,40 Am. D. 481; Fairchild v. Bascomb, 35 Vt. 398; 8. v. Reddick, 7 Kan. 143; Davis v. 8. 35 Ind. 496,9 Am R. 760; Heald v. Thing, 45 Me. 392; Livingston v. C. 14 Grat. 592; S. v. Felter, 25 Iowa, 67. § 687 a CHAP, XXXVIL] INSANITY IN. DEFENCE. nurse.’ And sometimes they restrict the expert to the parts of the case within the particular line of his practice; for example, permit him to give opinions founded on his own observations, but not upon hypothetical facts.? Still, as the care of the insane has of late become almost a separate branch of the profession, the testimony of physicians not specially familiar with it is comparatively of little weight. And, said a learned judge, “while the opinion of the experienced, skilful, and scientific witness, who has a competent knowledge of the facts involved in the case on which he speaks, affords essential aid to courts and juries, that of unskilful pretenders, quacks, and mounte- banks, who, at times, assume the character of experts, not unfrequently serves to becloud, and lead to erroneous con- clusions.” 4 § 687 a. Thirdly. Other Evidence : — 1. The Language and Conduct — of the party are the evidence of insanity mainly relied on. And whether they are spontaneous or feigned is a question for the jury. Beyond this, his whole nature and history may be searched to enlighten the inquiry.® 2. Into this Evidence — will enter also the question of motive,” the nature of the criminal act,’ and other considerations within the general rules of evidence.® And the State may introduce in rebuttal counter proofs of the like sort. 3. Hearsay, —or the reputation of being insane, is not admis- sible! But it has been ruled 1 Fairchild v. Bascomb, 35 Vt. 398. 2 C.v, Rich, 14 Gray, 335; Russell v. S. 53 Missis. 367. And see Hook ». Sto- vall, 26 Ga. 704; S.v. Hinkle, 6 Iowa, 380; Umerson v. Lowell Gas Light Co. 6 Al- len, 146, 83 Am. D. 621. 8 New Crim. Law, I. § 376 (4) note, par. 10; Baxter v. Abbott, 7 Gray, 71, 78; C. v. Rich, 14 Gray, 335, 336, 337. * Rice, J. in Heald v. Thing, 45 Me. 392, 398. And see the observations in C. uv. Rogers, 7 Met. 500, 41 Am. D. 458, A physician, to be competent, need not be a graduate of a medical college. New Orleans, &c. Rid. v. Allbritton, 38 Missis. 242,75 Am. D. 98. 5 S. v. Hays, 22 La. An. 39; 8. v. Cole- man, 27 La. An. 691; McKee v. P. 36 N.Y. 113; P. vo. Montgomery, 13 Abb. Pr, w. 8. 207; Mullins v. Cottrell, 41 that where the inquiry relates Missis. 291; Jamison v. P. 145 IJIl. 357; U.S. v. Sharp, Pet. C. C.118; 8. v. West, 1 Houst. Crim. 871. See McLeod v. S. 31 Tex. Cr. 331; S. v. Jones, 64 Iowa, 349; S.v. Spencer, 1 Zab. 196. A singu- lar case of successfully feigning insanity by a girl less than fourteen years old, is S.v Doherty, 2 Tenn. 80. 6 U.S. v. Guiteau, 1 Mackey, 498, 47 Am. R. 247. See P. v. Tice, 131-N. Y. 651; P. v. Mortimer, 48 Mich. 37; Web- ber v. C. 119 Pa. 223, 4 Am. St. 634; Spence ». S. 15 Lea, 539. 7 Reg. v. Vyse, 3 Fost, & F. 247, 8 Reg. v. Vyse, supra; Laros v. C. 84 Pa. 200. 2 Pp, yy. Wood, 126 N. Y. 249; P. au Smiler, 125 N. Y. 717. 1 C. », Eddy, 7 Gray, 583. l Brinkley v. S. 58 Ga. 296; Foster v. 311 § 687 6 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL to the insanity of ancestors now dead, “reputation may be shown,” 1 § 687 6. Acquitted as Insane. — Statutory proceedings for the confinement of persons acquitted because of insanity are pro- vided for in England and most of our States. As to them, a reference to a few of the cases will suffice.? Brooks, 6 Ga. 287; Walker v. S. 102 Ind. See Gaines v. New Orleans, 6 Wal. 642; 502; Ashcraft v. De Armond, 44 Iowa, Reed v. 8. 16 Ark. 499. 229; Brinkman v. Rueggesick, 71 Mo. 2 Reg. v. Stepney Union, Law Rep. 9 558; Yanke v. 8. 51 Wis. 464; P. v. Pico, Q. B. 383, 12 Cox C. C. 631; Underwood 62 Cal. 50; S.v. Hoyt, 47 Conn. 518, 36 v. P. 32 Mich. 1, 20 Am. R. 633; Bon- Am. R. 89. See Mosely v. Gordon, 16 fantiv. 8.2 Minn. 123; C.v. Meriam, 7 Ga. 384; Glover v. Millings,2 Stew. & P. Mass. 168; P. v. Griffen, Edm. Sel. Cas. 28; Mosser v. Mosser, 32 Ala. 551. ° 126. And see Ex parte Trice, 53 Ala. 1(C. v. Andrews, Trial by Davis, 134. 546. For INTOXICATING LIQUORS, Selling, &c., see Stat. Crimes. 312 CHAP, XXXVIII.] KIDNAPPING. § 691 CHAPTER XXXVIII. KIDNAPPING. Consult, — for the law of this offence, with that of the kindred False Imprison- ment, New Crim. Law, II. § 746-756a. And see the indexes to this series of books. Compare also with the title Fatsz Imprisonment, ante, § 365-368. For the indict- ment, &c., see Dir. & F. § 568-572. : § 688, Between Kidnapping and False Imprisonment — the parti- tion line is not distinct; but the former is commonly regarded as false imprisonment, aggravated by evil acts or intents the nature and extent whereof are the chief subjects of doubt.1 As to the indictment, — § 689. The Facts — should be alleged; it not being adequate to charge the defendant simply, in terms, with kidnapping.? § 690. The Forms of the Indictment —are variable. Of the two in Tremaine, one charges an assault, then a battery, then a forci- ble carrying away of the assaulted person against her will, then a transporting of her for gain beyond seas to Virginia; and, lastly, a holding of her there, in slavery. The other, with no direct allegation of assault or battery, avers that the defendants for gain conveyed and seduced a man “into a certain vessel” described, with intent to transport him beyond seas to Virginia, and there to sell-and detain him for their wicked gain, &c.4 Plainly, in strict law, the separate allegations of assault and battery and of the motive of lucre® are needless.6 But— § 691. Four Things. — Practically it is best to aver a false imprisonment,’ as consisting of assault, battery, and detention; then add, fourthly, the matter which elevates the transaction to kidnapping. Whether the latter will comprehend a transporta- tion beyond the State depends on the pleader’s view of the law.® 1 New Crim. Law, II. § 746, 750. 5 Ante, § 108 (1), 274. 2 Click v. S. 3 Tex. 282. § See Dir. & F. § 569. 3 Rex v. Allen, Trem. P. C. 216. 7 Ante, § 365. 4 Rex v. Bayly, Trem. P. C. 216. And 8 New Crim. Law, II. § 750 (4). see C. v. Turner, 3 Met. 19. 313 \ § 695 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 692. 1. On Statutes — are most indictments for kidnapping, then the special concern will be to follow the statutory terms,! whereupon the indictment will ordinarily be good. Thus, — 2. Assault.— Whether or not assault must be averred at the common law,? an indictment on a statute silent as to it need not charge it. Yet in prudence the pleader will insert this allega- tion, so as to secure a conviction for it if the evidence should fail of proving the kidnapping. This would not render the count double.® § 693. As to the County, —a case was stated in “ New Criminal Law.”® The general doctrine is explained in the first volume of this work.‘ § 694. The Inteat — sometimes, as where the person kidnapped is of immature years, may require special inquiry. The facts are for the jury. On an indictment for helping a third person to kidnap, his reputation as a kidnapper was admitted to the intent. ® § 695, 1. A Father — being indicted for kidnapping his own child committed to the mother in a decree of divorce, “proof that the child had affection for the father was rightfully rejected, as it would have no legitimate bearing upon the issue of guilty or not guilty.” 1 2, Connected with Slavery — are cases now only of illustrative importance.1! 8 Oliver v. S. 17 Ala. 587; Vol. IL. § 1101. 9S. v. Harten, 4 Harring. Del. 582. See P. x. Fick, 89 Cal. 144. 1 §. v. Farrar, 41 N. H. 58, 59, opinion 1 Hamilton v. C. 3 Pa, (P. & W.) 142; S. v. Griffin, 3 Harring Del. 559. 2 §. v. McRoberts, 4 Blackf. 178. 3 Ante, § 366, 691. 4 C. v. Turner, 3 Met. 19, 26; Whart. Prec. 2d ed. pl. 199. 5 P. v. Ah Own, 39 Cal. 604; C. uv. Nickerson, 5 Allen, 518. See C. v Wes- tervelt, 11 Philad. 461. 8S. v. Whalev, 2 Harring. Del. 538; New Crim. Law, II. § 756. 7 Vol. I. § 45 et seq.; and see particu- larly § 54-59. by Bellows, J. 48. vy. Whitaker, 3 Harring. Del. 549; S. v. Griffin, 3 Harring. Del. 559; Wheeler v. S. 23 Ga, 292; 8S. v. Harten, 4 Harring. Tel. 582; Davenport v. C. 1 Leigh, 588; S. v. Rector, 11 Misso. 29. For LABOR OFFENCES, — see New Crim. Law, and Dir. & F. 314 CHAP. XXXIX.] LARCENY — INDICTMENT. § 697 CHAPTER XXXIX. LARCENY, AS TO THE INDICTMENT, § 696. Introduction. 697-698 b. Indictment in General. 699-712. Description of Stolen Property. 713-717. Allegation of Value. 718-726. Allegation of Ownership. 727-729. Stolen Goods conveyed to Another Jurisdiction. 730-738. Indictment upon Statutes. Consult, — for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, II. § 757-904 ; Stat. Crimes, § 409-429. For the indictment, &c., Dir. & F. § 581-616. See also the indexes to this series of books. § 696. 1. This Chapter — covers only the indictment for simple larceny; leaving the evidence, practice, and compound larcenies for the three chapters next following. 2. How dividea — We shall consider, I. The Indictment in General; II. The Description of the Stolen Property; III. The Allegation of Value; IV. The Allegation of Ownership; V. The Allegations where Goods are stolen in one Jurisdiction and carried into another; VI. The Indictment upon Statutes. I. The Indictment in General. § 697. 1. The Form of the Indictment — is at common law prac- tically the same under all varying facts, and from generation to generation, having been transmitted to us from early times. It is that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant such and such articles of personal property, enumerated, with their several values, “of the goods and chattels of one X, then and there being found, feloniously did steal, take, and carry away.” ? 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. cows, &c. wherein the words felonice fura- ed. 169; Dir. & F. § 582,583. Hale says: tus fuit, cepit, are essential to the crime.” “The indictment runs vi et armis felonice 1 Hale P. C. 504. And see, for forms, S. furatus fuit, cepit et asportanit in case of v. Newton, 42 Vt. 537; S. v. Matthews, 20 dead chattels, cepit et abduxit in case of a Mo. 55; S. v. Leavitt, 66 Me. 440; Yates horse, cepit et effugavit in case of sheep, v. 8. 67 Ga. 770; S. v. Graham, 65 Iowa, 315 § 6986 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. 2. “Found,” — common in the forms, is not necessary.) And the same has been adjudged of the entire phrase “then and there being found.” ? § 698. 1. “Steal,” &c. — Properly and strictly “steal” is indis- pensable. And so perhaps, but not so certainly, is “take.” But “carry away,” “lead away,” and “drive away,” are each probably unnecessary where the word “steal” is employed; for it includes their meaning? And there are cases holding that even “steal” may be supplied by other terms conveying the same idea,t—an experiment not prudent to employ. 2. “From the Possession” — of the owner unnecessary.® § 698 a. The Ulterior Intent, — often called the animus furandi, ® is a predominant element in larceny. And in every offence the indictment must allege as well the criminal intent as the act, though not unfrequently the former is involved in the averment of the latter.’ So that in principle the foregoing form for larceny is inadequate unless the intent is sufficiently implied either in “steal” ® or in “feloniously,”® or in both. And doubt- less it should be; yet if the question were new, this solution of it would hardly bear examination. § 698 4. What is One Offence, — to be charged in one count, is considered in “ New Criminal Law.” It requires careful atten- tion, but repetitions are unnecessary. 617, And see P. v. Strong, 46 Cal. 302; P. v. Brown, 27 Cal. 500; S. v. Mann, 25 Ohio St. 668; McMullen v. 8.53 Ala, 531; Hall v. 8. 53 Ala. 634; Henry v. 8. 45 Tex. 84; Wilcox v. 8S. 45 Tex. 146; P. v. Smith, 15 Cal. 408; S. v. Hinckley, 4 Minn. 345; S. v. Jones, 7 Nev. 408; P. v. Phelps, 49 How. Pr. 437; Phelps v. P. 72 N. Y, 334; S. v. Johnson, 30 La. An. 305; Reg. v. Lyons, 9 Car. & P. 555; Wedge v. S. 7 Lea, 687; Gregg v. S. 64 Ind. 223. 1 Dir. & F. § 582. 25. v. Sparrow, N. C. Term R. 93. And see Maynard v. §. 46 Ala. 85; Sallie v. S. 89 Ala. 691; S. v. Gallimore, 7 Ire. 147; Irvin v. S. 37 Tex. 412; S. ». Mann, 25 Ohio St. 668. 8 Ante, § 697, note; In re Leddy, 11 Mich. 197; S. v. Mann, 25 Ohio St. 668. And see Spittorff 7, S. 108 Ind. 177. But see Rountree v. §. 58 Ala. 381. 316 * Damewood r. 8. 1 How. Missis. 2623 Engleman »v. 8. 2 Ind. 91,52 Am D. 494; S. vr. Lee Yan Yan, 10 Or. 865. See Wills v S 4 Blackf. 457; Musquez v. 8. 41 Tex. 226; Hallv. 8. 41 Tex. 287; Austin v. S. 42 Tex. 345. 5 Thompson ». C. 2 Va. Cas. 135. See Trafton v. S. 5 Tex. Ap. 480. § New Crim. Law, I. § 342; IT. § 758, 840-842 et seq. 7 Vol. I § 521-525. 8 Ante, § 698 (1). 9 New Crim. Law, II. § 840. 10 See S. vu. Hackett, 47 Minn. 425. "1 New Crim. Law, II. § 888; 8. 2. Wagner, 118 Mo. 626; Joslyn v. S. 128 Ind. 160, 25 Am. St. 425; Hoiles v. U.S. 3 MacAr. 370, 36 *m. R. 106; S. v. War- ren, 77 Md. 121, 39 Am. St. 401; Cooper v. 8. 79 Ind. 206; Waters x. P. 104 ILL 544; P. v. Town, 53 Mich. 488. CHAP. XXXIX.] LARCENY — INDICTMENT. § 700 II. The Description of the Stolen Property. § 699. 1. To Individualize the Transaction,! — the indictment must with reasonable certainty state what was stolen; as, it does not suffice simply to say it was the.“goods,” or “goods and chattels,” of one named. The species, or names of the articles, and their number must be given.? 2. Property. —It is customary to add “of the goods and chattels” of the person stated to be the owner;? and we have intimations that such declaring of them to be “goods and chat- tels” is essential.4 But to require it would be contrary to prin- ciple,5 and so equally it is to authority.® Hence it is not ill to say, of the “property ” of, instead of “goods” of; though not all property is the subject of larceny, while all goods are.’ Now, — § 700. 1. The Description of the Thing stolen, — assuming the value and ownership to be well laid, may be by any of such several expressions as: “One sheep,” ® “a horse,” ® “a certain mare,” “one certain hog,” # “a certain yellow and white pied beef steer, ” 12 “one cow ” (under which words the State may prove the animal’s color and description), 8 “one watch,” # “one bolt of domestic, made of cotton,” © “a parcel of oats ” 16 (a form not to be commended), “one hide,” “ “one bull ‘tongue ” (being the 1 Vol. I. § 526. 2 Tb. § 575,576; 2 East P. C. 777, 778; S. v. Longbottoms, 11 Humph. 39; Wil- liams v 8. 5 Tex. Ap. 116, 118. 3 For the form, see ante, § 697 (1). 49 East ut sup., referring to Long’s Case, Cro Eliz. 489, 490. 5 Ante, § 39, 139, 414, 415, 439. 6 Dir. & F. § 582; Reg. v. Radley, 1 Den. C. C. 450, 451, 2 Car. & K. 974, 3 Cox C. C. 460; S. v. Bayonne, 36 La. An. 761, 7 §. v, Odum, 11 Tex. 12; McBride v. C. 13 Bush, 337; Jones v. S. 51 Missis. 718. Surplusage. — If the words “ goods and chattels” are employed when the thing is not such, they may be rejected as surplusage. Eastman v. C. 4 Gray, 416, 418; Reg. v. Radley, supra; Rex v. Morris, 1 Leach, 468. 8 Rex v. Stroud, 6 Car. & P. 535; 8. v. Pollard, 53 Me. 124. ® McBride v. C. 13 Bush, 337; Wiley v. S. 3 Coldw. 862. And see P. v. Smith, 15 Cal. 408; S. v. Hill, 65 Mo. 84; Taylor v. 8. 44 Ga. 268. 10 Soria v. S. 2 Tex. Ap. 297; S. v. Friend, 47 Minn. 449. 4 Grant v. 8. 2 Tex. Ap. 163; S. v. Mansfield, 33 Tex. 129; Washington v. S. 58 Ala. 355. See Brown »v. S. 44 Ga. 800; Lavender ». S. 60 Ala. 60. 12 Robertson v.S.1 Tex. Ap. 311. And see Moore v. 8. 2 Tex. Ap. 350; Hubot- ter v. S. 32 Tex. 479; S.v. Garrett, 34 Tex. 674; Short v. S. 86 Tex. 644. 18 Johnson v. S.1 Tex. Ap. 118; P. v. Winkler, 9 Cal. 234. 14 Williams v. S. 25 Ind. 150. 16 §. vy, Odum, 11 Tex. 12. 16 §. v. Brown, 1 Dev. 137,17 Am. D. 562. So it has been held; but, contra, Reg. v. Bonner, 7 Cox C. C. 13. As to “corn in the ear,” see C. v. Pine, 2 Pa. Law Jour. Rep. 154. 17 §. vo. Dowell, 3 Gill & J. 310. 317 § 702 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. name of a peculiarly shaped ploughshare),! “one pair of buck- skin gloves” (but not proved by evidence that they were. of sheepskin),2 “a pair of pants,” “six towels,”* “fifty pounds of flour,”® “one feather bed,”® “a book.”* On the other hand, — 2. Not sufficiently Specific — has been adjudged to be the charge of stealing “meat” (thus, “one pound of meat”); because the term “applies, not only to the flesh of all animals used for food, but in a general sense to all kinds of provisions.” ® Also, “one certain trunk or chest, containing various articles of clothing, jewelry,” c&c. ;® also, “one case of merchandise;” 1 also, “ninety-three railroad tickets;”!! also, “goods and lawful money of the United States commonly called greenbacks.” 2 § 701. Sufficiently English ' — is barilla.44 § 702. The Object of the Description — of the things stolen is to individualize the transaction, and enable the court to see that they are, in law, the subjects of larceny.16 Otherwise the indictment will not, as it should, disclose a prima facie case.” Likewise, it has been said, the jury should be able to see that the articles proved are the same which the indictment mentions. 8 But this would be too strict a rule for practical use, and the cases show that it is not observed; though, of course, variance between description and proof would be fatal.29 The description should be simply such as, in connection with the other allega- 1§. v, Clark, 8 Ire. 226. Croker v. 8. 47 Ala. 53; Merwin v. P. 26 2 McGee v. 8. 4 Tex. Ap. 625. 8 §. v. Johnson, 30 La. An. 904. 4 ©. v. Lavery, 101 Mass. 207. 5 S. v. Harris, 64 N. C. 127. 6 S.v. Parker, 47 Vt.19. ‘* And? — When several articles are enumerated, the connecting “and” between them is not essential. S. v. Bartlett, 55 Me. 200. 7 §.v. Logan, 1 Misso.532; Turner v. S. 102 Ind. 425. 8 §. v. Patrick, 79 N.C. 655, 28 Am. R. 840; S. v. Morey, 2 Wis. 494, 60 Am. D. 439. 9 Potter v. S. 39 Tex. 288. See also Castello v. S. 86 Tex. 324; Stollenwerk v. 8.55 Ala. 142. 10'S. v. Dawes, 75 Me. 51. 11 McCarty v. S. 1 Wash. 377, 22 Am. St. 152. 22. §. 7. Cason, 20 La. An. 48. 318 And see Mich. 298, 12 Am. R. 814; Johnson v. S. 82 Ark. 181. “Three head of cattie,” ‘not specifying the species, has been held sufficiently certain under the California statute. P.v. Littlefield, 5 Cal. 355. But see Vol. I. § 568, 18 Vol. I. § 340 et seq. 14 C. v. James, 1 Pick. 375. 16 Ante, § 699. 16 Pp. v, Jackson, 8 Barb. 637; Reg. v. Lowrie, Law Rep. 1 C. C. 61, 65; Jones v. S. 51 Missis. 718. 17 Vol. I. § 826, 518, 519; post, § 787. 18 Vol. I. § 576; P. v. Jackson, supra. 1 Grant v. 8. 2 Tex. Ap. 163, 166; C. v. Brettun, 100 Mass. 206, 207, 97 Am. D. 95; S. v. Logan, 1 Misso. 532. 2 Post, § 710; Morgan v. S. 61 Ind. 447; Turner v. S. 3 Heisk. 452; Courtney »v. S. 8 Tex. Ap. 257. i CHAP. XXXIX,.] LARCENY — INDICTMENT. § 704 tions, will affirmatively show the defendant to be guilty, will reasonably inform him of the instance meant, and put him in a position to make the needful preparations to meet the charge. Within which rule, — § 703. Coin — should be individualized by the number of pieces and their respective denominations and kinds;! though perhaps sometimes slight modifications of this rule will be suffered.? It is good to say, “two five frank pieces, silver coin of France, of the valuc, &c. ; and seven half dollars, silver coin of the United States, of the value, &c. current? money.”* And in one case, the expression “sixty dollars of the current gold coin of the United States” was adjudged adequate, by interpret- ing it to mean sixty one-dollar gold pieces. This is pushing the rule to construe ambiguities in a way sustaining the indict- ment® quite as far as, in reason, it will bear. On the other hand, simply to state the subject of the larceny as so many dollars, or so many dollars in money, without further particu- larization, is, by all, deemed ill.? § 704, In Reason, — the description of the coins should fairly call to mind what ones they were, thus identifying them ;® but the words, particulars, images, and the like, found on them, need not be stated. Thus, in England, “two pieces of the current silver coin of the realm, called shillings, of the value of,” &c. is good, it is the common form. 1 §, v, Longbottoms, 11 Humph. 39; S. v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 845; Lord v. S. 20 N. H. 404, 51 Am. D. 231; Lavarre v. 8. 1 Tex. Ap. 685. 2 Miller v. P. 21 Hun, 443; S. v. Mon- roe, 30 La. An. 1241; Reed v. S. 88 Ala. 36; P. v. Freeman, 1 Idaho, n. s. 322. See Williams v. S. 5 Tex. Ap. 116. 8 That the word “current ” is unneces- sary, see I. v. Green, 15 Cal. 512; C. v. Gallagher, 16 Gray, 240. ‘‘ Lawful money of the United States” not necessary. P. v. Winkler, 9 Cal. 234. 4S. v. Evans, 7 Gill & J. 290. To the like effect, Barker v. S. 48 Ind. 163, fol- lowing Terry v. S. 13 Ind. 70. 5 McKane v. S. 11 Ind. 195. Of a like sort is C. v. Gallagher, 16 Gray, 240. Com- pare with Lavarre v.8.supra; P. v. Green, 15 Cal. 512. 6 Vol. I. § 510. The doctrine in these 7 §. +. Longbottoms, supra; Barton v. 8. 29 Ark. 68; Brown v. P. 29 Mich. 232; P. v. Ball, 14 Cal. 101, 73 Am. D. 631; Leftwich v. C. 20 Grat. 716. But see C. v. Gallagher, 16 Gray, 240. Contra in Ohio and Louisiana, by force of the stat- ute. McDivit v. S. 20 Ohio St. 231; S. vo. Walker, 22 La. An. 425; S. v. Shon- hausen, 26 La. An. 421; 8. ». Green, 27 La. An. 598; S.v. Carro, 26 La. An. 377. See Merwin v. P. 26 Mich. 298, 12 Am. R. 314; Grant v, S. 55 Ala. 201; Jones v. C. 13 Bush, 356; McEntee v. S. 24 Wis. 43; S. v. Kroeger, 47 Mo. 530; C. vr. (’Connell, 12 Allen, 451; S. v. Fulford, Phillips, N. C. 563; Sallie v. S. 39 Ala. 691; S. v. Evans, 15 Rich. 31; Randall v. S. 132 Ind. 539. 8 Rex v. Fry, Russ. & Ry. 482. 9 Reg. ». Radley, 1 Den. C. C. 450, 451, 2 Car, & K. 974, 3 Cox C. C. 460, 319 § 707 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. two sections assumes that the full description is or may be? known to the grand jury. But — § 705. Unknown, — Often the victim of theft cannot minutely describe the stolen coin or bills. Then, within limits not well defined, the grand jury may transfer to the indictment such a description as the witnesses can furnish, and allege that the further particulars are to them unknown.? It was good to say “sundry gold coins, current as money in this Commonwealth, of the aggregate value of twenty-nine dollars, but a more par- ticular description of which the jurors cannot give, as they have no means of knowledge.” 8 § 706. 1. Wild Animals, — As already appears,* animals tame in their natures are in the indictment designated similarly to inanimate things. But since the allegations must disclose a prima facie offence,® if the animal stolen is “fer nature, the indictment,” says East, “must show it to be dead, tame, or con- fined, in which state it may be the subject of individual prop- erty.”® Thus, — 2. To say One stole a “ Pigeon” — charges no offence; because, prima facie, the bird is wild, and is not the subject of larceny. But with the prefix “tame,” the averment will be good.? 8 “Turkey,” — though we have wild turkeys, seems to indicate the domestic fowl].8 So that “one turkey” has been accepted in allegation.® § 707. 1. “Three Eggs,” — not saying of what species, was, by Tindal, C. J. ruled to be inadequate; because “for aught that appears” they “might have been adder’s eggs, or some other species of eges which cannot be the subject of larceny.” So— 2. “Five Fish” — was dcemed fatally defective; unless some- thing were added or prefixed to indicate that they were dead, 1 Vol. I. § 549, 550. + Ante, § 700 (1). 2 Tb. § 493-495, 546-553 ; Brown v. P. 5 Ante, § 702. 29 Mich. 232; Hamilton v. S. 60 Ind. 193, 8 2 East P. C. 777; Rex v. Rough, 2 28 Am. R. 653; Lavarre v, 8.1 Tex. Ap East P. C. 607; Rex v. Hundsdon, 2 Fast 685; Ware v. 8S. 2 Tex. Ap. 547. See P.C. 611. See Reg. v. Roe, 11 Cox C.C. Carden v. 8. 89 Ala, 130. 554; Reg. v, Strange, 1 Cox C. C. 58. 3 C. v. Sawtelle, 11 Cush. 142, 143. T Reg. v. Cheafor, 2 Den. C. C. 361, 5 Cases like this are P. v. Bogart, 36 Cal. Cox C. C. 367, 15 Jur. 1065. 245; Cook v. 8. 4 Tex. Ap. 265; Dn Pois 5 New Crim. Law, IT. § 774. v. §. 50 Ala. 139; C. v. Grimes, 10 Gray, 9 S. v. Turner, 66 N. C. 618. A70, 71 Am. D. 666; S. v. Taunt, 16 Minn. 10 Reg. v. Cox, | Car. & K. 494. 109; Hart v. S. 55 Ind. 599. 320 CHAP. XXXIX.] LARCENY —INDICTMENT. § 710 reclaimed, or otherwise in a condition to be the subjects of larceny.} 3. “Eighteen Bushels of Oysters” — was adjudged sufficient; because, said Green, C. J. though they are usually classed with animals fere nature, they “do not come within the reason or operation of the rule. The owner has the same absolute prop- erty in them that he has in inanimate things or in domestic animals.” 2 § 708. Dead or Alive. — To give simply the name of the animal signifies that it is alive; and proof of a dead one will not satisfy the allegation.* It is the same of a bird; for example, partridge. * Nor, a fortiori, if the partridge is charged as dead, will proof of a live one suffice.® § 709. “Ham” — denotes the part of a dead animal; it could not be stolen out of a live one, so is good in allegation. It is the same of “boar’s head.” Said Patteson, J.: “Do you find in works on natural history that there is any living animal called a ham ?’’§ § 710. 1. Variance — must be avoided; as, — 2. “Pair of Boots,” — though not ill in itself, is not sustained by proof of the larceny of the right boot of each of two pairs.* Again, — 3. “ Bottles” of Whiskey — are not proved by a showing that the defendant filled his own bottles by drawing the liquor from casks.2 So, — 4, A “Woollen” Sheet —is one “composed wholly of wool;” and it is not proved where the warp of the article is cotton and the filling is wool.9 5. A “Plough” —is not stolen where the thing proved is only a ploughshare. 6. A “Shovel-Plough,” — being charged as stolen, and the proof being that the defendant took only the iron part, it was held 18. v. Krider, 78 N.C. 481. See Rex the text is not quite plain, yet it does not v. Hundsdon, 2 East P. C. 611. seem to overrule anything. 2 §. v. Taylor, 3 Dutcher, 117, 119, 72 * Rex v. Rough, 2 East P. C. 607. Am. D. 347, 5 Reg. v. Roe, 11 Cox C. C. 554. 3 C. v. Beaman, 8 Gray, 497; S. v. 6 Reg. r. Gallears, 1 Den. C. C. 501, 502. Jenkins, 6 Jones, N. C. 19; Rex v. Ed- 7 §. vc. Harris, 3 Harring. Del. 559. wards, Russ. & Ry. 497. If we assume 8 C. v. Gavin, 121 Mass. 54, 23 Am. R. Rex v. Puckering, 1 Moody, 242, to be 255. correctly reported, its consistency with 3 Alkenbrack v. P. 1 Denio, 80. the foregoing cases and the doctrine of 4 S. v. Cockfield, 15 Rich. 316. VoL. 11. — 21 321 § 713 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. that the jury should decide whether, according to common under- standing, the thing was a shovel-plough.!_ In like manner, — 7. A Set of New Handkerchiefs — in a piece, not separated, may be described as so many handkerchiefs, if so known in trade.? Likewise — 8. “Pounds,” —as, “fifty pounds of flour,” —jis good in alle- gation. And it is sustained by proof of quantities known also by some other name.? § 711. Variance for Court or Jury. — Thus we see that some- times jhe question of variance is submitted to the jury under instructions. In principle, it is believed to be in general properly so in this class of cases. § 712. 1. Less proved than Alleged. — Since a count may charge the larceny of more articles than one, it is not thereby made double.® Then if there is no needless entanglement in the alle- gation, it will be sustained by proof of any part of the things ® the value whereof satisfies the requirements of the law.’ Or if a part are inadequately described, there may be a conviction as to those whereof the description is sufficient.’ 2. If More Articles — are proved than are charged, the sur- plusage of proof is simply without effect. The conviction can be as broad as the allegation, but no broader.® Il]. The Allegation of Value. § 713. 1. Why and when. — This allegation is not, like the description of the property 1° and its ownership," made to identify the transaction, but to indicate the degree of criminality and the consequent punishment.” Hence it is required simply when the kind or extent of punishment depends on it,!® otherwise when it does not.! Thus, — 1 §. v. Sansom, 3 Brev. 5. Seesalso S. 6 §. v. Johnson, 8 Hill, S. C. 1. v. Moore, 11 Ire. 70; U.S. v. Hardyman, 7 Vol. I. § 4888 (2). 13 Pet. 176; U.S. v. Burroughs, 3 Me- 8 C. v. Eastman, 2 Gray, 76. Lean, 405. § Jackson v. S. 14 Ind. 327. 2 Rex v. Nibbs, 1 Moody, 25. W Ante, § 699. 8 §. ». Harris, 64 N. C. 127; Reg. v. Nl Vol. I. § 488 } (3), 581. Mansfield, Car: & M. 140. See further on 12 Tb. § 488 b (2), 540 (2), 567. this general question, Wein v. S. 14 Mo. 18 Tb. § 77 et seq.; ante, § 565 and 125; S. v. Gilbert, 13 Vt. 647, 651. places there referred to, 572; Gerard v. 4 Ante, § 460 (5); 1 Greenl. Ev. § 49, S. 10 Tex. Ap. 690; P. v. Belcher, 58 277; 2 Ib. § 490. Mich. 325. 5 S. v., Cameron, 40 Vt. 555. 1¢ Vol. I. § 540 (2), 541; S. v, Gossett, 322 CHAP. XXXIX.] LARCENY — INDICTMENT. § 714 2. Where there are Two Degrees of Larceny, — grand and petit, distinguished by the value of the things stolen,! the indictment must state the value, that the degree may appear.?2 And it is the same in all other larcenies the punishment for which depends on value. So that — 3. Rule general. — Though in modern times we have left but little of the distinction between grand and petit larceny, most of our statutes regulate the punishment for larceny by the value stolen. Hence the doctrine is often expressed in general terms that an indictment for larceny must allege the value.t But— 4, In Statutory Horse-stealings, — and other like larcenies of specific things, where the punishment in no degree depends on the value, it need not be averred;° or, if averred, it need not be proved. § 714. 1. In Form, — it is both practically best and usual to add the allegation of value to that of each specific article; or, what is the same thing, to say, if there are several articles of a kind, so many, each of the value of so much.? Thereupon, if any one is inadequately laid, or is found not to be the subject of larceny, or is not proved, the averment as to it alone may be rejected; or, if the jury do not deem the value of each to be as alleged, they may diminish any one or all in their finding; and, in any case, the proceeding will be sustained. Still, the indict- ment will be good in law if it states simply the aggregate value.® And if the proof corresponds to the allegation throughout, there may be a valid general verdict of guilty. But — 2. Practically — this alleging an aggregate value is objection- 9 Rich. 428; S. v. Chaney, 9 Rich. 438; Johnson vr. S. 29 Tex. 492; S. v. Daniels, 32 Mo. 558; P. v. Higbie, 66 Barb. 131. 1 New Crim. Law, I. § 679; II. § 884. 2 Rex v. Peel, Russ. & Ry. 407; Reg. v. Gamble, 16 M. & W. 384. The indict- ment need not otherwise designate the larceny as grand or petit. S. v. Powell, 28 La. An. 315; S. v. Lartigue, 29 La. An. 642. 3 Meyer v. 8. 4 Tex. Ap. 121. 4 Vol. I. § 541; Hope wv. C. 9 Met, 134; Wilson v. S. 1 Port. 118; C. v. Lavery, 101 Mass. 207; Boyle v. 8. 37 Tex. 359 ; C. v. Smith, 1 Mass. 245; 8. v. Wagner, 118 Mo. 626. 5 Vol. I. § 541; Stat. Crimes, § 427; Gregg v. S. 55 Ala. 116; Adams »v. C. 23 Grat. 949; Adams v. S. 60 Ala. 52; P. v Townsley, 39 Cal. 405. 8 Davis v. 8. 40 Tex. 134. 7 83 Chit. Crim. Law, 9594 et seq.; S. v. En, 10 Nev. 277. 8 Doyle v. S. 4 Tex. Ap. 253; S. v. Merrill, 44 N. H. 624. ® Doyle v. S. supra; S. v. Hart, 29 Iowa, 268; Meyer v. S. 4 Tex. Ap. 121; S. v. Murphy, 8 Blackf. 498; Clifton v. S. 5 Blackf. 224; S. v. Buck, 46 Me. 531; S. v. Hood, 51 Me. 363; S. v. Brew, 4 Wash. 95, 31 Am. St. 904; Jackson v. 8. 69 Ala. 249; S. vu. Beatty, 90 Mo. 143. W §, v. Hood, supra; Ware v. 8. 2 Tex. Ap. 547; C. v. Sawtelle, 11 Cush. 142. 323 § 716 [BOOK XII. SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. able, since it requires the proof of all as laid.1| Thus, if it is charged that the defendant stole six towels of the value of one dollar, and it is proved that he stole three of the value of fifty cents, there can be no conviction; because, for aught appearing, the grand jury deemed the unproven three to be worth the one dollar and the proven three nothing. There would remain, as to value, no allegation to support the verdict.? So, should the petit jury find the defendant guilty of stealing a particular article, not assessing its value, and not guilty of stealing the others, this would not support a judgment against him; because of the double reason that neither in the averments nor in the verdict does the value of the thing appear.2 But where the combined value is thus simply reduced, yet not below the sum required by the statute for the punishment to be inflicted,’ the verdict and judg- ment thereon will be good.6 Again, — § 715. Reasonably Certain — must be the allegation of value. It was ill to say “a receipt for one bale of cotton... of the value of,” &c.; because it does not appear whether the value meant is of the receipt or of the cotton. Of the value of “two hundred and five dollars ” suffices without the added words, “law- ful money of the United States,” which are neither necessary nor usual.” § 716. 1. Variance from Statute. — The value alleged must be not less than the statute requires to authorize the punishment sought;® no harm comes from making it more. Or if, for example, the larceny of less than twenty-five dollars in value justifies a particular punishment, a charge of stealing “one box of percussion caps of the value of twenty-five cents ” will cover the whole case,® the same as would putting the value higher. 2. In the Proofs, — if the value appears to be less than averred, it will sustain the indictment, unless it is so reduced as to call 1 Rex v. Forsyth, Russ. & Ry. 274; Thompson v. S. 43 Tex. 268; Meyer v. S. 4 Tex. Ap. 121; C.v. Lavery, 101 Mass. 207, 208, 209. 2 C. v. Lavery, supra. But see S. o. Buck, supra. See post, § 716. 3 Hope v. C. 9 Met. 134. * Post, § 716. 5 Hildreth v. P. 32 Tl. 36. On this ground we may presume C. v. Duffy, 11 Cush. 145, to have proceeded, though the 324 judge delivering the opinion did not put it in exactly this form. And see Clifton v. S. supra. 6 Williams vz. S. 44 Ala. 396. TP. v. Winkler, 9 Cal. 234. And sec P. v. Green, 15 Cal. 512; Gardner v. S. 25 Md. 146. 8 Vol. I. § 488 5 (2). 9S. v. Chambers, 2 Greene, Iowa, 308. CHAP. XXXIX.] LARCENY — INDICTMENT. § 718 for a less punishment.! Or, if the value proved is greater than charged, the allegation will be equally sustained.? So, not as supporting the averment of value, but as a finding of a part, — equivalent to not guilty of the higher charge, but guilty of a lower, included in it,?— the jury may assess a value too low to authorize the punishment sought in the indictment, whereupon the lower punishment will follow. Thus, — 3. On a Charge of Grand Larceny, — the conviction may be for petit larceny. § T17. How conclude. — That by statute the punishment varies with the value does not require the indictment to conclude against the form of the statute.5 IV. The Allegation of Ownership. § 718. 1. What and why. — As a part of the description and in identification ® of the stolen things, the indictment must name the owner,’ or excuse the omission; as, that he is unknown. 2. In Form,—it is good and common, after describing the stolen things, to add, “of the goods and chattels of ” one named ;9 or the expression may be any other of the like meaning.” We have seen that the particular words “goods and chattels” are unimportant. 4 3. Both the Christian and Surname, — even in the case of a partnership, must be given if known,’ but an addition is mere surplusage. #8 1 Vol. I. § 4886 (2), 541, 580; post § 767; C. v. McKenney, 9 Gray, 114. 2 Vol. I. § 580. 8 Vol. I. § 1009-1011. 4S. v. Bennet, 2 Tread. 693, 3 Brey. 515; post, § 769. 5 Vol. I. § 596, 597; Stat. Crimes, § 167. 6 Ante, § 699, 713; McBride v. C. 13 Bush, 337; S. v. Bell, 65 N. C. 313. 72 East P. C. 650, 778; S. v. Wood- ley, 25 Ga. 235; S. v. Dwyre, 2 Hill, 8. C. 287; S. v. Merrill, 44 N. H. 624; Reg. v. Ward, 7 Cox C. C. 421; P. v. Hanselman, 76 Cal. 460, 9 Am. St. 238; S. v. Ellis, 119 Mo. 437; Stone v. S. 12 Tex. Ap. 193; Williams v. S. 19 Tex. Ap. 409. 5 8 Vol. I. § 493 et seq., 545 et seq.; Reed v.-C. 7 Bush, 641; S. v. Bell, supra; Culberson vc. 8.2 Tex. Ap. 324; Taylor v. S. 5 Tex. Ap. 1; Thompson v. 8. 9 Tex. Ap. 301; S. v. Schatz, 71 Mo. 502. ® Ante, § 697 (1); S. v. Bartlett, 55 Me. 200; King v. S. 44 Ind. 285; Garber v. 8. 94 Ind. 219. W Dodd v. S. 10 Tex. Ap. 370; Math- ews v.S. 17 Tex. Ap. 472; P. v. Arras, 89 Cal. 223; S. v. Griffin, 79 Iowa, 568. See Maddox v. 8. 14 Tex. Ap. 447. 11 Ante, § 699. 22 Johnson v. S 59 Ala. 37; Willis v. P. 1 Scam. 399; Scott v. S. 42 Ark. 73. See Calloway v. S. 7 Tex. Ap. 585; Han- nahan v. §, 7 Tex. Ap. 664. 13 Ante, § 506 (2) and note; post, § 784; 2 East P. C. 778; C. v. Manley, 325 § 721 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. 4, Where the Name of a Corporation — is stated as owner, there need be no averment that it is a corporation. § 719. To Different Offences — somewhat differing rules as to the ownership apply. So that it is not quite safe to accept what is said under the other titles as our guides in this; but the reader may consult, as perhaps helpful, Arson,? Burglary,? Cheats and False Pretences,* Conspiracy,? Embezzlement,® Forcible Entry and Detainer,’? Forgery,® Malicious Mischief,® Receiving Stolen Goods,” and Robbery.™ § 720. 1. Some Hlection, — in the allegation of ownership, is often allowed the prosecutor; as, — 2. Where there is both a General and Special Owner, — the rule is nearly universal that the pleader may charge the goods as belonging to either, though often the convenience of making proof will suggest practical grounds for choice." For example, — 3. Goods stolen from a Common Carrier — may be laid as his, 8 or as the general owner’s. More fully, — § 721. 1. Special Ownership. — The rule is general, yet liable to be limited in the particular case, that where chattels are taken feloniously from any bailee or other special owner, 1+ — as, a common carrier, © a pawnee,!6 an agistor,” a hirer of the chattel, 8 22 Pick. 173, 174; Anonymous, 8 Mod. Smith, 1 Par. Cr. 329; Rountree ». §. 58 248; Rex v. Robinson, Holt, N. P. 595; S. v. Grant, 22 Me. 171; Rex v. Ogilvie, 2 Car. & P. 230. See S. v. Glisson, Phil- lips, N. C. 195; C. v. Parmenter, 101 Mass. 211, 213. 1 §. v. Fitzpatrick, 9 Houst. 385. See Vol. I. § 682; S.v. Bench, 68 Mo. 78. “2 Ante, § 36-39. 3 Ante, § 137-139. 4 Ante, § 173, 174. 5 Ante, § 210. 6 Ante, § 320 (2). 7 Ante, § 373, 381-386, 8 Ante, § 420-425, ® Post, § 843. 10 Post, § 983. 11 Post, § 1006. 12 Langford v. 8. 8 Tex. 115; S. 2, Fur- long, 19 Me. 225; Grant v.8. 3 Tex. Ap. 1; Gaines v. 8. 4 Tex. Ap. 330; Fore vr. 8.5 Tex. Ap. 251; Dignowitty ». S. 17 Tex. 521, 67 Am. D. 670; Billard v. S. 30 Tex. 367; S. v. Stanley, 48 Towa, 221. 18 Rex v. Trollop, J. Kel. 39; P. v. 326 Ala. 381. 14 New Crim. Law, II. § 788-793; 2 Hale P. C. 181; Reg. v. Bird, 9 Car. & P. 44; Rex v. Eastall, 2 Russ. Crimes, 3d Eng. ed. 153 ; S. v. Hardison, 75 N.C. 203; Blackburn v. 8. 44 Tex. 457; Kennedy v. S. 31 Fla. 428; S. v. Powell, 103 N. C. 424,14 Am. St. 821; Duren v. 8. 15 Tex. Ap. 624; 8.v Allen, 103 N.C. 433; Phelps v. P. 72 N. Y. 834; S. o. Harmon, 104 N.C. 792; 8. v. Rivers, 60 Iowa, 38]; Skipworth v. 8.8 Tex. Ap. 135. See S. uv. Edwards, 86 N. C. 666; Doss v. S. 28 Tex. Ap. 506. 1 Ante, § 720 (3); Rex v. Deakin, 2 East P. C. 653. 16 9 Hale P. C. 181; 1 Ib. 513; 2 East P.C. 652; 1 Hawk. P. C. ¢. 33, § 47; C.v. O’Hara. 10 Gray, 469. 17 Rex v. Woodward, 2 East P. C. 653. 18 §. », Wisdom, 8 Port. 511; Jones v- S. 13 Ala. 153; S. v. Pettis, 63 Me. 124. See a subsequent paragraph in this sec- tion. CHAP. XXXIX.] LARCENY — INDICTMENT. § 721 one having it to perform labor upon,! the landlord of an inn with whom it is left,2 any other person who has it for safe- keeping otherwise than as servant,’ a mortgagee in possession,‘ one who under our statutes has taken up an animal as an estray,°® one having in possession property purchased for public use,® a constable who has collected money for a creditor,’ any other person having the lawful possession of the article in distinction from a bare custody thereof,’ or even such unlawful possession as the thief’s who has stolen it,? — the ownership may be laid either in such possessor or the real owner, at the election of the pleader. But — 2. A Charge of stealing One’s Own Goods — from a bailee must Jay the ownership in the latter,!°— an obvious exception to the general rule. So, — 3. While Chattels let for Hire——are ordinarily within the general rule, if the letting is such as, like a lease of real estate, divests the general owner of the present right of occupancy as owner, the ownership must be laid in the hirer, — as, in Eng- land, where furniture is stolen from a lodger’s room, in the vor, 12 lodger. 1 Rex v. Packer, 2 East P. C. 653, 1 Leach, 357, note ; S. v. Ayer, 3 Fost. N. H. 301. 2 Rex v. Todd, 2 East P. C. 653; Rex v. Wymer, + Car. & P. 391. 8 Rex v. Taylor, 1 Leach, 356; Rex v. Statham, cited 1 Leach, 357; see Reg. v. Ashley, 1 Car. & K. 198; Owen »v. 8.6 Humph. 330; C. v. Morse, 14 Mass. 217, 219; Reg. v. Green, Dears. & B. 113. # Robinson v. 8. 1 Kelly, 563. 5 Jinks v. 8. 5 Tex. Ap. 68. 6 P.v. Bennett, 37 N. Y. 117, 93 Am. D. 551; Phelps« P. 72 N. Y. 334. 7 Hill v. S.1 Head, 454. In an English case, Alderson, B. intimated that money collected by a servant cannot, before it has reached the master, be laid in the latter. Reg. v. Rudick, 8 Car. & P. 287. But see Rex v. Remnant, Russ. & Ry. 136. And compare with Rex v. Adams, Russ, & Ry. 225; C. v. Lawless, 103 Mass. 425 ; Reg. v. Barnes, Law Rep. 1 C. C. 45, 10 Cox C. C. 255. os 8 §. v. Addington, 1 Bailey, 310, 311. 9 Ward v. P. 3 Hill, N. Y. 395, 6 Hill, N. Y. 144; Rex v. Wilkins, 1 Leach, 520, 623. 10 New Crim. Law, II. § 790; Adamsv. 8S. 16 Vroom, 448; Rex v. Wilkinson, Russ. & Ry. 470; Rex v. Bramley, Russ. & Ry. 478;. Palmer v. P. 10 Wend. 165, 25 Am. D. 551. 11 Gordon v. Harper, 7 T. R.9; Ward v. Macauley, 4 T. R. 489. 12 Rex v. Belstead, Russ. & Ry. 411; Rex v. Brunswick, | Moody, 26. See Rex v. Healey, 1 Moody, 1. Some Special Cases. — Persons having exchanged watches for a few days, on a larceny of one of them the ownership was rightly laid in the one in possession, Yates v. S. 10 Yerg. 549. One who had received at- tached chattels from a deputy sheriff, promising to redeliver them on demand, was held to sustain only the relation of a servant, and to have in them no special property; so that on their being stolen the ownership could not be laid in him. C. v. Morse, 14 Mass. 217, The owner- ship of goods stolen from a ward may be laid in the guardian. Thomasson v. 8. 327 § 723 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII 4. A Minor’s Clothing — may ordinarily, it is believed always, be laid as his, being regarded as a gift;, “for the boy hath capac- ity to take it.”! Or commonly it may be equally well charged as the father’s; though the other is the usual and safer way.? And sometimes it would be ill to mention the father as owner; as, where the son is apprenticed to him, and he furnishes the clothing under the indenture.® § 722. 1. Since a Trespass — is an essential element in common- law larceny, the owner must sustain to the stolen things a rela- tion which would entitle him to the action of trespass for their taking.* Such is the rule in principle, and reasonably so in authority, but the judicial utterances to it are not very distinct. Thus, — 2. A Mere Servant —has only a custody of goods, and he can maintain no action for them; hence he has in them no owner- ship.® § 723. 1. Where the Ownership is Joint, — as in a business firm, or the like, it must be laid in all.6 Each name should be given in full;? simply the partnership name, for example, not suffic- ing. Nor, where partners are the owners, need either the fact of the partnership, or the firm name, be averred.§ And if one of them has such a separate possession as gives him a special property, it will not be ill to lay the ownership in him alone.® 22 Ga. 499; Trafton v.S.5 Tex. Ap 480; Crockett v. S. 5'Tex. Ap. 526. Bank-notes stolen from the mail may be laid as the property of the person forwarding them. U.S. v. Burroughs, 3 McLean, 405. And see C. v. Lawless, 103 Mass. 425. As to various questions, see Reg. v. Vincent, 2 Den. C. C. 464, 5 Cox C. C. 537, 9 Eng. L. & Eq. 548; Rex v. Boulton, 5 Car. & P. 537; Reg.v. Pratt, Dears. 360, 6 Cox C. C. 373, 26 Eng. L. & Eq. 574; Reg. v. Rowe, Bell C. C. 93,8 Cox C. C. 139; Reg. v. Whitehead, 9 Car. & P. 429; Reg. v. King, 4 Fost. & F. 493; Reg. v. Cain, 2 Moody, 204 ; Reg. v. Pritchard, Leigh & C. 34, 8 Cox C. C. 461; Reg. v. Barnes, Law Rep. 1 C. C. 45, 10 Cox C. C. 255. 1 Rex v. Haynes, 12 Co. 113; Anony- mous, 1 Leach, 464, note; 8. v. Koch, 4 Harring. Del. 570. 292 East P.C. 654; Reg. v. Hughes, Car. & M. 593. 328 8 Rex v. Forsgate, 1 Leach, 463, 464. 4 New Crim. Law, II. § 799, 823; Rex v. Foster, Russ. & Ry. 412; (C. v. Morse, 14 Mass. 217,219; Rex v. Deakin, 2 Leach, 862, 875, 876. 5 2 Kast P. C. 652; Rex v. Hutchinson, Russ. & Ry. 412; S. +. Jenkins, 78 N.C. 478; S. v. Washington, 15 Rich. 39; Hey- good v. 8. 59 Ala. 49; C.v. Lawless, 103 Mass. 425. & §. v. Frame, 4 Harring. Del. 569; S. v. McCoy, 14 N. H. 364; S. v. Owens, 10 Rich. 169; Hogg v. S. 3 Blackf. 326; C. v. Trimmer, 1 Mass. 476; S. v. Wilson, 6 Or. 428; S. v. London, 3 S. C. 230; Brown v. §. 35 Tex. 691. 7 Ante, § 718 (3). 8 C. v. O’Brien, 12 Allen, 183. ® §. c. Wilson, supra; Samora v. 8. 4 Tex. Ap. 508; Reg. v. Bird, 9 Car. & P, 44, CHAP. XXXIX.] LARCENY — INDICTMENT. § 726 Where it is laid in three, it will be a fatal variance to prove it in two only.} 2. Several. — If the thing belongs to A, B, and C, not jointly, but each owning his several part,? it is ill to say “of the goods of A, B, and C,” which means a joint ownership. ‘ § 724, Statutory Modifications. —In England,‘ and in some of our States,® statutes permit the ownership to be laid in one named “and others,” or otherwise simplify the common-law rule. § 725. 1. In the Estate of a Deceased Person, — the ownership cannot be laid;® but it may be, in the administrator by name,? ‘or founded on possession. Where, after the death of a partner, his widow and the surviving partner continued the business together, the ownership of some stolen goods was held to be well laid in the two. 2. The Ownership of a Coffin,— containing a body interred, was deemed properly charged as his who furnished it and buried the deceased. 1° § 726. 1. Husband and Wife. — While at common law a wife can own property in action and in reversion, she can have neither real nor personal estate in possession." Therefore in larceny no ownership can be averred in her; it must be in her husband instead. This rule, it seems, extends even to her paraphernalia and her wearing apparel.'® And because the trial for larceny is in a court of common law wherein the doctrines of the equity tribunals are not the rules for decision, her separate estate is to be laid, not in her, but rather in her trustee; 1* or it 1 Parmer v.S. 41 Ala. 416. See Henry c. S$. 45 Tex. 84. 2 New Crim. Law, II. § 888 (2, 3); Lowe v. 8.57 Ga. 171; Addison v. S. 3 Tex. Ap. 40; S. v. Simons, 70 N. C. 336. 3S. v. Ryan, 4 McCord, 16, 17 Am. D. 702; 8. v. McCoy, 89 N. C. 466. 456 Geo. 3, c. 73; 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, § 14; Reg. v. Pritchard, Leigh & C. 34, 8 Cox C. C. 461; Reg. v. Butterworth, 12 Cox C. C. 132, 2 Eng. Rep. 195; Reg. v. Cain, Car. & M. 309; Archb. Crim. Pl. 19th ed. 356. 5 §. v. Capps, 71 N. C. 93; Lasure v. §. 19 Ohio St. 43; S. v. Harper, 64 N. C. 129; C. v. Arrance, 5 Allen, 517; S. v. Connor, 5 Coldw. 311; Widner v. 8. 25 Ind. 234; P. v. Ah Sing, 19 Cal. 598, 8 §. v. Woodley, 25 Ga. 235. 7 Cole r. C. 5 Grat. 696. How where there has been no administration, see Rex v. Smith, 7 Car. & P. 147; Reg. v. Tippin, Car. & M. 545; Wonson v. Sayward, 13 Pick. 402, 404, 28 Am. D. 691. 8 Reg. v. King, 4 Fost. & F. 493; Dreyer v. §. 11 Tex. Ap. 503; Rex v. Scott, 2 East P. C. 655, Russ. & Ry. 13. 9 Rex v. Gaby, Russ. & Ry. 178. 10 §. v, Doepke, 68 Mo. 208, 30 Am. R. 785. See New Crim. Law, II. § 780. 1! 1 Bishop Mar. Women, § 64, 883-886. 12] Hale P. C. 513; Rex v. Roberts, 7 Car. & P. 485; Hughes v. C.17 Grat. 565, 566, 567,94 Am. D. 498; C. v. Cullins, 1 Mass. 116. 18 1] Bishop Mar. Women, § 220, note; S. v. Hays, 21 Ind. 288. 14 Ante, § 138 (3); Rex v. French, Russ. 329 § 727 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. may be in her husband if he has possession, by reason of his special property therein.1 But — 2. Our Modern Statutes, — giving the wife a separate proprie- torship at law, have considerably changed these rules,” yet not quite uniformly in our States. In Indiana, the ownership of a shawl, presented her by a third person after marriage, was not permitted to be laid in her husband; it must be in her. And doubtless under all the statutes, making her, at Jaw, the separate owner, it is not ill to allege the ownership as hers;® but in most of our States, if the parties live together, and he maintains a possession with her of her legal effects, he is deemed to have a special property in them, so that a pleader who prefers may charge them as his.6 Even the husband’s goods in her posses- sion, it has been held, may be alleged as hers.’ In States where the community prevails, the rules differ more or less from these.® V. The Allegations where Goods are Stolen in one Jurisdiction and carried into another. § 727. 1. Already, — the questions of law governing this sub- ject have been considered.® The part of the doctrine relating to this sub-title is that, whether the original larceny was committed abroad or in another county of our own State, the complete act and intent which constitute any larceny must have transpired also in the county of the indictment.” Hence, — 2. The Just Form of the Allegation, — correct in principle, con- venient, and common, is to lay the offence simply in the county of the prosecution, with no reference to anything done elsewhere. If transactions elsewhere are important, it is sufficient for them & Ry. 491; Rex v. Wilford, Russ. & Ry. Lavender v. S. 60 Ala. 60; Alexander v. 517. I£ goods are stolen from a feme sole, §.9 Tex. Ap. 48; Ellis v. S.76 Ala. 90. and then she is married, the ownership See S. v. En, 10 Nev. 277. may be laid in her by her maiden name. 7 ©, v. McLaughlin, 103 Mass. 435. Rex v. Turner, 1 Leach, 536. See C. v. Williams, 7 Gray, 337. 1 Davis v. 8S. 17 Ala. 415. See P. vu. 8 §. uv. Gaffery, 12 La. An. 265; Merri- Swalm, 80 Cal. 46, 13 Am. St. 96. weather v. S. 33 Tex. 789; Wilson wv. S. 8 % Kennedy v. 8. 31 Fla. 428, Tex. Ap. 206; Ware v. S.2 Tex. Ap. 547; 8 Ante, § 138 (3). Overton v. S. 43 Tex. 616, 4 Stevens v. S. 44 Ind. 469. ® Vol. I. § 59, 60; New Crim. Law, L 5 Petre v. S. 6 Vroom, 64. § 137-142, 1061 (4); Stat. Crimes, § 140. 6 Petre v. 8. supra; S.v. Wincroft,76 19 Ib.; Roth v. S. 10 Tex. Ap. 27. N.C. 38; 8. v. Matthews, 76 N.C. 41; 380 CHAP. XXXIX.] LARCENY — INDICTMENT. § 729 to appear inthe evidence.! Yet where the original stealing was in our own State, it is not ill, at least under some of our statutes, to set it out, and then aver a bringing of the goods into the county of the venue;? but without statutory aid, we have denials of this,? and it seems destitute of foundation in principle. § 728. Statutes, — mingled with considerations from the com- mon law, have more or less and variously regulated this ques- tion. Where, in Alabama, one “who feloniously steals the property of another in any other State or country, and brings the same or any portion thereof into this State,” was by statute punishable to the same extent as if the original stealing had been in this State, it was held that the indictment must set out the foreign larceny, and conform otherwise to the statutory terms. And where the evidence was simply that the thing was stolen in the other State, and afterward was found in the defend- ant’s possession in Alabama, the conviction was reversed. But the court proceeded on the assumption that the offence existed only under the statute; otherwise the common-law indictment would doubtless have been good. § 729. 1. The Thing stolen must be described — as it was in the county of the indictment, without regard to its form elsewhere at the original taking; for example, if it was a live turkey when stolen, but was killed before removal, it cannot be charged in the second county as “one turkey,” which means the live fowl." And — 2. If a Compound Larceny — was the original offence, — as, a stealing from a dwelling-house, — the indictment in the second county can be only for the simple larceny.® 1 New Crim. Law, I. § 138, 139; Dir. & F. § 608; Haskins v. P. 16 N. Y. 344; C. v. Dewitt, 10 Mass. 154; S. v. Smith, 66 Mo. 61; Hurt v. S. 26 Ind. 106, 107; P. v. Mellon, 40 Cal. 648; Powell v. 8. 52 Wis. 217; S. v. Hatch, 91 Mo. 568. See also Graves v. S. 12 Wis. 591; Moore »v. S. 55 Missis. 432. But see Johnson v. S. 47 Missis. 671. 2 Connell v. S. 2 Tex. Ap. 422; Jones v. S. 53 Ind. 235; Hurt v. §. supra. 8 Hutchinson v. S. 62 Ind. 556, 557. 4 On this whole subject, consult, fur- ther, Dir. & F. § 609; Norris v. S. 33 Missis. 373; Williams v. 8. 15 Ala, 259; Watson v. §. 36 Missis. 593; Murray v. 8S. 18 Ala. 727; Ham v. S. 17 Ala. 188; Morissey v. P. 11 Mich. 327; Fox ». Davis, 55 Ga. 298; Crow v. S. 18 Ala. 541; Lovelace v. §. 12 Lea, 721; Harring- ton v. 8. 31 Tex. Cr. 577; Carmisales v. S. 11 Tex. Ap. 474. 5 Alsey v. S. 39 Ala. 664; 5. Pp. S. v. Morales, 21 Tex. 298. 6 See La Vaul v. 8. 40 Ala. 44. 7 C.v. Beaman, 8 Gray, 497; Rex v. Edwards, Russ. & Ry. 497. And see Rex uv. MeAleece, 1 Crawf. & Dix C.C. 154; Rex v. Halloway, 1 Car. & P. 128. 8 Smith v. §. 55 Ala. 59. 331 § 732 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. VI. The Indictment upon Statutes. § 730. 1. In “Statutory Crimes,” — “statutory enlargements of the common-law larceny ” are specially considered, both as to the law and the procedure.1| And under various other heads, that volume should be consulted in connection with this sub- title. Therefore the elucidations here will be more brief than would be otherwise required. : / 2. The Indictment — consists of mingling the common-law form with the statutory terms variously as indicated by the particular frame of the statute and facts of the case.2 Thus, — § 731. 1. For Stealing a Thing, — not the subject of larceny at common law, but made such by statute, the indictment concludes “aoainst the form of the statute.” 8 2. The Name of the Thing stolen, — such as “bank-bill” or “)bank-note,” if the indictment designates it by its name,‘ should properly be the statutory one. Yet another word of the same or amore definite meaning may suffice ;® as, “bank-bill ” for the statutory “bank-note.”? § 732. 1. Written Instruments, — required to be set out with great strictness in forgery,® need not be so in statutory larceny. But the methods permissible for describing the chattel in com- mon-law larceny ® should be applied to the description of a thing 1 Stat. Crimes, § 409-429. 2 For forms see Dir. & F. § 582, 584, 587, 589, 594-606, 610; P. v. Phelps, 49 How. Pr. 437; Phelps v. P. 72 N. Y. 334; S. v. Stephens, 32 Tex. 155; Reg. v. But- terworth, 12 Cox C. C. 132,2 Eng. Rep. 195; Reg. v. Trevenner, 2 Moody & R. 476; Williams v. 8. 15 Ala. 259; Rex v. Bew, Russ. & Ry. 480; Rex v. Goddard, 2 Leach, 545; Rex v. Healey, 1 Moody, 1; Rex v. Pope, 1 Leach, 336; Rex v. Hur- rell, Ryan & Moody N. P. 296; Reg. v. Tatlock, 2 Q. B. D. 157; Snell v. S. 50 Ga. 219; Rex v. Walsh, 2 Leach, 1054, Russ. & Ry. 215. 3 Vol. I.§ 610; S. ». Dill, 75 N. C. 257; Warner v. C. 1 Pa. 154, 44 Am. D. 114; Rex v. Pearson, 5 Car. & P. 121; P. v. Cook, 2 Par. Cr. 12; S. v. Foy, 82 N.C. 679. See S. v. Ripley, 2 Brev. 300. 4 Ante, § 413-416, 439. 332 5 Rex v. Chard, Russ. & Ry. 488; C.v. McDowell, 1 Browne, Pa. 359; Dame- wood v. 8. 1 How. Missis. 262. ® Vo). I. § 611 et seq. 7 Eastman v. C. 4 Gray, 416; Low». P. 2 Par. Cr.37. See ante, § 450. ‘‘ Prom- issory Note,’? — ‘‘ Note,’’ &c. —A stat- ute made the “robbery or larceny” of promissory notes, &¢., punishable “in the same manner as robbery or larceny of any goods or chattels.” Anda charge thereon of stealing “two ten-dollar notes of the president, directors, and company of the Bank of the United States,” was adjudged ill, because not stating that they were promissory notes, or so describing them that they would appear to be such. C. v. Boyer, 1 Binn. 201, 205. And see S. ». Bond, 8 Iowa, 540, 8 Ante, § 403-412. ® Ante, § 699-712. CHAP. XXXIX.] LARCENY — INDICTMENT. § 732 made the subject of larceny by statute;! because, by the canons of interpretation, what is by written law added to the unwritten is to be regarded the same as though existing by the unwritten.? Such, at least, is practically as well as theoretically the better doctrine, though the courts have not in all the cases? had it in their minds.* Thus, — 2, Bank-notes. — If a statute makes indictable the larceny of “any bank-note,” it is sufficient® to aver a specified number of bank-notes with the denomination and value of each, and no more.® Even this form has been sustained where the denomina- tion was omitted; as, “ten five-dollar bank-bills of the value of five dollars each.”7 Such method accords with what is estab- lished in laying stolen chattels at common law.’ It has been held ill to say “sundry bank-bills, amounting together ” to, and of the value of, a sum named.® 3. Ordinary Promissory Notes — are set out exactly like bank- bills. 1 Rex v. Johnson, 3 M. & S. 539, 547. And see S. v. Cassel, 2 Har. & G. 407; Eells v. P. 4 Scam. 498; Crawford v. S. 2 Ind. 132; P. v. Jackson, 8 Barb. 637; S. v. Smart, 4 Rich. 356, 55 Am. D. 683; C. v. Stebbins, 8 Gray, 492. 2 Stat. Crimes, § 123, 139, 141. * For example, S. v. Tilney, 38 Kan. 714; Territory v. Shipley, 4 Mont. 468. See S. v. Henry, 24 Kan. 457; Phelps v. P. 72 N. Y. 334. 4 §. v. Hall, 85 Mo. 669; C. v. Collins, 188 Mass. 483; C. v. Jenks, 188 Mass. 484; S.v. Hoke, 84 Ind. 137; S. v. Free- man, 89 N. C. 469; McQueen ». S. 82 Ind. 72; Wright v. C. 82 Va. 183; S. v. Wade, 7 Bax. 22; S. v. Ziord, 30 La. An. 867; S. v. Monroe, 30 La. An. 1241; 8.0. Anderson, 25 Minn. 66, 33 Am. R. 455; Riggs v. S. 104 Ind. 261; Levy v. S, 79 Ala. 259. 5 See the cases in the last note as indi- cating that even less may suffice. 8 §. v. Williams, 19 Ala. 15, 54 Am. D. 184; C. v. Richards, 1 Mass. 337 ; Bald- win v. S.1 Sneed, 411; Fredrick v. 8.3 W. Va. 695; S. v. Stevens, 62 Me. 284; Eastman v. C. 4 Gray, 416; Sallie v. S. 39 Ala. 691; Bell v. S. 41 Ga. 589; Mc- Laughlin v. C. 4 Rawle, 464; Carden v. S. 89 Ala. 130. In describing our National So that on a statute making indictable the. larceny of currency, the like principle is adopted, but in varying forms. One form, adjudged sufficient, is, “‘one United States note, commonly called greenback, of the value of two dollars.” Mckntee v. 8. 24 Wis. 43. To the same effect in substance are S. v. Beebe, 17 Minn. 241, 249; Hummel v. 8. 17 Ohio St. 628; S. v. Thomason, 71 N. C. 146; Dull v. C. 25 Grat. 965 ; Hickey v. §. 23 Ind. 21. “One five and one two- dollar greenback bill, United States cur- rency, national bank bills, and money,” was adjudged inadequate. Lewis v. 8. 3 Heisk. 333. 7 Pyland v. S. 4 Sneed, 357; S.v. Rout, 3 Hawks, 618; S. v.. Mahanna, 48 N. H. 377, Rex v. Johnson, supra. And see P. v. Kent, 1 Doug. Mich. 42; Baggett v. S. 69 Missis. 625. 8 Ante, § 700; Rex v. Johnson, 3 M. & S. 539, 547. 9 Hamblett v. S.18 N. H. 884; Croker v. 8. 47 Ala. 53. And see S. v. Oakley, 51 Ark. 112, A form like this would be ad- equate under the modifying statutes of some of our States. McDivit v. S. 20 Ohio St. 231; S. v. Shonhausen, 26 La. An. 421; S. v. Green, 27 La. An. 598; S. v. Carro, 26 La. An. 377; S. v. Hocken- berry, 30 Iowa, 504. 333 §735 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. “any promissory note,” it is adequate to say “one promissory note for the payment of, &c., of the value of,” &c. ;1 or even, it has been held, “one promissory note of the value of,” &c.2 But the phrase “sundry promissory notes,” adding the collective value, was adjudged too indefinite ;* yet with their numbers given it would be good.# § 733. Attached to Freehold. — At common law, it was insuffi- cient to charge the larceny from a mining claim of “ fifty-two pounds of gold-bearing quartz rock, the personal property of,” &e. ; because, prima facie,’ the thing taken was real estate; and the allegation should have been added that it was first severed from the realty.6 Where this sort of larceny is defined by a stat- ute, and the indictment is on it, not the common law, its terms must be incorporated into the averments.7 And — § 734. The Descriptive and Limiting Words of the Statute, — if it has such, beyond the mere name of the thing, must be covered by the allegation.? Thus, if the statutory words are “steal, &c., any bank-bills, &c., of fifty dollars or upwards, knowing them to be such,” &c. the knowledge must be averred.? Or if the steal- ing of bank-bills is made penal only when the banks are incor- porated, the fact of incorporation must be alleged.!° So, in England, under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, § 27, “any valuable security other than a document of title to lands” being designated as the subject of the larceny, the kind of security must be particular- ized ;11 or, at least, in some way be shown not to be of the excepted sort. § 735. A Fuller Description — than the foregoing rules require, is optional with the pleader. In some of our States, it will be 1 Rex v. Milnes, 2 East P. C. 602. 2 C. v. Brettun, 100 Mass. 206, 97 Am. D. 95. And see Dignowitty-v. 8.17 Tex. 521,67 Am. D. 670. But see C. v. Henry, 2 Brews. 566; C. v. Byerly, 2 Brews. 568. 3 Stewart v.C. 458. & R. 194. 4 Rex v. Johnson, 3 M.& 8.539. And see S. v. Cotton, 4 Fost. N. H. 143; S.u Hinckley, 4 Minn. 345. 5 Ante, § 706. 6 P. v. Williams, 35 Cal. 671. 78. v. Liles, 78 N. C. 496; S. wv. Thompson, 93 N. C. 537; Smitherman v. S. 63 Ala, 24. And see Rex »v. Finch, 1 334 Moody, 418; S. v. Stone, 1 Vroom, 299; Sullins v. 8. 53 Ala. 474; Schamberger v. S. 68 Ala, 543; Pinckard v. S. 62 Ala. 167; S. v. Shuler, 19 S. C. 140; S. v. Sheppard, 33 La. An. 1216; S. v. Ballard, 97 N.C. 443. Compare with Rex v. Cara- dice, Russ. & Ry. 205. 8 S. v. Brown, 4 Port. 410; Angel v. C. 2 Va. Cas. 228, 9 Gatewood v. 8. 4 Ohio, 386; Rich v. S. 8 Ohio, 111. 10 Spangler v. C. 3 Binn. 533. 41 Reg. v. Greenland, Law Rep. 1 C. C. 65, 10 Cox C. C. 377. 12 Phelps v. P. 72 N. Y. 334, 336. CHAP. XXXIX.] LARCENY — INDICTMENT. § 737 prudent or perhaps indispensable, to make it. In none, need the tenor of a written instrument be given as in forgery; but some expansion of the allegation, beyond a mere designating of it after the manner of a chattel at the common law, yet not exactly how much and what, may probably be required by some of our tribunals. In some States, the statutes,? either directly or indirectly govern the question. One case intimates that pay- ment of the security should be negatived;% but as only prima facie guilt need be shown,* such plainly is not the general doctrine.5 § 736. 1. Value ® and Ownership 7— must be laid in these statu- tory larcenies the same as in others. As to value, it does not suffice simply to state the denomination of a bank-bill; it must be added, of the value of so much.® Yet the denomination ® is ordinarily a measure of the value, and averred with it.” 2. “Goods and Chattels” — are not the technical words for bank-bills and promissory notes;! so properly they should not be used. But by rejecting them as surplusage from an indict- ment, it may be sustained.! § 737. 1. “Feloniously,”—in the felony of statutory larceny, should be in the indictment even though not in the statute. So it is in most of our States,/* but there are exceptions. 2. Petit Larceny — is in some States only misdemeanor. Then the superfluous “feloniously ” will not harm the indictment.16 1 §. v. Kroeger, 47 Mo. 530; S. v. Me- Leod, 5 Jones, N. C. 318; S. v. Brown, 8 Jones, 443; P. v. Holbrook, 13 Johns. 90; Rex v. Craven, Russ. & Ry. 14, 2 East P. C. 601; C. v. Moseley, 2 Va. Cas. 154; Pomeroy v. C. 2 Va. Cas. 342; S. v. Em- ery, Brayt. 181; P. v. Jackson, 8 Barb. 637; Salisbury v. 8. 6 Conn. 101. 2S. v. Thomas, 2 McCord, 527. 8 Stewart v.C.48. & R. 194, 195. 4 Ante, § 706, 733. 5 Phelps v. P. 72 N. Y. 334, 6 Hun, 401. 6 Wilson v. S.1 Port. 118. See S, v. King, 37 La. An. 91; S. v. Brown, 113 N. C. 645; S. v. Carter, 113 N. C. 639. 78. v. Cadle, 19 Ark. 613; Martin uv. 8. 16 Tex. 240. 8 Wilson v. S. supra; S. v. Pierson, 59 Iowa, 271. ® Ante, § 732 (2). 10 §. v. Cassel, 2 Har. & G. 407. 11 Stat. Crimes, § 344. 12 Ante, § 699 (2) and note; Eastman v. C. 4 Gray, 416; Turner v. S. 1 Ohio St. 422. But see P. v. Kent, 1 Doug. Mich. 42, ‘ Money.’? —In England, by virtue of 14&15 Vict. ¢. 100, § 18, bank-bills may be laid as “money,” though not in circulation but in the hands of the bank- ers. Reg. v, West, Dears. & B. 109, 7 Cox C. C. 183, 40 Eng. L. & Eq. 564. Yet, without statutory help, they are not generally regarded as money, but coin is. Stat. Crimes, § 346; New Crim. Law, II. § 785; ante, § 703, 704. 18 Vol. I. § 535 et seq. 14 Barker v. C. 2 Va. Cas. 122. 13 Prim v. S. 32 Tex. 157; S. v. Sipult, 17 Iowa, 575. See also S. v. Hogard, 12 Minn, 293. 16 §, v. Joiner, 19 Mo, 224. See Vol. I. § 537, 335 § 738 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 788. Variance — should be avoided.1 Thus, though the name of the bank issuing a bank-bil] need not be alleged,? if it is, it must be proved as laid. So the averment “of the lawful money of the United States ” must, if inserted, be proved. Notes issued by a National Bank have been held not to be such.‘ 1 For example, see U.S. v. Hardyman, * Hamilton v. S. 60 Ind. 193, 28 Am. 13 Pet. 176, 179; U.S. v. Burroughs, 3 R. 653. See P. v. Jones, 5 Lans. 340; S. McLean, 405; Stewart v. S. 62 Md. 412. v. Collins, 72 N. C. 144. As to numbered 2 Ante, § 732 (2). certificates of stock, see P. v. Coon, 45 8 Pomeroy v. C. 2 Va. Cas. 342. See Cal. 672. also C. v.. Williams, 1 Va. Cas. 14. 336 CHAP. XL.] LARCENY — THE EVIDENCE. § 739 s CHAPTER XL. LARCENY, AS TO THE EVIDENCE. § 738 a. Introduction. 739-747. Presumption from Possession. 748-754. Other Questions of Evidence. Consult — the places referred to introducing the last chapter. § 738 a. How Chapter divided. —We shall consider, I. The Presumption from the Possession of the Stolen Goods; IJ. Other Questions of Evidence. I. The Presumption from the Possession of the Stolen Goods. § 739. 1. The Reported Cases — on this topic are, in number, enormous. And they are exceptionally discordant. Not two, but many, differing views and shades of opinion appear in them. So that however accurately the true doctrine may have been apprehended in some, it has not been many times well explained ; because not many enunciations of a legal truth, in terms exact, , clear, and full, from a source always consulted and always with respect, like a judicial opinion, are required to secure its uni- versal acceptance, and put an end to the multiplication of cases on the subject. 2. Limits of Question. — The corpus delicti, or fact that the goods have been stolen, is a thing apart from the presumption we are considering, to be proved, in general, by independent evidence. So that before the presumption can be invoked, the fact of the stealing must be otherwise shown; the sphere of this presumption being, not to prove the theft, but to identify the thief.2. Now, — 1 Vol. TI. § 1056-1060. 586; Hunt v. C. 13 Grat. 757,70 Am. D. 22 Hale P. C. 290; S. vw. Taylor, 25 443; Rex v. Yend, 6 Car. & P. 176; P. Towa, 273; Brown v. S. 59 Ga. 456; Belote v. Williams, 57 Cal. 108. See Long v. S. v. S. 36 Missis. 96,72 Am. D. 163; S.v. 1 Swan, Tenn. 287; Garciav. S. 26 Tex. Patterson, 78 N. C. 470; Reg. v. Hall, 1 209,82 Am. D. 605; Bailey x. S, 52 Ind. Cox C. C. 231; P. v. Caniff,2 Par. Cr. 462, 21 Am. R. 182; post, § 742. VOL, It, — 22 337 § 740 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 740. 1. The Just Doctrine — of this sub-title is believed to be that, when the fact of a theft has been shown, and the ques- tion is whether or not the defendant committed it, his possession of the stolen goods, either sole or joint with others, at a time not too long after the stealing, is a circumstance for the jury to consider and weigh in connection with the other evidence. Its significance will vary with its special facts, and with the other facts of the case; among which are the nearness or remoteness of the proven possession to the larceny, the nature of the thing as passing readily from hand to hand or not, what explanations he made on its being discovered that he had the goods, together with such other facts as ought reasonably to influence a juror’s opinion. And — 2. The Greater Number of the Cases, — especially the more recent ones, considered in connection with the familiar proposi- tion that the law is a system as well of reason as of authority, expressed in not quite uniform terms and varying more or less in their outward forms, sustain the doctrine thus stated.! 3. The Leading Later Cases, — covering a dozen years or more, are, for the convenience of the practitioner, considering that the doctrine in some of our States is not now the same as in earlier years, here in a note inserted in the alphabetical order of the States, without reference to what aspect of the question they sustain.? It will be comforting to the well-wishers of our juris- 1 Watkins v. 8. 2 Tex. Ap. 73; Brown v. 8.59 Ga. 456; Howard v. S. 50 Ind. 190; P. ». Gill, 45 Cal. 285; P.v. Ah Ki, 20 Cal. 177; P. v. Chambers, 18 Gal. 382; Pp. v. Antonio, 27 Cal. 404; P.v. Kelly, 28 Cal. 423; P. x. Gassaway, 23 Cal 51; Curtis v. S. 6 Coldw. 9, 10; Davis v. S. 50 Missis. 86; Tucker v. S. 57 Ga. 508; Crilley v. S. 20 Wis. 244; Comfort v. P. 54 Ill. 404; McCoy v. S. 44 Tex. 616; Thompson v. 8. 43 Tex. 268; Wilcox v. S. 3 Heisk. 110, 118; Yates x. S. 37 Tex. 202; P. vo. Getty, 49 Cal. 581; Price v. C. 21 Grat. 846; S.v Cassady, 12 Kan. 550; S. v. Ingram, 16 Kan. 14; P. c. Melvane, 39 Cal. 614; P.v. Rodundo, 44 Cal. 538; Gablick v. P. 40 Mich, 292; C. v. Randall, 119 Mass. 107; C. v. Bell, 102 Mass: 163 ; Smith v. 8. 58 Ind. 340; S.v. Hodge. 50 N. H. 510; Foster v. S.1 Tex. Ap. 363; Hannah v. 8.1 Tex. Ap. 578; Perkins v. S. 82 Tex. 109; Way v. S. 35 Ind. 409; 338 Clackner v. 8, 38 Ind. 412; S. v. Brady, 27 Iowa, 126; S.v. Arnold, 12 Iowa, 479; S. v. Brown, 25 Jowa, 561; P. v. Wilson, 80 Mich. 486; Jones v. S. 49 Ind. 549; Fisher v. 8. 46 Ala. 717; Billard v. S. 30 Tex. 367, 94 Am. D. 317; Graves v. S. 12 Wis. 591; Heed v. 8. 25 Wis. 421; Boyd vu. 8. 24 Tex. Ap. 570, 5 Am. St. 908. 2 Alabama. — Roberts v. S. 61 Ala,'401; Cooper v. 8. 63 Ala. 80; Green v. S. 68 Ala. 539; Henderson v. S. 70 Ala. 23; White v. S. 72 Ala. 195; Allen v. S: 73 Ala. 23; Harris v. 8. 73 Ala. 495; Ross v. §. 82 Ala. 65 ; Cooper v. S. 87 Ala. 135; Thompson v. Richardson, 96 Ala. 488. Arizona.— Territory v. Casio, 1 Ariz. 485, Arkansas. — Boykin v. 8. 34 Ark. 443; Shepherd v. S. 44 Ark. 39; Reed v. S. 54 Ark. 621; Blankenship v. S. 55 Ark. 244, California. — P. v. Swinford, 57 Cal. CHAP. XL.] LARCENY — THE EVIDENCE, § 740 prudence, who examine these cases, and who remember the con- dition of the law on this subject fifty years ago, to note that 86; P. v. Williams, 57 Cal. 108; P. v. Velarde, 59 Cal. 457, 463; P. uv. Tither- ington, 59 Cal. 598; P. v. Hurley, 60 Cal. 74,44 Am. R. 55; P. v. Fagan, 66 Cal. 534; P. v. Gutierrez, 74 Cal. 81; P. v. Cline, 74 Cal. 575. Connecticut. —S. v. Raymond, 46 Conn. 345. Florida. — Young v. 8, 24 Fla. 147. Georgia. —Duckett v. S. 65 Ga. 369; Smiley v. S. 66 Ga. 754; Davis v. S. 76 Ga. 16; Johnson v. 8. 77 Ga. 68; Stevens v. 8.77 Ga. 310; Lovett v. S. 80 Ga. 255. Illinois. — Bennett v. P. 96 Ill. 602; Friedberg v. P. 102 Ill. 160; Smith v. P. 103 Il. 82. Indiana.— Galvin v. S. 93 Ind. 550; Wagner v. 8. 107 Ind. 71,57 Am. R. 79. Iowa.—S. v. Emerson, 48 Iowa, 172; S. v. Golden, 49 Jowa, 48; S. v. Hessians, 50 Iowa, 135; S. v. Richart, 57 Iowa, 245 ; S. v. Kelly, 57 Iowa, 644; S. ». Buckley, 60 Iowa, 471; S. v. Hallett, 63 Towa, 259; S. v. Hopkins, 65 Iowa, 240; S. v. Peter. son, 67 Iowa, 564; S. v. Pennyman, 68 Towa, 216; S. v. Poder, 69 Iowa, 506; S. v. Griffin, 71 Iowa, 372; S. v. Kirkpatrick, 72 Towa, 500; S. v. Frahm, 73 Iowa, 355; S. v. Manley, 74 Iowa, 561; S. v. Tucker, 76 Iowa, 232. Kansas. —S. v. Stewart, 24 Kan. 250; S. v. Hoffman, 53 Kan. 700. Louisiana. —S. v. Kimble, 34 La. An. 392; S. v. Gonsoulin, 38 La, An. 459; S. v. Young, 41 La. An. 94. Massachusetts. —C. v. Deegan, 138 Mass. 182; C. c. Johnson, 150 Mass. 54. Michigan. — Gablick v. P. 40 Mich. 292; P. v. Walters, 76 Mich. 195 ; P,. ®: Taylor, 93 Mich. 638. Minnesota, — S. 521. Mississippi.— Payne v. S. 57 Missis. 348; Stokes v. S. 58 Missis. 677; Alex- ander v. S. 60 Missis. 953; Matthews v. S. 61 Missis. 155; Snowden v. 8. 62 Missis. 100. : Missouri. — 8. v. Krieger, 4 Mo. Ap. 584; S. v. Kelly,.9 Mo. Ap. 512; 8. 2 Kelly, 73 Mo. 608; S. v. Brown, 75 Mo. 317; S. v, Butterfield, 75 Mo. 297; S. v. Crank, 75 Mo. 406; S. v. Jennings, 81 Mo. 185, 51 Am. R. 236; S. v. Jackson, 86 vo. Miller, 45 Minn. Mo. 18; S. 7 Kennedy, 88 Mo. 341; S. v. Beatty, 90 Mo: 143; S. v. Phelps, 91 Mo. 478; S. v. Castor, 93 Mo. 242; 8S. v. War-, den, 94 Mo. 648; S. v. Warford, 106 Mo. 55, 27 Am. St. 322; S. v. Taylor, 111 Mo. 538. Montana. — Territory v. Doyle, 245. Nebraska. — Smith v. S. 17 Neb, 358; Robb v. S. 35 Neb. 285. 2 Nevada. —S. v. Clifford, 14 Nev. 72, 33 Am. R. 526. New York. —P.v. Crapo, 76 N. Y. 288, 32 Am. R. 302; Goldstein v. P. 82 N. Y. 231; P.v. Weldon, 111 N. Y. 569. North Carolina. — 8. v. Rights, 82 N. C. 675; S. v. Rice, 83 N.C. 661; S. v. Jen- nett, 88 N. C. 665; S.v. Weaver, 104 N.C. 758; 8. v. Bridgers, 114 N. C. 868. Oregon. —S. v. Hale, 12 Or. 352. Tennessee.— Lucre v. S. 7 Bax. 148; Cook v.:S. 16 Lea, 461. Texas.— Hampton v. 8S. 5 Tex. Ap. 463; Conner v. 8. 6 Tex. Ap. 455; Beck- ham v. 8. 8 Tex. Ap. 52; Hernandez v. S. 9 Tex. Ap. 288; Jernigan v. S. 10 Tex. Ap. 546; Childress v. S. 10 Tex. Ap. 698; Shelton v. §..11 Tex. Ap. 36; Lowe v. S. 11 Tex. Ap. 253; Williams v. S. 11 Tex. Ap. 275; Dreyer v. S..11 Tex. Ap. 503; Anderson v. 8. 11 Tex. Ap. 576; Petti- grew v. S. 12 Tex. Ap. 225; Truax v. S. 12 Tex. Ap. 230; Johnson v. S. 12 Tex. Ap. 385; Irvine v. S. 13 Tex. Ap. 499; Sitterlee v. S. 13 Tex. Ap. 587; Flores v. S. 13 Tex. Ap. 665; Gomez v. §. 15 Tex. Ap. 64; Faulkner v. 8.15 Tex. Ap. 115, Taylor v. 8. 15 Tex. Ap. 356; Schindler v. §. 15 Tex. Ap. 394; Harris v. 8. 15 Tex. Ap. 411; Castellow v. S. 15 Tex. Ap. 551; Tucker v. 8. 16 Tex. Ap. 471; Roberts v. 8. 17 Tex. Ap. 82; Lewis v. S. 17 Tex. Ap. 140; Heskew v. 8.17 Tex. Ap. 161; Bragg v. 8. 17 Tex. Ap. 219; York v. 8. 17 Tex. Ap. 441; Vaughn v. S. 17 Tex. Ap. 562; Miller v. S. 18 Tex. Ap. 34; Lehman v. S. 18 Tex. Ap. 174, 51 Am. R. 298; Gonzales «. S. 18 Tex. Ap. 449; Loving v. S.18 Tex. Ap. 459; Wind- ham v. 8.19 Tex. Ap. 413; Schultz v. S. 20 Tex. Ap. 315; Boyde. 8. 24 Tex. Ap. 570, 5 Am. St. 908; Tarin v. S. 25 Tex. Ap. 360; Romero v. S. 25 Tex. Ap. 394; 339 7 Mont. § 742 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. very little now remains in our reports, of unfortunate old doc- trines which have melted before inflowing light. Among the views now exploded, — § 741. Prima Facie Case — Burden Shifting. — Formerly it was often laid down that when the corpus delicti has been proved, if the stolen goods are shown to have been in the possession of the defendant after — or recently after — the theft, the burden of proof reverts to the defendant to explain the possession, failing which he must be convicted. Discordant and indistinct views were expressed as to whether the presumption was of law or of fact.1 Later and more enlightened opinions discard this doc- trine, in whatever form presented.? § 742. The Possession must be Recent — to have the effect we are considering.® And all deem that the presumption diminishes in force with the increase of time between the larceny and it. Morgan v. S. 25 Tex. Ap. 513; Anderson ze. 8. 25 Tex. Ap. 593; Matlock v. S. 25 Tex. Ap. 654, 8 Am. St. 451; Wolfe v. 8. 25 Tex. Ap. 698; Bryant v. S. 25 Tex. Ap. 751; Eads v. S. 26 Tex. Ap. 69; Florez v. 8. 26 Tex. Ap. 477; Arispe v. 8. 26 Tex. Ap. 581; Clark v. S. 27 Tex. Ap. 405; Rumbo v. S. 28 Tex. Ap. 30; Clark v. S. 28 Tex. Ap. 189, 19 Am. St. 817; Lopez v. S. 28 Tex. Ap. 343, 346 ; Lock- hart v. S. 29 Tex. Ap. 35. Utah. — P. v. Clauson, 2 Utah, 502. Vermont. —S. v. Daley, 53 Vt. 442, 38 Am. R. 694. Washington. — S. v. Humason, 5 Wash. 499; S.v. Walters, 7 Wash. 246. West Virginia. —S. v. Heaton, 23 W. Va. 773; S. v. Reece, 27 W. Va. 375. Wisconsin. — S. v. Snell, 46 Wis. 524 ; Ingalls v. S. 48 Wis. 647; Baker v. S. 80 Wis. 416. England. — Reg. ». McMahon, 13 Cox C. C. 275; Reg. v. Hughes, 14 Cox C. C, 223; Reg. v. Carter, 12 Q. B. D. 522, 15 Cox C. C. 448. 12 East P.C. 656; 2 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 275; S. v. Weston, 9 Conn. 527,25 Am. 1). 46; S.v. Brewster, 7 Vt. 118, 122; Knickerbocker v. P. 48 N.Y. 177 (but see Stover v. P. 56 N. Y. 315); Dillon v. P.4 Thomp. & C. 203, 1 Hun, 670; S. v. Bruin, 34 Mo. 537; S. v. Gray, 37 Mo. 463; S. v. Williams, 54 Mo. 170; Foster rv. 8. 52 Missis. 695 ; Mondragon v. 340 S. 33 Tex. 480; Unger v. S. 42 Missis. 642; S. v. Lange, 59 Mo. 418; Gregory v. Richards, 8 Jones, N. C. 410; S. v. Turner, 65 N. C. 592; S. v. Hill, 65 Mo. 84; S. x. Graves, 72 N. C, 482; Belote vu. S. 36 Missis. 96, 72 Am. D. 163. : 2 Cases cited to the last section ; Conk- wright v. P. 35 Ill. 204 (limited in Com- fort rv. P. 54 Ill 404); Watkins v. S. 2 Tex. Ap. 73; Martinez v.S. 41 Tex. 164; Thompson r. 8. 43 Tex. 268; P. v. Brown, 48 Cal. 253; P. v. Noregea, 48 Cal. 123; P. ». Chambers, 18 Cal, 382; P.v. Ah Ki, 20 Cal. 177; Howard v. S. 50 Ind. 190, 193; Gablick v. P. 40 Mich. 292; Williams v. 8. 4 Tex. Ap. 178; Stover v. P. 56 N.Y. 815, 318. And see the numerous more recent cases cited in the note before the last. ‘ 3S. «. Floyd, 15 Mo. 849; S. v. Wolff, 15 Mo. 168; Hughes v. 8. 8 Humph. 75; Hall v. S. 8 Ind. 439; S. vo. Graves, 72 N. C. 482; Gregory v. Richards, 8 Jones, N.C. 410; Reg. v. Starr, 40 U. C.Q. B. 268; Beck v. 8, 44 Tex. 480; Yates v. 8. 37 Tex. 202; S. v. Cassady, 12 Kan. 550. And see the cases in the long alphabetical note. + Gablick v. P. 40 Mich. 292; S. vw Jones; 3 Dev. & Bat, 122; S. v. Shaw, 4 Jones, N. C. 440; Cockin’s Case, 2 Lewin, 235; S. v. Williams, 9 Ire. 140; S. v. Bruin, 34 Mo. 537. CHAP. XL.] LARCENY — THE EVIDENCE. § 744 The just doctrine would seem to be that if the possession is very remote, yet how remote must depend on the special facts of the case, the judge in his discretion will exclude it as having no sufficient tendency to prove anything; but when he admits it, he should leave it to the jury with proper suggestions. Judges who admitted it have dealt with it by no uniform rule. When it stood nearly or quite alone in the identifying evidence, and was plainly under the circumstances too remote to found a verdict of conviction upon, —as, for example, six months, or even three months, — sometimes an acquittal has been ordered. Evidently no rule is reasonably possible.” § 743. 1. The Doctrine that the Burden shifts — from the State to the defendant? is contrary to the true view that, in criminal trials upon the general issue of not guilty, such burden never shifts. 4 2. The Source of the Old Doctrine — by which a rule of law, and not the opinion of the jury upon the evidence, convicted defendants of the criminal fact, may not be quite plain; but some references in text-books would seem to trace it to Lord Hale. “If,” he says, in the passage referred to, “a horse be stolen from A, and the same day B be found upon hin, it is a strong presumption that B stole him. Yet I do remember, before a very learned and wary judge, in such an instance, B was condemned and executed at Oxford assizes; and yet, within two assizes after, C, being apprehended for another robbery and convicted, upon his judgment and execution confessed he was the man that stole the horse, and being closely pursued desired B, a stranger, to walk his horse for him while he turned aside for a necessary occasion, and escaped; and B was apprehended with the horse and died innocently.” Surely nothing further need be said to satisfy the present generation that-it is fully time for such barbarous folly to cease. § 744. In a Larceny of Coin or Bank-notes, — of the ordinary denominations, such as pass rapidly from hand to hand, the 1 Vol. I. § 982. note; Reg. v. Knight, Leigh & C. 378, 2 Rex v. Adams, 3 Car. & P. 600; Rex 9 Cox C. C. 437; Reg. v. Cooper, 3 Car. v. ,2 Car. & P. 459; S. v. Bennet,2 & K. 318; Reg. v. Evans, 2 Cox C.C. Tread. 692,3 Brev. 514; Sloan v. P. 47 270. Ii 76; C. v. Parmenter, 101 Mass, 211; 3 Ante, § 741. Warren v. 8. 1 Greene, Iowa, 106; Reg. 4 Vol. I. § 1048-1051; ante, § 599, 669 v. Harris, 8 Cox C.C. 333; Reg. v. Hew- (5). lett, 3 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 321, 5 2 Hale P. C. 289. 341 § 746 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. inculpating effect of recent possession is slight.1 And, in wider terms, the strength of this evidence will vary with the nature of the thing stolen.2 So — § 745. 1. All the Attending Circumstances — should be shown in connection with the fact of possession.? And — 2. By the Jury —all should be taken into the account.? And, however much or in whatever way the court may instruct and admonish them, the law permits them to give to the evidence of possession, the same as to the rest, simply such weight and effect as to themselves appears just;> though, more or less con- trary hereto, the books contain various cases in which seemingly the court presents to them the presumption of guilt as control- ling by technical rule their personal convictions.® § 746. Defendant explaining — (Res Geste),— The discovery of the stolen goods in the possession of the defendant being a fact in the case, the doctrine of the res geste’ teaches that what he said in connection with this fact, particularly on its being made known to him, is admissible on either side, especially if then he is directly or by implication charged with the theft.® 1 Rex rv. Atkinson, 1 Crawf. & Dix C. C. 161; P. v. Getty, 49 Cal. 581 ; Stover v. P. 56 N. Y. 315, 318; Reg. v. Smith, 3 Fost. & F. 123. 2 Rex v. Partridge, 7 Car. & P. 551; S. v. Bruin, 34 Mo. 537, 541. 3 Jones v. S. 26 Missis. 247; Engle- man v. S. 2 Ind. 91, 52 Am. D, 494; C.v. Bell, 102 Mass. 163; S. v. Patterson, 78 N. C. 470. 4 Long v. S.1 Swan, Tenn. 287; Cur- tis v. S. 6 Coldw. 9; Ivey v. 8.43 Tex. 425; Allen v. S. 42 Tex. 517. 5 Ante, § 740; Thomas v. 8. 43 Tex. 658; Bailey v. S. 52 Ind. 462, 21 Am. R. 182; S.v. Walker, 41 Iowa, 217; C. v. Randall, 119 Mass. 107; C. v. Bell, snpra; Davis v. S. 50 Missis. 86; S. v. En, 10 Nev. 277; Barnes v. 8. 43 Tex. 98 ; Thomp- son v. 8. 43 Tex. 268; Price v. C. 21 Grat. 846; Wilcox v. S. 3 Heisk. 110, 118; Sto- ver v. P.56 N. Y. 315; Reg. v. Langmead, Leigh & C. 427, 9 Cox C. C. 464; Graves y. 8. 12 Wis. 591, 593; S. v. Williams, 2 Jones, N. C. 194; Sartorious v. 8. 24 Missis. 602 (as to which, however, see Jones v. S. 30 Missis. 653, 64 Am. D. 175); Hall v. S. 8 Ind. 439; P. v. Carabin, 14 -Cal. 438. 342 If 6 Ante, § 741; S. v. Hill,65 Mo. 84 (but compare with S. v. Robbins, 65 Mo. 443); Simpson v. 8S. 4 Humph. 456; P. v. Caniff, 2 Par. Cr. 586; C. v. Millard, 1 Mass. 6; Hudson v. S. 9 Yerg. 408; Hud- gins v. S. 26 Ga. 350 ; Jones v. 8. 30 Missis. 653; S. v. Merrick, 19 Me. 398; S. v. Bennet, 3 Brey. 514; Pennsylvania v. Myers, Addison, 320; Jones v. P. 12 Ill. 259; S. v. Gray, 37 Mo. 463, 465. In a North Carolina case, Gaston, J. admirably observed: ‘‘ From necessity, the law must admit, in criminal as well as civil cases, presumptive evidence; but, in criminal cases, it never allows to such evidence any technical or artificial operation, beyond its natural tendency to produce belief under the circumstances of the case.’ S. v. Smith, 2 Tre. 402, 406. And see S. v. Kinman, 7 Rich. 497. 7 Vol. I. § 1083-1087, 1111, 1125 (2); ante, § 625-627. 8 Harmon v. S. 8 Tex. Ap. 51, 54; Shackelford v. §. 43 Tex. 188; Shackle- ford v. 8.2 Tex. Ap. 885; Foster v. 8. 4 Tex. Ap. 246; Perry v. S. 41 Tex. 483; Darnell v. 8S. 43 Tex. 147; S. v. Worth- ington, 64 N.C. 594; Reg. v. Evans, 2 Cox C. C. 270. CHAP. XL.] LARCENY —THE EVIDENCE. § 747 such explanation appears to the jury reasonable, and it is not shown by the prosecutor to be false, its weight in the scale for him will be very considerable; but if it appears unreasonable, or especially if it is shown to be false, it will bear against him heavily.1 The court, in administering this branch of the law, should use all due caution to prevent the defendant manufactur- ing evidence for himself.? And his explanations, not made in connection with the discovery of the stolen property, — not, therefore, of the res geste, —are inadmissible in his behalf.? Moreover, possibly there is a State or two wherein the whole doctrine of this section is denied.4 § 746 a. 1. The Possession — may be not only manual but in any other form; as, where the thing is in the defendant’s house. Yet such questions as by whom deposited, whether known to him, and the like, will enter into the presumptions in the several cases.2 So— 2. The Manner of Use, —as, whether open or concealed, is material to the effect of the possession. ® Also, — § 747. 1. In Offences other than Larceny, — it being the ob- ject of this evidence to connect the defendant with the proven crime,’ it is equally admissible as in simple larceny. illustrate, — To 2. Instances. —It is pertinent in burglary,’ in larceny from the dwelling-house,® in shop-breaking ;! and it may be in receiv- ing stolen goods. 1 Ward v. S. 41 Tex. 611; Reg. v. Hughes, 1 Cox C. C. 176; Reg. v: Evans, 2 Cox C. C. 270; Walker v. S. 28 Ga. 254; Reg. v. Smith, 2 Car. & K. 207; S. v. Jones, 3 Dev. & Bat. 122; C. v. Millard, I Mass.6; Davis v. P. 1 Par. Cr. 447; Reg. v. Dibley, 2 Car. & K. 818; Reg. v. Crowhurst, 1 Car. & K. 370; Reg. v. Exall, 4 Fost. & F. 922, 929, 930. 2 Vol. I. § 1087; Foster v. 8. 4 Tex. Ap. 246. 3 Robinson v. 8. 3 Tex. Ap. 487; Pow- ell v. S. 44 Tex. 63; Cameron v. S. 44 Tex. 652. 4 Maynard »v. 8. 46 Ala. 85; S. v. Wis- dom, 8 Port, 511; Taylor v. S. 42 Ala. 529. 5 Lewis v. S. 4 Kan. 296; S. v, John- son, Winst. i. 238, 86 Am. D. 434; Turbe- ville v. S. 42 Ind. 490; S. v. Lindsey, 78 Even in murder, accompanied by robbery, N. C. 499; S. v. Wilkerson, 72 N. C. 376; Teg. v. Banks, 1 Cox C. C. 238; S. ». Bowers, 17 Iowa, 46; S. v. Wohlman, 34 Mo, 482, 86 Am. D. 117. 6 Wafford v. S. 44 Tex. 439; Minor v. S. 56 Ga. 630. 7 Ante, § 739 (2). 8 Ante, § 152; Breese 7, S. 12 Ohio St. 146, 156, 80 Am. D. 340; Knickerbocker v. P. 43 N.Y. 177. The principle seems not to have been quite clear in the mind of the learned judge in Davis v. P. 1 Par. Cr. 447, 451. 9 Reg. v. Stapleton, 2 Crawf. & Dix C. C. 87. 10 ©. v. Millard, 1 Mass. 6. ll Reg. v. Langmead, Leigh & C. 427, 9 Cox C.C. 464; Reg. v. Deer, Leigh & C. 240, 9 Cox C. C. 225. 348 § 751 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. ‘ possession of the fruits of the crime may be a fact weighty in evidence. Il. Other Questions of Hvidence. § 748. First. Some General Propositions : — The Wealth or Poverty — of the defendant, unconnected with. other evidence, appears not to be admissible. But accompanied by some special fact, such as the sudden possession of money,? his poverty may be pertinent against him;* and so doubtless, in various circumstances, will be his wealth in his favor. Yet that he was reputed to be a person of property was in one case adjudged incompetent. § 749. In the Larceny of One's Own Goods —from an officer holding them on legal process,’ his knowledge of the seizure must appear,® else the presumption will be that he took them under a claim of right. § 750. 1. Other Disconnected Larcenies — by the defendant, cannot be shown as ground for presuming his commission of the one on trial.7 But — 2. The Possession of Other Stolen Goods —is competent when it connects him with the transaction of which he is accused, not as tending to prove the other offences, but this one.® And — 3. A Contemporaneous Theft, — when it affords light on the one on trial, may be admissible.® § 751. Secondly. Value :— 1. Whenever Material —is the question of value, so that value is required in allegation,’ it must be proved.1! 1 Williams v. C. 29 Pa. 102, 106. 2 Perrin v. S. 81 Wis. 135. 8 C. v. Montgomery, 11 Met. 534, 45 Am. D. 227; 8. v. Grebe, 17 Kan. 458. And see S. v. Cameron, 40 Vt. 555; C. v. Grose, 99 Mass. 423. 4 C. v. Stebbins, 8 Gray, 492, 496. 5 New Crim. Law, II. § 791. 6 S. v. Dewitt, 32 Mo. 571. 7 Vol. I. § 1120, 1124; Walker» C.1 Leigh, 574; S. v. Daubert, 42 Mo. 242; S. v. Bates, 46 La. An. 849. 8 Yarborough v. S. 41 Ala. 405; Wiley v. §. 3 Coldw. 362; S. v. Ditton, 48 Iowa, 677; Gilbraith v. S. 41 Tex. 567; S. v. Flynn, 124 Mo. 480; P. v. Ross, 65 Cal. 104; S. vo. Moore, 101 Mo. 316; S. w 344 ‘ Weaver, 104 N. C. 758; P. v. Cunning- ham, 66 Cal. 668; Reg. v. Jones, 14 Cox C. C. 3; Webb v. S. 8 Tex. Ap. 115; Tyler v. 8. 13 Tex. Ap. 205. 9 Van Musgrave v. 8 28 Tex. Ap. 57; Moore v. 8. 28 Tex. Ap 377; Links v. 8. 13 Lea, 701; 8. v. Kelley, 65 Vt. 531; Holmes v. 8, 20 Tex. Ap. 509. Yet see S. v. McGraw, 74 Mo. 573. 10 Ante, § 713-717, 736 (1). M Ante, § 714; S. v. Krieger, 68 Mo. 98; Collins v. P. 39 Tl. 233; Radford v. 8. 35 Tex. 15; Hall v. 8.15 Tex. Ap. 40; Moore v, 8.17 Tex. Ap. 176; S. v. Krieger, 68 Mo. 98; Simpson v. S. 10 Tex. Ap. 681; Burrows v. S 137 Ind. 474, 45 Am. St. 210; Whitehead v. 8. 20 Fla. 841. CHAP. XL.] LARCENY — THE EVIDENCE. § 751 2. The Exact Value,— we have seen, is not generally under our statutes essential; but the inquiry is whether the things were worth more or less than a sum which distinguishes a higher from a lower punishment.! Where value is not an ele- ment in the punishment, it need not be averred; or if it is, it need not be proved.? Hence, — 3. Further of Value. — To convict of petit larceny requires no proof of value. But in all cases, the jury must be satisfied the goods were of some value; this being an element in larceny. That they were so requires no separate proof; the jury may infer it from having inspected the articles, or having heard them described by the witnesses. ® 4, The Word “Value” — is, like most others even in our legal language, slightly variable in meaning.? But— 5. The Standard of Value,— for our present inquiry, is ordi- narily the market value of the goods, or that for which the like goods are, at the time and place of the theft, commonly in the markets bought and sold, But there are valuable things the subjects of larceny not marketable; for example, a second-hand coffin, ° and the same condition in a degree but not fully applies to second-hand clothing."! Soa man’s portrait of his deceased father, enhanced by the fact that he has no other, may give it a value to him quite beyond any market test.!2 And where a thing has a value to the owner, though to no one else, to steal it is larceny; its “value as to the rest of the world” being, in the 1 Ante, § 716; Miles v. 8. 3 Tex. Ap. 58; Williams v. P. 24 N. Y.405; Pittman v. S. 14 Tex. Ap. 576; Moore v. S, 17 Tex. Ap. 176; P. v. Harris, 77 Mich. 568; S. v. Davenport, 38 S. C. 348. 2 C. v. Burke, 12 Allen, 182. 3 §. v. Slack, 1 Bailey, 330. See S. v. Walker, 119 Mo. 467. 4 C. v. Burke, supra; S. v. Slack, supra; S. v. Gerrish, 78 Me. 20. 5 New Crim. Law, II. § 767 (3), 768 (1); Rex v. Phipoe, 2 Leach, 675. 6 C. v. Burke, supra; C. v. McKenney, 9 Gray, 114; C..v. Lawless, 103 Mass. 425 ; S. v. Gerrish, supra. 7 See, for a meaning different from that expounded in the text, Chidester v. S. 25 Ohio St. 433. 8 §. v. Smith, 48 Iowa, 595; Coolidge v, Choate, 11 Met. 79; Gardner v. Field, 1 Gray, 151, 54; Butler v. Baird, 5 Rich. 154; White v. Concord Rid. 10 Fost. N. H. 188; Thornton v. Campton, 18 N. H. 20; McCracken v. West, 17 Ohio, 16; Cannon v. S. 18 Tex. Ap. 172; S. v. James, 58 N. H. 67; Pratt v. S. 35 Ohio St. 514, 35 Am. R. 617; Martinez v. S.16 Tex. Ap. 122; P. v. Cole, 54 Mich. 238; S. v. Rook, 42 Kan. 419. And see Yarborough v. 8. 41 Ala. 405. 9S v. Walker, 119 Mo. 467. 1 Pratt v. S. supra; S. v. Doepke, 68 Mo. 208, 30 Am. R. 785. 11 Tb.; Printz v. P. 42 Mich. 144, 36 Am. R. 487. 12 Green v. Boston, &¢. Rid. 128 Mass. 221. 345 § 751 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. words of Grose, J. “immaterial.”! Yet there are cases main- taining that, in fixing the grade of the offence, the value merely to the owner is not the standard for the jury.2, Under facts like these, it is easier to say what is not right than what is. Prob- ably in many if not most circumstances, the cost of replacing the article would be its value in larceny. In the uncertain con- dition of the authorities, we may perhaps derive from the analogies of the law, —such, for example, as the jury’s power to estimate a damage to one’s feelings or reputation, — the rule that where a thing is valuable without a market value, or any other like standard of value, all the circumstances of injury to the victim of the theft, whether pecuniary or other, should be laid before the jury, who thereupon will determine the question of value. 6. The Value of Coin and Treasury Notes, — fixed by law, is a question of law, and no proof thereof is required from wit- nesses ;° though, in practice, it is sometimes given.‘ 7. Ordinary Bank-notes — are not quite within this rule. Of course, the jury must be satisfied of their genuineness; for this is an element essential to their value. Proof of the corporate existence of the bank is sometimes said to be necessary, except where it is established by statutes of which the court takes judicial notice; but this is believed not to be so either on principle or on the better authorities.6 It is commonly enough to show that the bank-bill is genuine, and it circulates as money ;' or, that the defendant passed it, or admitted he passed it, as genuine.6 The jury will then be justified in presuming that it was of the value expressed on its face.® Also the genuine- 1 Rex v. Clarke, 2 Leach, 1036, 1039 ; 8. c. nom. Rex v. Clark, Russ. & Ry. 181; Rex v. Ranson, 2 Leach, 1090, 1093. 2S. v. Smith, supra; Cohen »v. S, 50 Ala. 108; S. v. Doepke, supra. 3 Grant v. 8. 55 Ala. 201; Collins v. P. 39 Tl]. 233; Duvall v. S. 63 Ala. 12; Bur- rows v. S. 137 Ind. 474,45 Am. St. 210. 4S.» Ford, 21 Wis. 610; Vincent v. S.3 Heisk. 120. And see Blount v.S 76 Ga. 17; Davis». S. 82 Tex, Cr. 377; §.v. Carter, 113 N. C. 639, 5 Low v. P. 2 Par. Cr. 37; 8. v. Dob- son, 3 Harring. Del. 563. 6 Ante, § 454-458; Corbett v. S. 31 346 Ala, 329, 340; Lithgow v. C. 2 Va. Cas, 297. 7 Crawford v. 8. 2 Ind. 132; Shaw »v. S.3 Sneed, 86; C. v. Stebbins, 8 Gray, 492; Hildreth v. P. 32 Ill. 36; Corbett v. S. supra. And see Johnson v. P. 4 Denio, 364. 5 Cummings v. C. 2 Va. Cas. 128; Pomeroy v. C. 2 Va. Cas. 342; Baldwin v. 8. 1 Sneed, 411. 9 Baldwin v. S. supra; Bagley v. 8.3 Tex. Ap. 163, 167; Jackson v. S. 31 Tex. Cr. 342. See S. v. Ready, 44 Kan. 697; Hamilton v. S. 60 Ind. 193, 28 Am. R. 653; Watson v. S. 64 Ga. 61. CHAP. XL.] LARCENY — THE EVIDENCE. § 752 ness of bank-notes may be inferred from their circulating as money.?_ The evidence, therefore, need not be such as would be required in a, suit to recover the sum due on them.? 8. In Proof of the Value of Chattels, — any evidence from which the jury can infer it is competent;? as, what the owner testifies of its value to him,‘ the opinions of witnesses acquainted with the value of like property,® what such property has brought at actual sales;® but not what it was worth at a period too long before or after the time in question.’ Yet its value within a reasonable time,® or. distance,® is admissible. And it appears the jury may find the value from their own inspection of the article, and their personal knowledge. Yet they cannot take into the account the opinion of one of their fellows, who is an expert, on what is not known to the rest, delivered, not on oath, in the jury room. 9. How Conclusive. —From some cases it may perhaps be inferred that the proof of value need not be of great weight.14 Still, it is the adjudged law that the jury must be satisfied of the value essential to their finding, beyond a réasonable doubt; a mere preponderance of the evidence not being adequate. ! § 752. Ownership and Owner’s Non-consent . — 1. Proved. — The ownership averred !* must be proved, and without variance in the name. 1 Hildreth v. P. supra; Hummel v. 8. 17 Ohio St. 628; Higgins v. P. 7 Lans. 110; Corbett y. S. supra. 2S. v. Smart, 4 Rich. 356, 55 Am. D. 683. 3 Houston c. 8. 13 Ark. 66; Saddler v. S. 20 Tex. Ap. 195; Printz v. P. 42 Mich. 144,36 Am. R. 437; Martinez v. S. 16 Tex. Ap. 122. 4 Cohen v. 8. 50 Ala. 108. See Davis v. Sherman, 7 Gray, 291 ; Gerrish v. Pike, 36 N. H. 510. 5 Ante, § 677; Davis v. Elliott, 15 Gray, 90; Hood v. Maxwell, 1 W. Va. 219; Alfonso v. U. S. 2 Story, 421; Hart v. Vidal, 6 Cal. 56; Doane v. Garretson, 24 Towa, 351; Smith v Hill, 22 Barb. 656; S. v. Jacob, 2 Mo. Ap. 183; S. v. Finch, 70 Iowa, 316, 59 Am. R. 443. 6 Paine v. Boston, 4 Allen, 168; White v. Concord Rid. 10 Fost. N. H. 188; Thornton v. Campton, 18 N. H. 20; Gat- ling v. Newell, 9 Ind. 572; Kent v. Whit- ney, 9 Allen, 62, 85 Am. D. 739; Abbey v. Dewey, 25 Pa. 418. 7 Waterson v. Seat, 10 Fla. 326; Mc- Cracken v. West, 10 Ohio, 16; McLaren v, Birdsong, 24 Ga. 265; Melvin v. Bul- lard, 35 Vt. 268. 8 Boyd v. Gunnison, 14 W. Va. 1. ® Hanson v. Lawson, 19 Kan. 201. 10 Rex v. Rosser, 7 Car. & P. 648. See Geiger v. S. 6 Neb. 545; also, first para- graph to this section. 11 Pearles’s Case, 2 East P. C. 741; Rex v. Hamilton, 1 Leach, 348. 12 §. v. Wood, 46 Iowa, 116. 18 Ante, § 718 et seq. 14S. v. Furlong, 19 Me. 225; Jones v. C. 17 Grat. 563 ; Geiger v. S. 6 Neb. 545; Bagley v. S. 3 Tex. Ap. 163; Williams v. 8.4 Tex. Ap.5; Ritcher v. S. 38 Tex. 643 ; King v. S. 44 Ind. 285; Bell v. 8. 46 Ind. 453; S. v. Robinson, 35 La. An. 964." 16 Ante, § 718, 723; Brown v. S, 32 Tex. 124; S. v. Bell, 65 N. C. 318; Ga- 347 §752a@ SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII 2. If a Corporation — is laid as owner, only its de facto exist- ence need be shown in evidence.!_ Or the more elaborate proofs de jure may be resorted to should the prosecuting power choose.? 3. Witnesses and Proofs. — The alleged owner is a competent witness,® but not to the exclusion of others.4 It is not sufficient that he thinks he has lost the thing,® his testimony must be more direct.6 The propriety of calling him, where it can be done, is manifest,’ though not required by any rule of law.8 The defendant’s admissions of the ownership are competent.? And the evidence may assume various other forms, suggested by the special facts. 4, Husband and Wife. — Personal property in the hands of a married woman is, in the absence of controlling evidence, presumed to be the husband’s; though a statute authorizes wives to hold like property to their separate use. § 752 a. 1. Non-consent to taking. — At common law, except under such special circumstances as will vary the rule only to outward appearance,” if the owner of a chattel consents to another’s taking it, such taking cannot be larceny.¥8 If the consent was given it is matter simply of defence. Hence non- consent is not averred in the indictment, and it need not be proved. But — 2. In a Few of our States — there are, as in Texas, statutory larcenies whereof non-consent is an affirmative element; thus, “without the consent of the owner.” Then non-consent must be alleged by the prosecutor and proved.'* In such a case, while we briel v. S. 40 Ala. 357; C. v. Williams, 161 Mass. 442; Johnson v. 8.4 Tex Ap. 594; Blankenship v. 8. 55 Ark. 244; Wil- liams v.S. 26 Tex. Ap. 131. See P. v. McCarty, 5 Utah, 280. 1 Smith v. §. 28 Ind. 321; P. v. Barric, 49 Cal. 342. 2 C. v. Whitman, 121 Mass. 361. And see McCarney v. P. 83 N, Y. 408, 38 Am. R. 456, 3 §, vo. Furlong, supra. * Lowrance v. S. 4 Yerg. 145. And see Free v. S. 13 Ind. 324. 5 Barnes v. P.18 Ill. 52, 65 Am. D. 699. 6 P, », Keane, 43 Cal. 638. 7 See S. v. Morey, 2 Wis. 494. 8 Ante, § 481. See P. v. Jim Ti, 32 Cal. 60. 348 9 §. v. Hogard, 12 Minn. 293. 10 Reg. v. King, 12 Cox C. C. 134, 2 Eng. Rep. 198 ; Morningstar v. 8. 59 Ala. 80; U.S. v. Mathoit, 1 Saw. 142; Cole wv. P. 37 Mich, 544; Johnson v. S. 59 Ala. 37; Leggett v. S. 15 Ohio, 283; S. v. Pet- tis, 63 Me. 124; Reg. v. Brummitt, Leigh &C. 9,8 Cox C. C. 413; Peoples v. De- vault, 11 Heisk. 431; Jackson v. S. 54 Ala. 234. 1 C.v. Williams, 7 Gray, 337. See S. v. Jackson, 1 Houst. Crim. 561. 12 P.v. Jacks, 76 Mich. 218. 18 New Crim. Law, L § 260 (2), 262, 263 (2), 582 (3), 583, 585; II, § 808-822 4 McMahon »v. S. 1 Tex. Ap. 102; Erskine v. S.1 Tex. Ap. 405; Bailey v. 8. 18 Tex. Ap. 426, CHAP. XL.] LARCENY — THE EVIDENCE, § 754 have seeming rulings that the agent or his owner must be called to the non-consent,/ the better doctrine accepts, as adequate in law, circumstantial evidence and the testimony of other wit- nesses.? The owner’s declarations, subsequent to the alleged larceny, are but hearsay, and are not admissible. § 753. Fourthly. Zhe Production of the Stolen Thing : — 1. If in Possession of the Officers of the Law,—the stolen thing may be exhibited to the jury, and the witness may have it in his hands while delivering his testimony. But its presence in court is not legally necessary. Even — 2. Where an Instrument in Writing —is the thing alleged to be stolen, it is presumed to be under the control of the defendant; yet, contrary to the rule in forgery,® no notice to him to produce it is required to let in parol proof of its contents.° For it is within, and forgery without, the principle prevailing alike in criminal causes and in civil, that an allegation against one of having taken into his possession a written thing in controversy is notice to him to have it at the trial.7 § 754. Fifthly. Other Questions : — 1. Questions — are always arising, the solution whereof depends on the general rules of evidence, rather than those pertaining specially to larceny. And — 1 §. v. Morey, 2 Wis. 494, 60 Am. D. 439; S. ev. Moon, 41 Wis. 684, 686; S. v. Osborne, 28 Iowa, 9, 10, 11; Rex v. Rog- ers, 2 Camp. 654. 2 McMahon »v. S. supra; Erskine v. S. supra; Trafton v. 8. 5 Tex. Ap. 480; Foster v. 8.4 Tex. Ap. 246; Welsh ». S. 3 Tex. Ap. 422; Rex v. Allen, 1 Moody, 154; Rex v. Hazy, 2 Car. & P. 458; Schultz v. S. 20 Tex. Ap. 308. And see, as to the principle, C. v. James, 1 Pick. 375. 3 Sneed v. S. 4 Tex. Ap 514. 4S. v. Lull, 37 Me. 246; Reg. v. Sar- gent, 5 Cox C. C. 499. Andsee Vol. I § 965 (1). The jury may not only see it, but examine it witha magnifying glass. Short. v. S. 63 Ind. 376; P. v. Tipton, 73 Cal. 405. 5 Ante, § 433, 434. 6 C. v. Messinger, 1 Binn. 273, 2 Am. D. 441; Moore v.C. 2 Leigh, 701; Mc- Ginnis v. S. 24 Ind. 500; Reg. v. Brennan, 3 Crawf. & Iix C. C. 109, 110; P.v. Hol- brook, 13 Johns. 90, 92; Rex v. Aickles, 1 Leach, 294, 297, 2 East P. C. 675. 7 P. v. Holbrook, supra; How v. Hall, 14 East, 274; Scott ». Jones, 4 Taunt. 865; Bucher v. Jarratt, 3 B. & P. 143; Jolley v. Taylor, 1 Camp. 143; Rex v. Moors, 6 East, 419, 421, note; S. v. May- berry, 48 Me. 218; Rose v. Lewis, 10 Mich. 483; Hart v. Robinett, 5 Misso. 11; Nealley v. Greenough, 5 Fost. N. H. 325; Luckett v. Clark, Litt. Sel. Cas. 178; Hays v. Riddle, 1 Sandf. 248; Dana v. Conant, 80 Vt. 246; Hammond »v. Hopping, 13 Wend. 505; Hardin v. Kretsinger, 17 Johns. 293; Edwards v. Bonneau, 1 Sandf. 610; Forward v. Harris, 30 Barb. 338; Pickering v. Meyers, 2 Bailey, 113 ; Ham- ilton v. Rice, 15 Tex. 382. And see Mor- gan v. Jones, 24 Ga. 155; Mitchell v. Jacobs, 17 Ill. 236; Kellar v. Savage, 20 Me. 199; Gray v. Kernahan, 2 Mill, 65. 8 Thus, Openness or Concealment, — in the taking, may be a significant circum- stance. Hall v. S$. 53 Ala. 634; Stuart v. 349 § 754 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL. 2, Sufficient in Degree — must be the evidence, adequately covering the entire allegation.! P. 73 Til. 20; Hart v. 8. 57 Ind. 102; Black v. S. 83 Ala. 81, 3 Am. St. 691; Causey v. 8. 79 Ga. 564, 11 Am. St. 447; Sigler v. 8. 7 Tex. Ap. 283; Thompson v. S. 26 Tex. Ap. 466; Lansford v. Dietrich, 86 Ala. 250, 11 Am. St. 37; S. v. Powell, 103 N.C. 424, 14 Am. St. 821. Felonious Intent — must be shown. It, or its ab- sence, may appear in the circumstances. Mason v. S. 32 Ark. 238; Hart x. S. supra; Elswick v. C. 13 Bush, 155 ; Cam- plin v. S. 1 Tex. Ap. 108; Berry v. S. 10 Ga. 511. Acts and Declarations — (Res Gestee). — ‘The defendant's acts and dec- larations are admissible or not in his favor, according as they are of the res geste, or otherwise. S.v. Shermer, 55 Mo. 83; Maddox v. 8. 41 Tex. 205; Dixon v. 8. 2 Tex. Ap. 530; Foster rv. P. 18 Mich. 266; S. v. Dellwood, 33 La. An. 1229. As to the admission of his acts and dec- larations against him, see Shaw v. S. 3 Sneed, 86; S. v. Barton, 19 Mo. 227; P. v. Williams, 24 Mich. 156; White v. S. 11 Tex. 769, 773; S. v. Carter, 72 N.C. 99. Foot-prints. — Campbell v. 8. 55 Ala. 80. Wagon-tracks. —S. v. Folwell, 14 Kan. 105. Absconding with Proceeds. — C. v. Hurd, 123 Mass. 438. Signs and Tokens. — The court may refuse to com- pel a witness to disclose what he knows of the signs and tokens of a class of thieves. S.v. Wilson, 8 Iowa, 407. Per- son giving Information. — So, from con- siderations of public policy, the witness from whom the property was stolen will not be required to disclose the names of those on whose information he took steps 350 against the defendant. S. v. Soper, 16 Me. 293, 33 Am. D. 665. Still other Questions. — For other questions of evi- dence, see Bennett v. S. 52 Ala. 370; S. v. Kellerman, 14 Kan. 135; S. v. Staples, 47 N. H. 113; P. v. Robles, 34 Cal. 591; C. vy, Annis, 15 Gray, 197; Debbs v. S. 43 Tex. 650; Reg. v. Hilditch, 12 Cox C. C. 131, 2 Eng. Rep. 194; Long v. S. 22 Ga. 40; Rex v. Semple, 1 Leach, 420, 424, 2 East P. C. 691; Griggs v. S. 58 Ala. 425, 29 Am. R. 762; P. v. Morrigan, 29 Mich. 4. 1 For evidence sufficient and insuffi- cient in law to justify a conviction, see S. v. Watson, 7 S. C. 67; S. v. Fritchler, 54 Mo. 424; Reg. v. Starr, 40 U. C. Q. B. 268; Reg. v. Walker, Dears. 280, 6 Cox C.C. 310, 25 Eng. L. & Eq. 568; Gardiner zv. 8. 33 Tex. 692; Thurman »v. S. 33 Tex. 684; McCourt v. P. 64 N. Y. 583; U.S. v. Emerson, 6 McLean, 406; McHenry v. S. 40 Tex. 46; S. v. Vinson, 63 N.C. 335; Pitts v. S. 3 Tex. Ap. 210; Hines v. S. 51 Ga. 301; Moore v. S. 2 Tex. Ap. 350; Smith v. §. 2 Tex. Ap. 477; Walker v. S. 3 Tex. Ap. 70; Brown v. 8. 2 Tex. Ap. 139; Macino v. P. 12 Hun, 127; S. v. Hunt, 45 Iowa, 673; S. v. Davis, 9 Vroom, 176, 20 Am. R. 867; Moore v. S. 40 Ala, 49; S. v. Freeman, 72 N. C. 521; Jones v. 8. 3 Tex. Ap. 575; 8. v. Mitchener, 98 N. C. 689; Crockett v. S. 14 Tex. Ap. 226; Denmark v. 8. 58 Ark. 576; Johnson v. 8. 13 Tex. Ap. 378; 8. v. Summers, 38 Minn. 324; Clark v. S. 7 Tex. Ap. 57; Blankenship v. 8. 5 Tex. Ap. 218; Shultz v. §. 5 Tex. Ap. 390. CHAP. XLI.] LARCENY —— QUESTIONS OF PRACTICE. § 757 CHAPTER XLII. LARCENY, AS TO QUESTIONS OF PRACTICE. § 754 a, Introduction. 755-763. Restitution of the Stolen Goods. 764-769. The Verdict. 770. Other Questions. Consult — the places referred to introducing the chapter before the last. § 754 a, How dividea.— We shall consider, I. Restitution of the Stolen Goods; II. The Verdict; III. Other Questions. I. Restitution of the Stolen Goods. § 755. Under the Ancient Common Law, — a judicial order for restoring stolen goods to the owner could be had only on the now-obsolete proceeding by appeal.1 But— § 756. The Statute of 21 Hen. 8, c. 11, — in 1529, directed that if any one from whose “person or otherwise” a “felon” did “rob or take away any money, goods, or chattels,” brought about the conviction of the felon by evidence which he gave or procured, he should “be restored to his said money, goods, and chattels; and that as well the justices of jail delivery as other justices afore whom ” was the attainder “have power by this present act to award from time to time writs of restitution for the said money, goods, and chattels, in like manner as though any such felon or felons were attainted at the suit of the party in appeal.” 2 § 757. With Us,— this statute is early enough in date to be common law. Kilty deems it to have been of force in Maryland till superseded.? It is not in the list by the Pennsylvania 1 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 23, § 49, 55; Reg. v. London, Law Rep. 4 Q. B. 371; s. c. nom. Walker v. London, 11 Cox C. C. 280. And see the reporter’s note to Gimson v. Woodfull, 2 Car. & P. 41, 43. 2 See, for a form of the proceedings and writ for restitution against purchasers of the goods in market overt, Burgess v. Coney, Trem. P. C. 315. And see, for a form of an order held to be in excess of the power of the judge, Reg. v. Pierce, Bell C. C. 235, 8 Cox C. C. 344, 8 Kilty Rep. Stats. 160. 351 § 761 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. judges,! probably being omitted from some special cause. Later legislation in England has taken its place; and so it has generally with us. § 758. How the Statutes are construed : — 1. Being Remedial, — their construction should be liberal.? Hence, — es 2. Taken in Exchange.—If the thief has bought with the stolen things — for example, stolen bank-bills — other personal property, their owner may maintain trover for the latter.? Or, on conviction, the court will order restitution of this property instead of the original stolen things. That the owner can thus follow the stolen goods into land has been both affirmed 5 and denied. ® § 759. What Larcenies.—It is perceived that the statute of Hen. 8 by its terms extends both to simple larcenies, and to the compound ones, including robbery; yet to no indictable takings which are only misdemeanor.’ § 760. Neglect to prosecute. — It appears that one may debar himself of his rights under this statute of Hen. 8, by dilatoriness and neglects in the prosecution of the offender. For the statute has the words, “in like manner as though any such felon or felons were attainted at the suit of the party in appeal;” and, says Chitty, “it was only by prompt and vigorous exertion that he could obtain his goods on an appeal.” 8 § 761. 1. Taken from Servant. — “If,” continues Chitty,® “the property has been taken from a servant, and the latter, by the procurement of his master, gives evidence on which the offender is convicted, the owner will regain his property.1° So, — 2. Owner deceased. — “If the robbery was committed on an 1 Report of Statutes, 3 Binn, 599. 5 Newton v. Porter, 5 Lans. 416. 2 Stat Crimes, § 120, 192; post, § 761 (2); Golightly v. Reynolds, Lofft, 88. 8 Golightly v. Reynolds, supra; Lance v. Cowan, 1 Dana, 195. And see Scatter- good v. Sylvester, 15 Q. B. 506; Horwood v. Smith, 2 T. R. 750; Gimson v, Wood- full, 2 Car. & P. 41. 4 Lance v. Cowan, supra; Rex v. Pow- ell, 7 Car. & P. 640. And see Rex v. Rooney, 7 Car. & P. 515. The Massa- chusetts court has denied this. C. v. Boudrie, 4 Gray, 418. As to which, see a note to this section in the 2d ed. 352 6 Campbell v. Drake, 4 Ire. Eq. 94. 7 Ante, § 198; Rex v. De Veaux, 2 Leach, 585; s. c. nom. Rex «. Devaux, 2 East P. C. 789, 839; Parker v. J’atrick, 5 T. R. 175. See Robinson v. Dauchy, 3 Barb. 20. 8 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 818, referring, among other places, to 1 Hale P. C, 540; 2 Hawk. P. C. ¢. 28, § 56. 9 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 820. 10 1 Hale P. C. 542; Staunf. 167; Com. Dig. Justices, A; Burn Just. Restitution of Stolen Goods. ‘CHAP. XLI.] LARCENY — QUESTIONS OF PRACTICE. § 763 individual who is since deceased, and the criminal is brought to justice by the exertions of the personal representative, he will receive it, as the party himself would if living; because this statute is to receive a beneficial construction.” 1 § 762. 1. The Writ of Restitution, — provided for by 21 Hen. 8, c. 11, is not used in modern times; but instead, — 2. Order of Restitution. — “The constant practice is for the judges or justices, without any precept, to order the goods brought into court to be restored to the parties indicting.” ? And the court may hear counsel on behalf of third persons who claim them.$ 3. The Right of the Owner —to his goods is not divested by the theft; and, whether there is an order of restitution or not, he may claim them wherever he can find them; or, subject to limitations elsewhere stated,4 recover their value by action. Even a sale in the English market overt does not change this. A fortiort, a pawnee cannot hold them against the true owner.® 4, A Third Person — cannot have the restitution of goods be- longing to him, not the prosecutor’s, found in the possession of a convicted felon.® 5. No other Court — than that before which the conviction took place can order the restitution.” § 763. Statutes in some of our States — are in forms differing from the English and ordinary American ones. 1 3 Inst. 242; 1 Hale P. C. 542; Burn Just. Restitution of Stolen Goods. 21 Chit. Crim. Law, ut sup.; Reg. v. Macklin, 5 Cox C.C. 216; Reg. v. Smith, 12 Cox C. C. 597, 8 Eng. Rep. 608; Reg. v. Goldsmith, 12 Cox C. C. 594, 8 Eng. Rep. 605; Chichester v. Hill, 15 Cox C. C. 258; Reg. v. Jones, 14 Cox C, C. 528. 8 Reg. v. Macklin, supra. For Forms, —see Reg. v. Pierce, 8 Cox C.C. 344, Bell C. C. 235; Burgess v. Coney, Trem. P. C. 315. 4 New Crim. Law, I. § 267-272, par- ticularly 268 ; Horwood v. Smith, 2 T. R. 750. And see Bullock v. Dunlap, 2 Ex. D. 43. 5 Burgess v. Coney, Trem. P. C. 315; Reg. v. Stancliffe, 11 Cox C. C. 318; _ Scattergood v. Sylvester, 15 Q. B. 506; Reg. v. Sargent, 5 Cox C.C. 499. See Rex v. Stanton, 7 Car. & P. 481. VOL. 11, — 23 6 Reg. v. London, Ellis, B. & B. 509; 8. c. nom. Reg. v. Pierce, Bell C. C. 235, 8 Cox C. C. 344. 7 Reg. v. London, Law Rep. 4 Q. B. 371; s. c. nom. Walker v. London, 11 Cox C. C. 280. And see Isaacs x. S. 23 Md. 410; Sullivan v. Robinson, 39 Ala. 613. 8 See C. ». Henley, 1 Va. Cas. 145; Locke v. S. 32 N. H. 106; Gilbert xv. Steadman, 1 Root, 403; C. v. Smith, 1 Mass. 245; Jones v. S. 13 Ala. 153. As to Iowa, see S. v. Williams, 61 Towa, 517- In Texas, there is a provision for reduc- ing the punishment after a voluntary re- turn of the stolen things. Owen v. 8. 44 Tex. 248; Ingle v. S. 1 Tex. Ap. 307; Brill v. S. 1 Tex. Ap. 572; Allen v. 8. 12 Tex. Ap. 190. 353 § 765 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL Il. The Verdict. § 764, 1. In the First Volume, — is explained the general doc- trine of the verdict in criminal cases.1 And — 2. The Simple Finding of “ Guilty ” — convicts the defendant of all that in the indictment is well alleged against him.? Hence, — 3. Value.— On a charge of stealing articles of values specified, . it affirms both that the defendant stole every one of them,? and that their several values were as averred. Therefore this form of verdict is adequate.¢ But — 4, Contrary to this General and Better Doctrine, — the courts in some of our States, not well apprehending the effect of a verdict of guilty, or compelled by a statute, or by some cause not operating commonly elsewhere, have held that, for the verdict to be good, it must contain a finding in terms of the value of the stolen property. Of course, this is so only when the punishment depends on value.® § 765. Why?— Most of the cases holding this exceptional doctrine derive it from some peculiar provision in a statute.® Yet it was once observed that the values of the respective articles might not have been truly as “alleged, and the proof may not have shown that all were stolen.” And the jury might have otherwise blundered.? But this is nothing different from what might have been true in any part of a larceny case or any other. 1 Vol. I, § 1000 a-1016. 2 Tb. § 1005a (2); English v. S. 29 Tex. Ap. 174; P. v. Perez, 87 Cal. 122; P. v. Manners, 70 Cal. 428. 3 S. v. Somerville, 21 Me. 20, 4 Smith v. S. 60 Ga. 430, 431; Cook vw. S. 49 Missis. 8 (explaining some cases, such as Shines v. S. 42 Missis. 331, and Unger v. S. 42 Missis. 642, which had been supposed to hold the contrary) ; Du Bois v. S. 50 Ala. 189; Mason v. P. 2 Colo. 373; Wilborn v. 8. 8 Sm. & M. 345; S. v. Smart, 4 Rich. 356, 55 Am. D. 683; C. v. Stebbins, 8 Gray, 492; Poindexter v. C. 6 Rand. 667; Rex v. Comer, 2 East P. C. 516; Rex v. Hungerford, 2 Fast P. C. 518; S. v. Hood, 51 Me. 363; Howell v. S. 1 Or. 241; Schoonover v. 8. 17 Ohio 354 St. 294; S. v. White, 25 Wis. 359; Har- vey v. C. 23 Grat. 941; C. v. Butler, 144 Pa. 568; P. ». Gough, 2 Utah, 70. 5 Locke v. §. 32 N. H. 106; Highland v. P. 1 Scam. 392; Ray v. 8.1 Greene, Towa, 316, 48 Am. D. 379; S. v. Redman, 17 Iowa, 329; Miles v. 8. 3 Tex. Ap. 58; Thompson v. P. 125 Ill. 256. And see Gilbert v. Steadman, 1 Root, 403; 8. v. Steifel, 106 Mo. 129; Collins v. S. 6 Tex. Ap. 647; Timmons v. 8. 56 Missis. 786. 6 See the cases in the last note; also observations in Cook v. S. 49 Missis. 8. 7 Highland v. P. 1 Scam. 392, 394, opinion by Smith, J. See, further, as to the verdict in this State, Hildreth v. P. 32 Ml. 36. CHAP. XL] LARCENY — QUESTIONS OF PRACTICE. § 768 § 766. There are Statutes, —in a few of the States, expressly requiring the verdict to specify, in terms, the value found.! And under some forms of this provision a verdict omitting such finding is erroneous and to be set aside.? But where the purpose of the statute is merely to enable the court to give restitution of the property or a judgment against the defendant for its value, he, not being injured by the omission, cannot, according to what is justly held in Alabama, complain.? § 767. 1. If the Proven Values are Less — than alleged, yet are sufficient to sustain the grade of offence and punishment covered by the indictment, it is within explanations already given to say that the jury may find the verdict which the proofs justify.* And — 2. If Part only of the Goods — alleged to have been stolen are proved, the verdict may be simply guilty, unless the diminution affects the grade of the offence and punishment.® Yet we have a case holding that on proof only of the part, it is error for the judge to tell the jury they may return a general verdict of guilty, though the punishment is the same for the part as for all. For the distinction, it was said, would become important on an appli- cation for the restitution of the stolen property; and it was so also for some other reasons. And — § 768. 1. Practical Considerations. — There are other cases much in accord with the general view last stated; resting, perhaps, on special provisions of statutes ;7 yet showing that it may not be practically just to take verdicts whereby a much heavier weight of guilt will appear to rest on the defendant than was proved. Ina case where this appears so, the judge can by some available direction avoid the evil. 2. If Several Articles — are alleged to have been stolen, the jury should all be satisfied of the defendant’s guilt as to, at least, some particular one, to justify a general verdict of guilty.® 1 Armstrong v. §. 21 Ohio St. 357, 5 Tb.; Alderson v. S.2 Tex. Ap. 10; enacted subsequently to Schoonover v. 8. Harvey v. C. 23 Grat. 941. 17 Ohio St. 294; McCoy v. S. 22 Neb. 6 §, v. Somerville, 21 Me. 20. 418. 7S. »v. Windman, Cheves, 75; S. v. 2 Ante, § 595; Armstrong v.S. supra. Bunten, 2 Nott & McC. 441; S. v. Kersh, 8 Jones v. 8. 13 Ala. 153, 157; Case vc. 1 Strob. 352; S. v. Herring, 1 Brey. 159. S.26 Ala. 17. ® So the majority of the English judges 4 Ante, § 716, 751; McCorkle v. S.14 held where the charge was the larceny of Ind. 39. And see S. v. Bunten, 2 Nott & great numbers of each one of all the cur- McC. 441. rent coins. The proof showed a stealing 355 § 770 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 769. 1. For Further Views — as to the verdict, the reader is avain referred to the first volume.! It must be responsive to the allegations, in a way affirmatively to show the defendant guilty.? 2. For Petit Larceny — a conviction may be had on an indict- ment for grand larceny; even, if the jury will, contrary to the evidence.2 But on an indictment joint against two for the larceny of the same goods, if the jury find that each stole all, they cannot reduce the value as to one and not as to the other, declaring the one guilty of petit larceny and the other of grand; because this would be repugnant.4 III. Other Questions. § 770. 1. Elsewhere, —in the first volume,® and in another place in this chapter,° we saw what is the county for the prosecution.? 2. Other Questions — of practice are explained in the first volume. of coin in general, but it did not particu- larize the denomination of any one coin. The judge, to save the question of law, told the jury they might find a verdict of guilty, if satisfied that the defendant stole money “consisting of some of the coins mentioned inthe indictment, although they could not say which.” The majority, in an opinion delivered by Alderson, B., Erle, J. dissenting, held this tobe wrong. Reg. v. Bond, 1 Den. C. C. 517, 4 Cox C. C. 231, 3 Car. & K. 337. It seems to me quite plain that the majority were right. The law requires the allegation to be specific as to the thing stolen, and the finding to be responsive to the charge. To simplify this question, let us suppose the accusation to be of stealing a saddle and bridle; and six of the jury to be satisfied that the defendant stole the saddle, and left the ‘bridle untouched, while six believe that he took the bridle and did not touch the sad- dle. Surely the twelve do not concur in the opinion that he stole the saddle, or that he stole the bridle, or that he stole both. Or, if the charge is that the de- fendant killed A and B, and six are satis- fied on the proofs that A is alive walking the streets, and six that B is alive walking the streets, is the opinion unanimous 356 among the twelve that A is dead, or that B is dead, or that both are dead? 1 Vol. I. § 1000a et seq.; C. v. Steb- bins, 8 Gray, 492; S. v. Bond, 8 Iowa, 540; Shaw v. 8. 40 Ga. 120; McEntee »v. 8S. 24 Wis. 43; Fallon v. P. 2 Abb. Ap. 83. 2 Warren v. S.1 Greene, Iowa, 106; S. v. Evans, 23 §. C. 209; S. v. Howard, 19 Kan. 507. 8S. v. Bennet, 2 Tread. 693, 3 Brev. 515. And see S. v. Wood, 1 Mill, 29; S. e. Murphy, 8 Blackf. 498; Stroup v. C. 1 Rob. Va. 754; Doty v. S. 6 Blackf. 529; 8S. v. Spurgin, 1 McCord, 252; Borum -v. S. 66 Ala. 468. 4 §. v. Wilson, 3 McCord, 187. The following form of the verdict is held ade- quate: “ We, the jury, find the prisoner, Rich’d Poindexter, guilty of petty lar- ceny.” Poindexter v. C. 6 Rand. 667. 5 Vol. I. § 46 et seq., 59, 60. 6 Ante, § 727. 7 And see Rex v. Simmonds, 1 Moody, 408; P. v. Honeyman, 3 Denio, 121; Reg. v. Hinley, 2 Moody & R. 524. As to lar- ceny in one State or county and the goods carried by the thief into another, see New Crim. Law, I. § 137-142; ante, § 727; Vol. I. § 59, 60. CHAP. XLII] LARCENY, COMPOUND. § 773 CHAPTER XLII. LARCENY, COMPOUND. § 771. Introduction. 772-774. General Doctrine. 775-776 a. Larcenies by Particular Classes. 777-779. From Particular Places. 780. From the Person. Consult — the places referred to introducing c. 39. § 771. How Chapter divided. — We shall consider, I. The General Doctrine; II. Larcenies by Particular Classes of Per- sons; III. Larcenies from Particular Places; IV. Larcenies from the Person. I. The General Doctrine. § 772. 1. A Compound Larceny — is a larceny aggravated by some attendant fact which, in law, enhances its enormity.} Hence, — 2. The Indictment — for it consists of the allegations for simple larceny, enlarged by averring the special fact.2 Still, — § 773. 1. a’Statute — is sometimes in terms which are con- strued to create a new larceny throughout, similar to the com- pound one. Then the indictment should simply follow the statute. Thus, — 2. For Robbing a Mail-bag of Letters, — the indictment was in an Irish case held good, though it omitted the common-law averment of asportation; for, the judges deemed, “the statute constituted a new species of offence, and did not refer certain acts to a known species of crime.” And this indictment covered entire the statutory words.* 1 New Crim. Law, ITI. § 892, 893. 416, 422, 424, 433-441, 444-446, 457; 2 Dir. & F. § 583. See, for forms, Ib. Beery v. U. S. 2:Colo.186; Rex v. Somer- § 584-600; 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 984-988; ton,7 B. & C. 463. Archb. Crim. PJ. & Ev. 19th ed. 383, 397, 8 Rex v. Rossiter, Jebb, 50, 51. 357 § 777 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII § 774, The Evidence — consists of proving the larceny, as shown in a preceding chapter, and the special fact. Il. Larcenies by Particular Classes of Persons. § 775. Where a Clerk or Servant — of the owner of the goods is the thief, — as, in England, under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, § 46 (re-enacted in 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, § 67), providing a special punishment if he “shall steal any chattel, money, or valuable security, belonging to or in the possession or power of his master,” — it is good to say that on, &e., at, &c., A “was clerk to B,” and afterward while he was such clerk on, &c., at, &c., certain specified goods, of specified values, “of and belonging to the said B, his master,” as in simple larceny, “then and there feloniously did steal, take, and carry away.” } § 776. The Evidence — must show the legal relation of clerk and master,? and the master’s relation to the goods;* that is, his ownership, possession, or power over them. To which should be added the ordinary proofs in larceny. § T7T6 a. Larcenies by Post-office Employees — and embezzle- ments by them are, as to both indictment and proofs, within the like principles.* Ill. Larcenies from Particular Places. § TTT. Breaking into a Church—and stealing “therein any chattel” was in England made specially punishable by 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, § 10 (re-enacted in 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, § 50). And it was good to aver that on, &., at, &c., the defendant “the church of,” &c., “feloniously did break and enter, and then and there, in the said church, one,” &c., stating the goods and their values, as in simple larceny, “feloniously and sacrilegiously did steal, take, and carry away.” ® 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 194, 19th ed. 383; Dir. & F. § 584. And see Rex v. Somerton, 7 B. & C. 463. 2 Ante, § 341; New Crim. Law, II § 332-351; Stat. Crimes, § 271; Rex vo. Haydon, 7 Car. & P. 445; Quarman v. Burnett, 6 M. & W. 499. 8 Rex v. Sullens, 1 Moody, 129; Rex v. Murray, 1 Moody, 276. 4 U.S. vo. Patterson, 6 McLean, 466; 358 U. S. v. Okie, 5 Blatch. 516; U. S.7. Laws, 2 Low. 115; U.S. z. Jenther, 18 Blatch. 335; U. S. v. Taylor, 1 Hughes, 514; U. S. v. Winter, 13 Blatch. 333; U.S. v. Lancaster, 2 McLean, 431; Far- num v. U.S. 1 Colo. 309; U. S. v. Clark, Crabbe, 584; Goodwin’s Case, 1 Lewin, 100. 5 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed, 236. CHAP. XLII] LARCENY, COMPOUND. § 780 § 778. 1. In Larceny from a Dwelling-house, — the indictment is similar; the allegation of a breaking and entering being required or not according to the terms of the statute.! The ownership of the dwelling-house, as well as of the goods, must be averred and proved; if there is a variance between allegation and proof of the former, a conviction for the simple larceny will be good.? 2. “Put in Fear,’-—if in the statute, must be in the in- dictment.® ~§ 779. 1. In Larceny from “any Building,” — the word building must appear in allegation, it not being good simply to say “the refreshment saloon of,” &c. Yet there may be a conviction of simple larceny. More largely, — 2, The Words of the Statute — must be duly covered.® IV. Larcenies from the Person. § 780. 1. The Indictment — may follow the form for simple larceny; and, after stating the goods and their values, proceed: “from the person of the said B, feloniously did take, steal, and carry away.” § 2. Some Questions of Evidence —and variance have arisen, presenting nothing not obvious.” 1 Berry v. S. 10 Ga. 511 ; Campbell v. Reg.11 Q. B. 799, 800; C. v. Curtis, 11 Pick. 134; Hill v. S. 41 Tex. 157. 2 Rex v. Woodward, 1 Leach, 253, note; Rex v. White, 1 Leach, 252. 38 Rex v. Etherington, 2 Leach, 671, 2 East P. C. 635. 4C. v. Mahar, 8 Gray, 469. For an adequate form, see C. v. Smith, 111 Mass. 429. And see Inman v. 8. 54 Ga. 219; Middleton v. S.53 Ga. 248; Irvin v. 8. 37 Tex. 412. 5 Reg. v. Smith, 2 Moody & R. 115. And see Callahan v. 8. 41 Tex. 43. 6 Archb. Crim. PL. & Ev. 13th ed. 356; Schantz v. S. 17 Wis. 251; P. v. Fallon, 6 Par. Cr. 256; Fallon v. P. 2 Abb. Ap. 83. See Fanning v. S. 12 Lea, 651; Wilson v. S. 66 Ga. 591. 7 Reg. v. Wilkins, 10 Cox C. C. 363; King v. 8. 54 Ga. 184; P. v. Morrigan, 29 Mich. 4; De Gaultie v. S. 31 Tex. 32; Fanning v. 8. 66 Ga. 167; P.v. Wiggins, 92 N. Y. 656; Wilson v. 8. supra; Hall v. P. 39 Mich. 717. For LEWDNESS, see Bawpy-House ; Exposure or Person, &. And see various titles in Stat. Crimes. 359 § 783, SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR. INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL | CHAPTER XLIII. LIBEL AND SLANDER. § 781, 782. Introduction. 783-794. Indictment generally and for libelling Individuals. 794 a-798. Indictment specially as to other Libels. 799-804. The Evidence. 805-806 a. Questions of Practice. 807-811. Oral Words. ~ Consult, — for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, II. § 905-949. For forms and the like, Dir. & F. § 617-639. And see for miscellaneous eee the indexes to this series of books. § 781. There are Helpful Analogies — between civil and criminal suits for libel, some of which will be suggested as we proceed, - and others will occur to the reader. § 782. How Chapter divided. — We shall consider, I. The. Indictment generally and for libelling Individuals; IJ. The Indictment specially as to other Forms of Libel; III. The Evi- dence; IV. Questions of Practice; V. Oral Words. I. The Indictment generally and for libelling Individuals. § 783. 1. Criminal Prosecutions —for libel were more used in former times than now; and then passion and prejudice greatly influenced the allegations. So that the precedents for it in our books are not in general modern; and they contain more or less that is alike needless and to good taste offensive. Thus, — 2. Ola Rubbish. — In former times it was the common way for the indictment to charge that the defendant made the publication “not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved by the instigation of the devil;”1 and most of our precedents aver that he did it “with force and arms,” — words not only useless,? but ridiculously inappropriate. Then we have a sort of intro- 13 Chit. Crim. Law, 878. As to 2 Vol. I. § 502 (1); Rex v. Burks, 7 which, see Vol. I. § 501. T.R. 4. 8 Dir. & F. § 43, 44, 360 CHAP. XLII] LIBEL AND SLANDER., § 783 ductory malediction of the defendant, still retained in our forms; as, in the late expurgated editions of Archbold, it is set down for the pleader to say, after the manner of former ages, that the defendant, “contriving, and unlawfully, wickedly, and mali- ciously intending to injure,-vilify, and prejudice one B, and to deprive him of his good name, fame, credit, and reputation, and to bring him, into public contempt, scandal, infamy, and dis- grace,” did, &c., proceeding to allege the doings and intent which in law constitute the offence.! Plainly this introduction is use- less, hence the better practice is to omit it. 8. The Substantial Allegations — may be that on, é&c., at, &.,, A did unlawfully and maliciously write and publish,? of and concerning one X, and of and concerning [here set out the facts necessary to a due understanding of the libel and the innuendoes to be introduced into the recitation of it], a false, scandalous, and malicious libel [adding, if the pleader chooses, “in the form of a book,” or “in the form of a hand-bill,” or “in the form of a letter,” &c., but nothing of this is believed to be necessary], * of the tenor following [or, if not all the libelious publication is to be given, say, “one part whereof is of the tenor following,” setting out the words, with the needful innuendoes; “another part whereof is of the tenor following,” and so on], setting out the words and figures accurately, and explaining them by innuen- does when necessary; he, the said A, then and there well know- ing the said scandalous and malicious libel to be false, an averment® which would seem not to be necessary.§ 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 19th ed. 915. All the late editions of this work of Arch- bold’s are by other editors. In his New Crim. Pro. 316, the author himself omits. this allegation. 2 Ante, § 304 (2),401 (1), note; Cole- man v. Southwick, 9 Johns. 45, 6 Am. D. 253. 3 It is not unfrequently added here, “and cause and procure to be written and published.” These words, when thus coupled to the others by “and,” are not legally objectionable. They do not make the count donble. But it is practically better to omit them. Vol. I. § 434 (3), 435, 485; ante, § 224, 488, 647. 4 See S. v. Dowd, 39 Kan. 412; P. v. Stark, 136 N. Y. 538;. Rattray v. S. 61 Missis. 377; Crowe v. P. 92 Ill. 231; In re Kowalsky, 73 Cal. 120; S.v. McIntosh, 92 N. C. 794. 5 Hunt v. Bennett, 19 N. Y. 173, 176; S. v. Barnes, 32 Me. 530; Rowe». Roach, 1M. &S. 304, 6 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. ut sup., Archb. New Crim. Pro. ut sup.; 3 Chit. Crim. Law, ut sup.; Dir. & F.§ 619, where a general form of the indictment and multitudes of authorities are given. C. v. Morgan, 107 Mass. 199; Tabart v. Tipper, 1 Camp. 350, 353; Reg. v. Yates, 12 Cox C. C. 233, 4 Eng. Rep. 523; Lake v. King, 1 Saund. Wms. ed. 120 and note; Anonymous, Trem. P. C. 68; Rex »v. Horne, Cowp. 672, 20 How. St. Tr. 651; Lawson v. Hicks, 38 Ala, 279, 81 Am. D 361 § 786 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 784. 1. The Name of the Person libelled, — it is perceived, is alleged more nearly after the manner in forgery ! than in larceny ; as, if the libel is on numbers of persons, the names of all are not indispensable.? 2. No Addition or Place of Residence — need be given. But— 3. A Libel charging Misconduct in Office —should aver the official character. 4, “Write” — “Publish.” — It suffices to say that the defendant published the libel, not adding that he wrote it.6 The effect of the word “write” alone is not so clear on the authorities. In principle, it is not good; but it is good to aver that he wrote the libel with intent to publish it.6 So, — 5. Delivered only to Person libelled. — In law, it is an offence simply to write a libel of one and send it to him, not making it known to any third person ;7 yet the indictment should add the defendant’s intent to provoke the one libelled to a breach of the peace. 8 § 785. Colloquium.—It must always be averred, either in terms or by their equivalent, that the libellous words were “of and concerning ” the defamed person. And — § 786. “Of and concerning ” the Subject — should be added, not always,!° but where the words to appear affirmatively complete and full as a libel must be contemplated in connection with some extrinsic fact or matter, to which they refer, or of which they are the subject, or which otherwise is essential to a comprehen- sion of their import; and this averment should be direct, not, for example, in the form of an innuendo," 49; Reid v. S, 53 Ala. 402, 25 Am. R. 627; Reg. v. Munslow, 1895, 1 Q. B. 758; P. v. Jackman, 96 Mich. 269. 1 Ante, § 420, 424, 2 Rex v. Griffin, 7 Mod. 197. 8 Ante, § 506 and note, 718 (3); S.v. Barnes, 32 Me. 530; C. v. Varney, 10 Cush. 402. 4 Rex v. Hatfield, 4 Car. & P. 244. 5 Taylor v. S. 4 Ga. 14; Rex v. Hunt, 2 Camp. 583. 8 New Crim. Law, IT. § 926, 927, 948, 949, 7 New Crim. Law, II. § 927. 8 Vol. I. § 521 (2), note; Rex v. Wege- ner, 2 Stark. 245; Hodges v. S.5 Humph. 112, See S. v. Armstrong, 106 Mo. 395, 362 Now, — 27 Am. St. 361; Wilcox v. Moon, 64 Vt. 450,33 Am. St. 936; Reg. v. Adams, 22 Q. B.D. 66, 16 Cox C. C. 544. 9 S. v. Brownlow, 7 Humph. 63; Rex v. Marsden, 4 M. & S. 164; S. v. Hender- son, 1 Rich. 179. And see Ellis v. Kim- ball, 16 Pick. 182; Wilson v. Hamilton, 9 Rich. 382. See, for words adjudged adequate as an equivalent, Taylor v. S. 4Ga.14, For words adjudged not to be an equivalent, see Rex v. Marsden, 4 M. & S. 164. 10 Croswell v. Weed, 25 Wend. 621; S. v, Osborn, 54 Kan. 473. 11 §. v. Neese, N. C. Term R. 270; 8. v, Henderson,1 Rich. 179; S. v. Atkins, 42 Vt. 252; Miller v. Maxwell, 16 Wend. CHAP. XLIII.] LIBEL AND SLANDER. § 790 § 787. The Principle — governing these cases is that in libel as in every other offence, enough must be alleged against the defendant to show him, prima facie, fully to merit the law’s punishment.! So much, in a form sufficiently specific and in detail, will suffice, never anything less.2 Thus, — § 788. Where a Latent Meaning — renders words libellous which are not so on their face, there must be averments to make such meaning palpable. § 789. The Tenor — of the libel, in distinction from its sub- stance, must be averred; and the introductory part must profess to give it so,4— distinctions already explained.5 But — § 790. Too obscene for Tenor. — As already seen,® it is the doc- trine of our American courts that a libel too obscene to appear with decency on the record may be described in a more general way, and then an averment of the too great obscenity of its words will be accepted instead of their tenor. This averment is essential.? In England the Court of Queen’s Bench sustained an indictment charging. simply the publishing of “a certain 9; Davis v. Davis, 1 Nott & McC. 290; Wilson v. Hamilton, 9 Rich. 382; Chenery v. Goodrich, 98 Mass. 224; Goodrich v, Davis, 11 Met. 473, 480; Caldwellv. Ray- mond, 2 Abb. Pr. 193; Rex v, Horne, Cowp. 672, 4 Bro. P. C. 368; Rex ». Rossewell, 2 Show. 411; P. v. Jackman, 96 Mich. 269; S.v. Pulitzer, 12 Mo. Ap. 6; S. v. Spear, 13 R. I. 324. 1 Vol. I. § 77 et seq., 98 a, 325, 326, 331, 508, 509, 513, 519, and many other places. 2 Melton». S. 3 Humph. 389; Rex v. Rossewell, 2 Show. 411; Reg. v. Gregory, 8 Q. B. 508; Cox v. Thomason, 2 Tyrw. 411, 2 Cromp. & J. 362; Rex v. Dean of St. Asaph, 21 How. St: Tr. 847, 1044; Croswell v. Weed, 25 Wend. 621. 8 S.v. Henderson, 1 Rich. 179; S. v. White, 6 Ire. 418; Rex v. Burdett, 4 B. & Ald. 314; Lewis v. Soule, 3 Mich. 514; Miller v. Maxwell, 16 Wend. 9; Wilson v. Hamilton, 9 Rich. 382. * Rex v. Beare, 1 Ld. Raym. 414; C. v. Sweney, 10 S.& R. 173; S. v. Brown- low, 7 Humph. 63; §. v. Goodman, 6 Rich. 387, 60 Am. D. 132; C. v. Wright, 1 Cush. 46; C. v. Tarbox, 1 Cush. 66; McNair v. P. 89 Ill. 441; Clay v. P. 86 Ill. 147; Wright v. Clements, 3 B. & Ald. 503 ; Wood v. Brown, 6 Taunt. 169; Win- ter v. Donavan, 8 Gill, 370; Whitaker v. Freeman, 1 Dev, 271; Bagley v. Johnston, 4 Rich. 22; Newton v. Stubbs, 2 Show. 435; Zenobio v. Axtell, 6 T. R. 162; Cook v. Cox, 8 M.& S. 110, 116; S. ». Townsend, 86 N. C. 676; Coulson v. S.16 Tex. Ap. 189. 5 Vol. I. § 559-563; ante, § 403-406. 6 Vol. I. § 496. 7C. v. Tarbox, 1 Cush. 66; S. u. Brown, 27 Vt. 619; C. v. Holmes, 17 Mass. 336; McNair v. P. 89 Ill. 441; P. v. Hallenbeck, 52 How. Pr. 502; 8. wv. Hayward, 83 Mo. 299; Bates v. U.S. 11 Bis. 70; U. S. v. Clarke, 40 Fed. Rep. 325; McNair v. P. 89 Ill. 441; 8. v Smith, 17 R. I. 371; P. v. Hallenbeck, 2 Abb. N. Cas. 66. And see S. v, Hanson, 28 Tex. 232; S. v. Smith, 7 Lea, 249; U.S. v, Watson, 17 Fed. Rep. 145; Fuller v. P. 92 Ill, 182; S. v. Pennington, 5 Lea, 506; P. v. Girardin, 1 Mich. 90. From the last cited case, even the averment of the excuse might seem not to be required. But this, if meant, is contrary alike to the - other decisions and to correct principle. 363 § 793 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL. indecent, lewd, filthy, and obscene libel, to wit, a certain indecent, lewd, filthy, bawdy, and obscene book, called ‘ Fruits of Philosophy,’ thereby contaminating,” &c., the public morals ; setting out no words, and averring no reason for the omission.! This decision was reversed on appeal. The appellate court consisted of three judges, the American doctrine was not before it, nor in any form was the idea of alleging the too great obscenity in excuse; but the judges were emphatic in deeming that justice requires the words equally of obscene libels as of other, and that nothing essential to the justice of a cause can pollute the judicial record.” § 791. Not the Whole Libel, —but only so much of it as the prosecutor will rely on at the trial need be set out. Then, if the defendant claims that other parts qualify those recited, he may have them read to the jury.? Hence the recital of the libel may omit a date and signature at the end.¢ But an omission which varies the sense of the parts given will be fatal at the hearing.* If the parts set out do not constitute a libel, the defect cannot be supplied from other parts.® § 792. 1. Correctly —must the parts, like the whole, be recited. ing them.® We have seen what is the judicious form for introduc- 2. For a Foreign Language — we have seen the form.? § 793. An Innuendo — is an explanatory averment of the mean- ing. 1 Reg. v. Bradlaugh, 2 Q. B. D. 569, 21 Eng. Rep. 269. 2 Bradlaugh v. Reg. 3 Q. B. D. 607. The reasoning in Rex v. Carlile, 3 B. & Ald. 167, not on this exact question, seems in accord with this view. 3 Rex v. Bear, 2 Salk. 417 ; Weir v. Hoss, 6 Ala. 881; McCoombs v. Tuttle, 5 Blackf. 431; Rutherford v. Evans, 6 Bing. 451, 4 Car. & P. 74. + C. v. Harmon, 2 Gray, 289; Rex v. Lambert, 2 Camp. 398. And see Rex v. Johnson, 2 Show. 488; Walker v. Brog- den, 19 C.B. w. s 65. In this way, the trial is, and it should be in fact, upon the entire writing, not upon a part. More- head v. Jones, 2 B. Monr. 210, 36 Am. D. - 600. This may even extend to other papers, to which the writing refers. Rex v. Slaney, 5 Car. & P. 213. 364 It charges no fact, and it does not admit of being sus- 5 Cartwright v. Wright, 5 B. & Ald. 615. And see Bell x. Byrne, 13 East, 554, ® C. v. Snelling, Thacher Crim. Cas. 318. 7 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 525, referring to Wright v. Clements, 3 B. & Ald. 503 ; Tabart v. Tipper, 1 Camp, 350; Cartwright v. Wright, 1 D. & R. 230. 8 Ante, § 783 (3); Archb. at sup.; Lake v. King, 1 Saund. Wms. ed. 120 and note; Tabart v. Tipper, 1 Camp. 350, 358, % Vol. I. § 564; Zenobio v. Axtell, 6 T. R. 162; Rex v. Peltier, 28 How. St. Tr, 529; Kiene v. Ruff, 1 Iowa, 482; Hickley v. Grosjean, 6 Blackf. 351; Stichtd v. S. 25 Tex. Ap. 420. 10 Rex v. Greepe, 2 Salk. 513; s.c.nom, Rex v. Griepe, 1 Ld. Raym, 256, 259, 12 Mod. 139; Rex v. Horne, Cowp. 672, 684; CHAP. XLIII.] LIBEL AND SLANDER. § 794 tained by evidence.! After the pleader, in the colloquium? and elsewhere, has stated all the extrinsic things he desires, he then introduces into his recitation of the libellous words, when it will be helpful to the understanding of them, the expression “mean- ing” so and so, and this is called an innuendo. Alleging noth- ing, it neither adds to nor qualifies any previous allegation.® But if, for example, a word has two significations, and the pre- ceding averments have laid the foundation for the one claimed, the innuendo may say that this is the one meant. § 794. No Innuendo is required — if the meaning and applica- tion of the words claimed to be libellous are plain.® But the doctrine appears to be that whenever the allegation of extrinsic facts is necessary in explanation, there must be an innuendo, the effect whereof is to connect those facts and the libellous words, unless other allegations supply the connection. Whether or not the meaning of the libel is that stated in the innuendo is a question of fact for the jury.? So that where the innuendo is purely explanatory, not going beyond what is alleged, whether necessarily introduced or not,® the jury must be able to give to the libel, or enough of it to constitute an offence, the meaning which the pleader does, to justify a conviction.® On the other hand, an innuendo introducing new and superfluous matter,! or repugnant and insensible,4 may be rejected as surplusage.” Goldstein v. Foss, 6 B. & C. 154, 159; Van Vechten v. Hopkins, 5 Johns. 211; Blaisdell v. Raymond, 4 Abb. Pr. 446, 14 How. Pr. 265. 1S. v. Henderson, 1 Rich. 179; Van Vechten v. Hopkins, 5 Johns. 211, 224, 4 Am. D. 339. See S.v. Aler, 39 W. Va. 549. 2 Ante, § 785, 786. 8 Rex v. Alderton, Say. 280; Thomas v, Axworth, Hob. 2; James v. Rutlech, 4 Co. 17 a; Anonymous, 11 Mod. 220; Rex v. Rosewell, 3 Mod. 53; Harrison v. Thornborough, 10 Mod. 196; Gosling v. Morgan, 32 Pa. 273; Emery v. Prescott, 54 Me. 389. * Gosling v. Morgan, 32 Pa. 273; Griffiths v. Lewis, 8 Q. B. 841; Boydell v. Jones, 4 M. & W. 446. 5 Rex v. Horne, Cowp. 672, 678; Wool- noth v. Meadows, 5 East, 463, 469; Gage v. Shelton, 3 Rich. 242; S.v. Kountz, 12 Mo. Ap. 511. 8 1 Chit. Pl. 407; Goldstein v. Foss, 6 B. & C. 154; Clement v. Fisher,7 B. & C. 459; Rex v. Marsden, 4 M. & S. 164; Williams v. Gardiner, | M. & W. 245; Smith v. Gaffard, 33 Ala. 168; Brittain v. Allen, 3 Dev. 167; Lindsey v. Smith, 7 Johns. 359. 7 §.v. Smily, 87 Ohio St. 30,41 Am, R. 487. See S. v. Mott, 16 Vroom, 494. 8 But see Gage v. Shelton, 3 Rich. 242. ®° Smith v. Carey, 3 Camp. 461; Day v, Robinson, 1 A. & E. 554, 558; Sellers v. Till,4 B. & C. 655; Prudhomme v. Fraser, 2 A. & E. 645; note to Craft vu. Boite, 1 Saund. 6th ed. 241, 243, 243a, and other cases there cited; Dottarer v. Bushey, 16 Pa. 204. 10 Roberts v. Cambden, 9 East, 93; Wilner v. Hold, Cro. Car. 489 ; Thomas w. Croswell, 7 Johns, 264, 272, 5 Am. D. 269; S. v. Farley, 4 McCord, 317. 1 Smith-v. Cooker, Cro. Car. 512. 12 Further of Innuendo. — Questions 865 § 7944 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND, THEIR INCIDENTS. [Book XII. II. The Indictment specially as to other Forms of Lnbel. § 794 a. 1. Obscene Libels, — as to the principles and forms of the procedure, do not differ essentially from those on indi- under this head so often embarrass a practitioner that I propose to add a few illustratious from Archbold. Thus: ‘In an action on the case against a man for saying of another ‘he has burnt my barn,’ the plaintiff cannot, by way of innuendo, say, ‘meaning my barn full of corn;’ Barham v. Nethersal, 4 Co. 20a; be- cause this is not an explanation derived from anything which preceded it on the record, but from the statement of an ex- trinsic fact which had not previously been stated. But if, in the introductory part of the declaration, it had been averred that the defendant had a barn full of corn, and that, in a discourse about that barn, he had spoken the above words of the plain- tiff, an innuendo of its being the barn full of corn would have been good; for, by coupling the innuendo with the introduc- tory averment, it would have made it complete. So,in an action for the words ‘He is a thief,” you cannot explain the defendant’s meaning in the use of the word ‘he,’ by an innuendo ‘meaning the said plaintiff,’ or the like, unless some- thing appear previously upon the record to ground that explanation; but, if you had previously charged the words to have been spoken of and concerning the plain- tiff, then such an innuendo would be cor- rect ; for, when it is alleged that the de- fendant said of the plaintiff ‘ He is a thief,’ this is an evident ground for the explana- tion given by the innuendo that the plain- tiff was referred to by the word ‘he.’ See 1 Rol. Abr. 83, pl. 7, 85, pl. 7; 2 Rol. 244; Johnson v. Aylmer, Cro. Jac. 126; Kellan v. Manesby, Cro. Jac. 39, 1 Sid. 52; Lam- pen v. Hatch, 2 Stra. 934, 1 Saund. 242, n. 8; Goldstein v. Foss, 9 D. & R. 197, 6 B. & C. 154 ; Clement v. Fisher, 1 Man. & R. 281,7B.&C. 479; Alexander v. Angle, 1C. &J. 143; Tomlinson v, Brittlebank, 4B. & Ad. 680; s, c. nom. Tomlinson v. Brittelbank, 1 Nev. & M. 455 ; Sweetapple v, Jesse, 5 B. & Ad. 27,2 Nev. & M. 36; Curtis v. Curtis, 10 Bing. 477, 4 Moore & 366 8. 337; Slowman v. Dutton, 10 Bing. 402, 4 Moore & S. 174; Day v. Robinson, 1 A. & E. 554,4 Nev. & M. 884. In Rex v. Tutchin, 5 Harg. St. Tr. 532, 590, [14 How. St. Tr. 1095, 1098] one part of the libel was thus: ‘The mismanagements of the nuvy have been a greater tax upon the merchants than the duties raised by Par- liament’; in order to explain what was meant by the navy, the introductory part of the information charged the libel to have been written ‘of and concerning the royal navy of this kingdom, and the goy- ernment of the said navy’; and when, in stating the libel, it came to the word ‘navy,’ it explained it by an innuendo, thus: ‘meaning the royal navy of this kingdom’; which, being coupled with the averment in the introductory part of it, made the sense and the charge complete. In Rex v. Matthews, 9 Harg. St. Tr. 682 [15 How. St. Tr. 1323, 1327], the words of the libel were these: ‘From the solemnity of the Chevalier’s birth, and if hereditary right be any recommendation, he has that to plead in his favor’ ; it was there objected — What Chevalier? who is he? what recommendation ? and to what? But in the introductory part of the information the libel was charged to have been written “of and concerning the Pretender, and of and concerning his right to the crown of Great Britain’; and it was holden that the innuendoes in the body of the libel, explaining the words ‘ Chevalier,’ &c., to mean the Pretender, and his hereditary right to the crown of Great Britain, when connected with the aver- ment in the introductory part, of its being written ‘of and concerning the Pre- tender and his right to the crown of Great Britain,’ were a sufficient explana- tion to make good the charge. But where the words or libel are in the second per- son, and the slander is spoken or the libel is directed to the party slandered or libelled, and it is so alleged in the indict- ment,—as where a declaration charges ’ CHAP. XLIII.] LIBEL AND SLANDER. § 797 viduals. They differ in the law chiefly in that the former are injurious to the public morals,? while the latter tend to create breaches of the peace.® 2, As to the Indictment, — we have seen how the obscene matter is to be set out. The form for it in other respects requires no special observation.® 3. The Destruction — of the obscene matter is in England and in some of our States authorized by statutes, not necessary to be here particularized.® § 794 6. Where an Obscene Picture —is the libel, instead of words, it can be only described —there is no tenor.? The description must be reasonably identifying, yet need not be indecent in detail. Thus, the expression “a certain lewd, wicked, scandalous, infamous, and obscene painting, represent- ing a man in an obscene, impudent, and indecent posture with a@ woman,” was adjudged adequate.® Thereon the prosecuting power is bound by its description; as, if the indictment says “naked girls,” it will not be sustained by evidence of girls represented in the picture as naked only above the waist.!° § 795. For Hanging a Man in Effigy, —the indictment is con- structed on the same principles; that is, what is done is described. There is no tenor. And — § 796. Variance — of description between the obnoxious thing as laid and as proved will be fatal. 4 § 797. A Libel on a Judge and that the defendant, in a discourse with the plaintiff, said to him, ‘You are a thief,’ — it is unnecessary to aver that they were spoken or written of and concerning the plaintiff; nor is there any need of an innuendo, for it is plain enough without it that ‘you’ means the plaintiff. Skutt v. Hawkins, 2 Rol. 248, 244; and see 1 Rol. Abr. 85, pl. 8.” Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 525, 526. 1 Bradlaugh v. Reg. 8 Q. B. D. 607. 2 New Crim. Law, I. § 500; II. § 943. 8 New Crim. Law, I. § 591 (4). # Ante, §790; Reyes v. S. 34 Fla. 181. 5 For forms, see Bradlaugh v. Reg. supra; C. v. Tarbox, 1 Cush. 66; C. v. Holmes, 17 Mass. 336. And see P. », Special Sessions, 10 Hun, 224; Ce0, Wright, 139 Mass. 382. 8 New Crim. Law, I. § 309 (2); Ex Jury, — in the administration of parte Bradlaugh, 3 Q. B. D. 509; Reg. v. Hicklin, Law Rep. 3 Q. B. 360; Steele v. Brannan, Law Rep. 7C. P. 261; Attor- ney-General v. Municipal Court, 103 Mass. 456, 463 ; Reg. v. Truelove, 5 Q. B. D. 336, 14 Cox C. C. 408. 7 Observations in Bradlaugh v. Reg. 3 Q. B. D. 607, 634. 8 Barker v, C. 19 Pa. 412. 9 C. v. Sharpless, 28. & R. 91, 7 Am. D. 632. Nearly identical is Reg. v, Car- lile, 1 Cox C. C. 229. And see Dugdale »v. Reg.. Dears. 64, 1 Ellis & B. 435, 16 Eng. L. & Eq. 380. 10 C. v. Dejardin, 126 Mass. 46, 30 Am. R. 652. And see post, § 796. N Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond, ed. 618, 19th ed. 923. 12 §, v. Powers, 12 Ire. 5; ante, § 7948, 367 § 800 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. justice in a particular case, is punishable under the like form of indictment as on an individual, — varied to meet the different facts, and different modification of the criminal intent.! So, — § 798. On an Officer of a Foreign Government, — the indictment for libel is drawn on the like plan; yet setting forth whatever the pleader deems best of the friendly governmental relations, and the tendency of the libel to breed discord.? ; III. The Evidence. § 799. 1. The Introductory Averments — of explanatory facts, when not rejected as surplusage, must be proved.2 But — 2. The Innuendoes, — we have seen,‘ are of a nature not to. admit of proof; while yet the jury must be satisfied that the libellous words mean what the innuendoes say mex do, — a ques- tion not for the judge. And — 3. Further as to Meaning. — As expressed by Lord Mansfield, “it is the duty of the jury to construe plain words, and clear allusions to matters of universal notoriety, according to their obvious meaning, and as everybody else who reads must under- stand them. But the defendant may give evidence to show that in the case in question they were used in a different, or in a qualified sense. If no such evidence is given, the obvious meaning to every man’s understanding must be decisive.” ® § 800. The Publication — of the libel must be proved. Regu- larly the proof should precede the reading of it to the jury.’ But this is matter of practice, within the discretion of the pre- siding judge, whose direction 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 588, 19th ed. 898; Rex v. White, 1 Camp. 359. And see Dir. & F. § 622; Rex v. Watson, 2T. R.199 ; Ex parte Barry, 85 Cal. 603, 20 Am. St. 248; Richardson v. S. 66 Md. 205; S. v. Lyon, 89 N. C. 568. 2 Rex v. Peltier, 28 How. St. Tr. 529; C. v. Buckingham, 2 Wheeler Crim. Cas. 181. 8S. v, Perrin, 2 Brev. 474; Reg. v. Gregory, 8 Q. B. 508; Rex v. Grant, 3 Nev. & M, 106,5 B. & Ad. 1081; Mix v. Woodward, 12 Conn. 262; Southwick v. Stevens, 10 Johns, 448, 4 Ante, § 793. 5 Ante, § 794; C.v. Keenan, 67 Pa. 368 is ordinarily conclusive.8 The 203; Rex v. Withers, 3 T. R. 428; Rex v. Dean of St. Asaph, 3 T. R. 428, note; 8.c. nom. Rex v. Shipley, 4 Doug. 78; Rex v. Woodfall, 5 Bur. 2661, 2666; S. v. White, 6 Ire. 418. § Rex v. Horne, 20 How. St. Tr. 651, 774. Compare with New Crim. Law, II. § 924, And see Hawks v. Patton, 18 Ga. 52; Van Vechten v. Hopkins, 5 Johns. 211; McLaughlin v. Russell, 17 Ohio, 475; S. v. Fitzgerald, 20 Mo. Ap. 408. 7 Taylor ».8. 4 Ga. 14; McCoombs »v. Tuttle, 5 Blackf. 431. 8 Vol. I. §, 966-966 5; Taylor »v. S. supra. CHAP. XLIII.] SLANDER AND LIBEL. § 803 proofs will vary with the case.! For example, to sell a libel is to publish it,? and the publishing of a newspaper is prima facie evidence of the publication of any libel therein.? One publishes a libel who sends it to a single individual. § 801. 1. The Malice or Criminal Intent -— alleged is, in general, sufficiently inferred as of law from the fact of publishing.® How far this rule may be departed from, and when and with what effect the defendant may give in evidence the truth of his libel, were considered in “New Criminal Law.”® In some circum- stances, the prosecuting power must show against him express malice or a specific criminal intent. If two such specific intents are laid, and either one will alone be adequate in law, proot of either will suffice? And — 2. Other Instances —— of like publications may be introduced in proof of express malice.® § 802. As to the Day of Publication, — when the charge is simply, as in prudence it ought to be, that the defendant pub- lished the libel on a day named, proof of any other within the Statute of Limitations will suffice.® But if, needlessly specific, it adds the date of a newspaper wherein the libel appeared, no other date will satisfy this averment.!° § 803. While a Witness need Tenterden, C. J. ruled that he 1 New Crim. Law, I. § 219-221; Rex v. Topham, 4 T. R. 126; Reg. v. Lovett, 9 Car. & P. 462; Rex v. Donnison, 4 B. & Ad. 698; Mayne v. Fletcher, 4 Man. & R. 311; Rex v. Hart, 10 East, 94; Rex v. Amphlit,6 D.& R. 125, 4 B. & C. 35; Lawson v. Hicks, 38 Ala. 279, 81 Am. D. 49; S.v. Jeandell, 5 Harring. Del. 475; McCoombs v. Tuttle, supra; C. v. Bland- ing, 3 Pick. 304, 15 Am. D. 214; Coch- ran v. Butterfield, 18 N. H. 115,45 Am. D. 363; Woodburn v. Miller, Cheves, 194; Respublica v. Davis, 3 Yeates, 128; Cal- lan v. Gaylord, 8 Watts, 321; Rice »v. Withers, 9 Wend. 138; U.S. v. Crandell, 4 Cranch C. C. 683; Rex v. Cator, 4 Esp. 117. 2 Respublica v. Davis, 3 Yeates, 128 ; Rex v. Almon, 5 Bur. 2686. 3 C.v. Morgan, 107 Mass, 199; South- wick v. Stevens, 10 Johns. 443; C. v. Buckingham, Thacher Crim. Cas. 29. VOL. Il. — 24 not Criminate Himself, — Lord must answer whether or not he + New Crim. Law, ID. § 949; S. ». Barnes, 32 Me. 530. 5 Dexter v. Spear, 4 Mason, 115; Bar- thelemy v. P. 2 Hill, N. Y. 248; Grace v. Dempsey, 75 Wis. 313; S. v. Brady, 44 Kan. 435, 21 Am. St. 296; S.v. Mason, 26 Or. 273; Childers v. San Jose Mercury Pr. &. Co. 105 Cal. 284; Collins v. Dis- patch Pub. Co. 152 Pa, 187, 34 Am. St. 636 ; S. v. Goold, 62 Me. 509 ; post, § 806 ; New Crim. Law, IT. § 922, 923. § New Crim. Law, IT. § 913-923. 7 Rex v. Evans, 3 Stark. 35. 8 Rex v. Pearce, Peake, 75; S. v. Jean- dell, 5 Harring. Del. 475; S. v. Riggs, 39 Conn. 498; C. v. Place, 153 Pa. 314. See White r. Sayward, 93 Me. 322; Usher v. Severance, 20 Me. 9, 37 Am. D. 33. 9 Vol. I. § 386 et seq. 1 Vol. I. § 401; C.v. Varney, 10 Cush. 402. Court or Jury. — As to whether a question of variance is for the judge or jury, see 8. «. Jay, 5 Vroom, 368. 369 § 806 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL knows who wrote the libel. If he says he does, he cannot be required to name the person; for “it may be himself.” } § 804. The Official Character — of one libelled in respect of official doings, is sustained by evidence that he acted in the office,? or by admissions in the libel itself or otherwise? “ But,” says Archbold, “if the effect of the libel be to charge the prose- cutor with having acted as such officer or professional man without a legal appointment, — as, for instance, if a man libel a physician by calling him a quack, — it seems necessary to prove the appointment or admission.” 4 IV. Questions of Practice. § 805. The County— wherein the offence is to be laid as committed has already been shown.® So— § 806. 1. The Verdict, — explained in the first volume, is the same in this offence as in others.® And — 2. Special. — Though, as we have seen,’ malice is in general sufficiently presumed from the publishing, a special verdict® should include a finding of the malice.® 3. Imperfect. — In England, when the question of malice was held to be for the court to the exclusion of the jury, a finding of “cuilty of printing and publishing only” was adjudged to be an imperfect verdict, not an acquittal. was awarded.!! 1 Rex »v. Slaney, 5 Car. & P. 213. 2 Vol. I. § 1130; Reg. v. Boaler, 17 Cox C. C. 569. 3 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 615, 616; Berryman rv. Wise, 4 T. R. 366; Smith v. Taylor, 1 New Rep. 196, 208; Jones v. Stevens, 11 Price, 235; Pearce ». Whale, 5 B. & C. 38. 4 Archb. ut sup. referring to Smith v. Taylor, supra; Yrisarri v. Clement, 3 Bing. 432, 11 Moore, 308; Rex wv. Sutton, 4M. &S. 532, 548; Collins v. Carnegie, 1 A. & E. 695. 5 Vol. I. § 53 (4), 57 (4), 64; C. wv. Blanding, 3 Pick. 304, 15 Am. ]). 214; Rex v. Burdett, 3B & Ald. 717,4 B.& Ald. 95; Rex v. Johnson, 7 Fast, 65, 3 Smith, 94; Rex v. Watson, 1 Camp. 215; Rex v. Williams, 2 Camp. 506; In re Pal- liser, 1836 U. S. 257; In re Kowalsky, 73 Cal, 120; C. v. Dorrance, 14 Philad. 671. 370 So that a venire de novo § Vol. I. § 10004 et seq. 7 Ante, § 801 (1). 8 Vol. I. § 1006-1008. ~ 9 McAdams v. Reney, 4 Hayw. 252; S. v. Allen, 1 McCord, 525, 10 Am. D. 687; Webber v. 8. 10 Misso. 4. And see Sharff v. C. 2 Binn. 514. 10 Vol. I. § 1004-1005 a. 11 Rex v. Woodfall, 5 Bur. 2661. Lord Mansfield said, in delivering the opinion. of the court: “If they [the jury] meant [by ‘only ’] to say ‘they did not find it a libel,’ or ‘did not find the epithets,’ or ‘did not find any express malicious intent,’ it would not affect the verdict ; because none of these things were to be proved or found either way. If by ‘only’ they meant to say ‘that they did not find the meaning put upon the paper by the information, they should have acquitted him.” p, 2669. CHAP. XLIII.] SLANDER AND LIBEL. § 809 § 806 a. Impounding Libel. — In one case, the libel consisting of letters from the defendant to the prosecutor,! the former at the sentence moved that the latter be required to deposit them with the officer of the court. This motion the judges denied as unprecedented and unfit, and doubted the authority.? V. Oral Words. § 807. For Words spoken to a Magistrate, — an approved form of the indictment is to say that on, &., at, &c., setting out a judicial proceeding before him, the defendant, contriving and intending to vilify him, and to bring the administration of justice into contempt, and while specified magisterial acts were transpiring, did then and there, in his presence and hearing, wickedly and maliciously “publish, utter, pronounce, declare, and say, with a loud voice,” to the magistrate while so acting officially, ‘You are a scoundrel and a liar, you would hang your own father if you could make a groat by his execution.” 8 § 808. 1. Oral Blasphemy — is considered in another place.* 2. Obscene Oral Words — must by some opinions be set out by their tenor, and proved as laid.® In Tennessee, it was deemed unnecessary to departed from.® Others permit this rule to be allege or prove the words strictly in form as uttered.’ § 809. The Proof of the Tenor — of oral words, when laid by their tenor, must, it appears, be with an exactness not differing greatly from what is required for written; though it may be to an undefined degree less strict.8 1 Rex v. Cator, 4 Esp. 117. ° Rex v. Cator, 2 East, 361. 3 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 588, 589. For the law applicable to such a case, this author refers to Rex v. Pocock, 2 Stra. 1151; Rex v. Weltje, 2 Camp. 142; Reg. v. Langley, 2 Salk. 697 ; Reg. v. Wrightson, 2 Salk. 698. These words, as set out, are not simply intdicta- ble slander, but they are more particu- larly an indictable contempt of a judicial officer in the discharge of his duties. See New Crim. Law, II. § 264-267; Dir. & F. § 634. See also Rex v. Revel, 1 Stra. 420; Ex parte Marlborough, 5 Q. B. 955; Rex v. Griffith, Vern. & S. 612; Rex v. Bar- bone, Trem. P.C. 73. Songs in Street. — For the form of indictment for libel by Therefore the allegation that singing songs in the street, see Rex v. Benfield, 2 Bur. 980. + Ante, § 123 et seq. 5 See the discussions in Bradlaugh v Reg. 3 Q. B. D. 607. And see S. v. Bur- rell, 86 Ind. 318; Stener v.S. 59 Wis. 472. 6 Ante, § 7944. 7 Bell v. S.1 Swan, Tenn. 42, 47, 48. This case contains a form of the indict- ment. And see Barker », C. 31 Pa. 412; Pierce v. 8. 53 Ga. 365; Conlee x. S. 14 Tex. Ap. 222; Benson v. 8. 68 Ala. 544. 8 Pasley v. Kemp, 22 Mo. 409; Pop- penheim v. Wilkes, 1 Strob. 275; Easley v. Moss, 9 Ala. 266; Moore v. Bond, 4 Blackf. 458; Stanfield v. Boyer, 6 Har. & J. 248; Street ». Bushnell, 24 Mo. 328; Edgerley v. Swain, 32 N. H. 478; King w 371 § 811 _SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII the defendant, speaking to a justice of the peace in his office, sald “he was a broken-down justice,” was adjudged not sustained by “you are a broken-down justice.” 4 § 810. For uttering Obscene Words, — the indictment need not conclude “to the common nuisance.” 2 § 811. Joinder of Defendants. — It was said in Tennessee that “two may be severally, but not jointly, guilty of uttering the same abusive words. If both spoke the words at the same or different times, still the offence of each would be distinct, and they could not.be joined in the same count.” So that an indict- ment thus joining persons will be quashed on demurrer.? This, viewed as universal doctrine, is believed to be incorrect in principle. If two concur in one utterance, it is, under the ordinary principles of the criminal law, immaterial whether it proceeds from the vocal organs of both, acting together as in singing, or from the organs of one of them, or from those of a stranger; they are jointly liable. So it was held in Lord Mansficld’s day, in a case of libel by a song.® Whitley, 7 Jones, N. C. 529; Johnson v. Tait, 6 Binn. 121; Long v. Fleming, 2 Miles, 104; ‘Treat v. Browning, 4 Conn. 408, 10 Am. D. 156; Crotty v. Morrissey, 40 Ill. 477; Baker v. Young, 44 Ill. 42, 92 Am. D. 149; Barr v. Gaines, 3 Dana, 258 ; Robinett v. Ruby, 13 Md. 95; Cooper v. Marlow, 3 Misso. 188; Fox v. Vander- beck, 5 Cow. 513. 1 Rex v. Berry, 4 T.R. 217. And see Culbertson v. Stanley, 6 Blackf. 67; Mil- ler v, Miller, 8 Johns. 74; Dailey 7. Gaines, 1 Dana, 529; Haffman v. Shumate, 4 Bibb, 515; Wolf v. Rodifer, 1 Har. & J. 409. 2 Barker v. C. 19 Pa. 412. 3 §. v. Roulstone, 3 Sneed, 107. 4 Vol. I. § 467-470. And see ante, § 59,60; New Crim. Law, IT. § 948 (2). 5 Rex v. Benfield, 2 Bur. 980, 983, 984. For LIQUOR NUISANCE, see Stat. Crimes. LIQUOR SELLING, see Stat. Crimes. LIVING IN ADULTERY, see Stat. Crimes. LIVING IN FORNICATION, see Stat. Crimes. 372 CHAP. XLIV.] LORD’S DAY. § 815 CHAPTER XLIV. LORD’S DAY. Consult, — for the law of violations of the Lord’s day, New Crim. Law, II. § 949a- 970. For forms of the indictment and related questions, Dir. & F. § 661-671. And for miscellaneous questions, see the indexes to this series of books. § 812. Violations multiplied to Nuisance. — A combination of injurious acts often constitutes an indictable nuisance, where no single one of them is alone a criminal offence. So that assum- ing a single act of Sabbath-breaking not to be punishable at the common law,}? still, it appears, the instances may by multiplica- tion become a common nuisance. ? Chitty has for this forms of the indictment not necessary to be here inserted.® § 813. The Indictment on the Statutes : — In Words our Statutes, — while nearly identical in effect, differ considerably in the respective States. The indictment follows the particular statutory terms, and identifies the special facts, after the rules explained in the first volume. § 814. What is One Offence.— Under 29 Car. 2, c. 7, it was held that a man can commit, on the same day, but one offence of “exercising his ordinary calling on a Sunday.” § 815. 1. Time — is alleged as stated in the first volume.® 2. Duplicity.— On a statute forbidding one to “keep open” 1 New Crim. Law, I. § 499; Bishop Con. § 536-538. 2 New Crim. Law, II. § 965; Gunter v. 8. 1 Lea, 129; Parker v. S. 16 Lea, 476. 8 2Chit. Crim. Law, 20; 3 Ib. 672. For a form, in connection with some exposi- tions of the law, see Dir. & F. § 662 and notes. 4 Vol. I. § 593 et seq. For a general formula for the indictment, see Dir. & F. § 663. And for other varying forms, see Ib. § 664-671; Mosely v. S. 18 Tex. Ap. 311; C. v. De Voe, 159 Mass. 101; P. v. Hoym, 20 How. Pr. 76; C. v. Colton, 8 Gray, 488; C. v. Sampson, 97 Mass. 407; Reg. v. Cleworth, 4 B. & S. 926; C. v. Crow- ther, 117 Mass. 116; Kline v. S. 44 Missis. 317, 819; C. v. Messenger, 4 Mass. 462; Foltz v. S. 33 Ind. 215; Eitel v. S. 33 Ind. 201; McCarthy v. S. 56 Ind. 203; C. v. Wright, 12 Allen, 187. 5 Crepps v. Durden, Cowp. 640. And see Vol. I. § 402 (2), note. 6 Vol I. § 399. And seeC.7 Wright, 12 Allen, 187. As illustrative, Van Sickle v. P, 29 Mich. 61. 3738 § 818 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. a shop, “or” to “traffic,” &c., it is not double to aver, substitut- ing “and” for “or,” that he did both.! § 816. 1. When to Negative — exceptions and provisos in the statute was explained in the first volume.? Also — 2. Words of Statute. — We there saw how closely the indict- ment must follow the statutory words.? Thus, — 3. “Sabbath” —is a permissible substitute for the statutory “Sunday.” 4 § 817. 1. Joint. — Several persons may be convicted jointly.® 2. No Indictment — lies on a statute providing another method of prosecution.® 3. The Kind of Work — should be averred.? But — 4, The Particular Place — need not be alleged.§ 5. Ownership, — in keeping open shop on Sunday, need not be averred; but, if it is, it must be proved.® § 818. The Evidence: — 1. Where the Defendant’s Age — is an element in the offence, it must be alleged and proved. it.' Inspection cannot determine 2. The Criminal Intent — may be inferred from the proven act.” 3. Necessity or Charity, — The defendant’s purpose, and whether or not bis acts were from necessity or charity, are for the jury to determine under instructions from the court. 1S. v. Meyer, 1 Speers, 305; S. v. Helgen, 1 Speers, 310. And see McCar- thy v. S. 56 Ind, 203; C. v. Wright, 12 Allen, 187 ; Henry v. S. 113 Ind. 304; Vol. I. § 436. 2 Vol. I. § 631-642, and particularly, § 636; S. v. Barker, 18 Vt. 195; Brittin v, 8.5 Eng. 299; 8. ». Sutton, 24 Mo. 377; S.v. Gurney, 37 Me. 149; S. v. Shif- lett, 20 Mo. 415, 64 Am. D. 190; S. v. Stone, 15 Mo. 513; C. v. Trickey, 13 Al- len. 559; Russell ». S. 50 Ind. 174; C.v. Crowther, 117 Mass. 116; Billigheimer v. S. 32 Ohio St. 435; Jensen v. S. 60 Wis. O77: 8 Vol. I. § 608-630. 4 S.v. Drake, 64 N. C. 589. 5 C. v. Sampson, 97 Mass. 407. ®’ ©. v, Naylor, 33 Pa. 86. Explained Stat. Crimes, § 250. 7 Johnson v. C. 22 Pa. 102. 374 On this question, the statutes and decisions are not quite uniform. C. v. De Voe, 159 Mass. 101 ; Mosely v. S. 18 Tex. Ap. 811; S. v. Saurbaugh, 122 Ind. 208. § C.v. Wolf, 3 8. & R. 48. ® Shover v. S.5 Eng. 259, See San- ders v. S. 74 Ga. 82. 10 Hite] v. S. 33 Ind. 201. 11 Stephenson v. §. 28 Ind. 272. 1 Shover v. 8. 5 Eng, 259. 18 Billigheimer v. S. 32 Ohio St. 435; Snider v. 8. 59 Ala. 64; C. v. Harrison, 11 Gray, 308; Shover v. 8. supra; 8. v. Knight, 29 W. Va. 340; Ungericht v. S. 119 Ind. 379, 12 Am. St. 419; Edgerton v. S. 67 Ind. 588, 33 Am. R. 110. See C. v. Nagle, 117 Mass. 142. For some other questions of evidence, see C. v. Mason, 12 Allen, 185; Reg. v. Howarth, 33 U. C. Q. B. 537. CHAP. XLV. ] MALFEASANCE, ETC., IN OFFICE. § 821 CHAPTER XLV. MALFEASANCE AND NON-FEASANCE IN OFFICE. § 819. Introduction. 820, 821. Refusal to accept Office. 822-836. Corruption in Office. Consult,— for the law of the offences included in this title, New Crim. Law, II. § 971-982. For the forms of the indictment, with related questions, Dir. & F. § 680- 692, 919. For miscellaneous questions see the indexes to this series of books, § 819. 1. A Group of Kindred Offences, —not strictly one offence, constitutes the subject of this chapter. And they are akin to several others, treated of in other connections. ; 2. How Chapter divided. —.We shall consider, I. The Refusal to accept Office; II. Corrupt Acts and Neglects in Office. I. The Refusal to accept Office.} § 820. The Indictment — for this offence sets out, with time and place, the defendant’s qualifications for the office, and his election or appointment thereto. It then avers that from the day aforesaid “to the day of the taking of this inquisition,” at, &c., the defendant “wilfully, obstinately, and contemptuously entirely hath refused to take upon himself and to execute the said office.” 2 : § 821. Further of the Form. — Plainly, in principle, nothing short of this will constitute the prima facte case which every indictment, for whatever offence, must disclose. And the alle- gations of the defendant’s qualifications and appointment or election to the office must be made with due particularity. 1 See, as to this, New Crim. Law, I. 669, 670; Dir. & F.§ 919. For a special § 246 (1), 458. plea by the defendant, who refused the 2 Rex v Bettesworth, Trem. P. C.221; office, Ib. § 1046, note. Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 8 Vol. I. § 529 (4). 375 § 823 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. Il. Corrupt Acts and Neglects in Office. § 822. 1. The Indictment — against one who has assumed the duties of an office, for a neglect or malfeasance therein, is drawn on different principles. Instead of averring his qualifications and his appointment or election, it charges that on, &c., at, &c., he “being” 1 such officer, — for example, “being one of the con- stables,” &c., —such and such things transpired, which in law would cast upon him. a particular official duty. Then it adds that on, &., at, &c., aforesaid, he, “being ” such officer, and “being ” under such duty, or “being so commanded,” &c., accord- ing to the requirements of the individual case, “then and there unlawfully and contemptuously did neglect and refuse,” &c.? Now, — 2. In Other Respects. — This being a sort of general form at common law, the particular instance of offending may require more or less divergence from it. And if the indictment is on a statute, as commonly it will be, it must likewise conform to the particular statutory terms. Some of the precedents set out the appointment or election to the office, the taking of the oath of office, the entering upon its duties, and the like; but as such matter is only introductory to the main charge,? plainly it need not be made thus specific. And always the special facts, indi- vidualizing thé instance meant, must be duly alleged. As to the — § 823. Official Character, it is believed there is no denial, worthy of notice, of the sufficiency of the allegation of it just given. To say that the defendant was duly elected to the office comb, 1 Car. & P. 124; Old v. C. 18 Grat. 915; Hiss v. S. 24 Md. 556, 560; P. w. 1 The participle “being” is not objec- tionable. Vol. I. § 556,557. But it is as good and no better to say that the defend- ant “was” such an officer. In this forth was the allegation, adjudged adequate, in Rex v. Hollond, 5 T. R. 607. 2 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 582. And consult the entire chapter in Dir. & F. § 680-692. 8 Vol. I. § 554-558. 905. 4 And see, for forms, 8. v. Woodbury, 35 N. H. 230; Rex v. Davison, 31 How. St. Tr. 99; Douglass Reg. 13 Q. B. 74; C. v. Mann, 1 Va. Cas. 308; Rex v. Whit- 376 See post, § 904, Weston, 4 Par. Cr. 226; Reg. v. Dale, Dears. 37, 6 Cox C.C. 93,14 Eng. L. & Eq. 552; Rex v. Cope, 6 A. & E. 226,7 Car. & P. 720; Rex v. Cross, Trem. P. C. 236; Rex v. Deeds, Trem. P. C. 233. And see Russell v. S. 57 Ga. 420; P. v. Castle- ton, 44 Ilow. Pr. 238; S. v. Ferriss, 3 Lea, 700; S. e. Wedge, 24 Minn. 150; McCul- lough v. 8. 63 Ala. 75; P. v. Meakim, 183 N. Y. 214; Hatch v. S. 10 Tex. Ap. 515. 5 Places cited to the last section; S. v. Harsh, 6 Blackf. 346; S. v. Odell, 8 Blackf. 396. CHAP. XLYV.] MALFEASANCE, ETC., IN OFFICE. § 826 by the qualified electors of, &c., and took upon himself that trust, has been adjudged adequate;! but this implies nothing against the still briefer method of averment. § 824. The Proof of the Official Character — was, in an old case before a single judge, required to be by showing a due appoint- ment to the office. If this were indispensable, a mere officer de facto could not be convicted of offences of this class, as by nearly or quite universal doctrine he can be.? Besides, by at least the modern law of evidence, the defendant’s acting in the office under claim of right creates the presumption that he has a valid title thereto. So that the prosecuting officer may prove the defendant’s official character either in this way, or by an election or appointment and swearing in, as may be the more convenient. § 825. 1. On a Statute, — the indictment must fill the entire statutory terms, and in some cases go beyond them, according to the rules laid down in the first volume.® The statutes are numerous and diverse; so that a mere reference to some cases will suffice under this head. 9 require, be duly negatived.? And — 2, The Exceptions and Provisos — must, where the general rules Also — § 826. Sufficiently in Detail — must be the averments to satisfy the ordinary rules for indictments ;® disclosing the criminal 1 Edge v.C. 7 Pa, 75. And see Shanks v. S. 51 Missis. 464; S. v. McElroy, 3 Heisk. 69. 2 Rex v. Arnold, 1 Stra. 101. The re- port of this case is brief. Perhaps the ruling was not as my text states; but was that when proof by actual appointment is attempted, if the law requires it to be under seal, parol evidence will not be re- ceived. In this view, the decision was un- questionably correct. 8 New Crim Law, I. § 464; S. v. Cans- ler, 75 N. C. 442; Long ». 8.76 N. C. 254; S. v. Stone, 40 Towa, 547; Byrne v. S. 50 Missis. 688; Polk v. Coffin, 9 Cal. 56 ; Rex v. Hollond, 5 T. R. 607; S. v. Goss, 69 Me. 22. 4 Vol. I. § 1130; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 83, 92; Long ». S. supra; S. v. Stone, supra; S. v. Manley, 1 Tenn. 428; S. v. Stroope, 20 Ark. 202, And see, on this subject, Brush v. Cook, Brayt. 89; Gilmore v. Holt, 4 Pick. 258; U.S. v. Sears, 1 Gallis. 215; U.S. v. Bachelder, 2 Gallis. 15; S.v. Tool, 4 Ohio St. 553; S. v. Jacobs, 17 Ohio, 143; Billy v. S. 2 Nott & McC. 356; Jeter v. S. 1 McCord, 233; S. v. Lylies, 1 McCord, 228 ; Allen v. McNeel, 1 Mill, 459, 5 Vol. I. § 608-630. 6 S. v. Hall, 5 S.C. 120; S. v. Stiles, 40 Iowa, 148; Mahar v. S. 28 Ark. 207; S. v. Kopper, 65 Mo. 478; Old v. C. 18 Grat. 915; S.v. Northfield, 13 Vt. 565; S. v. Record, 56 Ind. 107; Addison v. S. 41 Tex. 462; Edwards v. S. 2 Tex. Ap. 525; Douglas v. Reg. 13 Q. B. 74; S.v. Hein, 50 Mo. 362; S. v. Pinger, 57 Mo. 243; Doyle v, S. 49 Ala. 28; Snowden v. S. 17 Fla. 386; Turner v. Muskegon Cir. Judge, 95 Mich. 1; White». S. 44 Ala. 409; P. v. Ward, 85 Cal. 585; Moose v, S. 49 Ark. 499; S. v. Foy, 98 N.C. 744; S, v. Miller, 100 N. C. 543; S. uv, Kite, 81 Mo. 97; S. v. Graham, 38 Ark. 519; P. v. Kalloch, 60 Cal. 113. TS. v. Startup, 10 Vroom, 423. 8 Vol. I. § 566-584. 377 § 830 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. quality of the defendant’s act, and affording due notice of the particular accusation.! Some illustrations are, — § 827. For Neglect to Repair a Way, — the indictment against the supervisor need not, in Indiana, aver that he had the means to keep it in repair, this being matter for the defence. In the description of the way, its termini need not be stated. It is enough to aver that the defendant was supervisor of, &c., in, &c., and that he wilfully suffered the part of the road running from S., in said county, in the direction of G., in said county, situate in said road district, to be obstructed, &c.? § 828. 1. For a False Return,—the indictment against a sheriff must show wherein it was false.2 So, — 2. For Non-feasance as to an Estray,—it is in Indiana not sufficient, in averring the omission of the statutory duty, simply to say that the defendant ‘‘has continued to fail, neglect, and refuse to comply with any of the provisions of the statute,” &c. The charge must specify the acts which he failed to perform. Again, — 8. Against an Overseer of the Poor, — for cruel treatment of paupers, the indictment must set out their names, or aver that they are unknown. § 829. Non-delivery to Successor.— A statute required one vacating the office of justice of the peace to deliver his books and papers to his successor, if “chosen and qualified at the time;” but if no successor was then chosen and qualified, the delivery of them was to be to a specified officer, “to be kept by him until a successor be chosen and qualified, and then delivered over to him on request.” Thereupon an indictment was held in- adequate which set out the lapse of a period of time between the close of the official term and the qualification of the successor, but did not charge a demand for the books and papers and their non-delivery.§ § 830. 1. A Violation of Duty — must be made palpable by the averment.’ Thus, — 1 And see P. v. Coon, 15 Wend. 277; 8. S. v. Miller, 100 N.C. 548; S. v. Walker, v. Bailey, 1 Fost. N. H. 185; 8. v. Leigh, 82 Mo. 489. 8 Dev. & Bat. 127; S. v. Buxton, 2 Swan, 8 Tibbals v. S. 5 Wis. 596. Tenn. 57; Edwards v. 8. 2 Tex. Ap. 525; 4 Dixon v. 8. 4 Blackf. 312. P. v. Castleton, 44 How. Pr. 238; Haw- 5 S. v. Hawkins, 77 N. C. 494, kins v. S. 54 Ga. 653. 6 S. v. Jones, 10 Humph. 41. 2 §. v. Harsh, 6 Blackf. 346. And see 7 § v. Shields, 8 Blackf. 151. 378 CHAP. XLY.] MALFEASANCE, ETC., IN OFFICE. § 836 2. Non-payment.— Where the law requires a constable, on collecting money, to pay it either to the magistrate or the party, a charge merely that he did not pay it to the party is inadequate. 1 § 831. From whom Received. —It suffices to aver that the defendant did not duly pay over money received, not saying from whom, on account of fines for the use of common schools.” § 832. For not returning an Execution, — the indictment must state, at least, its substance; “in order,” it was said, “that the court might see whether it was, on its face, such an execution as the defendant was bound to execute and return.” § 833. “Unlawfully and Contemptuously.” — Though these words are in the foregoing form,‘ they are not always the most appro- priate ones, or indispensable; as, if the statutory term is “ wil- ful,” it alone will suffice in allegation. Even less of evil in the intent is required in the averment under some of the statutes.® But under an Indiana one, an indictment against a justice of the peace for corruptly rendering an unlawful judgment must allege that he knew it to be contrary to law.? And — § 834. Corruption, — in some form of words, must generally be averred; it is believed always at common law.’ On a statute, the form of the averment will ordinarily be determined by the statutory terms; as, if they are “unreasonable, corrupt, or wil- fully oppressive,” the like should be in the indictment.? § 835. In an Indictment against a Justice of the Peace, — for malfeasance as to some estray animals, the words “corruptly caused ” were held sufficiently to aver the evil intent. § 836. 1. For the Jury — is the question of malice." A suffi- 1S. v. Longley, 10 Ind. 482. 2 Alexander v. S. 9 Ind. 387; S. v. Mc- ¥ §. v. Small, 1 Fairf. 109. 10 Wickersham v. P.1 Scam. 128, 129. Cormack, 2 Ind. 305. 8 S. v. Smith, 5 Blackf. 327. 4 Ante, § 822 (1). 5 Rex v. Hollond, 5 T. R. 607, 623. 6 Mahar v. S. 28 Ark. 207. 78. v. Ross, 4 Ind. 541. There are several other Indiana decisions on points like this ; as, Vanhook v. 8. 5 Blackf. 450; S. v. Odell, 8 Blackf. 396; S. +. Hunter, 8 Blackf. 212; Stewart v. S. 4 Blackf. 171; 8. v. Boyles, 7 Blackf. 90. 8 New Crim. Law, I. § 299, 460, 462; II. § 972 (3), 976 (2); ante, § 822; S. ». Buxton, 2 Swan, Tenn. 57. Other Questions. — One desirous to see everything on the subject of this chapter may consult also the following cases: S. v. Tuley, 20 Mo. 422; Jacobs v. C. 2 Leigh, 709; S. v. Jopling, 10 Humph. 418; 8. wv. Northfield, 18 Vt. 565; S.v. Greenwood, 1 Mill, 420; C. v. Shortridge, 3 J. J. Mar. 688; Kane v. P. 8 Wend. 203; S, v. Hoit, 3 Fost. N. H. 355; Reg. v. Crossley, 10 A.& E. 182, 2 Per. & TD. 319; Russell v. S. 57 Ga. 420; Lewis v. Garrett, 5 How. Missis. 434; Stubbs v. S. 53 Missis, 437. 11 §. v. Allen, 22 Mo. 318. And see S. v. Pugh, 101 N. C. 737. 379 § 836 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII cient presumption of it may arise from a wrong act intentionally done.+ But — 2. A Mistake of Law,— especially in a judicial officer, is inadequate proof of corruption. ? 1 Pp. v. Bogart, 3 Par. Cr. 143; S. v. S.v. Reeves, 15 Kan. 396. And see S. v. Heaton, 77 N. C. 505. : Leach, 60 Me. 58,11 Am. R. 172; Bot- 2 New Crim. Law, IL. § 976,977; S.v. tomley v. U.S. 1 Story, 125; Reg. ». Heaton, supra; 8. v. Prescott, 31 Ark.39; Rochester, 2 Jur. 64. For MALICIOUS INJURIES TO THE PERSON, see Dir. & F. § 693-696, and the places there referred to. 380 CHAP, XLVI.] MALICIOUS MISCHIEF. § 839 CHAPTER XLVI. MALICIOUS MISCHIEF. Introduction. Indictment generally and at Common Law. Specially of Indictment on Statutes. The Evidence. § 837. 838-844. 845, 846. 847-850. Consult, — for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, II. § 983-1000; and for the law and procedure under statutes, Stat. Crimes, § 430-449. For the indictment, with connected questions, Dir. & F. § 697-732. And see, for miscellaneous questions, the indexes to this series of books. § 837. 1. Distributed among the Several Volumes — of this Criminal-law Series is the subject of Malicious Mischief.? 2. How divided. -— We shall in this chapter consider, I. The Indictment generally and at the Common Law; II. Specially of the Indictment on Statutes; III. The Evidence. I. The Indictment generally and at the Common Law. § 838. The Common-law Indictment — alleges the defendant’s malice, describes the property, states the ownership of it; and, with the particularity required in all indictments for whatever offence, sets out the special acts which constituted the mischief in the individual instance. ? § 839. Not quite Uniform,— as explained in “New Criminal Law ” and “Statutory Crimes,” are the views of our tribunals as to what are the essential elements of either the common-law or the statutory malicious mischief. Hence, in some particulars, 1 New Crim. Law, II. § 983. 2 See, for forms, with many explana- tions and authorities, Dir. & F. § 697-732; also see 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 23; 2 Stark. Crim. Pl. 2d ed. 576 et seq.; P. v. Moody, 5 Par. Cr. 568 ; S.v. Briggs, 1 Aikens, 226; Burgess v. S. 44 Ala. 190,192; S.v. Simp- sou, 2 Hawks, 460; S. v. Scott, 2 Dev. & Bat. 35; Sample v. S. 104 Ind. 289; S. 2. Blakesley, 39 Kan. 152; S. v. McKee, 109 Ind. 497; P. v Sheldon, 68 Cal. 434; S. v. Hamilton, 1 Houst. Crim. 281. 3 See, for example, New Crim. Law, I. § 569, 570, 577; II. § 984, 985; Stat. Crimes, § 433-436. 381 § 842 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. what would be a good indictment in one State might not be in another. § 840. The Value of the Property — injured or destroyed, whether the indictment is at the common law or on a statute, should, within principles already seen,! be stated if it affects the punishment,? otherwise it need not be,?— the same rule applying here as in larceny.* So that it suffices to give only the collective value of several enumerated things; but this is not judicious, since it would be practically ill should the proofs fail to sustain the entire averment.® § 841. The Injury inflicted — should be set forth with such minuteness of description as, within rules stated in the first volume,® will identify the transaction and sufficiently inform the defendant of the nature and-extent of the accusation.’ And in this, there is no difference between indictments drawn on the common law and on the statutes.® Illustrations of the allegation within this doctrine appear in “Statutory Crimes.” ® § 842. The Malice,— which is an element in the offence, should be alleged. In general, it is malice, not against the property, but the owner.!© Commonly, not necessarily, the pleader employs for this purpose the adverbial form, “mali- ciously,” and connects it with “ mischievously ” and other adverbs of the like sort. And some of these may assist in pointing the malice to the owner. But aside from what may be required to cover the terms of a statute,!? it is believed that no one form is exclusive of all others.?8 1 Vol. I. § 488 b (2), 540, 541, 567; ante § 713. 2 §. v. Shadley, 16 Ind. 230; Nicholson v. §. 3 Tex. Ap. 31; S. v. Heath, 41 Tex. 426; Reg. v. Thoman, 12 Cox C.C. 54; S. v. Garner, 8 Port. 447. 3 §. v. Simpson, 2 Hawks, 460, Cald- well v. S. 49 Ala 34; S. ». Garner, 8 Port. 447; C. v. Soule, 2 Met. 21. And see S, ». Aydelott, 7 Blackf. 157; S. uv. Blackwell, 3 Ind. 529; Manes v. S. 20 Tex. 38; Nuttv. S. 19 Tex. 340. 4 Ante, § 713-716. 5 C. v. Falvey, 108 Mass. 304, 307. 6 Vol. I. § 509, 519, 520, 526, 530, 566. 7 S.v. Jackson, 7 Ind. 270; Hayworth v. S. 14 Ind. 590; S. +. Merrill, 3 Blacké. 346; S.v. Langford, 3 Hawks, 381; S. v. 382 Aydelott, 7 Blackf. 157; Hotchkish v. Tuttle, 1 Root, 4838; S. v Derossett, 19 Mo. 383; Read v. 8. 1 Ind. 511; Shell v. S. 6 Humph. 283. 8 Vol. I. § 610, 611. 9 Stat. Crimes, § 446-449 ; Brazleton v. 8. 66 Ala. 96; S. v. Greenlees,.41 Ark. 353; Dean v. S. 37 Ark. 57; Brown v. S. 76 Ind. 85. W New Crim. Law, I. § 595; and places cited ante, § 839; Stat. Crimes, § 433-437 ; 8. v. Hill, 79 N. C. 656. 11 See the cases cited ante, § 838. 2S, ». Tweedy, 115 N. C. 704; P. x. O’Brien, 60 Mich. 8; C. v. Turner, 8 Bush 1; 8. v. Maddox, 85 Ind. 585. 18S. v, Jackson, 11 Ire. 329; S. v Simpson, 2 Hawks. 460; S. v. Scott, 2 CHAP. XLVI.] MALICIOUS MISCHIEF. § 845 § 843. Ownership, — as in larceny,! must ordinarily be laid, whether the indictment is on the common law or a statute;? and it should be inthe same form. Most of the cases so hold.? But under special circumstances, or statutory modifications of com- mon-law rules, a few of the adjudications permit, perhaps justly, this averment to be omitted.‘ § &44. Malicious Mischief and other Wrong combining. — There are offences consisting in part of malicious mischief and in part of other elements of wrong. Then the indictment, like the offence, consists of a blending of different things into one; and the emergencies of the particular case will be the pleader’s guide. One illustration is where the mischief is committed by the discharge of guns to the terror of the people in a dwelling- house ;® another, where the windows of an inhabited building are broken in the night, with the like consequence ;® another, where the house is thus fully or in part torn’down.’ Il. Specially of the Indictment on Statutes. § 845. 1. In “Statutory Crimes,’ — statutory malicious mis- chief, with the procedure, is more particularly considered.® 2. The Indictment, in these cases, as in all others upon a statute, must mingle with the common-law allegations those covering the particular language on which it is drawn, according to explanations in the first volume.® Dev: & Bat. 35; Boyd v. S. 2 Humph. 39; S. v. Hambleton, 22 Mo. 452. 1 Ante, § 718 et seq. ® Vol. I. § 610, 611. 8 Rex v. Patrick, 2 East P. C. 1059; 8. v. Jackson, 7 Ind. 270; Haworth »v. 8S. Peck, 89; S. v. Faucett, 15 Tex. 584; Davis v. C. 30 Pa. 421, 424; Rex v. Wood- ward, 2 East P. C. 653; S. ». Hill, 79 N. C. 656; Morningstar v. 8.52 Ala. 405; S. v. Brant, 14 Iowa, 180; Ritter v. S. 33 Tex. 608; S. v. Mason, 13 Ire, 341; Reg. v. Jones, 1 Car. & K. 181; Ex parte Eads, 17 Neb. 145; S. v. Deal, 92 N.C. 802. 4 Benson v. S. 1 Tex. Ap. 6; Owens v. 8S. 52 Ala. 400; S. v. Brocker, 32 Tex. 611. 5 §, v. Langford, 3 Hawks, 381. 6 S. v. Batchelder, 5 N. H. 549, 7 §. v. Wilson, 3 Misso. 125. 8 Stat. Crimes, § 430-449. Thus, — 9 Vol. I. § 593-642; S. v. Slocum, & Blackf. 315; Taylor v. S. 6 Humph. 285; S. ». Clifton, 24 Mo. 376; C. v. Butcher, 4 Grat. 544; C. v. Dougherty, 6 Gray, 349; C. v. Bean, 11 Cush. 414; Glives v. Smith, 48 N. H. 259; Maskill v. S. 8 Blackf. 299; S. v. Pennington, 3 Head, 119; S. vo. Pine, 30 Tex. 899; Rex »v. Ashton, 2 B. & Ad. 750; Reg. v. Morris, 9 Car. & P. 89; S. v. Staton, 66 N.C. 640; S. v. Malloy, 5 Vroom, 410; S. v. Hussey, 60 Me. 410, 11 Am. R. 209; Birdg rv. §. 31 Ind. 88; Rex +. Mogg, 4 Car. & P. 364; Rex v. Chalkley, Russ. & Ry. 258; S. v. Allen, 72 N.C. 114; S.z. Arnold, 39 Tex. 74; S. v. Simpson, 73 N. C. 269; C. v. Turner, 8 Bush, 1; S. ~. Stalls, 37 Tex. 440; Allan v. Kirton, 2 W. Bl. 842; s. c. nom. Allen ». Kirton, 3 Wils. 318; 8. v. Batson, 31 Mo. 343; 383 [BOOK XII. § 848 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. § 846. For Wounding Animal. — On a statute to punish one who “shall wilfully and maliciously, by any means whatever, kill, maim, or wound any animal of another which it is made larceny to steal,” the indictment for wounding may charge that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant one sorrel mare, of the value of, &c., of the goods of, &c., “did wilfully and maliciously wound.” So it has been held,! and probably not contrary to just principle;? but the question whether the instrument, the manner, or the extent of the wounding should not be given, to further identify the transaction, is not absolutely clear.® Ill. The Evidence. § 847. The Injured Person — may be a witness.# § 848. 1. Prove — enough of the essential allegations to con- stitute a prima facie case.® or presumptive. Thus, — The evidence may be either direct 2. Malice — may be inferred from acts of mischief wilfully done.’ The inference is not inevitable; as, it will not arise, where the defendant proceeded on a license from one mistakenly believed to represent the owner.® Bates v. S. 31 Ind. 72; S. v. Hill, 79 N.C. 656; Rembert v. S. 56 Missis. 280; 8. v. Parker, 81 N. C. 548; S. v. Boyd, 86 N.C. 634, 1 Lemon v. S.19 Ark.171. See Thomp- son». §. 51 Missis. 353; Swartzbaugh v. P. 85 Til. 457. 2 Stat. Crimes, § 1113. 8 There is a considerable variety of forms, with authorities and other matter, in Dir. & F. § 698-730. For further forms, see 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 1132 et seq.; Rex v. Chapple, Russ. & Ry.77; S. v. Burgess, 40 Me. 592; C. v. Williams, 110 Mass. 401; C. v. Bean, 11 Cush. 414; 8S. Brant, 14 Iowa, 180; Oviatt v. S. 19 Ohio St. 573; Reg. v. Pembliton, Law Rep. 2 CG. ©. 119; C. v. Walden, 3 Cush. 558; C. v. Soule, 2 Met. 21; C. v. Cox, 7 Allen, 577; C. v. Sowle, 9 Gray, 304, 69 Am. D. 289 ; Reg. v. Whiteman, Dears. 353, 25 Eng. L. & Eq. 590; S. v. Staton, 66 N.C. 640; S. v. Painter, 70 N. C.70; C.c. Fal- vey,108 Mass. 304; McKinney v. P. 32 Mich. 284; S. v. Williams, 21 Ind. 260. 384 And where, as commonly, the And see S. v. Collins, 19 Ark. 587; S. wv. Keogh, 13 La, An. 243; S. v. Cantrell, 2 Hill, 8. C. 389 ; Turnipseed v. S. 6 Ala. 664. Under a statute making it indicta- ble “ maliciously, &c., any horse, cattle, or other domestic beast of another,” an in- dictment for wounding a hog, without averring that it was a “domestic beast,” was held, on the English authorities, to Le good. S.v. Enslow, 10 lowa, 115, 116. 4 Vol. I. § 11388 (1); U. S.v. Johns, 4 Dall. 412; S. v. Pike, 33 Me. 361; Black- stone v. 8. 15 Ala. 415. 5 Belverman v. S. 16 Tex. 130. 6 Wallace v. 8.30 Tex. 758; C. v. Sul- livan, 107 Mass. 218. See S. v. McDer- mott, 36 Iowa, 107; Brown v. S. 26 Ohio St. 176. 7 Rex v. Crutchley, 5 Car. & P. 133, 8S. v. Underwood, 37 Mo. 225. Res Geste. — The defendant’s declarations, after committing the act, may in some cir- cumstances be admissible in his favor on the question of malice. 8S. v. Graham, 46 Mo. 490. CHAP. XLVI.] MALICIOUS MISCHIEF. § 850 intent to injure the owner is an element in the offence, the evi- dence should point the malice toward him; it is not enough simply to show a mere unlawful act of injury.t But — 3. Absence of License. — That the defendant did not act under license from the owner need not be shown against him.? Yet the statute may be in terms to render the absence of a license a part of the government’s prima facie case,?-— a sort of question on which the authorities are not quite uniform. 4, Other Instances — of the like offending are sometimes rele- vant to the question of intent; as, on an indictment for malicious shooting, where it was uncertain whether a proven instance was from accident or design, another evidently intended was deemed competent as inferring design in this one.* § 849. Injury as laid.— Under the statutory words “shall unlawfully and maliciously kill,” the charge of killing a cow was held to be sustained by proof that the defendant set fire to a cow-house wherein she was, and thereby was burned to death. So the averment that the defendant caused another’s hens to eat poison is sustained by proof that he exposed the poison, intend- ing they should find and eat it, which they did.¢ § 850. 1. The Ownership, — when necessarily alleged,’ must, as in larceny,® be proved.® Parol evidence, even where the injury is to real estate, is adequate. 10 And — 2. Ownership in a Corporation — may be proved the same as when laid in an individual, 4 1§. v. Underwood, supra; Lossen v. S. 62 Ind. 437. 2S. v. Whittier, 21 Me. 341, 38 Am. D. 272; Welsh v. S. 11 Tex. 368. 8 Rex v. Hazy, 2 Car. & P. 458, # Rex v. Voke, Russ. &-Ry. 531. One was on trial for wilfully setting fire toa rick by firing a gun close to it, on a day named ; and the fact that the rick was on fire the day before and the defendant was by it with a gun, was admitted, as tending to overcome any suggestion of accident in the instance in controversy. Reg. v. Dossett, 2 Car. & K. 306; 8. c. nom. Reg. v. Dosset, 2 Cox C. C. 243. 5 Rex v. Haughton, 5 Car. & P. 559. VOL. 11.-— 25 See as to the indictment, Taylor v. S. 6 Humph. 285. 6 C. v, Falvey, 108 Mass. 304. And see C. v. McLaughlin, 105 Mass. 460; C. v. Soule, 2 Met. 21. 7 Ante, § 843. 8 Ante, § 752. 9S. +. Weeks, 30 Me. 182; Nutt v. 8. 19 Tex. 340; S. v. Hill, 79 N. C. 656; Hughes v, S. 103 Ind. 344; Phillips v. 8. 17 Tex. Ap. 169. And see P. v. Horr,7 Barb.9; Belverman v. S. 16 Tex. 180. 10 §, vu. Jaynes, 78 N. C. 504. 11 Lowe v. S. 46 Ind. 305. Other Ques- tions.— For other questions of evidence, see Delano r. S. 29 Ind. 211; S. v. Clark, 5 Dutcher, 96. 385 § 851 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII CHAPTER XLVII. MAYHEM AND STATUTORY MAIMS. § 850a. Introduction. 851-854. Common-law Proceeding. 855-859. Proceeding upon Statutes. Consult, —for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, IL. § 1001-1008. forms of indictment, &c., Dir. & F. § 741-748. the indexes to this series of books. Dir. & F. § 693-696. For the And see, for incidental questions, See also Maxicious Ingurizs To THE PERSON, § 850 a. How Chapter divided. We shall consider, I. The Common-law Proceeding; II. The Proceeding upon Statutes. I. Lhe Common-law Proceeding. § 851. Indictment.— Prior to any English statute of mayhem, there was pretty plainly a well defined felony of mayhem, dis- tinguishable from some misdemeanors known by the like name. Of course, there were forms of indictment for it. But the statutes began to appear as far back as the reign of Henry IV.; and in every case of mayhem within the terms of a statute, the indict- ment has been upon it. Possibly some of the old common-law precedents may be found in our ancient books, but the author does not remember to have met with such? And should he here suggest a form, it would be without authority, nor probably would 1 New Crim. Law, II. § 1001, 1008. 2 Moreover, I judge that the early prosecutions for mayhem were seldom by indictment; appeal being, as Reeves tells us, “the usual mode.” 2 Reeves Hist. Eng. Law, 33-35. In this proceeding, the appellor was generally excused from fight- ing by reason of the disabling wounds of which he complained, so that the trial was commonly by jury. Ib. 34. And the judg- ment was that the appellee “lose the like member as he has destroyed of the plain- tiff; and if the plaint he made against a woman who has deprived a man of his 386 members, she shall have judgment to lose a hand, being the member wherewith she committed the offence.” This “eye-for-an eye” sort of punishment, adapted to a rude age, was not inflicted where the pro- ceeding was by indictment. 1 Britton, by Nichols, 123. Of course, therefore, appeal must have been the favored suit. As to what appears to have been a some- what different form of the appeal of may- hem, wherein the consequences were less severe, see New Crim, Law, II. § 1001 (1), note. CHAP. XLVII.] MAYHEM AND STATUTORY MAIMS. § 854 it ever be required in practice. Still, some knowledge of the common-law indictment is desirable as a help to the procedure under our statutes. Thus, — § 852. “ Feloniously”” and “ Maim”— were essential in allega- tion; the expression in Latin being felonice mayhemavit! And — § 853. Manner of Hurt, &c. — As in murder, so in mayhem, the indictment was required to state, says Hast, “ particularly in what manner the hurt was given, and the consequences following it; concluding that so the defendant feloniously maimed, &c., but the omission of the former is not helped by such general conclusion.” 2 Moreover, — § 854. As to Accessories. —‘‘ Lord Hale considers,” adds this author, “that there are no accessories before in mayhem, for that they are in the same degree as principals; and if the nature and punishment of the offence at common law, which was in effect only a trespass, be considered, it favors that opinion. Hawkins, however, says that there may be accessories before; but that the appellant has his election to proceed against them either as prin- cipals or accessories; and herewith agrees Staundford, to whom Lord Hale expressly refers. Yet I cannot help suspecting, upon amore accurate inspection of the authorities on which this last opinion is founded, that it is.a mistake, proceeding perhaps upon the old notion which prevailed. till after the time of Edw. III., that those who were present aiding and abetting, but did not commit the fact, were accessories at the fact. The authorities in support of it are all resolvable into 40 Assize 1, 9, and 41 Assize 16; and there it is said that the ancient law was that each should be appealed as principal, but that now the appellant may elect to make all principals, or else only the one who struck prin- cipal, and the others accessories. But Brook, on one of these passages, says, quod nota: and tt seems that the ancient law was the best ; for it is only trespass in effect. And on the other he observes, guod mirum: for in mayhem there are no accessories. And in the time of Henry VI. it appears to have been considered that in mayhem all were principals ; as well he who comforts and abets, as he who strikes the stroke. And certainly it is against the received opinion at this day that a person can be both acces- 13 Inst. 118; 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 23, Hawk. P.C. ¢, 23, § 20, 75, 79; Ib. c. 25, § 77. § 57. 21 East P. C. 402, referring to 2 387 § 856 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL sory and principal in respect to the very same act.”1 But here again we are led back into the mists which envelop the old com- mon law of this offence? The consideration that there were misdemeanors called mayhem, distinct from the felony, may help dispel some of them. II. The Proceeding upon Statutes. § 855. 1. The Forms——here required appear more fully in “ Directions and Forms.” 3 2. Under the Coventry Act, the charge was that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant, contriving, &c., in and upon one X, on purpose, and of his malice aforethought, and by lying in wait, unlawfully and feloniously did make an assault; proceeding to state the weapon, the holding of it, &c., the same as in murder; thereupon, in a case of slitting the nose, the averment states that with the weapon the defendant “the nose of the said X, on purpose, and of his malice aforethought, and by lying in wait, then and there unlawfully and feloniously did slit, with intention the said X, in so doing, in manner aforesaid, to maim and disfigure.” The in- dictment concludes “and so the jurors,” &c.,° as in murder. § 856. 1. This Sort of Conclusion, — or summing up of the alle- gations, is plainly unnecessary where they have already fully covered the statutory terms.’ And it is.not common, though sometimes employed,’ in this country. Again, — 2. The Manner of holding the Weapon, —and the like, following the indictment in homicide, need not be alleged; though in some of the States, under some of the statutes, it may be prudent to insert these averments. 1 1 East P. C. 400, 401. * New Crim. Law, II. § 1001 (1), note, ® Dir. & F. § 741-748. 2 22 & 23 Car. 2,c. 1; New Crim. Law, II. § 1008 (1). 5 Ante, § 502, 536, 541 (1), 548. 6 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 787, 788. For other precedents, see Rex v. Woodburne, 16 How. St. Tr. 53; Rex v. Ringrose, Trem. P. C. 33; S. v. Briley, 8 Port. 472; S. v. Absence, 4 Port. 397; Tully v. P. 67 N. Y. 15; S. v. Bohannon, 21 Mo, 490. And see S. v. Vowels, 4 Or. 824; S. v. Davis, 29 Mo. 391. 388 7 Ante, § 548-550. 8 Anonymous, Whart. Prec. 2d ed. No. 194. 9 Tully v. P. 67 N.Y. 15; S. », Ab sence, 4 Port. 397; S. v. Briley, 8 Port. 472, And see Guest v. S. 19 Ark. 405; S. v. Thompson, 30 Mo. 470; Chick v. 8. 7 Humph. 161; U.S. « Gunther, 5 Dak. 234. 10 Ante, § 515. 11 §. ». Bohannon, 21 Mo. 490. And see Tully v. P. supra; S. v. Bailey, 21 Mo. 484. It was employed in S. v. Briley, 8 Port. 472. CHAP. XLVII.] MAYHEM AND STATUTORY MAIMS. § 859 § 857. 1. The Statutory Words, — or their equivalents, must be employed, as in other indictments on statutes.) Thus, — 2. “Lying in Wait” and “ Voluntarily,’ — when in the statute, must be in the allegation? And — 3. “ Disable.” — Ifthe statute requires a disabling, the allegation of a mere intent to disable will not suffice? But — 4, To “Destroy” —is to “ disable,” hence it will suffice though the latter is the statutory word4 — § 858. For Cutting off the Har,— it was deemed necessary by the common-law rules to state whether it was the “right” or “left” one. But under modifying statutes, this particularity was not required.5 § 859. 1, Assault and Battery — are included in mayhem. So that on a charge of mayhem, there may be a conviction of assault or of battery, yet within limits already seen.6 And — 2. The Word “ Assault,” — not always indispensable in the in- dictment for assault,’ may equally be supplied by other expressions in mayhem ; whereupon there may be a conviction for the assault only, the same as in other cases.8 3. Maiming in Arkansas — was held to include an “ aggravated assault and battery ;” and on an indictment for the former, the conviction may be for the latter.® 4, One charged as Present — aiding and abetting a mayhem may be convicted of assault and battery, while the principal of the first degree is convicted of the mayhem.” 1 Vol. I. § 608 et seq.; Tully v. P. 67 " Vol. I. § 417-419. N. Y. 15. 7 Ante, § 57 (3), 58. 2 Respublica v. Reiker, 3 Yeates, 282. 8 Benham ». S. 1 Iowa, 542. 3 C. v. Lester, 2 Va. Cas. 198. 5 Guest v. S. 19 Ark, 405. # Tully v. P. supra 10S. x, Absence, 4 Port. 397. Asto the 5S. v. Green, 7 Ire. 39. And see Scott Verdict, —S. v. Bloeedow, 45 Wis. 279. v. C.65. & R, 224, For MANSLAUGHTER, see Homicipe. MEETING, ILLEGAL, see Untawrut AssEMBLY; also, DisorDERLY Hovsx. MISCHIEF, see Maricious Miscnier. MURDER, see Homicipz. NEGLECT, see Dir. & F. § 749-758. NOXIOUS TRADES, see Nuisancz. 389 § 861 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. CHAPTER XLVIII. NUISANCE, § 860. Introduction. 861-867. Indictment generally and at Common Law. 868, 869. Indictment specially upon Statutes. 869 a-874. Evidence and Practice. 874 a-878. Particular Nuisances not elsewhere considered. Consult,—for the law of nuisance, New Crim. Law, I. § 1071-1082. As to the indictment, &c., Dir. & F. § 773-835. For multitudes of incidental questions see the indexes to this series of books. § 860. 1. Already in this Volume — we have considered various nuisances under their titles; as, Barratry, Bawdy-House, Common Scold, Disorderly House,. Eavesdropping, Exposure of Person, and Gaming-House. And further on, under the title Way, the procedure for the obstruction of ways will be explained. 2. In “Statutory Crimes,” — Open and Notorious Lewdness, Liquor Nuisances, and some others, more particularly statutory, are treated of, both as to the law and the procedure. 3. In this Chapter, — we shall call to mind some of the more general doctrines of our subject, then proceed with what is special to some particular nuisances not sufficiently explained in other connections: as to, I. The Indictment generally and at the Com- mon Law; II. The Indictment specially upon the Statutes ; III. Questions of Evidence and Practice; IV. Particular Nuisances not elsewhere considered. 1. The Indictment generally and at the Common Law. § 861. 1. A General Formula — for the indictment is given in “ Directions and Forms.” } 2. As to Particular Nuisances, — we saw, while treating of them in the preceding chapters, what is the form of indictment for each, 2. The reader who compares the forms will discover that as 1 Dir. & F. § 777. 2 Ante, § 98, 105 (2), 199, 273, 312, 351, 488. 390 CHAP. XLVIII.] NUISANCE. § 863 the various nuisances differ in their elements, so differ also the terms by which those elements are described in allegation.! Hence, — 3. His Practical Course,— if he does not rely implicitly on precedents, will be to define to himself accurately the facts which in law constitute the nuisance he would set out, then aver them in accordance with the general principles governing indictments, and add the conclusion common for.all nuisances. As to the — § 862. 1. Concluding Part. — Following the conclusion “ against the peace,” &c., required in all indictments unless dispensed with by statute,? it is common to add, in the indictment for nuisance, such words as “to the great damage and common nuisance [or simply to the common nuisance] of all the people there lawfully being and abiding.” Which form is often even more expanded ; as, in Archbold, “To the great damage and common nuisance of all the liege subjects of our said lady the queen, there inhabit- ing, being, and residing, and going, returning, and passing through the said streets and highways.” ? If we assume something of this to be required, still, — 2. “To the Damage” — is plainly unnecessary.* 3. “ All” —“ Divers.” — Since a nuisance, to be a public one in distinction from a private, must not be limited to the injury of one or a few persons, the allegation, if employed, should be “ to the common nuisance of ail,” &c.; not divers, &e.5 But — § 863. The Modern Books, — though perhaps not the ancient ones, leave it uncertain whether this conclusion “to the common nuisance,” &c., is, in any form, necessary. If, as in barratry and common scold, the main charge is simply in the general terms permissible only in those offences,6 there is ground for saying 1 Consult the places cited in the last note, and particularly the entire chapter in Dir. & F.; also post, § 874 a-875, 8774, 2 Vol. I. § 648-651. 8 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 633, 19th ed. 956. Chitty puts this 878; and the forms for such nuisances as Explosive Substances kept in a warehouse, Reg. v. Lister, Dears. & B. 209, 210, note, 7 Cox C. C. 342, 344; Spreading Infec- tion, Reg. v. Henson, Dears. 24,18 Eng. L. & Eq. 107; Rex v. Vantandillo, 4 M. & S. 73. For an Offensive Necessary House, 8. v. Purse, 4 McCord, 472. For an Offensive Trade, — Horner ». 8. 49 Md. 277. For Wooden Building in city Stewart v. C. 10 Watts, 306. See 6 Went. Pi, 421. form even more verbosely. 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 607 a. 4 Vol. I. § 647; ante, § 57 (2); Dir. & F. § 48. 5 New Crim. Law, I. § 243 (2), 1078; Anonymous, 12 Mod. 504; C. v. Faris, 5 Rand. 691; Hayward’s Case, Cro. Eliz. 148. See S. v. Houck, 73 Ind. 37; C. v Sweeney, 131 Mass. 579. 8 Post, § 865. 391 § 864 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. that the conclusion “to the common nuisance’'of all the people” may add some strength to the very slender allegation of the main fact. Hence, in these cases, it would seem to be necessary. But the authorities to this are not quite conclusive! On the other hand, passing from the exceptional class, — § 864. Generally as to Conclusion. — This conclusion, “to the common nuisance,” can in no form of it supply any defect in the main allegations ;? so that, if the facts set down in them do not amount to an indictable nuisance, the added averment that they were to the common nuisance of all the citizens of the State — a mere superfluous enunciation of a mistaken conclusion of law ® — will not make them appear such to the court, on whom, not the grand jury, rests the decision of legal questions. Or if the facts directly averred show prima facie guilt in the defendant, the further averment of the correct conclusion of law that they con- stitute an indictable nuisance will not teach anything to the court, or make plain what requires no explanation. in principle, this conclusion is not necessary.5 ties are divided.§ 1 Compare ante, § 200(2); 1 Hawk. P. C. Curw. ed. 693, § 5; 2Ib. c. 25, § 59; Rex v. Clayton, 2 Keb. 409, 410; Rex v. Cooper, 2 Stra. 1246. 2 And see Palmer, 368, 374. ® Vol. I. § 329, 508, 514, 515. 4 Morris and Essex Rld.v. S.7 Vroom, 553. 5 1n the words of Gaston, J.: “If the facts charged must, from their very na- ture, have created a nuisance to the citizens in general, the words ad commune nocu- mentum, though always proper and safest to be inserted, may be omitted, for they neither describe the crime nor the facts which constitute it,’ S. v Baldwin, 1 Dev. & Bat. 195, 197. 6 And see ante, § 353 (3); New Crim. Law, I. § 248-245; Prat v. Stearn, Cro Jac. 382; 1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 440; Train & Heard Prec. 57 and note; Thorowgood’s Case, 1 Mod. 107; C. »v. Faris, 5 Rand. 691; S. v. Schilling, 14 Towa, 455; S. v. Stevens, 40 Me. 559; Anonymous, 1 Vent. 26; Reg. v. Holmes, Dears. 207, 3 Car. & K. 360, 6 Cox C, C. 216, 20 Eng. L. & Eq. 597. In Massachu- setts, the judicial utterances and perhaps 392 Therefore, But the authori- In States wherein the question has been dis- the decisions are contradictory, apparently without the slightest suspicion by the court that they are so. Thus, in 1850, one was charged with uttering in a public street loud noises, thereby drawing to- gether “a number of persons to the great disturbance of divers citizens.” This was held not to set forth an indictable wrong, but nothing was said about the conclusion. C. v. Smith, 6 Cush. 80. Next, in 1854, on an indictment for indecently exposing the person, the conclusion “to the common nuisance,” &c. was held to be unneces- sary; Dewey, J. observing that “the form of the present indictment,” from which this conclusion was omitted, “in this respect is supported by the authority of 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 41, and Archb. Crim. Pl. 5th Am. ed. 655.” C. v. Haynes, 2 Gray, 72, 73, 61 Am. D. 437. Inthe case which stands next in the same volume of reports, 2 complaint before a magistrate against one for being a common drunkard was held not to require this conclusion, “ because ” the offence was not a nuisance. But in apparent contradiction to the last cited case, Merrick, J. said: “It is un- doubtedly indispensable that nuisances CHAP. XLVIII.] NUISANCE. § 865 tinctly settled by adjudication, of course the beaten track will be adhered to. In other States, a considerate court will follow the plain doctrine of principle. § 865. 1. The Acts constituting the Nuisance, — except in the nuisances of barratry,1 common scold,? common night-walker,? and possibly one or two others of the like sort, must be set out with the detail and fulness required in other offences. They must both identify the transaction, and affirmatively show prima facie guilt. Thus, — should be alleged in complaints and in- dictments to be to the great damage and common nuisance of all the citizens of the Commonwealth. 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 245, 246; C. v. Smith, 6 Cush. 80.” C. v. Boon, 2 Gray, 74, 75. Next, in 1859, Metcalf, J., again reversing the doctrine, said: “It is not necessary, in an indict- ment alleging matters that constitute a commun nuisance, to conclude ad commune nocumentum, although it is usual to do so. 1 Stark. Crim. Pl. 2d ed. 208; Archb. Crim. Pl. 5th Am. ed. 67; C. v. Haynes, 2 Gray, 72. See also Brady v. Reg. 4 Ir. Law, 21, 2 Jeob & Symes, 647.” From an- alogy to whicn doctrine the court held that an indictment for obstructing public jus- tice need not conclude “ to the obstruction and hindrance of public justice.” C. 7, Reynolds, 14 Gray, 87, 91, 74 Am. D. 665. In 1869, this was once more reversed in what is perhaps only dictum ; Chapman, C. J. observing, —“ It was held in C. v. Smith, 6 Cush. 80, that it is necessary, in © an indictment for a public nuisance by uttering loud cries and exclamations in a public street, to allege that it was to the great damage and common nuisance of all the citizens of the Commonwealth there inhabiting, being, and residing. A similar allegation is found in the forms of indictments for causing noisome smells or letting off fire-works ina public street, or for keeping a gaming house or a dis- orderly house, and for other nuisances of asimilar character. In England, such an allegation has been made unneces- sary by Stat. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, § 25. But the proof need not be as extensive as the allegation.” C. v. Harris, 101 Mass. 29,30. Finally, in 1873, we have a dictum which accords with the one which stands next before it. Said Colt, J.: “An in- dictment for a public nuisance by utter- ing loud cries and exclamations in a public street must allege that it was to the great damage and common nuisance of all the citizens of the Commonwealth there being. This is the technical description, but the proof need not be as broad as the allega- tion.” C.v. Oaks, 113 Mass. 8,9. Now, what is the Massachusetts law on this question? Ido not know what the court, in the next case, will deem it to be; but if I were to answer, I should say that C. v. Smith does not decide what in later cases the judges have assumed it did. Therefore I should throw out of the ac- count that case, and all the dicta depend- ing upon and referring to it. C.v. Haynes, distinctly and directly holds the conclusion to be unnecessary. That was the exact question in issue. C. v. Boon flatly con- tradicts this, but it is difficult to say that the contradiction is more than dictum. The later case of C. v. Reynolds directly sustains C. v. Haynes ; and though this point is not the “very ” one decided, indirectly it was involved in the “very” decision. What comes after, to overrule these two cases, I should reject as mere dictum; hence, should deem the Massachusetts doctrine not to require the conclusion under con- sideration. The question might arise whether the doctrine is not this or that ac- cording to the kind of nuisance. But I can discover no ground for such a distinction, either in reason, except as stated in the last section of my text, or in the utterances or actual decisions of this tribunal. 1 Ante, § 98, 100. 2 Ante, § 199, 200. * Post, § 874 a. 4 See, as illustrative, besides other 393 § £66 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. 2. Special Circumstances, — when they render a thing a nui- sance which is not such in itself, must be alleged! And — 8. A Demoralizing Show — must be set out by stating so much of the facts of its indecency, barbarity, or the like, as will enable the court to discern its indictable character.” § 866. 1. Abatement.— The indictment may be good or not, according as judgment for the abatement of the nuisance is or is not to be asked.2 Thus, — 9. Where Punishment only is sought, —there is no need to aver that the nuisance is continuing. But without this averment there can be no judgment of abatement, since the ground for it will not appear.6 The form of this alle- gation and the connected one of time is explained in the first volume. It may be, for example, that on such a day, the defendant erected, and thence continually, &c., maintained the nuisance.” 8. Place. — In principle, if an officer is to be required by writ to abate the nuisance,’ its location must be set out in the indict- ment in the same manner as the place of a forcible entry where restitution is to be awarded.® Or, if the place is essential to the identity of the offence, as perhaps it sometimes may be, it ought to be averred. Moreover, where the law requires it to be special, as in a highway, or a building, so much must be alleged. But otherwise, there is no need for any averment of place, except the general venue in the county." Such is the doctrine of prin- ciple; and, on the whole, it appears to be reasonably well sustained by the authorities. Still there are cases which cases cited to this section, Stein v. S. 37 Ala, 123; Boyer v. 8. 16 Ind. 451; Res- publica v, Arnold, 3 Yeates, 417; Crane v. S. 3 Ind. 193; S. v. Hart, 34 Me. 36; S. v. Matthews, 42 Vt. 542; S. v. Hanley, 47 Vt. 290; Rex v. Watts, 2 Car. & P. 486; Rex v. Haddock, Andr. 137; S. v. Sturdi- vant, 21 Me. 9; C. v. Twitchell, 4 Cush. 74; Rex v. White, 1 Bur. 333; S. v. Frie- berg, 49 Ohio St. 585; 8. v. Doyle, 15 R.I. 527. 1 Anonymous, Palmer, 368, 374; C.v. Webb, 6 Rand. 726. 2 Knowles v. 8. 3 Day, 103. 8 New Crim. Law, I. § 1079; post, § 871. 4 8. v. Hull, 21 Me. 84. - 3894 5 Vol. I. § 393 (2); Munson v. P. 5 Par. Cr. 16; Rex v. Stead, 8 T. R. 142; Taylor v. P. 6 Par. Cr. 347, 6 Vol. I. § 893 et seq.; Ashbrook v. C. 1 Bush, 139. 7 Baugh v. 8. 14 Ind. 29. And see Ashbrook v. C. 1 Bush, 139, 89 Am. D. 616; Wroe v. S. 8 Md. 416, ® Ante, § 111; post, § 871. » Ante, § 381, 382; S. v. Sturdivant, 21 Me. 9. 10 Ante, § 19, 34, 123 (3), 135, 351. 11 Ante, § 41, 103 (2), 111, 135, 286a, 351, note, 488 (2); S. v. Sneed, 16 Lea, 450; Droneberger v. S. 112 Ind. 105. 12 Compare cases cited at the places referred to in the last note; Rex v. White, CHAP. XLVIII.] NUISANCE. § 868 seem to hold that this offence is local to some particular town or vill where it must be charged and proved to have been committed: § 867. 1. Duplicity— must, in these cases as in others, be avoided.2, Yet one nuisance may be constituted by various acts, and to allege all the acts in one count does not render it double.® For example, the keeping of swine in a pen near a public way, and the feeding of them there with offal, are but one nuisance, and both may be charged in one count.* But — 2. To Erect and to Continue —a nuisance are, either sometimes or always, distinct offences ; thereupon a count which joins them is double} But-we may doubt the universality of this doctrine as applied to all nuisances; for example, to those in their natures continuing.6 Il. The Indictment specially upon the Statutes. § 868. 1. The Foregoing Sections — have conducted us well into this sub-title. And— 2. In the First Volume — we saw on what principles are con- structed all indictments upon statutes; including, therefore, the present ones.’ Thus, — 1 Bur. 333, 337; Chute v. S. 19 Minn. 271; 8. v. Sturdivant, supra; Wertz v. S. 42 Ind. 161; Rex v. Record, 2 Show. 216; Jenks v. 8. 17 Wis. 665; Wood v. S. 5 Ind. 433; S. v. Schilling, 14 Towa, 455. 1 This, at least, appears to be so in Massachusetts. C.v. Logan, 12 Gray, 136, 138; C. v. Heffron, 102 Mass. 148, 150; C. v. Bacon, 108 Mass. 26. In other con- nections, [explained how, it appears to me, this sort of mistake has arisen; namely, by the allegation of place having com- monly contained the needless words “ there situate,” by reason whereof they were re- quired to be proved to avoid a variance; so that, this proof being commonly neces- sary, some judges, not considering why, have assumed it to be always so. Ante, § 41, 111, 185 (1). The Massachusetts cases illustrate this. In C. v. Wellington, 7 Allen, 299, the indictment for the nuis- ance of disfiguring a public burying-ground having described the place by metes and bounds, the court adjudged that proof correspondingly strict with the allegation was required to avoid a variance. Then, in C. v. Heffron, supra, where the town was alleged, but not in a form descriptive, this case was cited by the court to the very different proposition that a statutory liquor-nuisance is local and the place must be proved to have been in the town averred. 2 Chute v. S.19 Minn. 271; Knopf v. S. 84 Ind. 316. 8 Ante, § 106 (2); S. v. Matthews, 42 Vt. 542; C. v. Mills, 6 Bush, 296; C. x. Twitchell, 4 Cush. 74; S. v. Hanley, 47 Vt. 290; S. v. Frieberg, 49 Ohio St. 585. And see C. v. Colby, 128 Mass. 91. * §. v. Payson, 37 Me. 361. And see Rex v. Pappineau, 1 Stra. 686. 5 Burke v. P. 23 Ill. Ap. 36; Hoadley ov. P. 23 Til. Ap. 39. 6 Vol. I. § 393 (2); Dir. & F. § 788, 1013-1015, 7 Vol. I. § 593 et seq. 395 § 869a@ SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. 8. Expanding the Allegations — beyond the statutory terms, — so that a prima facie case will appear, is often required in the indictment for nuisance; as, — 4, Unwholesome Food.— A statute declared it punishable to “ knowingly sell any kind of diseased, corrupted, or unwholesome provisions, whether for meat or drink, without making the same fully known to the buyer.”? And it was adjudged inadequate to charge, completely within the statutory terms, that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant Boynton “did knowingly sell unto one Jeremiah Barker a certain piece of diseased, corrupted, and unwholesome provision, to wit, one hind leg of veal; the said Boynton not then and there making known fully to said Barker that the same was diseased, corrupted, and unwholesome.” The defect was that by interpretation of the statute the defendant’s knowledge must, to render him guilty, extend not only to the act of selling but also to the unwholesome condition of the thing sold. By the interpre- tation of the indictment, the allegation of knowledge went no further than to the act of selling; it should have been added that the defendant knew the veal to be diseased, corrupted, and unwholesome.? So, also, — § 869. 1. As to Negativing Provisos, — the general rules apply in these cases. So that — 2. Stallion and Mares in Public View. — A statute having made it punishable “ for any person to keep or let to mares any stallion or jack, within the limits of any town or village, &c., unless such person shall provide an inclosure so arranged as to obstruct the view from all the inhabitants,” &c., it was held sufficient in nega- tion of this proviso to say that the letting was on a public street in a town, within view of its inhabitants; with no more direct mention of there being no inclosure.® IIL Questions of Evidence and Practice. § 869 a. 1. For how long Time.—The nuisances differ; but generally, for however long that in controversy is charged to have 1 Vol. I. § 623-630. 2 Mass. R, S.¢. 181, § 1. 3 C. v. Boynton, 12 Cush. 499, 500. In New York, it must be averred that the article was sold for consumption as food for man. But no exclusive form of words for this is essential. It may be, for ex- ample, that the defendant “sold to divers 396 citizens, to the jurors unknown, five hun- dred pounds of beef as good and whole- some beef and food.” Goodrich v. P. 19 N. Y. 574. See Goodrich v. P. 3 Par. Cr. 622. * Vol. I. § 631-641. 5 Crane v. S. 3 Ind. 198, 194. And see Vol. I. § 641. CHAP. XLVIII.] NUISANCE. § 871 been maintained, proof of its existence for a single day! or hour 2 will satisfy the averment. Still, in nuisances laid as continuing, and to be abated by judicial order, doubtless the jury must be satisfied that this one has not ceased.’ 2. The other Evidence — and rules governing it will depend mainly on the particular nuisance and its special facts. Some illustrative cases may be here cited ;4 but it would be difficult to collect distinguishing rules, applicable to all forms of this offence. § 8696. For Court or Jury — whether a question is, depends on principles common to other causes and these.® § 870. One convicted of a Continuing Nuisance, — by abating it before sentence, appeals effectually to the discretion of the court in mitigation of his punishment;® even, in some instances, reducing it to a mere nominal fine, especially where he enters into a satisfactory undertaking that it shall not be renewed.’ In proper circumstances, the court will continue the case for sentence, to give opportunity for such abatement. Hence, — § 871. 1. A Judgment for Abatement — is seldom called for, since it is almost necessarily for the interests of the defendant to remove the nuisance voluntarily. Therefore the practice in judicial abatements is not in all particulars well defined. But, by all the authorities, the defendant may be required, as a part of his sen- tence, to abate the nuisance ;® nor is this punishment forbidden by our constitutions as being cruel or unusual. On principle, if he refuses obedience to this command, he may be compelled by pro- cess as for contempt;1! or, what is in effect the same thing, the 1 C. v. Higgins, 16 Gray, 29. Smith, 102 Mass. 144; 8S. v. Woodward, 2 C. v. Gallagher, 1 Allen, 592. 8 P. v. Branchport and Penn Yan Plank Road, 5. Par. Cr, 604, 620. 4 C. v. Mann, 4 Gray, 213; P. », Mal- lory, 4 Thomp. & C. 567; C. v. Twombly, 119 Mass. 104; Knox v. New York, 55 Barb. 404, 38 How. Pr. 67; Crippen v. P. 8 Mich. 117; C. v. Kelley, 116 Mass. 341; 8. v. Rankin, 3 S.C. 348, 16 Am. R. 737; Palfus v. S. 36 Ga, 280; S. xv, Willis, Bus- bee, 223; S. vu. Mace, 6 R.I. 85: S. v. Commissioners, 3 Hill, S. C. 149; Gar- vison v. S. 14 Ind. 287 ; C. v. Miller, 139 Pa. 77,23 Am. St. 170; S. v. Kaster, 35 Iowa, 221; S. v. Lord, 16 N. H. 357; Phillips v. 8. 7 Bax. 151. 5 Garrison v. S. 14 Ind, 287; C. v. 23 Vt. 92; Allison v. S. 42 Ind, 354. 8 New Crim. Law, I. § 1079 (4). T Rex v. White, 1 Bur. 333, 338. And “the court never admits him to a small Jine till the nuisance is removed.” Dalt Just. c. 66. 8 Rex v. —, 2 Show. 60. 9 New Crim. Law, I. § 1079 (1); Dela. ware, &c. Canal v. C. 60 Pa. 367, 100 Am. D. 570; Rex v. Stead, 8 T. R. 142; Rex v. West Riding of Yorkshire, 7 T. R. 467; Rex v. Incledon, 13 East, 164; Rex v. Pappineau, 1 Stra. 686; P. ». Branchport and Penn Yan Plank Road, 5 Par. Cr. 604, 620. 10 McLaughlin v. S. 45 Ind. 338. , 11 New Crim. Law, IL § 256; Bac. Abr. Nuisance, D. 397 § 872 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII judgment may provide that he stand committed till the nuisance is removed, in analogy to the practice where a fine is imposed. Beyond which, the court may, should necessity require, — perhaps must, if so moved by the prosecuting officer, — award the writ de nocumento amovendo.2 It is addressed to the proper officer, recites the record of the cause, sets out what is to be abated, and com- mands that “you do without delay remove, or cause to be re- moved,” &c., the nuisance.2 This also is believed to be the true doctrine of our courts, where a statute, which, if it exists, must be followed,* has not made conflicting regulations. In Alabama, a judgment “ that the nuisance be abated forthwith, at the costs of the defendant, and the sheriff is charged with the execution of this order,’ was deemed informal, as being a command to the sheriff, not the party ;° nor does this accord with the practice above stated. 2. The Judgment for Abatement — should not be too broad,® but should require the removal only of “so much of the thing as makes it.a nuisance.”7 Or, if the illegality is in the wrongful use of a building, the abatement consists of stopping such use. In Maine, where by statute the court is simply permitted, not required, to order the abatement, it has declined acting if the interests of strangers may thereby be “improperly affected.” 9 Still, that a public nuisance is on a stranger’s land affords no just reason for leaving it unabated. § 872. To compel Abatement, — it was formerly the rule, and something like it may still be in practice, not to quash a defective indictment for a continuing nuisance, unless the defendant apply- ing will abate it! In reason, this can be only where the existence of the nuisance is palpable or conceded. 1 Vol. I.§ 1301; Taggart v. C. 21 Pa. 527. 2 Archb. New Crim. Pro. 205. 8 9 Gude Crown Pract. 556, 557. And see further, as to these several questions, Rex v. Wilcox, 2 Salk. 458; Sloan v. Reb- man, 66 Iowa, 81. 4 Smith v. S. 22 Ohio St. 539; Matthews v. 8. 25 Ohio St. 536. 5 Campbell v. S. 16 Ala. 144. 8 New Crim. Law, I. § 828, 1081 (as to private abatement); S. 7. Moffett, 1 Greene, Iowa, 247 ; Morrison v. Marquardt, 24 Towa, 35, 92 Am. D. 444; Smart v. C. 27 Grat. 950. 398 * Rex v. Pappineau, 1 Stra. 686, 688. And see Baten’s Case, 9 Co. 53 6; Shepard v. P.40 Mich. 487 ; Craig v. Werthmueller, 78 Iowa, 598. 8 1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 442; Brightman v. Bristol, 65 Me. 426, 20 Am. R. 711; Earp v. Lee, 71 Ill. 193. See Welch v. Stowell, 2 Doug. Mich. 332; Ely v. Niagara, 36 N. Y. 297; Barclay v. C. 25 Pa. 503,64 Am. D. 715; 8S. v. Kaster, 35 Iowa, 221. 9 S. v. Haines, 30 Me. 65. 10 Delaware, &c. Canal ». C. 60 Pa, 367. 1 Leyton’s Case, Cro. Car. 583. And CHAP. XLVIII.] NUISANCE. § 875 § 873. Particulars. — Some of these cases of nuisance are proper for the discretionary note or Dill of particulars! The court may order it without affidavits.” § 874. Juror — (Mill-dam).— One who deems that mill-dams are in general, in the part of the country where the controversy arose, nuisances, and that all he is acquainted with are such, is not a competent juror on a trial for keeping up a mill-dam; though he is not familiar with the dam in question, nor has he formed or expressed an opinion regarding it.® IV. Particular Nuisances not elsewhere considered. § 874.4. For Common Night-walking,t —it has been held, on a question not perhaps absolutely clear, sufficient for the indictment to allege that on, &c., at, &., the defendant “was a common night-walker,” &c., and “ did walk and ramble in the streets,” &¢.5 § 874 6. Noises.— The nuisance of loud and disorderly noises in a public place,® has been held to be sufficiently set out in the averment that on, &c., at, &c., in a particular street of a town, the defendant did “ utter loud exclamations and outcries, and did then and thereby draw together a number of persons,” &c.’ And it was not error for the court to refuse to permit the defendant to ask a witness whether he saw any indication that the citizens of the town were disturbed or annoyed by the noises, for the question was immaterial.® § 875. For carrying on an Offensive Trade, — to the public dis- comfort,? the indictment will considerably vary with the nature of the trade, the sort of annoyance, and the special circumstances. Besides the proper introductory and concluding averments, it simply sets forth the facts. see Anonymous, 11 Mod. 305; Reg. v. Wigg, 2 Ld. Raym. 1163. And, as illus- trative, see Rex v. Green, | Keny, 379. 1 Vol. I. § 643 et seq.; S. v. Hill, 13 R. I. 314. 2 Rex v. Curwood, 5 Nev. & M. 369, 1 Har. & W. 310. 8 Crippen v. P. 8 Mich. 117. 4 New Crim. Law, § 501 (4); Dir. & F. § 1007. 5S. v. Dowers, 45 N. H. 543, Com- pare with Dir, & F. ut sup. 6 New Crim. Law, I. § 531 (2). 7 C. v. Harris, 101 Mass. 29. And see C. v. Smith, 6 Cush. 80; S. v. Schlottman, 52 Mo. 164; C. v. Oaks, 113 Mass. 8. See for other forms, Dir. & F. § 832, 833. 8 C. «. Harris, supra. 9 New Crim. Law, I. § 1138 et seq. 19 See, for precedents, Dir. & F. § 827- 831; Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 633, 634, where also are references to the following: “for using a shop in a pub- lic market as a slaughter-house, C. C. C. 301, and see 4 Went. 224; for erecting a manufactory for hartshorn, C.C. C. 311; 399 § 878 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 876. Other Instances — of offensive trade will rarely, if ever, be pertinent in aid of the proofs of the one on trial.1 § 877. Offensive Acts not within the Allegations — are undoubt- edly:admissible in proof when of the res gestw.? But the verdict cannot rest upon them. Therefore when the charge was that by boiling and trying out putrid meats, &c., offensive odors were emitted from a building, the jury were not permitted to take into their account ‘odors from outside the building, though proceeding indirectly from the works within. § 877 a. Rendering the Air unwholesome, — as in this case, is one of the forms of the nuisance of offensive trades. But the air may be corrupted by other means, and the indictment therefor will be drawn on the same plan as above.! § 878. Rendering Water unwholesome — may be a nuisance. It is created in different ways, and the indictment and proofs will vary accordingly. On the trial of a gas company for conveying ‘refuse gas into a great public river, destroying the fish and making the water unfit to drink, “ the question,” said Denman, C. J. “ will be whether there has been a noxious and deleterious ingredient conveyed into the river, whereby the water has been corrupted and rendered unfit for use; and if there has been, then whether, in the concluding words of the indictment, it was to the common nuisance of the king’s subjects.” The circumstance that by the diminution of fish many fishermen were thrown out of employ- ment, was not deemed of itself sufficient ground to sustain the proceeding® for erecting a privy near the highway, 4 Went. 225; for placing putrid carrion near the highway, 4 Went. 213; for keep- ing hogs near a public street and feeding them with offal, C.C.C. 805, and see Reg. v. Wigg, 2 Ld. Raym. 1163; for keeping a fierce and unruly bull in a field through which there was a footway, C. C. C. 310; for keeping a ferocious dog unmuzzled, C. C. C. 311; for baiting a bull in the king’s highway, 4 Went. 213.” For fur- ther precedents, see C. v. Rumford Chemi- cal Works, 16 Gray, 281; 8. 7. Wilson, 43 N. H. 415, 82 Am. D. 163; Reg. v. Mut- , ters, Leigh & C. 491, 10 Cox C.C. 6; Rex v. Brooks, Trem. P. C, 195; C. v. Brown, 13 Met. 365; Rex v. Cole, Trem. P. C. 198; Taylor v. 8. 35 Wis. 298. See also S. v. Hart, 34 Me. 36. 400 1 Reg. v. Fairie, 8 Ellis & B. 486. 2 Vol. I. § 1083, 1084, 1125. 8 C. v. Brown, 13 Met. 365, 368. Com- pare with Dennis v. S. 91 Ind. 291; Chisholm v. Doulton, 22 Q. B. D. 786, 16 Cox C. C. 675. # For corrupting the air, &c., by aDam, — overflowing grounds, see Stephen v. C. 2 Leigh, 759; S. v. Close, 85 Iowa, 570; Munson v. P. 5 Par. Cr. 16; by a Piggery, —S. v. Payson, 37 Me. 361; S. v. Kaster, 35 Towa, 221; by a ‘* Necessary-house,” — Rex v. Pedley, 1 A. & E, 822. 5S. », Buckman, 8 N. H. 203, 29 Am. D. 646; Stein ». S. 37 Ala, 123; P. v. Townsend, 3 Hill, N. Y. 479. 68 Rex v. Medley, 6 Car. & P. 292, 299, CHAP. XLIX.] OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND GOVERNMENT. § 881 CHAPTER XLIX. OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND GOVERNMENT. § 879, 880. Introduction. 881-895. Assaulting or Resisting Officer. 896-898. Other Obstructions. Consult, —for the law of these offences, New Crim. Law, I. § 450-480 ; II. § 384- 389, 1009-1013. For the precedents, &c., Dir. & F. § 836-854. And for various inci- dental questions, see the indexes to this series of books. § 879. 1. Various Offences—named and unnamed, at com- mon law and statutory, are within the subject of this chapter. But — 2. Elsewhere in this Volume — we have considered Barratry,! Bribery,2 Champerty and Maintenance,’ Counterfeiting the Coin,‘ and Embracery ;° and further on, Perjury, Prison Breach, and the like, will come under review. § 880. This Chapter — treats of, I. Assaulting or Resisting an Officer in his Duties; II. Other Obstructions. I. Assaulting or Resisting an Officer in his Duties. § 881. 1. For the Indictment,— the reader should carefully consult the chapter in “ Directions and Forms.” § 2. Assaulting an Officer —is otherwise termed an aggravated assault. The principles which govern the indictment for it have been already considered.? Thus, by the English 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, § 24 (re-enacted in 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, § 87), it was made pun- ishable to “assault and strike or wound any magistrate, officer, or other person whatsoever, lawfully authorized, on account of the exercise of his duty in or concerning the preservation of any vessel in distress, or any vessel, goods, or effects 1 Ante, § 98 et seq. 5 Ante, § 344 et seq. 2 Ante, § 126 et seq. 8 Dir. & F. § 836-854. 8 Ante, § 154 et seq. 7 Ante, § 63-64. * Ante, § 246 et seq. VOL. I1.— 26 401 § 884 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. wrecked, stranded, or cast on shore, or lying under water; ” thereupon it was an approved form to say that on, &e, at, &., one B, “being a magistrate, was then and there engaged in the exercise of his duty as such magistrate, in and concerning the preservation of a certain vessel then and there wrecked, stranded, and cast on shore, the said, B being then and there lawfully authorized thereunto; and that A,” the defendant, “well knowing the premises, in and upon the said B then and there unlawfully did make an assault, and him the said B then and there unlawfully did strike and wound, on account of the exercise of the duty of him the said B in and concerning the pre- servation of the said vessel so wrecked, stranded, and cast on shore as aforesaid.” ! § 882. For otherwise Resisting —the officer, the indictment is drawn like this one, except that it sets out the other method in place of the assault.? § 883. 1. The Statutory Terms — must, as in the above form? be carefully covered by the allegations. Our American statutes differ from the foregoing English one and from one another; therefore the pleader should keep within their particular terms, and cover the interpreted meanings after rules already explained.* And — . 2. Every Fact — which in contemplation of the entire law of the subject, is found to be an affirmative element in the offence, should be averred.® § 884. The Official Character —of the assaulted or resisted person is well alleged, as in the above form,’ by the expression 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 457, 19th ed. 737. For other forms of the indictment for assault on an officer, see C. v. Tobin, 108 Mass. 426; C. v. Hast- ings, 9 Met. 259; Rex v. Brady, 2 Leach, 803; C. v. Kennard, 8 Pick. 133; S. v. Roberts, 26 Me. 263. And see C. v. McGahey, 11 Gray, 194; S. v. Gilbert, 21 Ind. 474; Rex v. Osmer, 5 East, 304, 1 Smith, 555. : 2 See, for forms, Heath v. S. 36 Ala. 273; S. v. Moore, 89 Conn. 244; U. S.v. Bachelder, 2 Gallis. 15; Oliver v. 8. 17 Ark. 508; S. v. Freeman, 8 Iowa, 428, 74 Am. D. 317; Rex v. Thanet, 27 How. St. Tr. 822; Rex v. Walsh, 1 A.'‘& E. 481; Murphy »v. S. 55 Ala. 252; S. v. Moore, 39 402 Conn. 244; C. v. Hubbard, 24 Pick. 98; C. v. Lee, 107 Mass. 207; S. v. Emery, 65 Vt. 464; 8. v. Richardson, 38 N. H. 208, 75 Am. D. 178. 8 Ante, § 881 (2). £ Vol. I. § 608-642; C. v. Hubbard, 24 Pick. 98; Oliver v. S. 17 Ark. 508; U.S. v. Bachelder, 2 Gallis. 15; U. S. v. Stowell, 2 Curt. C. C. 153; S. v. Fifield, 18 N. H. 34; P. v. Haley, 48 Mich. 495. 5 Pierce v. 8.17 Tex. Ap. 232; Horan v. S. 7 Tex. Ap. 183; S. v. Maloney, 12 R. I. 251; McGrew v, 8. 17 Tex. Ap. 613; U.S. v. Fears, 3 Woods, 510; P. v. Nash, 1 Idaho, n, s. 206. ® Ante, § 881 (2), CHAP. XLIX.] OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND GOVERNMENT. § 887 “being a magistrate,” &c.; or, it would be equally well to say that he “ was a magistrate,” &c. Nothing more, as to this, is re- quired.1 Yet in other respects the official character should be so designated that on the entire averment the officer will appear to be authorized to perform the particular duty.2. Or, if he was a private person acting as a special deputy for the occasion, there should be something in the allegation distinguishing him from a general deputy and known officer.2 Moreover it is always compe- tent for the pleader, if he chooses, to set out the legal appoint- ment to the office; but in such case, the proof must, it appears, sustain this allegation in form. Hence — § 885. The Authority of the Officer—need not be in words averred, if it is duly manifest as the result of all the allegations.® Yet in some way the lawfulness of his doings must appear on the face of the averments against one for assaulting or resisting him in his office, or for any other kindred offence.6 Moreover, — § 886. That the Officer was acting in his Office,— either gen- erally or in the particular case,’ must be shown in averment; though, for this, a distinct and separate allegation may not be required.® § 887. The Defendant's Knowledge — of the official character, and of the other circumstances rendering the obstruction indict- able, is generally assumed to be necessary in averment. It is so, doubtless, in various forms of the offence and of the statutes? But it is not in all cases indispensable? It is essential under a statute having the word “ knowingly ” or its equivalent." In other 1 Ante, § 822 and note; S. v. Hooker, 17 Vt. 658; S. v. Roberts, 52 N. H. 492; S. v. Cassady, 52 N. H. 500. And see C. ce. Beckley, 3 Met. 330; Murphy v. S. 55 Ala, 252. 2 Rex v. Osmer, 5 East, 304, 308, 1 Smith, 555; S. v. Scammon, 2 Fost. N. H. 44; U.S. v. Stowell, 2 Curt. C.C. 153; S. v. Hailey, 2 Strob. 73; C. v. Doherty, 103 Mass. 443; Rex v. Everett, 8 B.& C. 114; Bowers v. P. 17 Ill. 373, 8 Rountree v. U. S. 1 Pin. 59; S. v. Moore, 39 Conn. 244. And see Putman v. 8,49 Ark. 449, 4S. v. Copp, 15 N. H. 212; S. v. Sher- burne, 59 N. H. 99. 5 S. v. Roberts, 52 N. H. 492; S. v. Cassady, 52 N. H. 500. ° C, vu. Doherty, 103 Mass. 443; S. v. Hailey, 2 Strob. 73; Cantrill v. P. 3 Gil- man, 356. 7 Hill v. S. 48 Tex. 329; S. v. Gilbert, 21 Ind. 474; Bowers v. P. 17 Ill. 373; Lamberton v. 8. 11 Ohio, 282, 285; S. v. Beasom, 40 N. H. 367; S. v. Hooker, 17 Vt. 658. 88, v. Flagg, 50 N. H. 321; U.S. v. Bachelder, 2 Gallis. 15; S. v. Hooker, 17 Vt. 658. 9 Ante, § 881 (2); S. v. Gilbert, 21 Ind. 474; C. v, Kirby, 2 Cush. 577, 581; 8S. v. Hooker, 17 Vt. 658; 8. v. Carpenter, 54 Vt. 551. 10 ©. v. Hubbard, 24 Pick. 98; S. v. Brown, 6 Wash. 609. 11 Vol. I. § 522. 403 § 890 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. cases, the rule is to insert it when otherwise a prima facie case will not appear; when it will, this allegation may be omitted.1 § 888. An Averment of Process —is not required where the officer, having authority to act without it, has none. And it appears that, after process executed, if the charge is, for example, that the officer had an arrested prisoner in custody, there is no-need of saying by what process held.? But where, when obstructed, he was serving a process on the validity of which the lawfulness of his doings and the unlawfulness of the resistance depended, it, and the attendant facts, must be so far averred as to show the defendant to be, prima facie, guilty. This setting out must be more or less minute accord- ing to the particular case.? § 889. The Act of Obstruction, — when it consists of assault, is charged as already shown.* On principle, if the obstruction is of any other kind, the allegation should be in like manner specific. Yet in form of words, it must vary with the other averments and the special facts.: And so, in a sort of general way, are the au- thorities.® The method of obstruction must be set out.6 It was once apparently adjudged sufficient to say, “did with force and arms violently and unlawfully resist, prevent, and impede,” &c., following simply the terms of the statute;7 but the contrary has been held in other cases, and the correctness of this one, if such was the decision, denied.® § 890. Ownership — (Rescuing Goods ).— According to an old case, the indictment for rescuing goods from an officer must allege their ownership, and show on what process held.® 1 Vol. I. § 521-525; S. v. Hilton, 26 Mo. 199. 2 C. v. Lee, 107 Mass. 207. But see post, § 890. See also P. ce. Muldoon, 2 Par. Cr. 13; post, § 892. 3S. v. Hailey, 2 Strob. 78; U.S. v. Stowell, 2 Curt. C. C. 153; S. v. Tuell, 6 Blackf. 344; Bowers v. P. 17 Ill. 373; S. v. Dickerson, 24 Mo. 365; S. v. Hooker, 17 Vt. 658; Cantrill v. P. 3 Gilman, 356, 357; McQuoid ec. P. 8 Gilman, 76; S. v. Flagg, 50 N. H. 321; S. v. Henderson, 15 Mo. 486; S. v. Beasom, 40 N. H. 367; S. v. Downer, 8 Vt. 424, 30 Am. D. 482; S. v. Fifield, 18 N. H. 34, And see S. vr. Dunn, 109 N.C. 839; S. v. Estis, 70 Mo. 427; S. v, Brown, 6 Wash. 609. But seo Slicker v. 8S. 18 Ark. 397, 404 * Ante, § 881; S. v. Gilbert, 21 Ind. 474. 5 §. v. Downer, 8 Vt. 424, 30 Am. D. 482; S. v. Burt, 25 Vt. 873; C. v. Kirby, 2 Cush. 577; Lamberton v. S. 11 Ohio, 282, 285; Faris v. S. 8 Ohio St. 159. 6 S. v. Hailey, 2 Strob. 73. 7 U.S. v. Bachelder, 2 Gallis. 15. see S. v. Fifield, 18 N. H. 34. 8 Lamberton v. 8. supra; S. v. John- son, cited 11 Ohio, 286; S. v. Shoemaker, cited 11 Ohio, 286. Compare with Mc- Quoid v. P. 3 Gilman, 76; S. v. Copp, 15 N. H. 212; S. v, Roberts, 52 N. H. 492, 9 Reg. v. Lilly, 7 Mod. 63. See also S. v. Dickerson, 24 Mo. 365; ante, § 888. And CHAP. XLIX.] OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND GOVERNMENT. § 894 § 891. The Proof of Official Character —is explained in other connections.1 Practically it is nearly always by showing that the alleged officer has acted in the office. For this, parol evidence is adequate.2 And the officer may be himself a witness.4 Assuming that a mere officer de facto is within the protection of this branch of the law,’ even his constitutional incapacity to hold the office cannot be set up in defence.® § 892. 1. Producing Judicial Process. — On the trial of one under any form of allegation,’ for assaulting or resisting an officer who has him under judicial process, such process should be shown in evidence’ A fortiori, the warrant must be produced on a charge of resisting an arrest by warrant. As to— 2. Officer's Return on Warrant. —It would seem, from cases cited in the first volume,!° that to authorize the warrant to be read in evidence, the officer’s return should first be written thereon. But it has been answered to this that while such return is essen- tial in a civil suit by the officer, who when seeking redress must himself appear to have fully done his duty, it is otherwise in this criminal proceeding wherein the officer is but a third person, whose act even if he destroys the warrant cannot affect the rights of the plaintiff State.U § 898. The Officer will be Presumed —to have performed his official functions rightly ; 12 hence the indictment need not aver that he did, and if the defendant relies on his having omitted to declare his authority, it is matter simply of defence. § 894. 1. Variance. — An allegation that the officer had in custody one to be examined on a charge of larceny is sustained though the larceny was in another State, and the purpose was his surrender as a fugitive from justice." 1 Vol. I. § 1130 (2); ante, § 824, see Rex v. White, Cald. 183; Boyd v. S. 2 Rex v. Gordon, 1 Leach, 515; U.S. 17 Ga. 194; S. v. Shaw, 3 Ire. 20. v. Sears, 1 Gallis. 215; S. v. Holcomb, 86 ® Scott v. 8. 3 Tex. Ap. 103. Mo. 373. 19 Vol. I. § 187 (3). 3S. v. Zeibart, 40 Iowa, 169. 11 §. v. Moore, 39 Conn. 244. And see 4 Oliver v. S. 17 Ark. 508; C.v.McCue, Oliver v. S. 17 Ark. 508; C. v. Tobin, 108 16 Gray, 226. Mass. 426; C. v. Coughlin, 123 Mass. 436; 5 New Crim. Law, I. § 464. 8. v. Fifield, 18 N. H. 34. 6 Heath v. S. 36 Ala. 273. 12 Vol. I. § 1131. 7 Ante, § 888. 18S. v. Freeman, 8 Iowa, 428, 74 Am. 8 P. v. Muldoon, 2 Par. Cr. 13. And D.317. 4 C, v. Tracy, 5 Met. 536. 405 § 898 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII 2. For resisting the Officer, — the indictment need not give the name of the person under arrest. § 895. 1. Part. On a charge of assaulting an officer, if this aggravation is not proved, a verdict for simple assault will be good.2 Or, if the agyravation is imperfectly set out, the convic- tion may be for the assault only ;* or, for the assault, with any part of the aggravation duly alleged.* But— 2. Where the Indictment contains Matter negativing — any of- fence, no punishment can follow for anything.® II. Other Obstructions. § 896. For refusing to assist an Officer — in the discharge of his duties,’ the indictment must set out his authority and such other facts as will enable the court to see that he was proceeding law- fully.” Then follow the averments of his command to the defendant, and the latter’s refusal.® § 897. Tampering with a Witness —is an offence which may be committed in various ways.® For dissuading or otherwise hinder- ing one from appearing and testifying in a cause, the indictment need not set out the record of such cause,” or say on whose behalf the witness was subpcenaed, or aver the materiality of his testi- mony. Matter of this sort, which is mere inducement, may be given more in general than the gist of the charge! It need not allege the success of the persuasion or other measure. Nor need it conclude “to the obstruction and hindrance of public justice.” ” § 898. For falsely assuming Office, — the procedure follows the foregoing principles. 1S. v. Garrett, 80 Iowa, 589. 2S. v. Webster, 39 N. H. 96; C. vw. Cooley, 6 Gray, 350. 8 Baker v. S. 4 Pike, 56. 4S. v. Hailey, 2 Strob. 73. 5 Rex v. Osmer, 5 East, 304, 308. 6 Vol. I. § 185, 186. 7S. v. Shaw, 3 Tre. 20, 22. 8 Reg. v. Sherlock, Law Rep. 1 C. C. 20,10 Cox C. C. 170; S. v. Nail, 19 Ark. 563; Comfort v. C. 5 Whart. 437. These cases contain precedents; and see forms in Dir. & F. § 844-847. 9 New Crim. Law, I. § 468, 695 (3), 734 (2). 1 §. v. Carpenter, 20 Vt. 9. 406 11 Vol. I. § 554-558; Reg. v. Bidwell, 1 Den. C.C. 222, 227. 12 C, v. Reynolds, 14 Gray, 87, 74 Am. D. 665 (containing a form of the indict- ment at common law); S. v. Ames, 64 Me. 386; Chrisman v. 8. 18 Neb. 107; S. v. Biebusch, 32 Mo. 276. Compare with 8. v. Soragan, 40 Vt.450. Consult Dir. & F. § 852-854, 18 New Crim. Law, I. § 468 (6) and note, 587 (2). 14 Reg. v. Buchanan, 8 Q. B. 883; C. v. Wolcott, 10 Cush. 61; Daniel v. S. 3 Heisk. 257. For forms of the indictment, Dir. & F. § 848, 849. CHAP. L.] PERJURY. § 902 CHAPTER L. PERJURY. § 899,900. Introduction. 901-926. The Indictment. 927-935 a. The Evidence. 936,937. Questions of Practice. 938, 939. Attempts. ' Consult,— for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, II. § 1014-1056. For the indictment and connected questions, Dir. & F. § 869-877. And see, for miscellaneous questions, the indexes to this series of books. See also Susornwarion or Persury. § 899. Complications. — The principles governing this subject are neither numerous nor difficult. But in their application many minor questions have arisen, resulting in great numbers of ad- judged cases. And statutes regulating the procedure, in terms not uniform, have increased the complications. § 900. How Chapter dividea.— We shall consider, I. The Indictment; II. The Evidence; III. Questions of Practice; IV. Attempts. I. The Indictment. § 901. The Elements of this Offence, —to be covered in allega- tion,! are, — A judicial proceeding or course of justice. The defendant having been sworn to give evidence therein. His testimony. . Its falsity. Its materiality to the issue or inquiry. § 902. For the Indictment— there is no one universal form. Most of the precedents contain more or less that is clearly use- less. And neither our statutes nor judicial decisions are entirely uniform as to what is essential. But in general terms the charge may be that on, &c., at, &c., a suit, described, or some other con- gr go bo 1 New Crim. Law, II. § 1015; Wat- lis, 33 La. An. 1172; Burk v. S. 81 Ind. son v. S. 5 Tex. Ap. 11, 30; S. v. Har- 128, 407 § 904 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. troversy or inquiry, particularized, was pending and came on for hearing before a court or persons mentioned, having competent authority in the premises; that the defendant was duly sworn as a witness therein; that it became a material question whether, &c., saying what the question was ; and that thereupon he wilfully and corruptly [and feloniously, if a felony] swore, in substance and effect, among other things, so and so; whereas, in truth, &c., proceeding to negative the testimony.! § 9038. A Concluding Averment,—similar to that in murder and manslaughter,? is common in the perjury indictment; as, “ And so the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say that the said A [the defendant], on the trial of the said issue, on, &e., at, &e., before, &c., as aforesaid, falsely, maliciously, wilfully, and wickedly, in manner and form, aforesaid, did commit wilful and corrupt perjury.” ® But unless, as in murder, the indictment is on a statute the terms whereof are not sufficiently covered by the preceding allegations,‘ this averment cannot be necessary. For it isa mere conclusion of law,—namely, that the facts charged constitute perjury,—information of a sort never re- quired by a court from non-professional grand jurors. Indict- ments should set out facts, not law.5 § 904. The Following Distinctions,— if borne in mind, will be helpful to a proper understanding of this entire subject. The averments are necessarily and always of two classes, — those which disclose a foundation for the commission of the offence, and those which charge the offence itself. By the universal 1 See, for forms, Dir. & F. § 869-877 ; 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 318 et seq.; Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 566, 567, 573, 19th ed. 868, 882; Archb. New Crim. Pro. 600; Rex v. Cross, Trem. P. C. 136 and subsequent entries here; Reg. v. Webster, Bell, 154, 8 Cox C. C. 187; Reg. v. Moreau, 11 Q. B. 1028; C. v. Stockley, 10 Leigh, 678; P. v. Sweetman, 3 Par. Cr. 358; S. v. Corson, 59 Me. 187; C. v. Carel, 105 Mass. 582; Crusen v. S, 10 Ohio St. 258; Reg. v. Overton, 2 Moody, 263 ; C. v. Kim- ball, 108 Mass. 473; Reg. v. Shaw, Leigh & C. 579, 10 Cox C. C. 66; S. v. Ander- son, 103 Ind. 170; Reg. v. Knox, 2 Cox Cc. C. 165. And see further as to the form in various circumstances, C. v. Kelly, 123 Mass. 417; S. 7. Green, 24 Ark. 591; 408 C. v. Roach, 1 Grat. 561; Brown v. S. 47 Ala. 47; S. v. Smith, 48 Tex. 655; S. v. Foulks, 57 Mo. 461; Flint v. P. 35 Mich. 491; Rex v. Dowlin, 5 T. R. 311; S. v. Cave, 81 Mo. 450; West v. S. 8 Tex, Ap. 119; Mattingly v. S. 8 Tex. Ap. 345; Martinez v. 8. 7 Tex. Ap. 394; Dilcher v, S. 39 Ohio St. 130. 2 Ante, § 502, 541 (1), 548-550. 8 Archb. New Crim. Pro. 600, 602. 4 Ante, § 548. ® Vol. I. § 329, 515. This conclusion is not universal either in the English or American precedents. For example, it is not in Rex v. Hanson, Trem. P. C. 143, 144, Adjudged unnecessary in Ryalls v. Reg. 11 Q. B. 781, 794, 3 Cox C. C. 86, 48; Henderson v. P. 117 Ill, 265. CHAP. L.] PERJURY. § 906 rules of criminal pleading, the former, commonly called induce- ment, may be general in terms, and be either introduced or not by “whereas.”! The latter must be full, dircet, and specific. What belongs to each class we shall see as we proceed. § 905. Keeping this distinction in mind, let us consider, — First. How to set out the proceeding or course of justice wherein the perjury was committed : — On Principle, — since, to render a false swearing perjury, there must be an issue or inquiry before some legally competent person or tribunal,? the same must be alleged, and in a way to show a jurisdiction. But the jurisdiction is not the complained-of fault of the defendant; it is, that he delivered false testimony. Hence the allegation of the court and cause is mere introduction or inducement; and by the rules of criminal pleading, as just stated, it need not be made by direct charge or in detail; general terms will suffice. Still— | § 906. The Early Practice — was in general contrary to what is thus plainly permissible. It was to recite in full the record of the court, with all the pleadings, in the cause wherein the false swearing was to be charged as having taken place;® and this, and perhaps more, is even sometimes assumed to have been necessary.6 But it would be difficult to convince one who, for example, should look carefully through the large number of pre- cedents of the indictment for perjury collected by Tremaine, all of which were prior to the statute about to be stated, that such practice was universal, or that the courts had actually adjudged it to be essential. The author confidently assumes that the statute about to be stated gave to the already permissible.’ Now, — 1 Vol. I. § 554-558; ante, § 822 (2); King v. S. 32 Tex. Cr. 463. 2 New Crim. Law, II. § 1020-1028. 8 Vol. L. § 529 (3). 4 Vol. I. § 554-558; ante, § 822 (2), 904; Reg. v. Dunning, Law Rep. 1 C, C. 290. Reg. v. Wyatt, 2 Ld. Raym. 1189, furnishes a good illustration of this doc- trine. 5 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 306, 307; Reg. v. Carter, 6 Mod. 167. 6 Rex v. Dowlin, 5 T. R. 311. 7 In Rex v. Hanson, Trem. P. C. 148, the allegation is simply that “in the term pleader little or no liberty not of Easter last past, in the court of the said lord the king, before the king himself, the said court then being held at Westminster, in the said county of Middlesex, a certain issue was joined and recorded in the said court, between one Hamlet Borer, Gent., by the name, &c., plaintiff, and one John Bingham, by the name, &c., defendant, in a plea of trespass upon the case, which issue afterward, to wit, on Wednesday the thirtieth day of May, in the eighteenth year of the reign of the said lord the now king, before John Kelynge, Knt., chief justice of the said lord the king, assigned 409 § 907 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 907. Settled by Statute. — Hereupon, in 1750, during our colonial period, 23 Geo. 2, c. 11, after citing in a preamble that “by reason of difficulties attending prosecutions for perjury and subornation of perjury,” those crimes have frequently gone un- punished, provided that, “ § 1. In every information or indictment to be prosecuted against any person for wilful and corrupt perjury, it shall be sufficient to set forth the substance of the offence charged upon the defendant, and by what court, or before whom, the oath was taken (averring such court or person or persons to have com- petent authority to administer the same),! together with the proper averment or averments to falsify the matter or matters wherein the perjury or perjuries is or are assigned; without setting forth the bill, answer, information, indictment, declara- tion, or any part of any record or’ proceeding, either in law or equity, other than as aforesaid; and without setting forth the commission or authority of the court or person or persons before whom the perjury was committed; any law,-usage, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding. § 2. In every information or indictment for subornation of perjury, or for corrupt bargaining or contracting with others to commit wilful and corrupt perjury, it shall be sufficient to set forth the substance of the offence charged upon the defendant; without setting forth the bill, answer, information, indictment, declaration, or any part of any record or proceeding, either in law or equity, and without setting forth the commission or authority of the court, or person or persons, before whom the perjury was committed, or was agreed or promised to be committed ; any law, usage, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.” 2 to hold pleas before the king himself, at Westminster, in the great hall of the pleas there, by the form of the statute, &c., in the due manner came to be tried, by a jury of the said country, then and there sworn and charged to try the issue afore- said.” There is no further setting out of the record or issue. To the like effect see Rex v. Trotter, Trem. P. C. 146; Rex v. Stone, Trem. P. C. 148; Rex v. Sotherton, Trem. P. C. 155. In some of the other cases it suited the pleader to set out only a part of the record; as, in Rex v. Brooks, Trem. P, C. 151; Rex v. H. P. Trem. P.C. 162. See post, § 907, note. 1 Omitted from the present English 410 statute of 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, § 20. Reg. o. Dunning, Law Rep. 1 C. C. 290, 294. 2 In examining the modern English. cases, the reader may have occasion to refer to the statute which, in 1851, took the place of the above; namely, 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, § 20, 21. It is in substance a re-enactment of 23 Geo. 2, c. 11; thus, “§ 20. In every indictment for perjury, or for unlawfully, wilfully, falsely, fraud- ulently, deceitfully, maliciously, or cor- ruptly taking, making, signing, or sub- scribing any oath, affirmation, declaration, affidavit, deposition, bill, answer, notice, certificate, or other writing, it shall be sufficient to set forth the substance of the CHAP. L.] PERJURY. § 909 § 908. This Statute of 23 Geo. 2, c. 11,— is too recent to be common law in our States as having come with the immigra- tion.! But our colonial courts sometimes accepted, as the guide for their decisions, a post-immigration enactment from the mother country so highly remedial, especially when declaratory of what might otherwise be deemed the correct legal rule On this ground, this statute was adopted in Maryland; and in Ten- nessee from early times indictments were drawn after its direc- tions, though in one case the court withheld any opinion as to whether an indictment good by it but not by the common law could be sustained.* On the other hand, it has been held or deemed not as of common-law force in North Carolina, Virginia, and Maine.” But— § 909. Re-enacted. — In most of our States this statute has been either re-enacted in terms, or a provision of like effect in some other form has becn made; so that should we assume something more formal to have been required by the old common law of England, it is not now generally so with us though there may be a State or two in which it is.9 offence charged upon the defendant, and by what court or before whom the oath, affirmation, declaration, affidavit, deposi- tion, bill, answer, notice, certificate, or other writing was taken, made, signed, or subscribed, without setting forth the bill, answer, information, indictment, dec- laration, or any part of any proceeding either in law or in equity, and without setting forth the commission or authority of the court or person before whom such offence was committed. § 21. In every indictment for subornation of perjury, or for corrupt bargaining or contracting with any person to commit wilful and corrupt perjury, or for inciting, causing, or pro- curing any person unlawfully, wilfully,, falsely, fraudulently, deceitfully, mali- ciously, or corruptly to take, make, sign, or subscribe any oath, affirmation, decla- ration, affidavit, deposition, bill, answer, notice, certificate, or other writing, it shall be sufficient, wherever such perjury or other offence aforesaid shall have been actually committed, to allege the offence of the person who actually committed such perjury or other offence, in the man- ner hereinbefore mentioned, and then to allege that the defendant unlawfully, wilfully, and corruptly did cause and pro- cure the said person the said offence in manner and form aforesaid to do and commit; and wherever such perjury or other offence aforesaid shall not have been actually committed, it shall be suf- ficient to set forth the substance of the offence charged upon the defendant, with- out setting forth or averring any of the matters or things hereinbefore rendered unnecessary to be set forth or averred in the case of wilful and corrupt perjury.” 1 See Bishop First Book, § 49 et seq. 2 And see Bishop First Book, § 54. 3 Kilty Rep. Stats. 252. ¢ Lamden v. S. 5 Humph. 83. v. Stillman, 7 Coldw. 341. 5 S. v. Gallimore, 2 Ire. 372. ® Lodge v. C. 2 Grat. 579. 7 §. v. Hanson, 39 Me. 337, 339. 8 S. v. Stillman, 7 Coldw. 341; U.S.» Deming, 4 McLean, 3; P. v. Warner, 5 Wend. 271; P. v. Phelps, 5 Wend. 9; S. wv. Ammons, 3 Murph. 123; S. v. Ledford, 6 Ire. 5; Brown v. S. 47 Ala. 47; S.v. Rob- ertson, 98 N. C. 751; P. v. Grimshaw, 33 Hun, 505; S.z.Wise, 3 Lea, 38; Davis v. S. 79 Ala. 20; S. v. Flowers, 109 N. C. 841. ® At. no very remote period, it was in 411 See S. § 910 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 910. 1. The Name of the Court or Official Person, — before which or whom was the proceeding wherein the perjury is charged to have been committed, pertains to the inducement.! Still it is one of the identifying facts ;? hence it must be alleged, and correctly, as known in law. And where in the indictment it was “a certain Superior. Court begun and holden for the Dis- trict of Hillsborough,” and in the statute, “ Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions,” the variance was held to be fatal It is common to add, after the name of the court, the judge’s name before whom the particular hearing was had ; but this is believed not to be necessary,>—a distinction not applicable to proceed- ings before magistrates, and unnamed tribunals generally. In other words, the doctrine is believed to be that where the tri- bunal has a name, it should be averred; where not, the official person’s name should be given instead; but both are never required. Still, — 2. Variance. —In general, if the tribunal, magistrate, or other official person is described in terms needlessly minute, the description is so far material that, to avoid a variance, it must be Virginia adjudged necessary that an in- dictment for perjury in swearing to a false answer in chancery should set out the entire bill and answer. Lodge v. C.2 Grat.479. We have from Tennessee, an intimation that at common law the in- dictment for falsé swearing in a common- law court must set out the pleadings, the proceedings on the trial, and the evi- dence; though it is otherwise under the Code. S. v. Stillman, 7 Coldw. 341; Lam- den v. S.5 Humph. 83; S. v. Steele, 1 Yerg. 394. And where, in North Caro- lina, the State statute was for a time sus- pended, an indictment for perjury com- mitted on the trial of a former indictment was held to require averments of the find- ing of the former, and in the proper court, of the proper county; a setting out of such indictment, or so much of it as to show an offence within the county, of which the court had jurisdiction; and the traverse, or plea of the defendant, on which issue was joined. S. v. Gallimore, 2 Ire. 372, 375, 376. And see &. v. Am- mons, 3 Murph. 123. These decisions, it is perceived, proceeded on what was assumed to be the common law of Eng- 412 land, prior to the adoption of the statute. What is deemed by the author the true view is stated ante, § 904, 905. 1 Ante, § 904. 2 Vol. I. § 566-584. 8 Kerr v. P. 42 Ill. 807; Stewart v. 8. 6 Tex. Ap. 184, 187; Reg. v. Fellowes, 1 Car. & K. 115; S. v. Oppenheimer, 41 Tex. 82; S. v. Peters, 42 Tex.7; S. v. Wilcox, 4 Blatch. 391; Reg. v. Western, Law Rep. 1 C.C. 122; S. v. Walls, 54 Ind. 407; 8. ». Kimbrough, 2 Dev. 431. See S. v. Flowers, 109 N. C. 841. 4 §. v. Street,1 Murph. 156,3 Am. D. 682. 5 S. v. Spencer, 6 Or. 152. See S. v. Lewis, 3 Hawks, 410; Burns v. P. 59 Barb. 531, 5 Lans. 189; Rex v. Alford, 1 Leach, 150; Rex v. Coppard, 3 Car. & P. 59; Reg v. Fellowes, 1 Car. & K. 115; Jones v. Jones, 5 M. & W. 528; Reg. v. Dunn, 2 Moody, 297; Reg. wv. Schlesinger, 10 Q. B. 670; Reg. v. Child, 5 Cox C.C. 197. These English cases are stated somewhat in detail in 3 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 44-46, :They are silent as to whether the name of the judge must be averred, but explain how far a variance in setting it out will be fatal. CHAP. L. ] PERJURY. § 910 a proved as laid But sometimes matter of this general sort, not being descriptive, may be rejected as surplusage.2 These are questions depending on the ordinary rules of evidence, so requir- ing no further elucidation here.? § 9104, 1. A Jurisdiction — in the court or official person being an element without which there can be no perjury, such jurisdic- tion, we have seen,‘ must in some way be disclosed by the allega- tions.5 Since such matter is only inducement it would in principle suffice either to aver in words that the jurisdiction existed, or state facts from which in law it results, both not being required ; in analogy to the rule as to the materiality of that to which the witness testified.’ And so, in our States generally, are the authorities? But— 2. Further as to which. — Where the statute of 23 Geo. 2,c. 11, or an American one in the same terms prevails,® the words whereof are “ averring such court or person or persons to have competent authority to administer the same,” it would seem that this special allegation cannot be supplied by the other.’ Yet in other respects and circumstances, the rule is as above stated... Where there is doubt, it may be recommended as the safer course, and never difficult, so to shape the averment of the court or official person as to render its or his jurisdiction affirmatively palpable, whether the other allegation is made or not. And a charge simply that the perjury was committed at an examination before C, “a com- 1 Rex v. Dowlin, 5 T. R. 311, 317; Reg. v. Child, 5 Cox C. C. 197; Rex v. Schoole, Peake, 112; Rex v. Lincoln, Russ. & Ry. 421. , 2%§. v. Langley, 34 N. H. 529; Reg. v. Child, supra. 8 And see Reg. v. Dunn, 2 Moody, 297 ; Rex v. Bellamy, Ryan & Moody, N. P. 171; 8. v. Clark, 2 Tyler, 277, 282; S. v. Farrow, 10 Rich. 165; U.S. v. Deming, 4 McLean, 3; S. v. Hanson, 39 Me. 337; S. v. Ledford, 6 Ire. 5; Reg. v. Christian, Car. & M. 388; S. v. Thayer, 4 Strob. 286; Rex v, Alford, 1 Leach, 150, 14 East, 218, note; Rex v. Lincoln, Russ. & Ry. 421; Reg. v. Hewins, 9 Car. & P. 786; Rex v. Israel, 3 D. & R. 234; Con- ner v.C. 2 Va. Cas. 30; Reg. v. Schle- singer, 10 Q. B. 670; Reg. v. Fellowes, 1 Car. & K. 115; Rex v. Dowlin, 5 T. R. 811; 8. v. Kimbrough, 2 Dev. 431. 4 Ante, § 905. 5 S. v. McCone, 59 Vt. 117; S. ». Plummer, 50 Me, 217. 8 Ante, § 904, 905. 7 Post, § 921. 8 Andersonv.S,18 Tex Ap.17; Powers v, 8. 17 Tex. Ap. 428; S. uv. Belew, 79 Mo. 584; S. v. Wise, 3 Lea, 38; and cases to the next paragraph. ® Ante, § 907-909. 10 Reg. v. Dunning, Law Rep. 1 C.C. 290, 294; S. v. Nickerson, 46 Iowa, 447. 11 Reg. v. Dunning, supra; S. v. New- ton, 1 Greene, Iowa, 160, 48 Am. D. 367; S. v. Walls, 54 Ind. 407; S. v. Keel, 54 Mo. 182; S. v. Peters, 42 Tex. 7; Stewart v, 8. 6 Tex. Ap. 184; U. S. v. Quinn, infra; Lavey v. Reg. 17 Q. B. 496, 2 Den. C. C. 504, 5 Cox C. C. 269, 7 Eng. L. & Eq. 401; Reg. v. Lawlor, 6 Cox C. C. 187. 413 § 911 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. missioner of the United States duly appointed,” there being duly- appointed commissioners without as well as with authority to take examinations, was well held to be inadequate.1 § 911. 1. Stating Court, &c. — Assuming it not to be necessary to recite the proceedings wherein the perjury is to be alleged as committed,? the indictment may say that on, &c., at, &c.,3 before a court, &c., named, an issue, the particulars whereof need not be given, between parties named, came on to be and was in due form of law heard and tried. And the fact that such trial ended in a nonsuit will not render such form of allegation objectionable. 2. As to Time,— we saw in the first volume the special im- portance in this offence of avoiding the descriptive form of alleging it; and how the consequences which in some cases resulted from carelessness herein have led to the misapprehen- sion in some courts that the common law requires, in perjury, the allegation and proof of time exactly to correspond, — matter already sufficiently explained.® 3. Not in Court.— Where the alleged perjury is in an affidavit, or in any other proceeding elsewhere than in a court, the indict- ment, having shown the authority of the acting officer as already 1 U.S. v. Wilcox, 4 Blatch. 391. See Gaige, 26 Mich. 30. The forms actually U.S. o. Quinn, 8 Blatch. 48, 66; Reg. v. Fairburn, 3 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 38. 2 Ante, § 905-909. 3 §. v. Oppenheimer, 41 Tex. 82; S. v. Hanson, 39 Me. 337; Wood v. P. 3 Thomp. & C. 506, 1 Hun, 381; §, v. Schultz, 57 Ind. 19; Burns v. P. 59 Barb. 531; Rhodes v. C. 78 Va. 692. And see U.S. v. Bow- man, 2 Wash. C. C. 328; Keator v. P. 32 Mich. 484; C. v. Alden, 14 Mass. 388. 4 Ante, § 902; Reg. v. Dunning, Law Rep. 1 C. C. 290, 293, 11 Cox C. C. 651; Rex v. Dowlin, 5 T. R. 811, 820; S. v. Newton, 1 Greene, Iowa, 160, 48 Am. D. 367; S. v. Green, 24 Ark. 591; S. v. Schill, 27 Iowa, 263; Reg. v. Schlesinger 10 Q. B. 670; Lavey v. Reg. 17 Q. B. 496, 2 Den. C. C. 504, 5 Cox C. C. 269, 7 Eng. L. & Eq. 401; Reg. v. Lavey, 3 Car. & K. 26; S. v. Walls, 54 Ind. 407; Rex v. Roper, 1 Stark. 518, 6 M. & S. 327; Rex v. Bailey, 7 Car. & P. 264; Rex v. Israel, 3 D. & R. 284; S. v. Flagg, 25 Ind. 369; 8S. v. Harvell, 4 Jones, N. C. 55. And see Pennaman »v. 8. 58 Ga. 836; S. v. Witham, 6 Or. 366; 8. v. Sleeper, 37 Vt. 122; P. v. 414 appearing in the cases have, in general, a little more of detail than the bare state- ment of the text indicates. And it would not be possible to say that some courts might not require more. Plainly enough, on principle, and on the reasoning in most of the cases, nothing more is needed in this part of the indictment. Generally the allegation mentions, with the court, the jury and its being sworn. But the jury is a part of the court, without which the judge may sit or not, according to the nature of the business being done; and it would be difficult to find a reason requir- ing a mention of this part, while the aver- ment is properly silent as to the clerk, by whom the oath, the falsity whereof is the very gist of the offence, was administered. See Dir. & F. § 871, 872, 875. 5 Reg. v. Bray, 9 Cox C. C. 218. 6 Vol. I. § 401 (4,5); Lucas v. S. 27 Tex. Ap. 322; S. v. Peters, 107 N. C. 876; C. v. Monahan, 9 Gray, 119; 8.7. Ah Lee, 18 Or. 540; cases cited to the last paragraph. ) CHAP. L.] PERJURY. § 912 explained,! must aver whatever other fact is, in the individual instance, a necessary part of the foundation for such proceeding. The fact, thus to be set out, will vary with the differing laws of the States.? 4, Variance. — The proceedings should be carefully set out in a way to avoid a variance at the trial. It will generally be fatal, — a question depending on the common principles governing the law of variance.? § 912. Secondly. How to allege the Swearing : — 1. Setting out of Oath. —It is common, where the perjury was on a trial in court, to say that the defendant appeared as a witness for a party named, and was then and there sworn, &c., that the evidence which he should give, &c., should be, &c., setting out the full oath in form.t But— 2. The Shorter Allegation —that the defendant was “ duly sworn,” not further stating the ceremonies, has been well adjudged sufficient.6 Or the mere substance of the oath may be given. Or, on principle, it would suffice to say that on the trial of the issue the defendant gave such and such testimony on his oath duly administered and taken.’ This, indeed, accords with what is practised on an indictment for a — 3. False Affidavit.— The allegation here may be, that on, &., at, &c., setting out the introductory matter,’ the defendant pro- 1 Ante, § 9104. 2 Morrell v. P. 32 Ill. 499; King v. Reg. 14 Q. B. 31, 3 Cox C. C. 561; Reg. v. Pearsons, 8 Car. & P. 119; Rex »v. Koops, 6 A. & E. 198; Reg. v. Gardiner, 2 Moody, 95; Reg. v. Bishop, Car. & M. 302; Rex v. Dudman, 7D. & R. 324, 4 B. & C. 850; Johnson v. S. 58 Ga. 397; Ryalls v. Reg. 13 Jur. 259, 18 Law J. ns. M. C. 69; P. v. Fox, 25 Mich. 492; Reg. v. Virrier, 12 A. & E. 317; S. v. Reynolds, 108 Ind. 353; S. v. Crumb, 68 Mo. 206. See P. v. Tredway, 3 Barb. 470; P. v. Phelps, 5 Wend. 9; P. v. Warner, 5 Wend. 271; Pennaman ». S. 58 Ga..336; Young v. Young, 18 Minn. 90; C, v. Warden, 11 Met. 40f. 8 S. v. Ammons, 3 Murph. 123; Rex v. Lookup, cited 1 T. R. 240; Rex v. May, 1 ‘Doug. 193, 1 T. R. 237, note; Keator v. P. 32 Mich, 484; Rex v. Dudman, 7 D. & R. 324, 4 B. & C. 850; Rex v. Windus, 1 Camp. 406, note; Rex v. Powell, Ryan & Moody N. P. 101; P. v. Burroughs, 1 Par. Cr. 211; Rex v. Roper, 1 Stark. 518, 6 M. & 8, 327; Rex v. Thomas, 1 Car. & P. 472; Reg. v. Moreau, 11 Q. B. 1028; Brown v. 8. 47 Ala. 47. + See the places referred to ante, § 902. 5 §. v. Farrow, 10 Rich. 165; Dodge v. S. 4 Zab. 455; Rex v. McCarther, Peake, 155; Tuttle v. P. 86 N.Y. 431; S. vw. O’Hagan, 38 Iowa, 504; Massie v. S. 5 Tex. Ap. 81, 84; Patrick v. Smoke, 3 Strob. 147; Burns v. P. 59 Barb. 531, 5 Lans. 189. And see Jackson v. S. 15 Tex. Ap. 579. 6 P. v. Warner, 5 Wend. 271. See, under Alabama statute, Hendrix v. S. 50 Ala, 148, T See, as more or less confirmatory of this view, C. v. Warden, 11 Met. 406; S. v. Bobbitt, 70 N. C. 81; Williams vu. S. 7 Humph. 47. 8 Ante, § 9104, 911. 415 § 914 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL duced before the official person named a certain affidavit in writing of him the defendant, and was then and there, in due form of law, sworn before such person concerning the truth of the matters therein contained, and then and there upon his oath aforesaid did falsely, &c., depose and swear, &c.1 But — 4. That the Defendant was Sworn — must in some form be directly charged; mere inference will not suffice.2 Thus, “ Made and subscribed in open court, wickedly, falsely, wilfully, corruptly, and knowingly, the following false and corrupt oath, which is in substance as follows,” setting out the affidavit, was held inade- quately to aver the swearing.® § 918. 1. Variance and Surplusage. — If with needless particu- larity the oath or the method of taking it is set out, still it must in general be correspondingly proved, or the variance will be fatal. Thus, — 2. “On Gospels” — Uplifted Hand. — If the oath is needlessly averred to have been taken on the Gospels, proof that it was with the uplifted hand will not suffice+ But — 3. The Term “ Corporal Oath’? — means only “ solemn oath,” or one to which the bodily assent is given ;® and an averment of it may be proved by an oath taken in the ordinary form.® § 914. 1. The Authority to administer the Oath, — in the official person or tribunal, must in some way appear in allegation.’ We have seen that, by 28 Geo. 2, c. 11, § 1, this must be averred ex- pressly ; but not by the present English statute, or by statutes prevailing in all our States.8 Aside from what is thus com- manded, it is sufficient either that the indictment declares the 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 566, 567, 19th ed.868; Dir. & F. § 873, 874; Rex v. Emden, 9 East, 437; Rex v. Crossley, 7 T. R. 311, 315; Williams v. 8. 7 Humph. 47; S. v. Ellison, 8 Blackf. 225. “The books, both ancient and modern, have been examined. All the indictments for perjury upon an affidavit state the charge in one of two ways, either that he did corruptly say, depose, swear and make affidavit in writing (amongst other things) in substance and to the effect following, that is to say, setting out the affidavit; or that he did produce and ex- hibit a certain affidavit in writing, to which he swore, and then set it forth, in substance and to the effect following, that 416 is tosay.” Riker, R. in P. v. Robertson, 8 Wheeler Crim. Cas. 180, 191. See Copeland v. S. 23 Missis. 257. 28. v. Hamilton, 65 Mo. 667; S. v. Divoll, 44 N. H.140; U.S. v. McConaughy, 33 Fed. Rep. 168. 8 §. v. Divoll, supra. 4S. v. Porter, 2 Hill, S. C. 611. 5 New Crim. Law, II. § 1018 (5), note. ® §.v. Norris, 9 N. H.96; Jackson v.S. Smith, Ind. 124, 1 Ind. 184. 7 §. v, Owen, 73 Mo. 440; S. v. Byrd, 28 S.C. 18, 13 Am. St. 660; Bradberry v. 8.7 Tex. Ap. 375; Stewart v. S. 6 Tex. Ap. 184. See S. v. Boland, 12 Mo. Ap. 74, 8 Ante, § 907-909. CHAP. L.] PERJURY. § 915 ‘authority, or that it follows as of law from what is for other purposes set out.1 In a section just back,? this is in part ex- plained ; and doubtless what is sufficient for the purpose there stated will ordinarily satisfy also the requirement of this section. And — 2, The Authorized Person or Tribunal — must in some way appear in allegation to have administered the oath.2 To say that it was before, &c., suffices. And doubtless a separate form of words for alleging this will not often be required, but the matter will be sufficiently disclosed by the other averments. § 915. Thirdly. The Setting out of the False Testimony : — The Substance, not Tenor, — of the oral or written words of a perjury is, by universal practice, to be alleged and proved. Upon the question of the sufficiency of this method, if it depended solely on the general principles of criminal pleading,’ there is room for some difference of opinion. Hence it is properly remitted, for sole determination, to authority. The before-recited statute of 23 Geo. 2, c. 11, made it sufficient “to set forth the substance of the offence charged ;” ® and so, by legislative command, is the ques- tion settled wherever a like provision is in force. We have seen that anterior to this statute the tenor of the record of the cause in which was committed the perjury was not required ;’ so, in like manner, does it appear not to have been the universal or even the common method to lay the false testimony by its tenor. The entries in Tremaine, for example, instead of setting out the words complained of by their tenor, as in forgery, are, in general, not all of them, more nearly after the forms now familiar in cheats and false pretences ;° as, “did give in evidence and did depose 1 See, and compare, Rex v. Callanan, 484; Reg. v. Tew, Dears. 429, 29 Eng. L. 6 B. & C. 102, 9 D. & R. 97 (and see 2 Russ. Crimes, 3d Eng. ed. 638); Rex v. Wood, 2 Russ. Crimes, 3d Eng. ed. 632; Walker v. Reg. 8 Ellis & B. 439; Reg. v. Goodfellow, Car. & M. 569; Halleck ». S. 11 Ohio, 400; S. v. Plummer, 50 Me. 217; Reg. v. Dunning, Law Rep. 1 C. C. 290. 2 Ante, § 9104, 3 Campbell v. P. 8 Wend. 636; S. v. Hamilton, 65 Mo. 667. See S. v.O’Hagan, 88 Iowa, 504; Biggerstaff v. C. 11 Bush, 169, * Campbell v. P. supra; S. v. Ellison, 8 Blackf, 225. See Keator v. P. 32 Mich. VOL, 11. — 27 & Eq. 537; Oaks v. Rodgers, 48 Cal. 197; C. », Alden, 14 Mass. 888. As to Indiana, under the statute, see Hitesman z. S. 48 Ind. 473. 8 Vol. I. § 559-563. 6 Ante, § 907; Rex v. Dowlin, 5 T. R. 311, 318. 7 Ante, § 906. 8 Rex v. Cross, Trem. P. C. 136, 137; Rex v. Hanson, Trem. P. C. 143, 144; Rex v. C. T. Trem. P. C. 144, 145, 146; Rex v. Stone, Trem. P. C. 148; Rex v. Boucher, Trem. P.C. 150; Rex v. Saxon, Trem. P. C. 157, 159; Rex v. H. P. Trem. P. C. 162; Rex v. Hawkins, Trem. P. C, 167. 417 § 916 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK. XII. that,” &c., setting out the testimony in a form palpably not its exact words, but the substance and effect of them.1 This man- ner of introducing the testimony is well; or, it may be, “in manner and form following, that is to say,” an expression which does not require proof of the tenor.2- Where a statute like the above prevails, and perhaps where it does not, most pleaders will prefer the statutory “substance ;” or “substance and effect,” which are the more common? No judicious pleader will need- lessly say “tenor,” because that will compel an uncomfortable exactness in proof.4 § 916. 1. In stating the Substance and Effect, — reasonable ful- ness and particularity are required; for, within a distinction already mentioned,> they pertain, not to inducement, but to the gist of the offence. It is not adequate to say simply that the defendant swore falsely concerning a thing; the direct meaning of what is said must be given. Nor will any setting out which varies the sense of what was sworn to be accepted as its sub- stance or effect.’ Yet a departure in mere form is immaterial.® Hence, — 2, The Interrogatories,— in answer to which the perjury was committed, need not be given.® 3. The Substance of All — that the witness testified to is not required, but merely of what is to be relied on as false.!® If parts only are averred, it is practically best to introduce them in the 1 Rex v. Trotter, Trem. P: C. 146. 2 Rex v. May, 1 Doug. 193. 2 Rex v. Leefe, infra; S. v. Groves, Busbee, 402; Rex v. Taylor, 1 Camp. 404. * Rex v. Leefe, 2 Camp. 134. Affida- vit. — It is ordinarily not inconvenient to set out an affidavit or other written mat- ter by its tenor, and this appears to be required in Indiana. -Coppack v. S. 36 Ind. 512. Compare with Rex v. Taylor, 1 Camp. 404. There is excellent ground of principle for this view; and something like this was ‘said, as matter of principle, in the earlier editions of this work. Still, it seems to me on reflection, that on a question of this sort the command of prin- ciple is hardly strong enough to overcome a course of precedents. However, in Tre- maine, the majority of the precedents, in this class of perjury, not the other, give the very words. For example, Rex vo. 418 Brooks, Trem. P. C. 151, 158, 154; Rex». Sotherton, Trem. P. C. 155, 156; Rex v. Hutchinson, Trem. P. C. 164, 166. We have seen that by the English statute the substance only is required in these cases the same as in others, Rex v. Callanan, 6 B. & C. 102; and this is probably so also in many of our States. 5 Ante, § 904, 905. 6 U.S. v. Morgan, Morris, 341; P. v. Robertson, 3 Wheeler Crim. Cas. 180, 189. 7 Rex v. Taylor, 1 Camp. 404; S. v. Tappan, 1 Fost, N. H. 56. 8 Rex v. Grindall, 2 Car. & P. 568; Cox v. 8. 13 Tex. Ap. 479; Reg. v. Bird, 17 Cox C. C, 387. 9 §. vw, Bishop, 1 D. Chip. 120, 124. See Dodge v. 8. 4 Zab, 455. 10 Campbell v. P. 8 Wend. 636; S. v Neal, 42 Mo. 119. CHAP. L.] PERJURY. § 919 same way as in‘libel ;! and putting them into one count does not render it double. Still it is not legally objectionable to lay the matter as continuous, if what is omitted does not vary the meaning of what is given? 4, If an Omission from a Bankrupt’s Schedule — constitutes the perjury, the items rendered need not be stated, but.the omitted ones must be.6 § 917. Innuendoes — are sometimes required to explain what the defendant is alleged to have sworn to.6 Their nature and use are stated under the title “ Libel and Slander.”7 They are the ‘same here as there. § 918. Fourthly. The Averments to show the Testimony false : — Assignment of Perjury —is the name commonly given to this part of the indictment. After stating the substance of what was sworn to, as just explained, it proceeds: “ whereas, in truth and in fact,” adding wherein such matter was false. This is of the gist of the offence, not mere inducement;® consequently the allegation must be direct-and specific, not in terms of uncertain meaning, or by way of implication.® Simply to say, for example, that the defendant falsely swore, is not adequate. Or if the indictment sets out two contradictory oaths, taken at different times, an assignment is not good which does not say which was the false one! § 919. This Averment will vary — with the matter to be nega- tived. It must be certain; so that if all it sets, out may be true yet no perjury have been committed, it will be inadequate.2 It must particularize wherein the testimony was false, a general allegation that it was so not being commonly sufficient.2 While 1 Ante, § 783 (3), 791, 792. 2S. v, Bordeaux, 93.N. C. 560. « Ante, § 793, 794 and note. 8 Ante, § 904, 905. 8 Rex v. Solomon, Ryan & Moody, N. P. 252; Rex v. Callanan, 6 B. & C. 102. And see Rex v. Leefe, 2 Camp. 134, com- pared with Reg. v. Rhodes, 2 Ld. Raym.886. 4 U.S. v. Chapman, 3 McLean, 390. 5 U. S. v. Chapman, supra; Rex v. Hepper, Ryan & Moody, N. P. 210, 211, 1 Car. & P. 608. 6 Dir. & F. § 872; Rex v. Gripe, 1 Comyns, 43; s.c. nom. Rex v. Griepe, 1 Ld. Ravym. 256, 259; Rex v. Aylett, 1 T. R. 63, 69; Rex v. Taylor, 1 Camp. 404; Reg. v. Virrier, 12 A. & E, 317; Reg. v. Parker, Car. & M. 639. 9 Gibson v. S. 44 Ala. 17; Burns ». P. 59 Barb. 531; Gabrielsky v. S. 13 Tex. Ap. 428; P. v. Clements, 107 N. Y. 205, 42 Hun, 353. : 10 Rex v. Perrott, 2 M. & S. 379; S, x. Mace, 76 Me. 64. See S. uv. Corson, 59 Me. 137. Rex v. Harris, 1 D. & R. 578, 5 B. & Ald 926. See Reg. v. Wheatland, 8 Car. & P. 238. 12 Reg. v. Whitehouse, 3 Cox C.C. 86. 18S. v. Mumford, 1 Dev. 519,17 Am. D. 578. See Reg. v. Parker, Car. & M. 639, 419 § 921. SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. in some connections a short negative will satisfy this require- ment, in others much amplification will be necessary.! One good assignment of what constitutes a complete offence, is adequate, though the other assignments are ill.? § 920. Where the Defendant’s Belief — was the thing testified to, it is not enough to negative the thing; the belief must be negatived.2 Where the fact requires negation, it suffices to say that the defendant “ well knew ” it was not so.* § 921. Fifthly. The Averment of the Materiality of the False Testimony : — Hither of Two Methods. — The materiality of the false testimony to the issue or point of inquiry being an essential element in the offence,® it must be averred, And the pleader, in doing this, may at his election say that it was thus material, or set out facts from which its materiality will in law appear. He need not do both. Where the false testimony was delivered in a trial, the former is the common method, and the better practically. Even a few of the cases seem to require it, to the exclusion of the latter® 1 Rex v. Atkinson, 2 Deac. Crim. Law, 1017; De Bernie v. S. 19 Ala. 28; Dodge v. 8. 4 Zab. 455; Reg. v. Bennett, 2 Den. C. C. 240, 4 Eng. L. & Eq. 560; C. v. Sar- gent, 129 Mass. 115; Lawson v. S. 3 Lea, 309; Turner v. S. 30 Tex. Ap. 691. 2 C. cv. McLaughlin, 122 Mass. 449. 8S. v. Lea, 3 Ala. 602; S. v. Cruik- shank, 6 Blackf. 62. 4S. v. Lindenburg, 13 Tex. 27; S. v. Wood, 17 Iowa, 18. 5 New Crim. Law, IT. § 1030-1042. 6 Wood v. P. 59 N. Y.117; Watson v. 8.5 Tex. Ap. 11; 8. v. McCormick, 52 Ind. 169; Hendricks v.S. 26 Ind. 493; Stofer v. S.3 W. Va. 689; S. v. Holden, 48 Mo. 93; S. v. Bowlus, 3 Heisk. 29; 8. v. Davis, 69 N. C. 495; U.S. v. McHenry, 6 Blatch. 503; S. v. Thrift, 30 Ind. 211; 8. v. Chand- ler, 42 Vt. 446; Reg. v. Harvey, 8 Cox C. C. 99; S. v. Maxwell, 28 La. An. 361; Reg. v. Cutts, 4 Cox C. C. 435; Geston v. P. 4 Lans. 487; s.c. nom. Guston v. P. 61 Barb. 35; S. v. Shanks, 66 Mo. 560; P. v. Burroughs, 1 Par. Cr. 211; P. v. Fox, 25 Mich. 492; S.v, Sleeper, 37 Vt. 122; Reg. v. Southwood, 1 Fost. & F. 356; S. v. Trask, 42 Vt. 152; Hoch tv. P. 3 Mich. 552; C. v. John, 6 Gray, 274; Rex v Dow- 420 lin, 5 T. R 811, 818; 8. v. Beard, 1 Dutcher, 384; S. v. Hall, 7 Blackf. 25; S. v. Johnson, 7 Blackf. 49; S. v. Chamber- lin, 30 Vt. 559; Reg. v. Bennett, 2 Den. C. C. 240, 4 Eng. L. & Eq. 560; 8. v. Moffatt, 7 Humph. 250 ; Reg. v. Bartholo- mew, 1 Car. & K. 366; Reg. v, Good- fellow, Car. & M. 569; Reg. v. Gardiner, 8 Car. & P. 737; S. v. Mumford, 1 Dev. 519,17 Am. D. 573; Rex »v. Nicholl, 1 B. & Ad. 21; S.'v. Hayward, 1 Nott & McC. 546; C. v. Flynn, 3 Cush. 525; Weathers v. §. 2 Blackf. 278; Campbell v. P. 8 Wend. 636; P. ce. Collier, 1 Mich. 137, 48 Am. D. 699; C. v. Knight, 12 Mass. 274, 7 Am. D. 72; Reg v. Hewins, 9 Car & P. 786; Rex v. Dudman, 7 D. & R. 324, 4 B. & C, 850; Morrell v. P. 32 Ill. 499; 8. v Bailey, 34 Mo. 350; C. v. Smith, 11 Allen, 248, 253; Rich v.U. S. 1 Okla. 354; 8. v. Thompson, 113 N. C. 638; S. ». Madigan, 57 Minn. 425; S. v. Clogston, 63 Vt. 215; Brooks v. S. 29 Tex. Ap. 582; P. »v. Brilliant, 58 Cal. 214; Kimmel v. P. 92 Ill. 457; S. v. Wakefield, 9 Mo. Ap. 326; S. ¢. Cave, 81 Mo. 450; C. vu. McCarty, 152 Mass. 577; Woods v. S. 14 Lea, 460; S. Nees, 47 Ark. 553. CHAP. L.] PERJURY. § 923 Where the perjury was in an affidavit, the latter method is per- haps the more common, § 922. Sixthly. Some other Questions : — Qualifying Adjectives. — The common-law indictment avers that the perjury was delivered “falsely, corruptly, knowingly, wilfully, and maliciously,” or in a part of these words, or in others of a like meaning. It should be distinguished from that on 5 Eliz. c. 9,2 where both “ wilfully ” and “ corruptly ” were necessary be- cause they are the statutory terms. Yet these two are also specially appropriate to the common-law indictment, and either they or an equivalent are indispensable.* Particularly, it would appear, is “ wilfully ;” because it is in all the definitions. Yet. “falsely, maliciously, wickedly, and corruptly,” omitting “ wil-. fully,” have been held adequate. It is good to say “ wilfully and. corruptly,” 7 or even “ knowingly and corruptly,” ® without more. “ Falsely ” cannot be. essential, because the assignment of the perjury avers the swearing to be false.® “ Feloniously ” should be added to the rest where the offence is felony.!® § 923. It was held not Ill as Repugnant — to charge that in July, the defendant swore to having witnessed a transaction in 1 In P. v. Robertson, 3 Wheeler Crim. Cas. 180, 188, Mr. Recorder Riker said: “The precedents of indictments upon affi- davits never contain an averment that the facts stated in such affidavits are material. The indictments state that the affidavits were duly made before a competent au- thority, setting forth the tenor or sub- stance of it [them], and then falsifying such parts as are alleged to be untrue. These precedents, being uniform and un- disputed, show what the law is.” But he does not mean that the materiality need in no way appear; for, on the preceding page, he says: “ Every affidavit, if drawn in due form of law, shows the materiality of the fact upon the face of it. Any aver- ment, therefore, is idle.” This may be so when it is considered in connection with the introductory averments. Ante, § 9104, 912. But in our American precedents, the materiality of an affidavit is some- times directly averred. It must, of course, in some way appear. And see P. v. Fox, 25 Mich. 492; Hoch v. P. 3 Mich. 552; P. v. Kelly, 59 Cal. 372; 8. v. Lloyd, 77 Wis. 630; S. v. Cunningham, 66 Iowa, 94. 2 New Crim. Law, IT. § 1049 (2). ® Rex v. Cox, 1 Leach, 71; Rex v. Tayler, 1 Show. 190; Hamper’s Case, 2 Leon. 211; Meller’s Case, 3 Inst. 167; Lembro’s Case, Cro. Eliz. 147; Anony- mous, Cro. Eliz. 201. * Rex v. Richards, 7 D. & R. 665; Rex v. Stevens, 5 B. & C. 246; S. v. Smith, 63 Vt. 201; Morgan v. S. 63 Missis. 162; S. v. Morse, 90 Mo. 91; S. v. Davis, 84 N.C. 787. But see U.S. v. Hearing, 26 Fed. Rep. 744. 5 New Crim. Law, II. § 1015 (1) and note. And see S. v. Bixler, 62 Md. 354. 5 Rex v. Cox, 1 Leach, 71. Tothe like effect, S. v. Spencer, 45 La. An. 1. 78. v. Carland, 3 Dev. 114; S. vw. Sleeper, 37 Vt. 122; Johnson »v. P. 94 Ill. 505. 8 U. S. v. Babcock, 4 McLean, 113. ® But see Reg. v. Oxley, 3 Car. & K. 317. Compare with ante, § 168. 10 Vol. I. § 534-537; S. v. Williams, 30 Mo. 364; S. v. Terry, 30 Mo. 368; Wile v. S. 60 Missis. 260; Reg. v. Crawley, 12 Cox C. C. 162. 421 § 926 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII October of the same year; because giving an impossible date does not necessarily render the testimony null. § 924. In Brief, — the indictment for this offence, as for every other, must aver its several elements, and in a way to indivi- dualize the transaction and make a prima facie case, but it need do no more.? It must so present:the occasion that it will appear, to the judicial understanding, to be one wherein false swearing is perjury. Hence it must allege, or set out facts from which the court can see, that it was in a judicial proceeding or course of justice.* The materiality of what was sworn to must be charged or otherwise. be made palpable. Wilfulness, in terms or by an equivalent, must be averred.6 And it must appear from all the allegations, or be directly said, that an issue, duly joined, came on for trial, that the court had competent authority to hear it and administer the oath,— did administer it, —— such and such testimony was given, and in such and such particulars it was false.’ § 925. Seventhly. The Indictment on the Statutes : — 1. Not distinguishable — is the statutory from the common-law indictment for perjury, in anything not within the ordinary rules for indictinents on statutes. 2. The Statutory Terms — must be covered ;® as, where by them it was specially punishable to “ commit perjury on any trial for felony,” an averment, in Missouri where there were statutory larcenies which were not felony, that the perjury was on a trial for “larceny,” was ill.® So,— § 926. 1. “Deliberately and Wilfully ” — are statutory terms in Texas, hence they must there be in the indictment. And— 1S. v. McKennan, Harper, 302. 2 Rahm v. S. 30 Tex. Ap. 310, 28 Am. St. 911; St. Clair v. S. 11 Tex Ap. 297; U.S. v. Walsh, 22 Fed. Rep. 644; 8S. wv. Wakefield, 73 Mo. 549; S. v. Spencer, 45 La. An. 1; Ralph v. U.S. 11 Bis. 88; S. v. Blackstone, 74 Ind. 592; Dennis »v. S. 17 Fla. 389; Rohrer v. 8. 13 Tex. Ap. 163; In re Rothaker, 11 Abb. N. Cas. 122. 8 Ante, § 910-911 ; Snowde v. —, Cro. Car. 321, 322; S. v. Keene, 26 Me. 33; ‘Reg. v. Rawlins, 8 Car. & P. 439; Reg. v. Pearson, 8 Car. & P. 119; Rex v. Dunn, 1 D. & R. 10; Steinston «. S. 6 Yerg. 531; §. v. Farrow, 10 Rich. 165; P. uv. Phelps, 5 Wend. 9; U.S. v. Nicker- son, 17 How. U. 8. 204. 422 4S. v. Lamont, 2 Wis. 437; Reg. v. Gardiner, 8 Car. & P. 787; S. vu. Chamber- lin, 30 Vt. 559;- Wilson v, S, 27 Tex. Ap. 47. 5 Ante, § 921; Reg. v. Baker, 1890, 1.Q. B. 797. 5 Ante, § 922. 7 Ante, § 911-915, 918; C. v. Knight, 12 Mass. 274, 7 Am. D. 72; Stewart vw. S. 6 Tex. Ap. 184. 8 And see S. v. McCollum, 44 Mo. 343; S. ». Union Quarter Sessions, 16 Vroom, 523; 8. v. Smith, 3 Wash. 14. ® Hinch v. S. 2 Misso, 158. 1 Allen v. S. 42 Tex. 12; S. v. Perry, 42 Tex. 238; Smith v. S. 1 Tex. Ap. 620. CHAP. L.] PERJURY. § 929 2. On a Statute which has changed the Definition — of perjury in any of its elements, the indictment must conform to the statu- tory definition.t Il. The Evidence. § 927. A Peculiarity — in this offence relates to — The Number and Corroboration of Witnesses : — 1. The Doctrine —is that, since the testimony alleged to be perjured was delivered on oath, such oath as well as that of the contradicting witnesses should be regarded on the trial for the perjury. And where the evidence, thus viewed, presents “ only oath against oath,” it will be insufficient.2. Whence it became the old rule that two witnesses, directly contradicting what the de- fendant testified to, are indispensable to a conviction for perjury.® But — 2. Present Rule. — Evidently where there is only one witness directly to the alleged falsity of the swearing, there may be something in the case, or brought forward by a witness who cannot speak to the main charge, indicating, with reliable dis- tinctness, which of the two contradictory oaths is false. Hence by the modern rule it is sufficient either that there are two wit- nesses, or that the testimony of the one witness is corroborated or sustained by other facts appearing in the case or testified to by other witnesses.4 Negatively, — § 928. The Mere Unaided Testimony — of one witness is not sufficient to convict of perjury.6 But — § 929. 1. Only to the Question of Falsity — does this rule ex- tend. So that what the prisoner swore to on the previous occasion may be proved by one alone;’ because he then merely 1S. v. Morse, 1 Greene, Iowa, 503. 2 Reg. v. Muscot, 10 Mod. 192, 194; Fanshaw’s Case, Skin. 327. 3 1 Greenl. Ev. § 257; U.S. v. Wood, 14 Pet. 430, 440; Rex v. Broughton, 2 Stra. 1229. kins, 115 N. C. 712. A part of these cases are on a statute. 5 Peake Ev. Nor. Ed. 20; MacNally Ev. 37; Rex v. Broughton, 2 Stra, 1229, 1230; Campney’s Case, 2 Lewin, 258; S.v. Heed, 57 Mo. 252; P. v. Davis, 61 Cal. + S. v. Blize, 111 Mo. 464; Meeks ». S. 32 Tex. Cr. 420; Freeman ». S. 19 Fla, 552; McClerkin v. S. 20 Fla. 879; Gart- man v. §.16 Tex. Ap. 215; P. v. Stone, 32 Hun, 41; Williame v. C. 91 Pa. 493; Maines v. S. 26 Tex. Ap. 14; Wilson v, 8. 27 Tex. Ap. 47, 11 Am. St. 180; Gab- rielsky v. S. 13 Tex. Ap. 428; S. v. Haw- 536. 6 MacNally Ev. 37; S. «. Hayward, 1 Nott & McC. 546. : 7 (©. v. Pollard, 12 Met. 225: 8S. w. Wood, 17 Iowa, 18. Contra, S. e. How- ard, 4 McCord, 159. See Reg. v. Roberts, 2 Car. & K. 607. 423 § 932 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII testified so and so, he did not swear he so testified, and there is no oath against oath. And — 2. Subornation of Perjury — may be proved by one witness; there being no oath of the defendant against it! Hence — § 930. The Rule — requiring more than one witness is, to repeat, limited to the question of the falsity of what the defend- ant delivered under oath.2 Hence also, — § 931. Contradictory Oaths and Declarations. — Where, on dif- ferent occasions, the defendant has sworn both in affirmation and denial of the same thing, oath nullifies oath; and the rule that the testimony of one witness will not authorize a conviction does not apply. The further doctrine as to the effect of his contra- dictory statements, whether made on oath or not, is that in neither case are they alone a sufficient foundation for a convic- tion for perjury.* But the added testimony of an independent witness to the falsity of the one statement is not required where, as often happens, the truth may be otherwise duly evolved from the combined proven facts And — § 932, 1. What besides One Witness. — This view accords with the modern doctrine ® that a second witness is not required to turn the scale against the defendant’s former oath ; but circumstances or facts otherwise appearing may suffice? For example, inde- pendent corroboration * of the testifying witness may.? So, in the opinion of most courts, may the defendant’s declarations contra- dictory of his former testimony.° Nor would it be correct to say 1 C. v. Douglass, 5 Met. 241 2S. v. Hayward, 1 Nott & McC. 546. 8 2 Russ. Crimes, 3d Eng. ed. 651-663, where are collected several cases from which, in combination, the doctrine of the text may be derived; as, Rex v. Knill, 5 B. & Ald. 929, note; Reg. v. Wheat- land, 8 Car. & P. 238; Jackson’s Case, 1 Lewin, 270. That this has not always been held exactly so, see the opinions in Reg. v. Hook, Dears. & B. 606, 8 Cox C. C. 5. 4 New Crim. Law, II. § 1044 ; Schwartz v. C, 27 Grat. 1025, 1030, 21 Am. R. 365; S. v. Williams, 30 Mo. 364; Reg. v. Owen, 6 Cox C,C. 105. See 8S. v. Voght, 27 Iowa, 117; Brown v. 8. 18 Ohio St. 496; C. v. Monahan, 9 Gray, 119. 5 Reg. v. Hook, supra; U. S. v. Mayer, Deady, 127; U.S. v. Wood, 14 Pet. 430. 424 § Ante, § 927. . 7 Rex v. Lee, 2 Russ. Crimes, 3d Eng. ed. 649, 650; S. v. Seaton, 8 Iowa, 138. 8 Vol. I. § 1169, 1170. 9 Reg. v. Braithwaite, 8 Cox C.C. 444; Reg. v. Braithwaite, 8 Cox C. C. 254, 1 Fost. & F. 638; Reg. ». Towey, 8 Cox C. C. 328 ; Reg. v. Gardiner, 8 Car & P. 737; Reg. v. Webster, 1 Fost. & F. 515; S. v. Buie, 43 Tex. 532; Hendricks v. 8. 26 Ind. 493; S. v. Raymond, 20 Iowa, 582. 1 §. v. Molier, 1 Dev. 263; Rex v. Mayhew, 6 Car. & P. 315; Reg. 7. Hook, Dears. & B. 06, 8 Cox C. C. 5; Peterson v. 8. 74 Ala. 34. See Reg. v. Boulter, 2 Den. C. C. 396, 5 Cox C. C. 543, 9 Eng. L. & Eq. 537; Reg. v. Owen, 6 Cox C. C. 105; S. v. Williams, 30 Mo. 364. CHAP. L.] PERJURY. § 933 6 that the corroborating or ancillary evidence or circumstances must be of weight equal to the testimony of one witness.! There must simply be enough plainly to turn the scale against the defendant’s former oath.2. Where there are several assignments of perjury, this rule must be applied severally to each. Hven — 2, The One Witness — to the falsity, thus assumed to be neces- sary, is not always so. This part of the case, the same as any other, may be made out by documentary and other like evidence.‘ § 933. Court or Jury.— We have thus been inquiring upon what, in matter of law, the court will permit the jury to act. As in other cases, so in these, when it has suffered evidence to be laid before them, and has pronounced it legally sufficient, their duty begins. They are not to convict simply because the law permits them to. Into their deliberations should enter all the proven facts, and the evidence as tending to prove this or that, including the fact of the defendant’s oath to what is now charged as false. And they are to convict him if, and only if, they are sat- isfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the falsity of the former oath, together with the other elements which make its falsity perjury. § 9834. Other Questions of Evidence : — 1. As a Witness, — the party to the suit wherein was committed the perjury is, in general, competent for or against the defendant. But in special circumstances, he has been rejected. The rules governing this sort of question are elsewhere considered5 2, Judge. — If the trial was in a superior court, the judge who presided ought not to be called;® nor are his notes, though pro- duced by his clerk, evidence.’ § 983 6. 1. The Cause and Issue — wherein was committed the perjury are proved by the record, which should be in the form and with the verification required by the ordinary practice of the court. How much of the record and whether any and what 1 Crusen v. S. 10 Ohio St. 258; Hen- dricks v. S. 26 Ind. 493. 2C. v. Parker, 2 Cush. 212; Reg. »v. Yates, Car. & M. 182, : 8 Williams v. C. 91 Pa. 493. 4U. S. v. Wood, 14 Pet. 430. Hendricks v. S. 26 Ind. 493. ® Vol. I. § 1186-1188; Reg. v. Keat, 2 Moody, 24; Rex v. De Faria, Peake, 104; Reg. v. Yates, Car. & M. 132; Rex v. Boston, 4 East, 572, 1 Smith, 202; Rex See v. Dalby, Peake, 12; Fanshaw’s Case, Skin. 327; Rex v. Pepys, Peake, 138; C. v. Hart, 2 Rob. Va. 819; S. v. Bishop, 1 D. Chip. 120; Rex v. Eden, 1 Esp. 97; Rex uv. Hulme, 7 Car. & P. 8. 6 Vol. I. § 1145; Reg. v. Gazard, 8 Car. & P. 595; Reg. v. Harvey, 8 Cox C: C. 99, 103. 7 Reg. v. Child, 5 Cox C. C. 197, 203. See Reg. v. Britton, 17 Cox C. C. 627. 8 Reg. v. Gordon, Car. & M. 410; Rex 425 § 933 ¢ SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. accompanying papers must be produced,’ and. whether there should be any and what extra-record proof of official character? will vary with the circumstances and cases, according to familiar principles not for consideration here. And there should be no fatal variance between the allegations and the produced record.® It is not fatal for the former to say that an issue was joined, and for more issues than one. to appear in the latter. To the record thus in evidence® should be added such parol showing of what was done at the trial as the exigencies of the. particular issue require.® 2. Circumstantial and other not Direct Evidence — and presump- tions are competent within the familiar rules.? § 933 ¢, Oath, — On a charge of perjury in a trial in court, any one who was present can testify to the oath, the same as to the other proceedings.’ Or, whether. it was in court. or elsewhere, the official person before whom it was taken may be a witness to it.® Or, if it was to an answer in chancery or other affidavit. out of court, the authorized: officer’s certificate thereof, with proof of his v. Sykes, T. Raym. 202; Reg. v. New- man, 2 Den. C. C. 390, 5 Cox C. C. 547, 83 Car. & K. 240, 9 Eng. L. & Eq. 529; Reg. v. Turner, 2 Car. & K. 782; Reg. v. Carter, 6 Mod. 167; Porter v. Cooper, 6 Car. & P. 354; Reg. v. Scott, 2 Q. B. D. 415; Rex v. Browne, 3 Car. & P. 572; Kitchen v. S. 26 Tex. Ap. 165; Heflin v. S. 88 Ga. 151, 30 Am. St. 147. 1 Reg. v. Newman, supra; Rex ». Browne, supra; Reg. v. Newall, 6 Cox C. C. 21; Reg. v. Whybrow, 8 Cox C. C. 438; Reg. v. Hurrell, 3 Fost. & F. 271; 8. v. Alexander, 2 Dev. 470; Respublica v. Goss, 2 Yeates, 479; Rex v. Laycock, 4 Car. & P. 326; Reg. v. Mason, 29 U. C. Q. B. 431; Reg. v. Goodfellow, Car. & M. 569; Reg. v. Hudson, 1 Fost. & F. 56; Reg. v. Shaw, Leigh & C. 579, 10 Cox C. C. 66; Reg. v. Carr, 10 Cox C. C. 564. 2 Reg. v. Turner, supra; Reg. v. Child, 5 Cox C.C. 197, 205; Reg. 7. Johnson, Law Rep. 2 C. C. 15, 12 Cox C. C. 264, 4 Eng. Rep. 540; S. v. Nickerson, 46 Iowa, 447; Reg. v. Smith, Law Rep. 1 C. C. 110, 11 Cox C.C. 10; S. v. Hascall, 6 N. H. 352; Lambert v. P. 76 N. Y. 220, 32 Am. R. 293; Reg. v. Lewis, 12 Cox C. C. 163, 2 Eng. Rep. 216; Reg. v. Willis, 12 Cox C. C. 164, 2 Eng. Rep. 218. 426 . 3 Ante, § 911 (4); S. v. Harvell, 4 Jones, N. C.55; Reg. v. Dunn, 1 Car. & K. 780; S. ». Green, 100 N. C. 419. 4 Reg. v. Smith, 1 Fost. & F. 98; Rex v. Jones, Peake, 37. 6 Admissions instead of Proof.— In a case before Lord Abinger, C. B. the respective attorneys had agreed before trial that by admission the formal proofs should be dispensed with. ‘The defend- ant’s counsel declined making any admis- sion ; and the learned judge declared that none could be accepted unless “ made at the trial by the defendant or his counsel.” Reg. v. Thornhill, 8 Car. & P. 575. 6 Reg. v. Child, 5 Cox C. C. 197, 203; Reg. v. Harrison, 9 Cox C. C. 503. 7 Beach v. S. 32 Tex. Cr. 240; C. x. Hollis, 140 Mass. 436; S. v. Mace, 86 N.C. 668; Heflin v. S. 88 Ga. 151, 30 Am. St. 147. 8 Rex v. Canning, 19 How. St. Tr. 283, 323 ; Keator v. P. 32 Mich. 484. See Reg. v. Tew, Dears. 429, 29 Eng. L. & Eq. 537; Rex v. Rowley, Ryan & Moody, N. P. 299; Rex v. McCarther, Peake, 155; Rex v. Brady, 1 Leach, 327. 98. v. Hascall, 6 N. H. 852; Case v. P. 76 N, Y. 242. CHAP. L.] PERJURY. § 935 sighature (to which may be added that of the affiant’s, if he signed it), will, prima facie, suffice! The jurat will thus show the county also, if it-is written therein.’ § 934, 1. Where there are Several Assignments — of perjury,? proof of any sufficient one will sustain the count.* 2. How prove. — If the perjury was in oral testimony, any one who heard it, and who has sufficient memory of it, whether assisted or not by minutes or. other memoranda, may relate its substance.» Not all, but all the material parts, should in the first instance be-sworn to on behalf of the. prosecution, — a rule the precise. limits of which appear not to be held exactly alike by all judges.6 Where the perjury was in writing, or a writing was so referred to as to become. material, it must be produced, or its absence accounted for, according to the ordinary rules.7_ Then the falsity must be shown by competent evidence, in terms sufficiently broad and full.® And there should be no variance between allegation and proof. § 935. 1. The Allegation of Materiality —- must.also be proved.” 1 C. v. Warden, 11 Met. 406, 409 ; Rex z. Spencer, Ryan & Moody, N. P. 97, 1 Gar. & P. 260; Rex v. Benson, 2’ Camp. 508; Rex v. Morris, 2. Bur. 1189, 1- Leach, 50. And see C. v. Kimball, 108 Mass. 473; Rex v. Howard, 1 Moody & R. 187. Greenleaf says: “If the affidavit were actually used by the prisoner, in the cause in which it was taken, proof of this fact will supersede the necessity of proving his handwriting. Rex v. James, 1 Show. 397,. Carth. 220. It was Carthew’s report of this case which’ was denied by Lord Mansfield in Crook v. Dowling, 3 Doug. 75; it not appearing that the affidavit, of which a copy only was offered, had been used by the prisoner. And see Rees v. Bowen, McClel. & Y.383.” 3 Greenl. Ev. § 192. 2 Rex v. Spencer, supra; Van Dusen, v. P. 78 Ill. 645. And see Reg. v. Turner, 2Car. & K. 732; Rex v. Emden, 9 East, 487. 3 C. v. Johna, 6 Gray, 274 ; S. v. Bishop, 1 D. Chip. 120. : * Reg. v. Rhodes, 2 Ld. Raym 886; S, v. Hascall, 6 N. H. 352; Harris v. P. 64 N. Y. 148; S. v. Blaisdell, 59 N. H. 328. 5 Reg. v. Morgan, 6 Cox C. C. 107; P. v. Curtis, 50 Cal: 95; Rex v.. Munton, 3 Car. & P. 498; Taylor v. 8. 48 Ala, 157; Reg. v. Harvey, 8 Cox C. C. 99, 103 ; Bar- nett v. S. 89 Ala. 165; Sisk v. S. 28 Tex. Ap. 432. See Hemphill v. S. 71 Missis. 877. 8 Rex v. Rowley, Ryan & Moody, N. P. 299; Rex v. Jones, Peake, 37; Rex v. Dowlin, Peake, 170; Dodge v. S..4 Zab. 455; 3 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 82-84; Gandy v. S. 23 Neb. 436; S. v. Frisby, 90 Mo. 530. 7 Rex v. Wylde, 6 Car. & P. 380; Os- burn v. 8. 7 Ohio, Ist pt. 212; Rex c. Hailey, 1 Car. & P. 258; Reg. v. Elworthy, Law Rep. 1 C. C. 103, 10 Cox C. C. 579; Reg. v. Cox, 4 Fost. & F. 42; Reg. ». Milnes, 2 Fost. & F.10; Reg. v. Dillon, 14 Cox C.C.4. And see Reg. v. Newton, 1 Car. & K. 469. 8 Rex v. Tucker, 2 Car: & P. 500; Reg. v. Parker, Car. &:M.-639;. Pollard v. P. 69 Ill. 148; C. v. Butland, 119! Mass. 317; Reg. v. Hall,.8 Car. & P. 358. 9 Roberts v. P. 99 Ill. 275;.G. v. Sar- gent, 129 Mass. 115. 10 §, v. Kennerly, 10 Rich. 152; S. v. Aikens, 32 Iowa, 403; Wood v. P. 59 N. Y. 117; Nelson v. 8.32 Ark. 192; Reg. v. Lewis, 12 Cox C. C. 163, 2 Eng. Rep. 216; Reg. v. Willis, 12 Cox C. C. 164, 2 Eng. Rep. 218; S. v. Bailey, 34 Mo. 350, 427 § 985 a SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL. It is not enough that the testimony was actually admitted! Yet it suffices that the indictment sets out facts whence the materiality judicially appears? Where it does not, the course is to prove all, or so much less than all of the pleadings and evidence brought forward at the former trial as will duly present the question ; whereupon the court, not the jury, will decide, as of law, whether or not what the defendant is shown to have testified to therein was material.¢ Yet practically, as fact is involved with the law, the question must generally be passed on with the rest by the jury, under instructions from the court. In like manner, — 2. The Jurisdiction — of the court wherein was the perjury, while it must be alleged, must appear equally in the proofs ;7 though evidently, in most cases, this is a conclusion which the court will deduce as of law from the facts appearing of record and otherwise.® § 985. That the False Testimony was Wilful and Corrupt — is one of the elements of perjury.2 Doubtless the jury may often infer this element from the evidence already detailed. A mere want of motive or interest to swear falsely is not sufficient ground for resisting this inference. Neither is it sufficient foundation for the inference, that the testimony of the defendant and of other witnesses at the former trial was in conflict regard- ing the terms of a contract." Pertinent 1 against the defendant is such evidence as his expressions of malice toward the person injured,’ or a pending reward which his testimony was adapted to secure.44 In his favor may be shown, under proper circum- stances and with proper qualifications, not always and as of course, his intoxication,’ his inability to read in a case relating to a written contract,!® his reluctance to appear as a witness,!” his 1C. v. Pollard, 12 Met. 225; Lawrence 8 See, for illustration, Exum v. S. 90 v. 8. 2 Tex. Ap. 479. Tenn. 501, 25 Am. St. 700. 2 Ante, § 921. ® Ante, § 922; New Crim. Law, II. 3 Reg. v. Harrison, 9 Cox C. C. 503; § 1045-1048. Rex v. Dowlin, Peake, 170. 10 Schaller v. S. 14 Mo. 502. 4 Steinman v. McWilliams, 6 Pa. 170; 11 Bell v. Senneff, 83 Ill. 122. S. v. Williams, 30 Mo. 364; Smith v. S, 12 3 Greenl. Ev. § 198-200. 27 Tex. Ap. 50. 18 Rex v. Munton, 3 Car. & P. 498, 5 Lawrence v. S. 2 Tex. Ap. 479, 484. 4 C. v. Brady, 7 Gray, 320. 6 Ante, § 905, 910 a. 16 Lytle v. S. 31 Ohio St. 196; Bowden 7 Wilson v. 8. 27 Tex. Ap. 47,11 Am. v. P, 12 Hun, 85. See Sisk v. S. 28 Tex. St. 180. Compare with S. v. Peters, 107 Ap. 432. N. C. 876. And see S. v. Ridley, 114 1% Flemister v. S. 48 Ga. 170, N. C. 827. 17 C. v. Brady, 7 Gray, 320. 428 CHAP. L.] PERJURY. § 939 former story when of the res geste, or a consultation with and advice from legal counsel.2 These are but illustrations.? III. Questions of Practice, § 936. Joinder of Defendants. — That there can be two or more joint defendants in perjury appears to have been denied.* And plainly, if two witnesses, on the trial of one cause, commit separate perjuries, their indictments must be separate. But should two join in one false affidavit, in reason they could be jointly indicted. And there may be other cases within the same principle ;5 as, where one delivers false testimony orally at the instigation of another. § 987. Verdict. —“ Guilty of perjury before A and T” is a fatal variance on an averment of perjury before A.6 So, where the charge was that the defendant falsely denied on oath the execution of a particular deed, a finding of guilty of denying its. signature is ill; since a deed may be executed without signing,’ “as where one person signs another’s name by direction, and a sealing and delivery take place by the party whose name is so written.” § . IV. Attempts. § 938. Subornation of Perjury, — to be treated of in a separate chapter, is, at common law, a mere executed attempt; in other words, it is a particular form of perjury.2 But — § 939. An Unsuccessful Subornation — is an indictable attempt.” And there are other forms of the attempt.1!_ Yet our chapter on Attempt renders needless any further exposition here of the subject. 1S. v. Curtis, 12 Ire. 270. 6 S. v. Mayson, 3 Brev. 284. 2 §. v. McKinney, 42 Iowa, 205. T 1 Bishop Con. § 112. 8 Other Questions of Evidence. — 8 §. v, Avera, N. C. Term, 237. Elder v. S. 52 Ga. 581; Rex v. Mead, 2 B. 9 New Crim. Law, II. § 1056, 1197; C. & C. 605; C. v. McLaughlin, 122 Mass. ». Smith, 11 Allen, 243. 449; Winn v. Peckham, 42 Wis. 493 ; Reg. 10 New Crim. Law, II. § 1056 (1), 1197 v, Turner, 2 Car. & K. 732. (3). 4 Rex v. Philips, 2 Stra. 921, 11 Tb. § 1055, 5 Kitchen v. S. 26 Tex. Ap. 165. 22 Ante, § 71 et seq. For PETIT LARCENY, see Larceny. PIRACY, see New Crim. Law, IT, § 1057-1063; Dir. & F. § 878, 879. POLYGAMY, see Stat. Crimes; Dir. & F. § 880-883, POSTAL OFFENCES, see Dir. & F. § 884-888. 429 § 941 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. CHAPTER LI. PRISON BREACH, RESCUE, AND ESCAPE, § 940. Introduction. 941, 942. Escapes suffered by Officer. 943, 944, Prison Breaches and Escapes by Prisoner. 945, 946. Rescues and Helps to escape from Third Persons. Consult, —for the law of these offences, New Crim. Law, II. § 1064-1106. For the indictment and related questions, Dir. & F. § 889-898. For miscellaneous questions see the indexes to this series of books. § 940. 1. The Distinctions in the Procedure — for these related offences do not depend on the name of the offence, but upon whether the criminal act proceeds from the officer having a prisoner in custody, from the prisoner, or from a third person. Therefore — 2. How Chapter divided. — We shall consider, I. Escapes suf- fered by the Officer; II. Prison Breaches and Escapes by the Prisoner ; III. Rescues and Helps to escape from Third Persons. I. Escapes suffered by the. Officer. § 941. 1. Malfeasance. — This is a species of malfeasance in office the procedure for which has been already considered.? 2. The Indictment — will somewhat vary with the sort of escape, the authority under which the prisoner was held; and, if on a statute, the statutory terms.? In general, it sets out the official character of the defendant, his custody of a prisoner named, and so much (differing with the circumstances) of the cause of the detention or authority therefor as will show the defendant's duty in the premises and the nature of the offence of violating it; and then, in a case, for example, of negligent 1 Hatch v. S. 10 Tex. Ap. 515. 550, 551, 19th ed. 852; Rex v. Glover, 2 Ante, § 822-836. Trem. P. C. 244; Rex v. Manlove, Trem. 8 For forms, see Dir. & F. § 890, 895- P.C, 246; Kavanaugh v. S. 41 Ala. 399; 897; 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 172 et seq.; S. v. Hollon, 22 Kan. 580. See Shattuck Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ey. 10th Lond. ed. v. S. 51 Missis. 575, 581. 430 CHAP. LI.] PRISON BREACH, RESCUE, ESCAPE. § 943 escape, it charges that the defendant then and there being under such duty, “ unlawfully and negligently did permit” the prisoner “to escape and go at large whithersoever he would, whereby the said” prisoner “did then and there escape and go at large whithersoever he would.” ! § 942. The Evidence — will consist of proofs of the foregoing allegations. If, for example, the custody was under a warrant, it should be produced or its absence accounted for, according to ordinary rules.2. “It is not necessary,” says Archbold, “to prove negligence in the defendant; the law implies it;® but if the escape were not in fact negligent, if the defendant by force rescued him- self, or were rescued by others, and the defendant made fresh suit after him but without effect, all this must be shown upon the part of the defendant.” 4 I. Prison Breaches and Escapes by the Prisoner. § 943. The Indictment — will in detail vary with the form of the offence ; and, if statutory, the particular terms of the statute ; and with the special facts. But it must contain such a setting out that the custody under which the defendant was held and its 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 19th ed. 852, 853. And see and compare S. v. Hedrick, 35 Tex. 485; Weaver v. C. 29 Pa. 445; C. v. Connell, 3 Grat. 587; S. v. Beebe, 13 Kan. 589,19 Am. R. 93; Bouche’s Case, Cro. Eliz, 290; Martin v. S. 32 Ark. 124; S. ». Baldwin, 80 N. C. 390; Barthelow v. S. 26 Tex. 175; Clemons v. S. 4 Lea,-23. In 1 Russ. Crimes, 3d Eng. ed. 422, 423, it is said that “every indictment for an escape, whether negligent or voluntary, must expressly show that the ‘party was actually in the defendant’s custody for some crime, or upon some commitment upon suspicion. 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 19. And judgment was arrested upon an in- dictment which stated that the prisoner was in the defendant’s custody, and charged him with a certain crime, but did not state that he was committed for that crime; for a person.in custody may be charged with a crime and yet not be in custody by reason of such charge, Rexv. ‘Fell, 1 Ld. Raym. 424, 1 Salk. 272. See Weaver v. C. supra. But where a person was committed to the custody of a con- stable by a watchman, as a loose and dis- orderly woman and a street-walker, it was holden, upon an indictment against the constable for discharging her, that by an allegation of his being charged with her ‘so being such loose,’ &c., it was sufficiently averred that he was charged with her ‘as such loose,’ &c., and it was also holden not to be necessary to aver that the defendant knew the woman to be a street-walker. Rex v. Bootie, 2 Bur. 864; s.c.nom. Rex v. Booty, 2 Keny. 575; and see, as to the sufficiency of such averments, Rex v. Boyall, 2 Bur. 832. And every indictment should also show that the prisoner went at large. 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 19, § 14, where it is said that this is most perfectly ex- pressed by the words exivit ad largum.” 2 Archb. ut sup., referring to 2 Hawk. P. C.c. 19, § 14, 8 Referring to 1 Hale P. C. 600 et seq. And see Blue v C. 4 Watts, 215, Shattuck v. 8. 51 Missis. 575. 4 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 19th ed. 853. For a “wilful” escape, the rule is other- wise. Barthelow v. 8. 26 Tex. 175, 431 -§ 945 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII, lawfulness will appear, on its face showing the escaping or breaking away to be acrime. It may then charge that then and there the defendant, so being in the lawful custody of, &c., “ out of, &c., unlawfully did escape and go at large whithersoever he would ;” or it may charge the breaking of the prison, &c.! § 944. The Evidence — will consist of proofs of these aver- ments.2, Among such proofs, may be the records of the com- mitting magistrate, the processes under which the defendant was held, the judgment and records of the superior court, and the like. It will not avail him that he was afterward acquitted of the offence for which he was in custody. III. Rescues and Helps to escape from Third Persons. § 945. 1. The Indictment — sets out the custody and its law- fulness, as already described;® the defendant’s knowledge thereof ;° the act of assistance, or of rescue, or the conveying of implements for escape to the prisoner; and, if on a statute, it covers the statutory terms. The fulness required will vary with the class of the offence and its circumstances.’ 2. On a Statute — which forbids the “ conveying” of a thing to one imprisoned to aid his escape, an allegation that the defendant “furnished ” it will not suffice.§ 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 19th ed. 853- 855; 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 158 et seq.; Dir. & F. § 890-892; S. ». Murphy, 5 Eng. 74; Hart’s Case, Cro. Jac, 472, 473; Rex v. Fitzpatrick, Russ. & Ry. 512; Ex parte Ah Bau, 10 Nev. 264; S. ». Doud, 7 Conn. 384; Rex v. Treadwell, 1 Russ, Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 604; Sandford ». S. 6 Eng. 3828; S. v. Whalen, 98 Mo. 222. Rex v. Smith, 1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 567; Gillian v. S. 3 Tex. Ap. 132; S.v. Murphy, 5 Eng. 74; Sandford v. §.6 Eng. 328; Fanning v. S. 14 Mo. 386. 8 §. ve. Whalen, 98 Mo, 222; P. v. Johnson, 46 Hun, 667; Hudgens v. C. 2 Duv. 239. 4 §. v. Lewis, 19 Kan. 260, 27 Am. R. 113. 5 §,v. Jones, 78 N. ©. 420; S. v. Dunn, 1 Dutcher, 114; Anonymous, March, 67, pl. 105; S. v. Hilton, 26 Mo. 199; C. v. Morihan, 4 Allen, 585; Gunyon v. 8. 68 Ind. 79. 432 8 Rex v. Young, 1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 589, note. 7 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 166-171; Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 19th ed. 858; Rex v. Tilley, 2 Leach, 662; Holloway v. Reg. 17 Q. B. 317, 2 Den. C. C. 287; Reg v. Hol- loway, 5 Eng. L. & Eq. 310; 8. v. Addcock, 65 Mo. 590; Clayton v, 8.4 Tex. Ap. 515; Rex v. Freeman, 2 Stra. 1226; Rex »v. Burridge, 3 P. Wms. 439; Oleson xv. 8. 20 Wis. 58; Ramsey v. 8. 43 Ala. 404; Baker v. 8.15 Ga 498; Wilson v. 8.61 Ala. 151; C. v. Malloy, 119 Mass. 347; C. ¢. Filburn, 119 Mass. 297; Kyle v. S. 10 Ala. 236; Hurst v. §, 79 Ala. 55; P. v. Murray, 57 Mich. 396; Vaughan v. S. 9 Tex. Ap. 563; Brunson v. §. 97 Ind. 95. 8 Francis v. S. 21 Tex. 280. See Hurst v. 8. 86 Ala. 604, 11 Am. St. 79; Mason v. 8.7 Tex. Ap. 623; Broxton v. S. 9 Tex. Ap. 97. CHAP. LI.] PRISON BREACH, RESCUE, AND ESCAPE. § 946 § 946. Some Questions of Practice and Evidence — have arisen, not requiring special elucidation.! 1 Habersham v. S. 56 Ga. 61; Rex v. Ga. 44; Perry v. S. 63 Ga. 402; Murray v. ’ Philips, Barnes, 3d ed. 429; Rex v. Belt, S. 25 Fla. 528; Butler v. S. 7 Tex. Ap. 2 Salk. 586; Peeler v. S. 3 Tex. Ap. 533; 635. Rose v. S. 33 Ind. 167; Crowder v. S. 56 t For PRIZE-FIGHTING, see Dir. & F. § 899-902. And see the indexes to this series of books. PROFANE SWEARING, see BLASPHEMY AND PROFANENESS. PUBLIC MEETINGS, see Distursinc MEETINGS. PUBLIC WAY, see Way. VOL. 11.— 28 433 § 949 SPECIFIC. OFFENCES AND THEIR. INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. CHAPTER LII. RAPE. § 947. Introduction. 948-960. Indictment. 961-974. Evidence. 975. Questions of Practice. 976-979. Attempts. Consult,— for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, II. § 1107-1136; Stat. Crimes, § 478-499. For the indictment, with incidental questions, Dir. & F: § 903- 914, And see the indexes to this series of books. § 947. 1. This Chapter, — in the main, extends only to rape proper, the carnal abuse of girls below the age of consent being treated of in “Statutory Crimes.” Yet the latter is not unfre- quently in our books, even in our statutes, called rape 2. How Chapter divided. — We shall consider, I. The Indict- ment; Il. The Evidence; III. Questions of Practice; IV. Attempts. I. The Indictment. § 948. How far Statutory. — Since all felonious rape is in Eng- land statutory, and with us is a common-law felony only by reason of our having received the early English Statutes as parts of our common law,? our indictment is in the main regarded as drawn on the statutes ; and we shall here, to some extent, take into view our American enactments. § 949. The Common Form of Indictment — is, as to its principal allegations, that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant “in and upon one X violently and feloniously did make an assault, and her the said X then and there violently and against her wiil® feloniously did ravish and carnally know.” 4 1 Stat. Crimes, § 484, 485; P. v. Glover, 2 New Crim. Law, II. § 1108-1115, 71 Mich. 303; S. v. Lacey, 111 Mo. 513; 1184. S. v. Houx, 109 Mo. 654, 32 Am. St. 686 ; 3 Query, “ without her consent.” See S. v, Wilcox, 111 Mo. 569; Mayo v. 8.7 post, § 951. Tex. Ap. 342; McGuff v. S. 88 Ala. 147, * Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. 16 Am. St. 25; Fry v. C. 82 Va. 334. ed. 480, 19th ed. 762; Dir. & F. § 904, 905; 434 CHAP. LIL], RAPE. § 952. § 950. Against the Form of the Statute” — concludes the in- dictment commonly in England.!. And Hale,? doubted by Chitty, appears to deem this conclusion necessary. The statute is Westm. 2 (18 Edw. 1), c. 84, a. D. 1285. With us, it is common law;* therefore, in principle, this conclusion is not necessary in our States, however deemed in England. Still, if inserted without occasion, it may be rejected, as. surplusage.® § 951, “ Against her Will” — (“¢ Without her Consent”), —'The words of the statute of Westm. 2, and of the amended modern definition of rape, are, as explained in * New Criminal Law,” not “against her will,” but ‘where she did not consent.”’ Yet the former is the more common expression in our American, statutes ;§ and it appears to have been always, in all our States, and in Eng- land, employed in the indictment. Its sufficiency cannot be doubted, even where the other expression indicates the exact law. It is a permissible substitute.® § 952. Averment of Sex. — Though rape can be committed only by a male person arrived at puberty, and the victim must be a female,!— and though the statute of Westm. 2 has the words “man” and “woman,” and our American statutes are in like. terms, —it is not necessary to. aver, in any case, either that the defendant is a manor that the victim isa woman." This, is some- times explained by saying that the court will recognize the sex by the names and the pronouns.’* But this result, is believed to follow S. v. Farmer, 4 Tre. 224; C. v. Scannel, 11 Cush. 547; S. v. Williams, 32 La. An. 335, 36 Am. R. 272; P. v. Pacheco, 70 Cal. 473; C. v. Kennedy, 131 Mass. 584;. Williams vu. 8. 1 Tex. Ap. 90, 28 Am. R. 399; Gibson v. 8.17 Tex. Ap. 574. And. see O’Connell v. S. 6 Minn. 279; Leoni v. S. 44 Ala. 110; Strader v. 8. 92 Ind. 376. 1 Archb. ut sup.; 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 815. 2 1] Hale P. C. 637, 638. 8 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 812, 815, note. * New Crim. Law, II. § 1111,.1115, 1134. 5 And see O’Connell v. S. 6 Minn. 279, 285. - 6 Vol. I. § 601. As to the conclusion in North Carolina, see S. v. Storkey, 63 N.C. 7. 7 New Crim. Law, IT. § 1111, 1115. 8 Stat. Crimes, § 482. 9 Vol. I. § 612; S. v. Jackson, 46 La. An. 547, And see S. v. Jim, 1 Dev. 142; Harman v. C. 12S. & R. 69; Williams v. S. 1 Tex. Ap. 90, 28 Am. R. 399. Not Necessary — in Alabama is the allegation, “against her will.” Leoni uv, S. 44 Ala, 110. 10 New Crim. Law, IT § 1111, 1113 (2), 1115-1118. i Warner v. S, 54 Ark. 660; S.v. War- ner, 74 Mo. 83; Greenlee v. S. 4 Tex. Ap. 345; Word v. 8.12 Tex. Ap. 174; Hill v. 8. 3 Heisk. 317. 2 Taylor v. C. 20 Grat. 825; Hill v. S, 3. Heisk. 317; Battle v. S. 4 Tex. Ap. 595, 30 Am. R. 169; S. v. Hussey, 7 Iowa, 409 ; S. v. Farmer, 4 Tre. 224; S. v. Hammond, 77 Mo. 157. And see C. c. Bennet, 2 Va. Cas. 235; Harmon v. C. 12 S.& R. 69. Sometimes the statutory “man,” “ wo- man,” “female,” or the like, is employed, 435 § 956 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS [BOOK XII. equally and more properly from the general doctrine that neither the defendant’s capacity to commit a crime nor the injured per- son’s to be the victim of it need ever be alleged, a charge of its actual commission covering the whole ground and being always sufficient.! § 958. “ Ravish ” — is indispensable in the common-law indict- ment, because in the statute of Westm. 2,— “if a man from henceforth do ravish a woman.” 2 § 954. 1. Age of Female. — Though it is a separate offence, yet sometimes called rape,3 to have carnal knowledge of a consenting girl under ten years of age ;‘ still it is rape proper to force her, the same as though she were over ten. Therefore the indictment for rape need not state her age or that it was more than ten years. Nor need the age be proved. So, — 2. Age of Male.— Though a boy under fourteen is in law in- capable of committing rape,’ no allegation of the age is required ;® since, as we have seen,® the charge against one of having com- mitted a crime includes that of his capacity therefor. § 955. “ Assault.” — Though the common form sets out in terms an assault, this word is not in the old statutes which constitute our common law.! Hence it is not necessary in the indictment ; while yet, for practical reasons, it should be retained. Again, — § 956. Not Married. — A man cannot commit rape of his wife, except as principal in the second degree,}8 yet the indictment need not negative a marriage between the defendant and the injured woman. Still, in prudence, it may be well where fornication and and the courts incline to recommend it. Taylor v. C. supra; Mills v. 8. 52 Ind. 187; O’Connell v. S. 6 Minn. 279; Robertson v. S. 31 Tex. 36; Battle v. S. supra. 1 Vol. I. § 521, 522, 615; ante, § 199, 200, 669 ; post, § 954, and other places. 2 Stat. Crimes, Ist ed. § 489; Davis v. S. 42 Tex. 226; Gouglemann »v. P. 3 Par. Cr. 15. See Williams v. S. 1 Tex. Ap. 90, 28 Am. R. 399; S. v. Smith, Phillips, N. C. 302; Gibson v. S. 17 Tex. Ap. 574; Elschlep v. 8. 11 Tex. Ap. 301. 3 Ante, § 947 (1); Williams v. 8. 47 Missis. 609; Davis v. S. 42 Tex. 226; Greer v. S. 50 Ind. 267, 19 Am. R. 709. See Singer v. P. 13 Hun, 418; Gosha v. 8. 56 Ga. 36. 4 New Crim. Law, IT. § 1133. 5 New Crim. Law, II. § 1118. 436 6 Stat. Crimes, § 482; Hill ». 8. 3 Heisk. 317; Mobley v. S. 46 Missis. 501; Davis v. S. supra; Vasser v. 8. 55 Ala. 264; S.v. Farmer, Ire. 224; 8. v. Storkey, 63 N.C. 7. 7 New Crim. Law, IT. § 1116, 1117. 8 Stat. Crimes, § 482; C. v. Scannel, 11 Cush. 547; P. v. Ah Yek, 29 Cal. 575; Davis v. S. 42 Tex. 226. 9 Ante, § 952. 0 Ante, § 949. 11 New Crim. Law, IT. § 1109-1112. 1 Reg. v. Allen, 2 Moody, 179, 9 Car. & P. 521; s. p. O’Connell v. S. 6 Minn. 279, 285. See Elschlep v. S. 11 Tex. Ap. 3801. 18 New Crim. Law, II. § 1119 (2), 1135. 14 C, v. Fogerty, 8 Gray, 489, 69 Am. D. 264. CHAP. LII.] RAPE. § 959 adultery are indictable to insert this sort of negative matter, so that if the proof of force should fail there may be a conviction for one of the other offences.1 § 957. Second Degree. — Where a husband assists one to ravish his wife,? or a woman is present helping a man to force another woman,’ and perhaps in all cases where there are principals in the second degree, it may be practically best to lay the offence according to the outward form; namely, charge the principal of the first degree with doing the act, and the rest with being present assisting. Yet no legal objection appears to averring directly that all did it, each being in law a principal.® § 958. The Words “ Carnally Know,” — common in the indict- ment,® are not in the statute of Westm. 2.7. English views differ ‘as to their necessity in allegation® On principle, since carnal knowledge is confessedly an essential element of the offence,? their absence from the statute does not justify their omission from the indictment,” unless their meaning is otherwise supplied ; and some deem it to be by “ ravish.” 4 No more specific setting out of the carnal act, than by these words, is required.2 § 959. 1. “ Violently ” — “ Forcibly.” — The common-law form charges the act to have been committed “ violently,’ but not “forcibly.” 18 Neither of these words is in any English statute whereon our common-law rape is in any part founded,! and the necessity of either in averment is problematical. Some of our American statutes have “forcibly;” then “violently ” in aver- ment is an adequate substitute. 2. “ Feloniously,” — in most of our States, is necessary. 1 Vol. I. § 419; C. v. Murphy, 2 Allen, 8 Ante, § 949. 163. 2 Rex v. Audley, 3 How. St. Tr. 401, 406; P. ev. Chapman, 62 Mich. 280, 4 Am. St. 857; S. v. Dowell, 106 N. C. 722, 19 Am. St. 568. 3S. v. Jones, 83 N. C. 605, 35 Am. R. 586. 4 Rex v. Folkes, 1 Moody, 354; Rex v. Gray, 7 Car. & P. 164; Reg. v. Crisham, Car. & M. 187; C. v. Fogerty, 8 Gray, 489, 491, 69 Am. D. 264. ; 5 Ante, §6a; 1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 164, 865; Rex v. Burgess, 1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 865; S. v. Comstock, 46 Iowa, 265; Conkey v. P. 5 Par. Cr. 31. But see Kessler v. C. 12 Bush, 18. 7 New Crim, Law, IT. § 1111. 3 1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 864. % New Crim. Law, II. § 1127 et seq. W Vol. I. § 523 et seq. 11 Russ. Crimes, ut sup. and places there referred to. 12 McMath v. S. 55 Ga. 303. 18 Ante, § 949. 7 14 New Crim. Law, IT. § 1109-1112. 15 §, vu. Johnson, 67 N. C. 55; C. v. Fogerty, 8 Gray, 489, 69 Am. D. 264. Contra, S. v. Blake, 39 Me. 322. See Walling v. 8. 7 Tex. Ap. 625. 16 Hays v. 8. 57 Missis. 783. 437 § 961 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 960. For Carnal Abuse —of a female child under ten (or twelve) years of age, the indictment sets out her name, her age or her being below ten (or twelve), and the defendant’s carnal knowledge of her; but it does not aver either her ravishment or her want of consent. And should there be other material statu- tory terms, it duly covers them.? Il. The Evidence. § 961. The most important questions relate to — The Testimony of the Complaining Woman : — 1. The Injured Person — in rape, as in other offences? is a com- petent witness. Evén a wife, ravished by her husband’s procure- ment, may, as in assault and battery,® testify against him. 2. Too Young. — If, as sometimes in cases of carnal abuse, the girl is too young or too ignorant of the nature of an oath to testify in the usual way, she cannot give her evidence otherwise, nor can her declarations be proved; so the evidence is lost.7 And there are various considerations regarding the testimony of young girls.’ 38. A Girl Deaf and Dumb — may testify through an interpreter. 4. Necessity —is among the grounds for receiving the injured female’s testimony; for without it, a conviction would be com- monly impossible. But her evidence is not legally indispensable.” And where the woman died after her examination before the 1 New Crim. Law, IT. § 1112, 1133. 2 Stat. Crimes, § 487, 489; Dir.-& F. § 904, 907-909; Archb. Cz, Pl. & Ev. 19th ed. 767, 768; C. v. Sullivan, 6 Gray, 477; C.v. Sugland, 4Gray,7; S.v. Goings, 4 Dev. & Bat. 152; P. v, Mills, 17 Cal. 276: S. v. Black, 63 “Me. 210; S. v. Smith, Phillips, N. C. 302; Reg. v. Guthrie, Law a 1 C. C. 241, 11 Cox C. C. 522; Reg. Holland, 10 Cox C, C. 478. And see Fizell v. §. 25 Wis. 364. 8 Vol. I. § 1138 (1). 41 Hale P.C. 683; Boddiev.'S. 52 Ala, 395; Wade v. 8.50 Ala. 164; Goss v. S. 40 Tex. 520; S. uv. Reed, 39 Vt. 417, 94 Am. D. 337. 5 Vol. I. § 1153; ‘ante, § 69; Rex ». Azir, 1 Stra, 633. 6 Rex v. Audley, 3 How. St. Tr. 401, 402, 411, 414. 71 East P. C. 441; Rex v. Brazier, 1 438 East P. C. 443 ;’s.c. nom. Réx v. Brasier, 1-Leach, 199; Rex v, Dunnel, 1 East P. C. 442; Rex v. Powell, 1 Leach, 110; Smith v. 8. 41 Tex. 852; Reg. v. Nicholas, 2 Car. & K. 246, 2 Cox C. ©. 136; Rex v. Travers, 1 Stra. 700; Weldon v. S. 32 Ind. 81; Johnson v. S. 76 Ga. 76. 8 Motitresser v. §. 19 Tex. Ap. 281; Kelly v. S. 75 Ala. 21,51 Am. R. 422; P. v, Gage, 62 Mich. 271, 4 Am. St. 854; ‘Ake v. 8. 6 Tex. Ap. 398, 32 Am. 'R. 586; Carter v. S. 63 Ala. 52, 35 Am. R. 4; Gazley v. S. 17 Tex. Ap. 267; Ellis v. S, 25 Fla. 702; Lander v. P. 104 Ill. 248; Batterson v. S. 63 Ind. 531. As to an insane witness, see Lopez v. S. 30 Tex. Ap. 487, 28 Am. St, 935. 9 Vol. I. § 1148; P.v..McGee, 1 Denio, 19, 10 Reg. v. Megson, 9 Car. & P. 420; Reg. v. Guttridges, 9:-Car. & P. 471. CHAP. LIL] RAPE. § 963 magistrate, a conviction was had on her deposition! therein given.? So, in the absence of a complaining woman, supposed to have been hired to keep away, there was a conviction for an assault with intent to ravish.? § 962. 1. Difficulties and Cautions. — The real facts, in a case of alleged rape, are commonly known only to the defendant and the complaining woman. And she may be honest or dishonest, free from guile or a crafty plotter against him, moved by a sense of justice or by a desire to conceal the shame of having voluntarily surrendered her virtue. If she speaks truth, no completely satis- factory confirmation of her testimony can often be had; if false- ‘hood, nothing is so difficult as for the defendant to make the falsity appears His temptation to clear himself by foul means, where he cannot by fair, is very great; hers may be, but it is not necessarily, almost as strong to convict him by perjury where the truth will not avail. ‘Therefore it cannot be otherwise than that convictions will sometimes be wrongly had, and sometimes the guilty will go free, and there should be a conviction only on the clearest and most convincing proofs.6 In consequence of this, — 2, Impeaching and Supporting. — The law not only permits the ordinary tests to be applied to the complaining witness, but it has some special ones not permissible in other cases; as, — § 963. Her Complaints out of Court.— On ordinary grounds, any- ‘thing which the woman said or did of the res gestw of the ravish- ment will be admissible in evidence.’ And there is considerable room for strengthening her testimony in this way, especially where she exhibits marks of violence in connection with expres- sions indicative of her physical condition.2 But aside from and beyond ‘this, it is competent to show by her, or by others, or both,? ‘1 Vol. I. § 1194 et seq. 2 Reg. v. Flemming, 2 Leach, 854. 3 Pp. v. Bates, 2 Par. Cr. 27. And see Weldon v. §.-32 Ind. 81. 4°. v. Hagerman, 47 Iowa, 151; Smith v. §. 77 Ga, 705. § As-see 1 Hale P. OC. 635, 636. 8-Smith v. S. supra. See Conners v. 8. 47 Wis. 523. 7 Vol. I. § 1083-1087, 1111, 1125; ante, § 625, 626; Oleson’v. S. 11 Neb. 276, 38 Am. R. 366 ; Castillo v. 8, 31 Tex. Cr. 145, 37 Am. St. 794. 8 Ante, § 626 (1); Lacy v. 8. 45 Ala, 80, 81; S. ». McLaughlin, 44 Iowa, 82; Pefferling v. S. 40 Tex. 486; Reg. v. Gut- tridges, 9 Car. & P. 471; Reg. v. Osborne, ‘Car. & M, 622. 5 Oleson v. §. supra; Castillo v. S. supra; Hannon vo. 8. 70 Wis. 448; P. ». Brown, 53 Mich. 531; P. v. Mayes, 66 Cal. 597,56 Am. R. 126, compared with P. v. Tierney, 67 Cal. 54; S. v, Mitchell, 68 Iowa, 116; Barnett v. 8. 83 Ala. 40; Ellis v. §. 25 Fla. 702; Lee v. S. 74 Wis. 45. “Tt is the usual course to ask the prose- cutrix whether she made any complaint; and, if so, to whom; and, if she mentions 439 § 963 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL that after the alleged rape, especially recently after, she complained of it to suitable persons, and exhibited, if such was the fact, marks of violence and other like indications ; as confirmatory of her sworn testimony. It is of special practical importance that the complaint was recent, and explanations of any delay are competent! But the doctrine in strict law appears to be that delays, especially if not great, only weaken the effect of her evidence with the jury? Neither the particulars of her complaint, nor the name of the person whom she accused, can, by the English and more prevalent American practice, thus be given. They may be brought out by the defendant, if he chooses, on cross-examination.* Yet some of our American courts permit the prosecuting officer to call for these particulars, to a greater or less extent, in the first instance.® The effect of this evidence is merely to sustain the witness, it is a person to whom she made complaint, to call such person to prove that fact.” 1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 867. And see Woodin v. P 1 Par. Cr. 464, 467, 468. 1 P. v. Flynn, 96 Mich. 276; 8. v. Byrne, 47 Conn. 465; P. vu. Gage, 62 Mich. 271, 4 Am. St. 854. 2 Rex v. Audley, 3 How. St. Tr. 401, 413; Rex v. Clarke, 2 Stark. 241; Nugent v. §. 18 Ala. 521; S. v. Knapp, 45 N. H. 148, 155; 8. v. Ivins, 7 Vroom, 233 ; Gard- ner v. Kellogg, 23 Minn. 463; Turney v. S. 8 Sm. & M. 104, 47 Am. D. 74; S. v, Marshall, Phillips, N. C. 49; Higgins v. P. 1 Han, 307; Lacy v. 8. 45 Ala. 80; Smith v. 8. 47 Ala. 540; Woodin v. P. 1 Par. Cr. 464; S. v. Peter, 8 Jones, N.C.19; S.v, Niles, 47 Vt. 82; Topolanck v. S. 40 Tex. 160; Baccio v. P. 41 N.Y. 265; Conkey v. P.1 Abb. Ap. 418; Maillet v. P. 42 Mich. 262; S. v. Wilson, 91 Mo. 410; S. v. Wit- ten, 100 Mo. 525; S. v. Reid, 89 Minn. 277. 8 Baccio c. P. 41 N. Y. 265; Rex v. Clarke, supra; Reg. v. Walker, 2 Moody & R. 212; Brogy «. C. 10 Grat. 722; Stephen v. S. 11 Ga. 225; Reg. v. Megson, 9 Car. & P. 420; Reg. v. Alexander, 2 Crawf. & Dix C. C. 126; Reg. v. Maclean, 2 Crawf, & Dix C. C. 350; P. v. McGee, 1 Denio, 19; Reg. v. Osborne, Car. & M. 622; Reg. v. Stroner, 1 Car. & K. 650; S, v. Knapp, supra; Lacy v. S. 45 Ala. 80; 8S. v. Jones, 61 Mo. 232; Pefferling v. S. 40 Tex. 486; Thompson v. 8, 38 Ind. 39; 440 S. v. Richards, 33 Towa, 420; S. v. Shettle- worth, 18 Minn. 209; S. v. Ivins, 7 Vroom, 233; Ellis v. S. 25 Fla. 702; S. v. Camp- bell, 20 Nev. 122; S. v. Robertson, 38 La. An. 618, 58 Am. R. 201; Griffin v. S. 76 Ala. 29; Parker v. S. 67 Md. 329, 1 Am. St. 387; P. v. Mayes, 66 Cal. 597, 56 Am. R. 126; P. v. Clemons, 37 Hun, 580. Contra, Reg. v. Wood, 14 Cox C. C. 46. 4 Reg. v. Walker, 2 Moody & R. 212; S. v. Jones, 61 Mo. 232; Scott v. S. 48 Ala. 420, 421; S. v. Clark, 69 Iowa, 294; S.v. Langford, 45 La. An, 1177; Reg. v. Little, 15 Cox C. C. 319. : 5 S.v. Peter, 14 La, An. 521; McCombs v. 8. 8 Ohio St. -643; Laughlin v. S. 18 Ohio, 99, 51 Am. D. 444; Johnson v. S. 17 Ohio, 593; Burt v. S. 23 Ohio St. 394, 401; Phillips v. S. 9 Humph. 246, 49 Am. D. 709; S. v. De Wolf, 8 Conn. 93, 100, 20 Am. D. 90; S. v. Kinney, 44 Conn. 153, 157, 26 Am. R. 486. And see Pleasant v. §.15 Ark. 624. Particulars after Evi- dence attacked. — Besides this, as a dis- tinct doctrine, when the defendant has attacked the evidence of the complaining witness, some courts, I cannot say how extensively, permit the prosecuting officer then to prove that she gave in her early disclosures the same details which she has narrated as a witness. Scott v. 8. 48 Ala. 420, 421; S. v. Jones, 61 Mo. 232; S. v. Laxton, 78 N. C. 564; Barnett v. 8. 83 Ala. 40. See Smith ». 8, 51 Wis. 615, 37 Am. R. 845; 8S. v. Byrne, 47 Conn. 465. CHAP. LII.] RAPE. § 965 not independent proof. If, therefore, the injured female does not appear as a witness, this evidence cannot be given.2. But what is of the res geste, as stated in the opening of this section, is com- petent whether she testifies or not.? § 964. 1. Truth and Veracity. — This witness, like any other, may be impeached by evidence of a bad reputation for truth and veracity ;* in response to which, testimony to her good character is permissible And — 2. Character otherwise. — There are cases, perhaps exceptional in their circumstances, wherein the sustaining evidence of her good character has been received when she has not been attacked ;® but the general and better doctrine admits it only to repel an attack.’ ' § 965. Bad Reputation for Chastity. — Though, in ordinary cases, it is not allowable to prove that an adverse female witness is unchaste,’ — and the ravishment of a prostitute is, in law, rape, the same as of any other woman,’ — still one on trial for this crime may bring forward, in his defence, the bad reputation for chastity —not particular acts —of the complaining witness, or, by the better opinion, the fact of her being a common prostitute.° This evidence is sometimes regarded as properly impairing her credi- bility, — a doubtful proposition, and in some of the cases denied. But it helps the probabilities that the connection was voluntary on her part, and that his manifestations of apparent force came rather from his presuming her consent than from a purpose to 1 Cases in the last note; also P. v. McGee, 1 Denio, 19; Thompson ». S. 38 Ind. 39, 40; S. v. Niles, 47 Vt. 82. 2 Weldon v. 8. 32 Ind. 81; Thompson v. 8. 38 Ind. 39; Smith v. S. 41 Tex. 352. 8 See Pefferling v. S. 40 Tex. 486; Lacy v. S. 45 Ala. 80; Rex v. Cockburn, 3 Cox C.C. 543. Husband. — As to what is said by the hushand of the ravished woman, see McCombs v. 8. 8 Ohio St. 643; Conkey v. P. 1 Abb. Ap. 418, 5 Par. Cr. 31; Woodin v. P. | Par. Cr. 464. 41 Greenl. Ev. § 461; Pratt ». S. 19 Ohio St. 277; Reg. v. Tissington, 1 Cox C. C. 48. 5 1 Greenl. Ev. § 469; Rex ». Clarke, 2 Stark. 241. 6 Turney v. S. 8 Sm. & M. 104, 116, 117, 47 Am. D. 74;8.v. De Wolf, 8 Conn, 93, 20 Am. D. 90. 7 P.v. Hulse, 3 Hill, N. Y. 309. 8 C. v. Churchill, 11 Met..538, 45 Am. D. 229; Smithwick v. Evans, 24 Ga. 461; 8. v, Randolph, 24 Conn. 363; Craft v. S. 3 Kan. 450. ® New Crim. Law, II. § 1119 (1). 0 P. v. McLean, 71 Mich. 309, 15 Am. St. 263; McQuirk v. S. 84 Ala. 435, 5 Am. St. 381; O’Blenis v. S. 18 Vroom, 279; S. v. Daniel, 87 N.C. 507; Wilson v. 8. 17 Tex. Ap. 525; Favors v. §. 20 Tex. Ap. 155; S. v. Reed, 41 La. An. 581; S. »v. Campbell, 20 Nev. 122; C. v. Harris, 131 Mass. 836; Shartzer v. S. 63 Md. 149, 52 Am. R. 501; Rice v. S, 35 Fla, 236; S.v. Turner, 1 Houst. Crim. 76. See S. v. Cook, 65 Iowa, 500; S. v. Freeman, 100 N.C. 429; Fry v. C. 82 Va. 334. 441 § 966 SPECIFIC OFFENCES, AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. ravish her Some of the cases limit this evidence to her charac- ‘ter or reputation prior to the time of the alleged rape, in accord- ance with a part of the reasons on which it is received;? but other reasons suggest no such limitation, and other of the cases make none. The latter is believed to be the better doctrine? § 966. 1. If to the Defendant—the woman has voluntarily surrendered her person on a previous occasion, this, even more than her being a common prostitute, indicates her willingness and his presuming on it; therefore he may show it in his defence,‘ or call it out from her on cross-examination.2 But — 2. With Other Men, — in individual instances, he cannot by the better opinion prove that she has been unchaste, to impair her testimony, or for any other purpose. It would not show her readiness to yield to him, or afford him reason to presume it.é Still, by the practice of most courts,’ refused by some,’ the lati- tude of cross-examination permits her to be asked therein a ques- ‘tion of this sort; then, if she makes denial of the connection, it binds the defendant who cannot prove it false. 1 Reg. v. Clay, 5 Cox C. C. 146; Woods v. P. 55 N. Y. 515, 14 Am. R. 309; Brennan v. P. 7 Hun, 171; S. v. Forshner, 43 N. H. 89; Dorsey v. S. 1 Tex. Ap. 33; Rogers v. S. 1 Tex. Ap. 187; C. v. Me- TDonald, 110 Mass. 405, 406; *Leont v. 8. 44 Ala. 110; Conkey e. P. 5 Par. Cr. 31, 86;S. 0. Reed, 39 Vt. 417, 419,94 Am. D. 337; C. v. Kendall, 113 Mass. 210, 18 Am. R. 469; Rex v. Clarke, 2 Stark. 241, 244; Reg. v. ‘Tissington, 1 Cox C. C. 48; Mé- Combs v. S. 8 Ohio St. 643; Camp ». 8.3 Kelly, 417; 8. v. Henry, 5 Jones, N.C. 65; ‘SB. Jefferson, 6 Ire. 305; Pleasant r. Ss. 15 Ark. 624; Rex v. Hodgson, Russ. & Ry. 211; Reg. v. McClure, 2 Crawf. & Dix C. C. 244; McDermott v. 8.13 Ohio St. 332, 82 Am, 1D, #44, See Richie, 8.58 Ind. 355. Bad character in the parents of the ravished woman is not admissible, S. v. Anderson, 19 Mo. 241. 2 Pratt v. S. 19 Ohio St. 277; 8. v. Forshner, 43 N. H. 89, 80 Am, D, 132; ‘S. v. Ward, 73 Towa, 532. 3 Reg. v. Clay, 5 Cox C.C. 146, and cases there referred to; namely, Rex ». ‘Barker, 3 Car. & P. 589; Rex v, Clarke, 2 Stark. 241; Rex v. Martin, 6 Car. & P. 562. Still these cases are not very strong to the doctrine of the text. 442 48. v. Jefferson, 6 Ire. 305; S. v. Forshner, 43 N. H. 89; P. rv. Abbot, 19 Wend. 192; Woods v. P. 55 N. Y. 515, 517, 14 Am. R. 309; S.'v. Reed, 39 Vt. 417, 419, 94 Am. D. 387. 5 Rex v. Martin, 6 Car. & P. 562; Pleasant v. S. 15 Ark. 624, 6 Cases cited ante, § 965; C. v. Regan, 105 Mass. 593; Dorsey v. S. 1 Tex. Ap. 33; Rogers v. 8. 1 Tex. Ap. 187; Woods _P, supra, and 1 Thomp. & C. 610; Me- (Combs v. §. 8 Ohio St. 643; McDermott S. 13 Ohio St. 332, 334, 82 Am. D. 444; Hex. Hodgson, Russ. & Ry. 211; S. v. Forshner, 48 N. H. 89, 80 Am. D. 132; P. ». Benson, 6 Cal. 221, 65 Am. D. 506. See Shirwin v. P. 69 Ill. 55; Strang v. P. 24 Mich. 1. Contra, Benstine v. S. 2 Lea, 169, 31 Am. R. 593; Titus v. S. 7 Bax. 132. 7 P. v. Abbot, supra; S. v. Johnson, 28 Vt. 512; S. v. Murray, 63 N. C, 31; Reg, v. ‘Mercer, 6 Jur. 243; Reg. v. Cockroft, ll Cox C.C. 410; S, v. Reed, 39 Vt. 417. See C. »v. McDonald, 110 Mass. 405, 406. 8 Pleasant v. S. supra; S. v. Knapp, 45 N. H. 148, ® Reg. v. Cockroft, supra; Reg. v. Holmes, Law Rep. 1 C. C. 334, 12 Cox CHAP. LIL] RAPE, § 969 '§ 967. 1. Added to the Foregoing, —this ‘witness may be sus- tained or impeached by the same methods as others; as, — 2. By her Declarations, — contrary to her oath. And — 8. Other — strengthening or impairing evidence may, within the general rules, be given? So — 4, To the Entire Fact — she may be questioned.3 / § 968. 1. Court or Jury.— The court admits and rejects the testimony ot and relating to the prosecuting witness, and instructs the jury on what it receives, the same in these cases as in others. It advises and cautions them concerning the evidence and the peculiarities of the particular question after the general practice in criminal trials4 But there is no rule of law limiting their powers; and they are to believe her or not, or otherwise allow such weight to her testimony, as their judgments, in the particular instance and circumstances, dictate.® Thus-—- 2. On the Unsupported Testimony — even ofa strumpet they can convict.6 And the court, if dissatisfied with the verdict, can set it aside.” girl below ten years of age.8 § 969. Other Evidence : — Or they may convict on the uncorroborated testimony of a Outcries—from the ravished woman, or the fact that there were C. C. 137; Reg. v. Dean, 6 Cox C: C. 23; P. v. Jackson, 3 Par. Cr. 391. But see Reg. v. Robins, 2 Moody & R. 512. ‘1 Shirwin v. P. 69 Ill. 55; Kennedy ». P. 44 Ill. 283; Reg. v. Dean, 6 Cox C. C. 23; S. v. Curtis, 77 Mo. 267. 2 Pleasant v. S. 13 Ark. 360; P. v. Ardaga, 51 Cal. 371; S. v. Comstock, 46 —~—Towa, 265; S. v, Otey, 7 Kan. 69; Me- Farland v. S. 24 Ohio St. 329; S. »v. Jérome, 33 Conn. 265; S.-v. Patrick, 107 Mo. 147; Lawson v. 8.17 Tex. Ap. 292; S. v. Murphy, 118 Mo. 7; S. v. Starnes, 94 N. C. 973; Hall v. P. 47 Mich. 636; P. o. Evans, 72 Mich. 367; Gazley v.S. 17 Tex. Ap. 267; Fager v. S. 22 Neb. 332. 8 P. v. Ardaga, supra; Woodin v. P. 1 Par. Cr. 464; Rogers‘v. P. 34 Mich. 345; Coates v. S. 2 Tex. Ap. 16; S. v. Hodges, Phillips, N. C. 231; P. v. Manahan, 32 Gal, 68; Hardtke v. S. 67 Wis. 552;-S. v. Porter, 57 Iowa, 691; Bessette v. S. 101 Ind. 85; S.'v. Hatfield, 72 Mo. 518; P. wv. Flynn, 96 Mich. 276; S. v. Hartnett, 75 Mo. 251. 4 Reynolds v. S. 27 Neb. 90, 20 Am. St. 659. 5 1 Hale P. C. 633; Goss. v. S. 40 Tex. 520; Hogan »v. S. 46 Missis. 274; Jenkins v. §.1 Tex. Ap. 846; Leoni 'v. S. 44 Ala, 110; Innis v. S: 42 Ga. 473; P. v. Abbot, 19 Wend. 192; S. v. Cross, 12 Iowa, 66; ‘S$. v. Mylor, 46 Iowa, 192; S. ». Hager- man, 47 Iowa, 151; S. v. McLaughlin, 44 Towa, 82; Wade v. 8. 50 Ala. 164. Per- haps some of these cases leave a little less discretion to the jury than is allowed by my text; but, on the whole, J deem the text sustained by the authorities, as well as by the juridical reason of ‘the thing. And compare with Vol. I. § 1169, 1170. 6 Barnett v. S. 83 Ala. 40; S. v. Dusen- berry, 112 Mo. 277; Boddie v. S, 52 Ala. 395, 398. ‘7 Topolanck v. S. 40 Tex. 160. And see P. v. Ardaga, 51 Cal. 371; Whitney v. S. 35 Ind. 503. * S. v. Lattin, 29 Conn. 389; Anony- mous, 1 Russ. Crimes, 3d Eng. ed. 696 and note. 443 § 971 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. none, considered with her surroundings, and her probable prompt- ings to make or withhold them, are circumstances to be taken into the account as of just and great weight. § 970. 1. That the Defendant was predisposed — to commit this sort of offence, or his confessions or the fact of having ravished other women, cannot be shown against him.2_ Even on a trial for assault with intent to commit a rape, an English judge rejected evidence that, on a previous occasion, the defendant had taken liberties with the same woman.? The contrary to this, believed to be the better law, has been adjudged with us. Still, prior conduct amounting only to a solicitation to the woman will perhaps ordinarily be inadmissible; as not indicating the purpose to take the further step, and force her.§ Where successive as- saults are virtually one continuing transaction, all have been ruled, in England, to be receivable.® But — 2. A Prior Purpose —to ravish the same woman, or perhaps any other, as indicated by threats or other evidence, may be shown! 8. The Relative Strength — of the man and woman may be taken into the account.® 4, Harsh Treatment — of the female by the defendant, in whose family she was a servant, has been held inadmissible.® § 971. 1. Conception was formerly supposed to rebut the charge of rape, as showing the woman’s consent. “ But it is now admitted on all hands that such an opinion has no sort of founda- tion either in reason or law.” 1° 2. Her Declarations in Travail, —if she conceived, are not com- petent against her ravisher." 1 1 Hale, P. C. 633; S. v. Cone, 1 Jones, N. C. 18; S. v. Cross, 12 Iowa, 66, 79 Am. D. 519; Barney ec. P. 22 Ill. 160; P. v. Abbot, 19 Wend. 192, 194; Rogers v. S. 1 Tex. Ap. 187; Whitney v. 8. 35 Ind. 503; Mings v. C. 85 Va. 638; Eyler v. 8. 71 Ind. 49; Lawson v. 8.17 Tex. Ap. 292; S. v. Hagerman, 47 Iowa, 151; Eberhart vu, §. 134 Ind. 651; P. vw. Flynn, 96 Mich. 276. And see Jenkins v. S. 1 Tex. Ap. 346. 2 Rex v. Cole, 1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 881; S. v. Walters, 45 Iowa, 389; P. v, Bowen, 49 Cal. 654. And see Sutton v. Johnson, 62 Ill. 209. See, as to this sort of question, Stat. Crimes, § 679-684. 8 Rex v. Lloyd, 7 Car. & P, 318. 444 But — 4 Williams v. S.8 Humph. 585; S. v. Walters, 45 Iowa, 889; S. v. Patrick, 107 Mo.147. See S.v. Neely, 74 N. C. 425, 21 Am. R. 496. 5 Thompson v. §. 43 Tex. 583. 8 Reg. v. Rearden, 4 Fost. & F. 76. 7 Wood v. 8. 28 Tex. Ap. 61; Barnes v. S. 88 Ala. 204,16 Am. St. 48; Massey v. 8. 31 Tex. Cr. 371; Sharp v. S. 15 Tex. Ap. 171. 8 §. v. Knapp, 45 N. H. 148; Jenkins». S. 1 Tex. Ap. 346. ® Pp. v, Tyler, 36 Cal. 522. 10 1 East P. C. 445; Young v. Johnson, 123 N. Y. 226. : 11 §, v. Hussey, 7 Iowa, 409 CHAP. LII.] RAPE. § 975 § 972. 1. Any Testimony, — admissible on general principles, may be brought forward in these cases;! for example, stains on clothing? 2. Variance.— On a charge of rape by force the evidence may be that it was by threats. § 973. Experts. — A physician cannot be asked whether a ravishment could have been effected in a particular way, if, in the answer, is involved no professional knowledge. Still, there is a wide range for expert evidence in these cases.5 § 974. The Duty of the Court — to instruct the jury, and theirs to judge of the evidence, already explained as to the testimony of the complaining woman,® extends also to the entire case.” III. Questions of Practice. § 975. 1. In Two Counts,—the indictment may charge in the one a rape and in the other an assault with intent to commit rape.® ' 2. The Charge to the Jury — is sufficiently explained in the first volume.? venient.10 But a reference to a few cases of rape may be con- 3. Verdict.— Whether, on a count for rape, there can be a verdict for an attempt to commit it, or an assault with intent, 1 Champ v. C. 2 Met. Ky. 17, 74 Am. D. 388 ; McMath v. 8. 55 Ga. 303 ; Nugent v. S. 18 Ala. 521; Brauer v. S. 25 Wis. 413; Turney v. S. 8 Sm. & M. 104,47 Am. D. 74; S. v. Shields, 45 Conn. 256; Mills vy. §. 52 Ind. 187; Huber v. S. 126 Ind. 185; S. v. Taylor, 118 Mo. 153;'P. »v. Flynn, 96 Mich, 276; Lander v. P. 104 Ill. 248; Fitzgerald v. S. 20 Tex. Ap. 281; S. v. Blunt, 59 Towa, 468; Cotton v. S, 87 Ala. 75; Schnicker v. P. 88 N. Y. 192; Coleman v. C. 84 Va. 1; Proper v. 8. 85 Wis. 615; S. v. Spidle, 42 Kan. 441; S. v. Patrick, 107 Mo. 147; Lincecum v. 8. 29 Tex. Ap. 328. 2S, v. Montgomery, 79 Iowa, 737; S. v. Murphy, 118 Mo. 7. 8 Bass v. S. 16 Tex. Ap. 62; Cornelius v. 8.13 Tex. Ap. 849. See P. v, Snyder, 75 Cal. 323. 4 Cook v. S. 4 Zab. 843; Woodin ». P. 1 Par. Cr. 464. See Noonan v. 8. 55 Wis. 258; P. v. Royal, 53 Cal. 62. 5 Young v. Johnson, 123 N. Y. 226; Davis v. S. 42 Tex. 226; P. v. Glover, 71 Mich. 303; Myers v. S. 84 Ala. 11; Fay v. Swan, 44 Mich. 544. 8 Ante, § 968. 7 Brown v. P. 36 Mich. 203; S. v. Dancy, 78 N.C. 4387; Cato v. S. 9 Fla. 163; Dawson v. 8. 29 Ark. 116; Garrison v. P. 6 Neb. 274; Turner v. P. 33 Mich. 363. 8 P. uv. Tyler, 35 Cal. 553. See Vol. I. § 445, 446; Stevens v. S. 66 Md. 202. 9 Vol. I. § 975 c-982 a. ‘10 §. v. Johnson, 91 Mo. 439: Carney v. 8.118 Ind.525; McQuirk v. S. 84 Ala, 435, 5 Am. St. 881; Pratt v. S. 51 Ark. 167; 8S. v. Jay, 57 Iowa, 164; Huston v. P. 121 Ill. 497; S. v. Casford, 76 Towa, 330; Bethel v. C. 80 Ky. 526; Reynolds v. 8. 27 Neb. 90, 20 Am. St. 659; Hannon ». S. 70 Wis, 448; S. v. Nash, 109 N. C. 824; Giles v. S. 83 Ga. 367; Anderson v. S. 104 Ind. 467 ; Jones v. S. 10 Tex. Ap. 552. 445 § 979 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL. or a simple assault, will depend on principles sufficiently ex- plained in other connections, The result differs in our States.! 4, Sentence.— On two counts, one for rape and the other for assault with intent, a. sentence for.“ the offence in the indictment charged” was held to be for the rape only, the inferior accusation, being merged in the. superior? IV., Attempts. § 976. 1. Already—we have considered the. procedure in general for attempt and assault with intent.3 2. The Indictment,!—if on a statute, must fully cover the. statutory terms. Thus, — n 3. Age. — Where, by the statute, the age of the female is a material element, it must be averred.§ : § 977. “ Feloniously ” —.may be required; but, this question, is within explanations in the first volume.” : § 978. The Complaining Witness — may be impeached and.con-. firmed the same: as in actual rape.® § 979. 1. The Proofs—should cover the entire charge.? Thus, — 2, The Intent to Ravish,— not simply to have an immoral con- nection, but to bring it about.if necessary by the force which. con-. stitutes rape, being a necessary 1 §. vu. Johnston, 76 N. C. 209; Cato v. S. 9 Fla. 163; Reg. v. Neale, 1 Car. & K. 591; S. v. McLaughlin, 44 Iowa, 82; Reg. v. Nicholls, 2 Cox C. C. 182; Fox v. 8. 34 Ohio St. 377; Campbell v. P. 34 Mich. 351; Richardson v. §. 54 Ala. 158; Richie v. S: 58 Ind. 355. And see further of the verdict, C. v. Fischblatt, 4 Met. 354; Rex v. Powell, 2 B. & Ad. 75; Barrett v. S. 1 Wis. 175; Weatherford v. C. 10 Bush, 196. 2 Cook v. S. 4 Zab. 843. As to Gon- tinuances, — see Reg. v, Guttridge, 9 Car. & P. 228. Former Jeopardy,—P. v. Saunders, 4 Par. Cr. 196; Rex v. Parry, 7, Car. & P. 836. 8 Ante, § 63-64, 67, 71 et: seq., and particularly 81-83. 4 For forms, see Dir. & F. § 910-913; P. v. Girr, 53 Cal, 629. 5 Ante, § 83; Snullivant v. §. 3 Eng. 400; S. x. Martin, 3 Dév. 329; S. v. Wells, 31 Conn, 210; C. v. Thompson,.116 Mass. 446 element in the law of attempt, 346; Greer v. S: 50 Ind. 267; 19 Am. R.. 709; S. v. Jaeger, 66 Mo. 173; Witherby, v. S, 39 Ala. 702; P. v. O'Neil, 48-Cal., 257; S. v. Little, 37 Mo. 624; P. v. Brown,. 47 Cal..447; Curry «. S.4 Tex. Ap. 5745, Green v. 8. 23 Missis. 509 ; P. v. McDonald, 9 Mich. 150; Dillard v. S.3 Heisk. 260;, Reg. v. Watkins, Car. & M. 264 ; Burke v, 8. 5 Tex. Ap. 74; Joice v. S. 53 Ga. 50. 6 Reg. v. Martin, 9 Car. & P. 215. 7 Vol. I. § 534-536; Nevills v. S.. 7 Coldw. 78; Dillard v. S. 3 Heisk. 260. 8 C. v. Kendall, 113: Mass. 210, 18 Am, R. 469; Reg. v. Walker, 2 Moody & R. 212; Rex »v, Clarke, 2 Stark. 241. Many of the cases cited to. the previous discus; sions of these questions are for the at- tempt. ® Doyle v. 8. 5 Tex. Ap. 442; C. % Fitzgerald, 123 Mass. 408; Barr v. P. 118 Il. 471; Joice v, S, 53 Ga. 50. CHAP., LIL] RAPE, § 979. must be proved to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt ;1 as, it is not enough simply that the man chased the woman who was alone in a private place ;? or that he threw her down and choked her, then ran away.? But while the intent to use force is necessary, the actual use of all that is required in rape is not, and while the woman must not appear to have con- sented she need not have made all the resistance essential in rape.* 1 Johnson v. S. 63 Ga. 355; Krum ». 4 C. v. Merrill, 14 Gray, 415, 77 Am. D. S. 19 Neb. 728; Shields v. S. 32 Tex. Cr. 336; Rex v. Lloyd, 7 Car. & P. 318; Gar- 498; Jones v. S. 90 Ala. 628, 24 Am. St. rison v. P. 6 Neb. 274; S. v. Montgomery, 850; Mitchell v. S. 33 Tex, Cr. 575; Miles. 63 Mo. 296; Dibrell v. S. 3 Tex. Ap. 456; v. 8. 98 Ga. 117, 44 Am. St. 140. P. v. Brown, 47 Cal. 447; S. v. Brown, 54 2 §. v. Donovan, 61 Iowa, 369. Kan. 71. 8. Jones v, §. 18 Tex. Ap. 485, For REAL ESTATE, see Trespass to Lanps, Dir. & F. § 990-995. 447 § 980 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XIL CHAPTER LIII. RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS. § 979a. Introduction. 980. Procedure for Accessorial Offence. 981-988. Indictment for Substantive Offence. 988 a-991 a. The Evidence. Consult,—for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, TI. § 1187-1142a. For forms, with connected questions, Dir. & F. § 915-918. And for incidental questions, see the indexes to this series of books. § 979 a. 1. Subject and how treated. — This offence, which was a light one by the ancient common law,! is in all our States punishable heavily under statutes in differing terms; and the prosecution with us is under them. So that while the practi- tioner cannot avoid consulting carefully the enactments and decisions of his own State, this chapter, meant for use in all the States, will be limited chiefly to leading doctrines, and the citation of the authorities. 2. How Chapter divided.— We shall consider, I. The Pro- cedure for the Accessorial Offence; II. The Indictment for the Substantive Offence; III. The Evidence. I. The Procedure for the Accessorial Offence. § 980. 1. Receiver’s Relation to Thief. — Under the ancient common law, the receiving of stolen goods was only a minor misdemeanor. But the statutes, in a large part of our States, permit the prosecuting power to treat the receiver, if it chooses, as an accessory after the fact to the thief? 2. How the Indictment — and the rest of the procedure against such accessory should be we have already seen.2 For further as to the allegations and various connected questions, the reader may consult the places cited in the note.* 1 New Crim. Law, II. § 1187 (1). 8 Ante, § 2, 5, 7-15. 2 New Crim. Law, I. § 699, 700. 4 Dir. & F. § 915-918; Bieber v. S. 45 448 CHAP. LIII.] RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS. § 982 II. The Indictment for the Substantive Offence. § 981. 1. Most of the Statutes —either permit or require this offence to be treated as substantive,! not accessorial.? 2. Joinder of Counts. —If the accessorial and substantive re- ceiving are either both felony or both misdemeanor,’ counts laying a particular receiving as accessorial and other counts laying it as substantive, may be joined;* and doubtless in some of the States this is permissible where the one is felony and the other misdemeanor.’ Or, both being thus either felony or mis- demeanor, the indictment may charge the defendant in one count with the larceny of the thing, and in another with having received it knowing it to be stolen.§ 8. The Indictment —is given in “ Directions and Forms.” * It must duly cover the statutory terms, and conform to the princi- ples about to be stated.8 Thus, — § 982. 1. Identifying Matter.— As in larceny,® so in receiving, Ga. 569; Jordan v. S. 56 Ga. 92; C. »v. Cohen, 120 Mass. 198; Rex v. Hyman, 2 Teach, 925, 2 East P. C. 782; Rex v. Walkley, 4 Car. & P. 132; S. v. Larkin, 49 N. H. 39; Rex v. Drinkwater, 1 Leach, 15, 2 East P. C. 770; Rex v. Baldwin, 3 Camp. 265, Russ. & Ry. 241, 2 Leach, 928, note; P. v. Hawkins, 34 Cal. 181; C. »v. Elisha, 3 Gray, 460; Reg. v. Walford, 8 Car. & P. 767; Reg. v. Casper, 2°Moody, 101, 9 Car. & P. 289; Rex v. Wheeler, 7 Car. & P. 170; Rex v. Austin, 7 Car. & P. 796; Reg. v. Ward, 2 Fost. & F.19; Reg. v. Martin, 1 Den. C. C. 898, 3 Cox C.C. 447, 2 Car. & K. 950; C. v. Adams, 7 Gray, 43; Reg. v. Frampton, 8 Cox C.C, 16; Rex v. Hartall, 7 Car. & P. 475; Redman v. S. 1 Blackf. 429; C. v. Mullen, 150 Mass. 394; P. v. Kraker, 72 Cal. 459, 1 Am. St. 65; Licette v. S. 75 Ga. 253. 1 New Crim. Law, I. § 696. 2 Tb. I, § 699, 700; Rex v. Pollard, 2 Ld. Raym. 1370. 8 Vol. I. § 444 et seq. 4 Rex v. Hartall, 7 Car. & P. 475; Rex v. Austin, 7 Car. & P. 796. 8 Vol. I. § 450 (1). 8 Vol. I. § 449 (7); Rex v. Galloway, 1 Moody, 234; S. v. Daubert, 42 Mo. 242; Reg. v. Sarsfield, 6 Cox C. C. 12; Reg. v. VOL. I1— 29 Beeton, 1 Den. C. C. 414, 2 Car. & K. 960, 8 Cox C. C. 451; S. v. Laque, 37 La. An. 853. 7 Dir. & F. § 915-918. 8 Jupitz v. P. 34 Ill. 516; Cohen »v. P. 5 Par. Cr. 330; Reg. v. Deer, Leigh & C. 240, 9 Cox C.C, 225; S. v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 845; P. v. Stein, 1 Par. Cr. 202; C. v. Lakeman, 5 Gray, 82; S. v. S. L. 2 Tyler, 249; Dyer v. C. 23 Pick. 402; Reg. v. Goldsmith, Law Rep. 2 C. C. 74, 12 Cox C. C. 479° Reg. v. Craddock, 2 Den. C. C. 31; O’Connell v. C. 7 Met. 460; Swaggerty v. 8. 9 Yerg. 338; S. vo. Counsil, Harper, 53; Huggins v. S. 41 Ala. 393; Reg. v. Wilson, 2 Moody, 52; Rex v. Baxter, 2 Leach, 578, 5 T. R. 83; S. v. Phelps, 65 N.C. 450; Sellers v. S. 49 Ala. 357; Kauf- man v. S. 49 Ind. 248; Nourse v. S. 2 Tex. Ap. 304; U.S. v. Montgomery, 3 Saw. 544; Keefer v.S. 4 Ind. 246; P. v. Montejo, 18 Cal. 38; 8. v. Hartleb, 35 La. An. 1180; S. v. Lane, 68 Iowa, 384; Holtz v. S. 30 Ohio St. 486; S. ». McLaughlin, 35 Kan. 650; S. v. Moultrie, 34 La. An. 489; Ed- wards v. S. 80 Ga. 127; P. v. Weldon, 111 N. Y. 569; Price v. S. 21 Grat. 846 ; Parch- man v. 8. 2 Tex. Ap. 228, 28 Am. R. 435. Compare the doctrine of the last two cases with ante, § 316. 9 Ante, § 699, 718. 449 § 985 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. the transaction is identified by the description of the stolen things, and their ownership ; namely, — 2. Description. —The thing stolen must be described in the same manner as in larceny.? 3. The Name of the Thief —is not identifying matter, so need not be alleged.2 But if it is, to avoid a variance it must be proved.? § 983. 1. The Owner’s Name — is essential in identification ; hence to be stated if known.! 2. From whom received. — Commonly, in England and in num- bers of our States, the indictment does not aver from whom. the stolen goods were received. Some of our American cases require it.6 This question belongs to a class upon which there may not unreasonably be differences of opinion,’ and perhaps it may pro- perly be influenced by the terms of the statute. § 984. The Time and Place of the Larceny — need be neither alleged nor proved? But the receiving, wherever the original stealing was, must be charged as in the county of the indictment? § 985. The Value, —if the punishment depends on it, must be stated ; otherwise, it need not be,!° larceny.?! 1 C. v. Campbell, 103 Mass. 436; Reg. v. Robinson, 4 Fost. & F. 43; Anony- mous, 1 Crawf. & Dix, C. C. 192; Rex v. Cowell, 2 East P. C. 617; 8S. «. Horan, Phillips, N.C. 571; P. v. Wiley, 3 Hill, N. Y. 194; 8. v. Gerrish, 78 Me. 20. 2 C. v. Slate, 11 Gray, 60; Rex v. Jer- vis, 6 Car. & P. 156; S. v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 845; Swaggerty v. 8.9 Yerg. 358; S. v. Hazard, 2 R. I. 474, 60 Am. D. 96; P. v. Caswell, 21 Wend. 86; S. v. Smith, 37 Mo. 58; Schriedley v. S. 23 Ohio St. 130; C. »v, Hogan, 121 Mass. 373; S. v. Laque, 37. La. An. 853. And see Rex v. Thomas, 2 East P. C. 781; Rex v. Baxter, 2 East P. C. 781, 5 T. R. 83, 2 Leach, 578. 8 C, v. King, 9 Cush. 284; Elsworthy’s Case, 1 Lewin, 117; Rex v. Woolford, 1 Moody & R. 384. Contra, by the majority of the court in S. v. Coppenburg, 2 Strob. 273. See Rex v. Messingham, 1 Moody, 257; 8. v. Teideman, 4 Strob. 300. 4. v. McAloon, 40 Me. 133; S. », Williams, 2 Strob. 229; C. v. Finn, 108 Mass. 446; C. v. Maguire, 108 Mass, 469; C, v. Bowers, 3 Brews. 350; Cohen v. P. 5 Par. Cr. 8380; Miller v, P. 13 Colo. 166. 450 — the rule being the same as in 5 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 991; Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 269, 19th ed. 472; Archb. New Crim. Pro. 474; Jupitz v. P. 34 Tll. 516; Cohen v. P. 5 Par. Cr. 330; S. v, Murphy, 6 Ala. 845; C. v. Lakeman, 5 Gray, 82; Reg. v. Goldsmith, Law Rep. 2 C. C. 74. ® S. v. Ives, 13 Ire. 338; S. v. Beatty, Phillips, N. C. 52; S. v. Perkins, 45 Tex. 10. And see S. v. Edwards, 36 Mo. 394; S. v. Teideman, 4 Strob. 300; U.S. v. De Bare, 6 Bis. 358. 7 Compare with Stat. Crimes, § 1037- 1040; Foster v. S. 106 Ind. 272. 5 Holford v. S. 2 Blackf. 103; S. v. Murphy, 6 Ala. 845; Rex v. Stott, 2 East P. C. 780; C. v. Sullivan, 136 Mass. 170; P. ». Smith, 94 Mich. 644; P. v. Goldberg, 89 Mich. 545. ® Allison v. C. 88 Ky. 254; Licette v. S. 75 Ga. 253. 10 Sawyer ». P. 3 Gilman, 53; S. v. Wat- son, 3 R. I. 114; O’Connell «. C. 7 Met. 460; P. v. Rice, 73 Cal. 220. See Eng- ster v. 8. 11 Neb. 539. ll Ante, § 713. CHAP. LIII. | RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS. § 989 § 986. Guilty Knowledge — is the gist of the offence, so it must be averred and proved.! And where, by statute, the offence consists of receiving the goods “ knowing the same to be stolen, with intent to defraud the owner,” this fraudulent intent must also be alleged? § 987. Where Goods of Different Owners —are received in the one transaction, all may be charged in one count; the rule in larceny applying? § 988. 1. If Two Persons, —in a single count, are charged, not under a separaliter,t with receiving stolen goods, one may be con- victed and the other acquitted, but not both convicted unless the receiving was joint.6 And after evidence of a receiving by one, if that tendered as to the other relates to a different transaction, counsel should object, and the court will either exclude it or com- pel the prosecutor to elect on which transaction, or against which defendant, he will ask for a verdict. convicted.” For one, not both, may be Or judgment may be given against the one who received first in the order of time.® 2. On a Charge of Theft, there can be no conviction for re- ceiving.® of larceny.10 Nor on a charge of receiving can there be a conviction Ill. The Evidence. § 988a. Witnesses.— The owner of the stolen goods," the thief,’ and the like,® are competent against the receiver. § 989. Possession —of the goods may, as in larceny, and under 1 Rex v. Kernon, 2 Russ. Crimes, 3d Eng. ed. 251; Reg. v. Larkin, Dears. 365, 26 Eng. L. & Eq. 572. 2 Pelts v. S. 3 Blackf. 28. And see Hurell v. S. 5 Humph. 68. 3S. v. Nelson, 29 Me. 329. * Vol. I. § 473-476. 5 C. v. Slate, 11 Gray, 60; S. v. Smith, 37 Mo. 58. The like rule prevails in a civil action for a tort. Nicoll v. Glennie, 1M. G&S, 588. ® Vol. I. § 1037, note; Rex v. Mes- singham, 1 Moody, 257. It is now other- wise in England by statute. Reg. v. Reardon, Law Rep. 1 C. C. 31, 32, 33; 8. c. nom. Reg. v. Rearden, 10 Cox C. C. 241. 7 Rex v. Messingham, supra; Rex v. Dann, 1 Moody, 424; Reg. v. Matthews, 1 Den. C. C. 596, 4 Cox C, C. 214; Reg. v. Hayes, 2 Moody & R. 155, 156. 8 Reg. v. Dovey, 2 Den. C. C. 86, 4 Cox C. C. 428, 2 Eng. L. & Eq. 532; Reg. v. Matthews, 1 Den. C.C. 596; Reg x. Dring, Dears. & B. 329. Husband and Wife.— How, where husband and wife are thus jointly charged, see Rex v. Archer, 1 Moody, 143. 9 Brown v. S. 15 Tex. Ap. 581; Chand- ler v. 8.15 Tex. Ap. 587. But see Vin- cent v.8.1C Tex Ap. 330. 0 S. v. Honig, 9 Mo. Ap. 298. 4. Gassenheimer »v. S. 52 Ala. 313. 12 Rex v. Haslam, 1 Leach, 418, 2 East P. C. 782; 8. v. Coppenburg, 2 Strob. 2738. 18 C, v. Savory, 10 Cush. 535; Redman v. 8.1 Blacké. 429. 1 Ante, § 739-747; Territory v. Doyle, 7 Mont, 24. 451 § 991a SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. the like rules and with the like effect, be evidence against the re- ceiver.1 But the proper accompanying proofs must appear, or it will amount to nothing? So— § 990, Other Receivings— may, as evidence of guilty knowl- edge, be shown against the defendant, within the rules? familiar in this class of questions. They are not in all circumstances admissible.® The cases on this question seem not entirely har- monious, but its further consideration may be remitted to the elucidations in the previous volume.® § 991. Guilty Knowledge —is an important element in these cases, and it may be shown by various other proofs.’ Competent, for example, are the evil reputation of the person from whom the goods were received,’ the purchase or sale of them by the de- fendant for less than their value, his failure to make reasonable explanations,” his concealing of them,” and the like. § 991 a. Ownership — should be proved as laid.” 1 Reg. v. Deer, Leigh & C. 240; Reg. v. Matthews, 1 Den. C. C. 596, 601, 4 Cox C. C. 214; Wills v. P. 3 Par. Cr. 473; Reg. v. Hobson, Dears. 400, 6 Cox C. C. 410, 33 Eng. L. & Eq. 525; Adams v. 8. 52 Ala. 379; S. v. Turner, 19 Iowa, 144; Reg. v. Laugher, 2 Car. & K. 225; S.v. Wallace, 47 Iowa, 660; O’Connell v. S. 55 Ga. 296; Reg. v. Nicholls, 1 Fost. & F. 51; Arispe v. 8. 26 Tex. Ap. 581; P. v. Connor, 68 Hun, 78; Friedberg v. P. 102 Ill. 160. 2 Durant v. P. 13 Mich. 351, 353 ; Reg. v. Langmead, Leigh & C. 427. 8 Vol. I. § 1120-1129. 4 Devoto v. C. 3 Met. Ky. 417; P. v. Rando, 3 Par. Cr. 335; Shriedley v. S. 23 Ohio St. 180; Coleman v. P. 58 N. Y. 555; Copperman v. P. 56 N. Y. 591; Coleman v. P. 55 N. Y. 81; C. v. Johnson, 183 Pa, 293; C. v. Charles, 14 Philad. 663; S. v. Jacob, 30S C. 131, 14 Am. St. 897. 5 Reg. v. Oddy, 2 Den. C. C. 264, 5 Cox C. C. 210, 4 Eng. L. & Eq. 572; McIntire c. 8. 10 Ind. 26. 6 And see Rex v. Davis, 6 Car. & P. 177; Rex v. Dunn, 1 Moody, 146, 150; Reg. v. Mansfield, Car. & M. 140. 7 Reg. v. Drage, 14 Cox C. C. 85; Jupitz v. P. 34 Ill. 516; C. v. Jenkins, 10 Gray, 485; S. v. Wallace, 47 Iowa, 660; Murio v. S. 31 Tex. Cr. 210. 8 C. v. Gazzolo, 128 Mass, 220, 25 Am. R. 79. 9 Andrews v. P. 60 Ill. 854; Wills v. P. 8 Par. Cr. 473. 1 Collins v. S. 83 Ala. 484, 73 Am. D. 426. 1. Adams v. S. 52 Ala. 379. 12 Q’Connell v. S. 55 Ga. 296; Brooks v. 8. 5 Bax. 607; Owen v. S. 52 Ind. 379. And see Reg. v. Sarsfield, 6 Cox C. C. 12. For RELIGIOUS WORSHIP, see Distursine Mrerrines. RESCUE, see Prison Breacu, &c. RESISTING OFFICER, see Osstructine JusTICE AND GOVERNMENT. 452 CHAP. LIV.] RIOT. § 993 CHAPTER LIV. RIOT, Consult, —for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, II. § 1143-1155. For the indictment and related questions, Dir. & F. § 924-930. And see the indexes to this series of books. Compare, in the various volumes, with Arrray, Rout, UNLAawFuL ASSEMBLY, PRIZE-FIGHTING. § 992. 1. Rout !—is practically merged in riot, and it will not require a separate consideration in this volume. 2. Indictment for Riot — To constitute this offence, there must be, 1. an assemblage, 2. consisting of three or more persons, and, 3. a disorderly act performed by them of a sort calculated to terrify others. The allegations may be that on, &c., at, &., the defendants, naming them, “together with divers other evil-dis- posed persons, to the number of ten and more, to the. jurors unknown,” “unlawfully, riotously, and routously did assemble and gather together, to disturb the peace,” &c.; proceeding to set forth the act performed: as, that they, then and there, in and upon X, “then and there being, unlawfully, riotously, and rout- ously did make an assault, and her the said X then and there unlawfully, riotously, and routously did beat, wound, and _ ill- treat,” &c.; concluding “to the great disturbance and terror,” &e8 And— 3. On a Statute, —the indictment must adequately pursue its terms.! § 993. .The Terrifying Act — will not always be an assault; but, whatever it is, in principle it should be specifically charged.® Yet — 1 New Crim. Law, IT. § 1183. 2 Tb, § 1143. 3 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 590, 591, 19th ed. 900; Dir. & F. § 929; S. v. Russell, 45 N. H. 83; C. v. Gibney, 2 Allen, 150; Rex v. Haigh, 31 How. St. Tr. 1092, 1093; Rex v. Penn, 6 How. St. Tr. 951, 954; Rex v. Sacheverell, 10 How. St. Tr. 30; S. v. Martin, 3 Murph. 533; S.v. Dillard, 5 Blackf. 365; Blackwell v. S. 30 Tex. Ap. 672; S. v. Sims, 16S. C. 486. 48. v. Kutter, 59 Ind. 572; Mackaboy v. C. 2 Va. Cas. 268; S. v. Berry, 21 Mo. 504; Reg. ». Pugh, 6 Mod. 140. 6 And see ante, §17; S. v. Dillard, 5 Blackf. 365; post, § 996; Reg. v. Soley, 11 Mod. 100, 2 Salk. 594, post, § 995; S. v. Sims, 16 S. C. 486. As to Convicting 453 § 996 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 994. Contrary Dictum — (“ Other Persons”).—In seeming contradiction to this, Lord Holt is reported to have said: “An indictment against J.S., for that he cum mudltis aliis, at H, in such a county, did commit a riot, is good.”! But if we assume the report to be correct, perhaps his meaning was simply that the indictment is good against one only, cwm multis alzis. § 995, Purpose of Assemblage. — Though, in law, people law- fully together may commit riot, still the assemblage must first become unlawful; that is, the riotous purpose must be enter- tained.2 Hence the unlawfulness of the assemblage must in some way appear in allegation;® and there is no better form for this than to charge it to be to disturb the peace,t—an ex- pression sufficiently definite to satisfy the law, yet not so narrow as to forebode a variance. Still any other setting out from which the unlawful purpose will appear to the judicial understanding will be legally adequate. It was once ‘held insufficient to say that the defendants unlawfully, riotously, and routously assem- bled themselves together, and hindered the members of a cor- poration from electing a bailiff; for an unlawful purpose, and an unlawful act committed, are essential in allegation.6 Hence, — § 996. The Facts,—as already assumed,’ should be set forth, and with reasonable fulness. In one case, “the charge is,” said the court, “that the defendants made a great noise and disturb- ance of the peace. This, the court considers, is too vague and uncertain. In criminal proceedings the charge should be distinct and positive; and the way and manner in which the great noise and disturbance of the peace was made, should have been stated.” § of Assault — on acharge of riot,see Price must state that the defendants unlawfully v. P. 9 Bradw. 36. It seems to me, on principle, that there can be a conviction for assault or not according as the assault is, or not, duly charged in the indictment. 1 Anonymous, Holt, 635, 3 Salk. 317. See post, § 998. 2 New Crim. Law, II. § 1150. 8 C. v. Gibney, 2 Allen, 150. * Ante, § 992 (2); S. v. Renton, 15 N. H. 169, 172. 5 McWaters v. S. 10 Misso. 167. In1 Russ. Crimes, 3d Eng. ed. 287, it is said the indictment ‘must show for what act the rioters assembled, that the court may judge whether it is unlawful or not. Reg. v. Gulston, 2 Ld. Raym. 1210. And it 454 assembled ; for a riot is a compound of- fence; there must be, not only an unlaw- ful act to be done, but an unlawful assem- bly of more than two persons. Reg. v. Soley, 11 Mod. 100, 2 Salk. 594.” And see Blackwell v. §. 30 Tex. Ap. 672. 6 Reg. v. Soley, supra. 7 Ante, § 993. 8 Whitesides v. P. Breese, 4. See Bankus v. S. 4 Ind. 114. An indictment alleging the assembling of the defendants in a riotous, &c., manner, making a great noise and disturbance near the dwelling- house of B, and calling him and his wife persons of color, with vulgar and opprobri- ous epithets, yet not averring that B and CHAP. LIV.] RIOT. § 998 § 997. The Conclusion “fo the Terror,” &c. — it is practically best to preserve. Yet not always is it necessary ; or, at least, the idea may be otherwise sufficiently conveyed. The Tennessee court deemed it essential only where the gist of the offence is the terror actually created, not where the acts of the defendants were other- wise unlawful.) And in South Carolina this conclusion is un- necessary after the charge of the actual perpetration of a deed of violence.? § 998. 1. That there were three or more Persons — guilty of the riot must in some way appear in allegation, in the proofs, and in the verdict.3 And — 2. Joining them. — The rule, in this class of offences, is that the proceeding is equally good whether against all or less than all, even against one,—that one may be convicted, however many are indicted and tried, — but that, at each step, in the alle- gation, in the proofs, and in the verdict, the joint participation ot not less than the legal number of three must in some way be manifest. As to— 3. Names of Concurring Persons. — The allegation may be that the defendants “and others,” &c., as already explained.® But in this case, if the names of the “ others” are known, they must be mentioned, “others unknown” being admissible only where the names are unknown in fact.® his wife were in the house, was adjudged ill. Said Nash, J. : “ The gist of the offence consists in the defendants using such force and violence as amounted to a breach of the peace; and the law requires that in indictments of this kind the facts should be so charged as to show a breach of the peace, or acts directly tending to it, and not a mere civil trespass. .. . Men may be guilty of a riot in assembling together, to the number of three or more, and in a tumultuous and violent manner breaking into a house, or demolishing it, or other- wise injuring it, though neither the owner nor any of his family be present; for that is, in itself, a breach of the public peace; but the essence of the charge here is, not for any violence done to the dwelling- house, but for riotously disturbing the owner in quiet and peaceable possession of it, and the charge is not made with suf- ficient legal certainty unlessit appear, upon the face of the indictment, that the owner or his family were present to be so dis- turbed.” SS, v. Hathcock, 7 Ire. 52, 53, 54. ‘An allegation in substance that the defend- ants “ riotously, routously, and unlawfully gathered and assembled together, and then and there did riotously, &c., make a great noise, tumult, and disturbance, to the ter- ror of the citizens, &., contrary, &c.,” was held to be good. S.v. Voshall, 4 Ind. 589. 18. v. Whitesides, 1 Swan, Tenn. 88. And see C. v. Runnels, 10 Mass. 518, 6 Am. D. 148; New Crim. Law, II. § 1147 (3). 2S. v. Sims, 16 S. C. 486. 3 New Crim. Law, II. § 1143-1146. 4 Vol. I. § 1028, 1036; ante, § 24 (2), 26, 225; S. v. Blair, 13 Rich. 93, 96; C.v. Berry, 5 Gray, 93. 5 Ante, § 992 (2), 994; S. w Blair, supra. 8 §. v. Brazil, 1 Rice, 257; Thayer v. S. 11 Ind. 287; S. v. O’Donald, 1 McCord, 532; S. v. Calder, 2 McCord, 462. 455 § 1000 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 999. 1. The Entire Allegation — should be constructed after the approved rules of criminal pleading. Thus, — 2. Owner’s Name. —If the riotous acts are the pulling down of a dwelling-house, the name of its owner should be averredt And — 8. Disturbing Election.— An indictment for riotously entering the guildhall of a borough, and preventing the burgesses from electing a bailiff, must show their authority to make the election.? 4. Inciting to Riot.— The gist of Chitty’s avermonts for this offence is that A, &c., on, &., at, &., “unlawfully, wickedly, and maliciously devised and endeavored as much as in him lay to raise and create insurrections, riots, and tumults,”’ &c., and that then and there he “unlawfully, wickedly, and maliciously incited, encouraged,” &c., and “endeavored and labored to per- suade, instigate, and prevail on divers liege subjects,” &c., “ un- lawfully, riotously, and tumultuously to assemble and gather together to disturb the peace, &c., and to injure and annoy a great number of peaceable subjects,” &c., going on to specify the acts done.® § 1000. 1. The Declarations —of persons engaged in a riot, even of a single one of them, are competent evidence against all.4 2. Former Jeopardy for Assault. — If an assault is the gravamen of the riot, one who has been convicted of it cannot afterward be prosecuted for the riot.6 This is evidently the true rule, though there are cases not quite in harmony with it.6 But the question is for “ New Criminal Law.” ? 1S. v. Martin, 3 Murph. 533. ® Winnger v. 8. 13 Ind. 540. 2 Reg. v. Soley, 11 Mod. 115. 6 Freeland v. P. 15 Ill.380. See Hurd 8 2 Chit. Crim. Law, § 506. And see v. Stanly, 2 Root, 186, 187. McRae v. S. 71 Ga. 96. 7 New Crim. Law, II. § 1154, and the * Gallaher v. S. 101 Ind. 411; McRae places there cited. v. 8. 71 Ga. 96. For RIVER, see Way. ROAD, see War. 456 CHAP. LY.] ROBBERY. § 1002 CHAPTER LV. ROBBERY. Consult,—for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, II. § 1156-1182. For the indictment and connected topics, Dir. & F. § 931-938. For miscellaneous ques- tions see the indexes to this series of books. § 1001. Atlege and Prove. — The elements of this offence, to be averred and proved, are — 1. A larceny, 2. Wherein the asportation is from the person, and is 3. Effected by force or by putting in fear! Hence — § 1002. 1. The Indictment — should contain the allegations for simple larceny,” with the added matter that makes the larceny robbery.2 It is common to say that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant “in and upon one X feloniously did make an assault, and him the said X in bodily fear and danger of his life then and there felo- niously did put, and one, &c. [setting out the things taken and their values as in simple larceny ],* of the moneys, goods, and chat- tels of the said X, from the person and against the will of the said X, then and there feloniously and violently did steal, take, and carry away.” ® 2. In Statutory Robbery, —the terms of the statute must be duly followed. And where it is aggravated, as by being in a highway, or by the defendant being armed with a dangerous weapon, or the like, such added fact must be averred.® 1 New Crim. Law, II. § 1156 et seq. and particularly § 1156, 1161, 1166, 1169, 1170,1174; C.v. White, 183 Pa. 182, 19 Am. St. 628; Clements v. S. 84 Ga. 660, 20 Am. St. 385. 2 Tb. 1159. 3 Dir. & F. 932. 4C. v. Cahill, 12 Allen, 540; McEn- tee v. S. 24 Wis. 43, 46; C. v. Green, 122 Mass. 333; Wesley v. S. 61 Ala. 282; Ar- nold v. S. 52 Ind. 281, 21 ‘Am. R. 175. 5 Matthews Crim. Law, 471; Archb. Crim, Pl. & Ev. 19th ed. 456; Dir. and F. § 933; McEntee v. S. 24 Wis. 48; S. vw. Chapman, 6 Nev. 320; Hardy v. C. 17 Grat. 592; §. ». Gorham, 55 N. H. 152; Stegar v. S. 39 Ga. 583, 99 Am. D. 472; S. v. Cook, 20 La. An. 145; S.o. Kegan, 62 Iowa, 106. § Dir. & F. § 934-936; Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 19th ed. 450, 456 ; 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 806, 807; Collins v. P. 39 Ill. 283; C. v. Clifford, 8 Cush. 215; Quinlan »v. P.6 Par. Cr. 9; C. v. Mowry, 11 Allen, 20; U.S. v. Mills, 7 Pet. 138; Chappell ». 8. 52 Ala. 359; P.v. Loop, 3 Par. Cr. 559; 457 § 1006 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 1008. “¥Feloniously,” — which is necessary because robbery is felony,1 is, in the foregoing form, applied to the assault, repeated to the putting in fear, and again to the larceny. Probably the first only is strictly necessary, its force reaching onward and qualifying all.2 It will not thus extend backward; so that if the assault is not charged as felonious, yet further on the putting in fear is, it will be ill.8 § 1004. 1. Violence,——in the definition, is not a technical word; therefore an indictment without it may be good, if the same meaning is otherwise conveyed.’ So, also, — 2. “Rob” is not essential.® § 1005. Putting in Fear —is an alternative element in the offence, essential only when there is no force.’ So that on principle, the in- dictment should allege either the fear or the force, but it need not both. On authority, “it does not appear certain,” says East, that the fear should be added to the force in averment; “ though this is usual, and therefore safest to be done. But in the conference on Donolly’s case,? where this subject was much considered, it was observed by Eyre, B. that the more ancient precedents did not state the putting in fear; and that though others stated the putting in corporal fear, yet the putting in fear of life was of modern introduction. Other judges considered that the gist of the offence was the taking, &c., by violence, and that the putting in fear was only a constructive violence, supplying the place of actual force.” 1° § 1006. 1. From the Person.— The averment that the taking Reg. v. Norton, 8 Car. & P. 671; S. v. Scott, 39 Mo. 424; §. v. Howerton, 59 Mo. 91; S. v. Burke, 73 N. C. 83; Anderson v. S. 28 Ind. 22; Wilson v.S8. 3 Tex. Ap. 63; Reardon v. 8, 4 Tex. Ap. 602; Acker v. C. 94 Pa. 284; 8. v. Swafford, 3 Lea, 162; Clary v. 8. 33 Ark. 561; P. v. Calvin, 60 Mich. 113; S.v. Ready, 44 Kan. 697; C. v. Griffiths, 126 Mass. 252; S. v. Burnett, 81 Mo. 119; Wesley v. S. 61 Ala. 282; S. v. Segermond, 40 Kan. 107, 10 Am. St. 169; P. v. Ah Sing, 95 Cal. 654; S. ». Brown, 113 N. C. 645; Williams v.S. 10 Tex. Ap.8; 8. v. Brewer, 53 Iowa, 735; S. v. Jackson, 26 W. Va. 250; S.v. Leigh- ton, 56 Iowa, 595; Trimble v. 8. 16 Tex. Ap. 115; P.v. Hicks, 66 Cal. 103; S. ov. Burke, 73 N. C. 83; Burns v. S. 12 Tex. Ap. 269. 458 1 Vol. I. § 534-537. 2 Ante, § 547. 8 Rex v. Pelfryman, 2 Leach, 563, 2 East P. C. 788. 4 New Crim. Law, IT. § 1156. 5 Rex v, Smith, 2 East P. C. 783. 6 §. v. Robinson, 29 La. An. 364; S. v. Ready, 44 Kan. 697. 7 Ante, § 1001. 8 And see Chappell v. S. 52 Ala. 359. 9 Rex v. Donolly, 2 East P. C. 715, 719. 109 East P. C. 783. See New Crim. Law, II. § 1174; Lampkin v. S. 87 Ga. 516; Coffelt v. S. 27 Tex. Ap. 608, 11 Am. St. 205; Dillv. S.6 Tex. Ap. 113; C. wv. Donahue, 148 Mass. 529; S. v. Brown, 113 N. C. 645, CHAP. Lv.] was from the person of the one robbed is essential.! ROBBERY. § 1007 a It does not suffice to say simply taken from him? 2. “ Against his Will.” — That it was against his will has been also deemed by some necessary in allegation.? But evidently, in this part of the indictment, what is adequate in larceny is so also in robbery ; and this negation of consent can be required only where, without it, the terms of a statute will not be duly covered.* it has been well held to be unnecessary.® Hence And — 3. Ownership — must be alleged and proved, precisely as in larceny.6 So — 4, Value. — The rules in larceny’ apply also to value ; but, since value does not commonly affect the punishment, contrary to the common course in larceny it need not ordinarily be alleged or proved$ § 1007. The Felonious Intent — requires the same allegations and proofs as in larceny.® § 1007 a. 1. Declarations of the Person Robbed, — when of the res geste, are admissible in evidence; otherwise when not of the res geste.2 2. The Identity—of the defendant and the robber must be shown.!8 8. Dying Declarations — are not admissible.¥4 4, The Evidence — may assume other forms;1§ as, — 1 Kit v. S. 11 Humph. 167; P.v. Beck, 21 Cal. 385; Stegar v. S. 39 Ga. 583, 99 Am. D. 472. 2 §. v. Leighton, 56 Iowa, 595. ® Kit v. S. supra. 4 Ante, § 752a. And see Chappell v. 8.52 Ala. 359; Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. loth Lond. ed. 257, referring to Rex v. McDaniel, Foster, 121, 128. 5 Terry v. S. 13 Ind. 70. 6 New Crim. Law, II. § 1159 (1); P. v. Vice, 21 Cal. 344; Smedly v. 8. 30 Tex. 214; Brooks v. P. 49 N. Y. 436, 10 Am. R. 398; Crews v. 8.3 Coldw. 350; S. v. Nelson, 11 Nev. 384; S. v. Ah Loi, 5 Nev. 99; P. v. Nelson, 56 Cal. 77; Clark v. S. 28 Tex. Ap. 189, 19 Am. St. 817. 7 Vol. I. § 488 6 (2), 540, 541, 567. 8§, v, Perley, 86 Me. 427,41 Am. St. 564: S. v. Brown, 113 N. C. 645. See C, v. White, 133 Pa, 182, 19 Am. St. 628. 9 Reg. v. Hemmings, 4 Fost. & F. 50; Chappell v. S. 52 Ala. 359; S. v. Hollyway, 41 Iowa, 200, 20 Am. R. 586; S. v. Sowls, Phillips, N. C. 151; C. v. White, 188 Pa, 182,19 Am. St. 628. 1 Ante, § 625-627, 633, and places there referred to. 11 §. v. Ah Loi, 5 Nev. 99; Rex v. Wink, 6 Car. & P. 397. 12 Moses v. S. 88 Ala. 78, 16 Am. St. 21. 18 C. v. Tolliver, 119 Mass, 312; C. v. Fagan, 108 Mass 471. 14 Vol. I. § 1207; Rex v. Lloyd, 4 Car. & P, 238. 15 Rex v. Winkworth, 4 Car. & P. 444; P. v. Morrigan, 29 Mich. 4; C.v. Watson, 109 Mass. 354; Driscoll v. P. 47 Mich. 413. Clark v. S. 28 Tex. Ap. 189, 19 Am. St. 817; Odle v, 8.13 Tex. Ap. 612; S. w Lucas, 57 Iowa, 501. 459 § 1008@ SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. 5. The Character for Honesty —of one jointly indicted with the defendant, yet not on trial, cannot be brought forward by him. 6. The Declarations of Co-conspirators — are within the ordinary rules on the subject.” 7. The Tools and Fruits of the Crime — may be introduced and testified to the same as in other offences. ® § 1008. attempts, — including assaults with intent to rob, may assume various forms; but the procedure requires no special elucidations in this place. It was adjudged sufficient in allega- tion to say that the defendant and another attempted to commit robbery by attempting to take by force from one named a sum of money belonging to a certain third person, by violence to his person and putting him in fear of some immediate injury to his person ; and then specifying particular acts done.® § 1008 a. In Highway Robbery, — it suffices to charge that on, &c., at, &e., “in the common highway of the State,” not further specifying the particular highway, the defendant committed the felonious act.® 1 Walls v. S. 125 Ind. 400. 2 Vol. I § 1248 (2); Clark v. S. 28 Tex. Ap. 189, 19 Am. St. 817; S.v. Green- wade, 72 Mo. 298. 8 P. v. Sansome, 84 Cal. 449; P. v. Becker, 48 Mich. 43 ; Rogers v. 8. 32 Tex. Cr. 447; S.v. Bulla, 89 Mo. 595; P. v. Collins, 64 Cal. 293; P. v. Whitson, 43 Mich. 419; Clark v. S. 28 Tex. Ap. 189, 19 Am. St. 817. 4 Ante, § 63, 63a,71 et seq., particu- larly § 84, 85, 89; S.v. Glovery, 10 Nev. 24; ‘Taylor v. C.3 Bush, 508; 8. v. Bar- nett, 3 Kan. 250, 87 Am. D. 471; Hollo- han v. S. 82 Md. 399; C. v. Tanner, 5, Bush, 316, 318; S. v. Craft, 72 Mo. 456; S. v. Breckenridge, 33 La. An. 310; S v Hamilton, 13 Nev. 386. 5 S.c. Montgomery, 109 Mo. 645, 32 Am. St. 684. And see S. ¢. Smith, 119 Mo. 489. 6 §. v. Wilson, 67 N. C. 456. And see 1 Hale P. C. 585; 2 Kast P. C. 784, 3 Chit. Crim, Law, 806; S. v. Cowan, 7 Ire. 239; S.v. Anthony, 7 Ire. 234. For ROUT, see Riot, particularly § 992. SABBATH-BREAKING, see Lorn’s Day. SCOLD, see Common Scoxp. SCRIPTURES, REVILING, see BLaspHEMyY AND PROFANENESS. SEDITION, see Dir. & F. § 939-942. SEDUCTION AND ABDUCTION, see Stat. Crimes. SELF-MURDER, see Surcips, and Dir. & F. § 952-954, SELLING ADULTERATED MILK, see Stat. Crimes. SELLING LIQUOR, see Stat. Crimes. 460 CHAP. LVI.] SEPULTURE, § 1012 CHAPTER LVI. SEPULTURE. Consult, — for the law of violating sepulture, New Crim. Law, II. § 1188-1190. For the indictment, &c., Dir. & F. § 955-958. And see the indexes to this series of books. § 1009, 1. There are various Offences— against the rights of sepulture ;1 as, — 2. Executed Felon.— If one employed to bury the body of an executed felon sells it for dissection, an indictment will be good at common law which alleges this.? Again, — 8. Any other Person,— under a legal duty to bury a corpse, and having the ability and refusing, is punishable at common law on an indictment charging these facts.® § 1010. 1. Robbing the Grave—of an interred body (not larceny ‘) is the most frequent of these offences. The indictment simply sets out the facts, with the name of the deceased person. If on a statute, the statutory terms also should be followed.5 2. Name. — If the deceased was an unnamed child, the parents’ name may be averred, adding that it “had yet no name given to it.’ § § 1011. Defacing Burying Grounds or Tombstones — is indict- able at common law and generally under statutes. The indict- ment charges the facts, varying with the cases and statutory terms.’ § 1012. Other Statutory Offences, —such as the receiving and concealing of a dead body,’ the removing of it,® &c., require no special explanation of the procedure. 1 New Crim. Law, I. § 468 (6), 506; IT. § 1188, 1189. 2 Dir. & F. § 956. For a form and something of the evidence, see Rex v. Cun- dick, D. & R., N. P. 13. 3 See, for a form, &c., Reg. v. Vann, 2 Den. C. C. 325, 331, 5 Cox C. C. 379. 4 New Crim. Law, II. § 780; ante, 725 (2), 751 (5). 6 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 665, 19th ed. 996; 2Chit. Crim. Law, 35; Dir. & F. § 957; Reg. v. Jacobson, 14 Cox C. C. 522; P. v. Dalton, 58 Cal. 226; Reg. v. Sharpe, Dears. & B. 160, 7 Cox C. C. 214; S. » McClure, 4 Blackf. 328; S. v. Little, 1 Vt. 331; P. 7. Graves, 5 Par. Cr. 184; McNamee v. P. 31 Mich. 473; C. v. Cooley, 10 Pick. 37. 6 Tate v. S. 6 Blackf. 110. 7 C. v, Wellington, 7 Allen, 299; C. ». Viall, 2 Allen, 512; Phillips v. S. 29 Tex. 226; S. v. Wilson, 94 N. C. 1015. 8 ©. v. Loring, 8 Pick. 370. ® ©. v, Slack, 19 Pick. 304. 461 $ 1015 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. CHAPTER LVII. SODOMY. Consult, — for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, IT. § 1191-1196. For the indictment and connected questions, Dir. & F. § 962-965. And see the indexes to this series of books. § 1018. How the Indictment — should be will appear on a con- sideration of the offence, stated in New Criminal Law. As com- mitted with a man, it is an approved form to aver that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant “in and upon one X, then and there being, feloniously did make an assault, and then and there feloniously, wickedly, and against the order of nature, had a venereal affair with the said X, and then and there feloniously carnally knew him the said X, and then and there feloniously, wickedly, and against the order of nature with the said X did commit and per- petrate that detestable and abominable crime of buggery, not to be named among Christians.”! Some of this is plainly surplusage. § 1014. “ Against the Form of the Statutes” — concludes the indictment in the English precedents. The statutes are, con- secutively, 25 Hen. 8,c. 6 (afterward made perpetual), 9 Geo. 4, c. 81, § 15, and 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, § 61. They do little except regulate the grade of the offence and the punishment. If we assume that 25 Hen. 8 is common law with us,? still, in principle, the indictment with us, when not drawn on a statute of our own, need not have this conclusion. § 1015, 1. Carnal Knowledge. —‘“ In every indictment for this offence, there must be the words rem habuit veneream et carnaliter cognovit.” 3 2. Name of Animal. — As, where the offence is with a man, his name must be given;* so, where it is with an animal, the sort of 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. v. Audley, 3 How. St. Tr. 401, 407; C. v. ed. 485, 486, 19th ed. 776; Dir.& F.§ 963. Dill, 160 Mass. 536; Cross v. 8.17 Tex. For other forms, see 2 Chit. Crim. Law, Ap. 476. 48, 49; Reg. v. Allen, 1 Den. C. C. 364, 3 + New Crim. Law, I. § 508 (1). Cox C. C. 270; Lambertson v. P. 5 Par. 8 1 Hawk. P. C. Curw. ed. p. 357, § 2. Cr. 200; Rex v. Wiseman, Fort, 91; Rex # Ante, § 1013. 462 CHAP. LVII.] SODOMY. § 1018 a animal must, at least, be so far set out that the act will appear to be of the indictable kind! It has been ruled in England suf- ficient to say “a certain animal called a bitch ;” ? in Texas it may be “ mare, same being a beast.” 3 § 1016. “Buggery,” — being the statutory word in 25 Hen. 8, c. 6, was, therefore, indispensable in an indictment on it.* If we accept this statute as common law with us, the same consequence will follow as to our indictments thereunder. § 1017. Insufficient. — In England it was adjudged too indefinite to charge against two, that they, in a certain open and public place called, &c., frequented by divers, &c., unlawfully met to- gether for the purpose and with the intent of committing with each other, openly, lewdly, and indecently, in the said public place, divers nasty, wicked, filthy, lewd, beastly, unnatural, and sodomitical practices, and then and there unlawfully, wickedly, openly, lewdly, and indecently did commit with each other, in the sight of divers of the liege subjects, &c., in the said public place there passing, &c., divers such practices as aforesaid.® § 1018. Evidence. — Where this offence is committed on a non- consenting person, who becomes a witness, it appears that his early complaints may be shown in corroboration, the same as those of the injured woman in rape.6 If such person had con- sented, he would be an accomplice, whose testimony would for this reason need corroboration.’ The defendant’s conduct and admissions are, of course, competent against him.2 Penetration may be proved by circumstances, not necessarily requiring an eye-witness.’ If we assume emission to be also necessary to the offence, it may be inferred from the proofs of penetration, and other circumstances. §1018a. For the Attempt — to commit sodomy, the procedure will follow the rules stated under the title Attempt.” 1 New Crim. Law, IT. § 1192. 8 C. ». Snow, 111 Mass. 411. 2 Reg. v. Allen, 1 Car. & K. 495. ® Collins v. 8S. 73 Ga. 76; Territory v. 3 Cross v. S. 17 Tex. Ap. 476. Mahaffey, supra; Cross v. S. 17 Tex. Ap. 4 Foster, 424; 2 Stark. Crim. Pl.2ded. 476, 436. : 10 New Crim. Law, II. § 1127 (2), 1131. 5 Reg. v. Rowed, 3 Q. B. 180, 2 Gale & 1 P. v, Hodgkin, 94 Mich. 27. D. 518. 12 And see, for forms of indictment, &c., 6 S. v. Gruso, 28 La. An. 952. Dir. & F. § 964, 965, 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 7 Medisv. S. 27 Tex. Ap. 194,11 Am. 50; Reg. v. Allen, 1 Car. & K. 495. And St. 192; Territory v. Mahaffey, 3 Mont. see S. v. Place, 5 Wash. 773. 112, 463 § 1023 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. {BOOK XII CHAPTER LVIII. SUBORNATION OF PERJURY. Consult, —for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, II. § 1197-1199. For the indictment, &c., Dir. & F. § 966-969. And for incidentals, see the indexes to this series of books. § 1019. Only in Name —is this ‘a separate offence; being in fact a particular sort of perjury, or, in some way, accessorial to perjury! It is so even when punishable by statute. § 1020. The Indictment — follows principles stated in the title Perjury.? It must allege all the several elements of a prima facie case.? § 1021. Actually Committed — must be the solicited perjury. Hence the indictment must aver that it was.6 So — § 1022. The Evidence’— must sustain this averment.§ The record of the solicited person’s conviction is not alone adequate against the suborner.? Nor, again, can there be a conviction on such person’s testimony to this part of the case, unless it is corroborated. § 1023. New Trial. —If the person charged with the suborna- tion is tried and convicted, and then the one charged with the perjury is acquitted, the former will be entitled to a new trial." 1 Ante, § 938, 939. 2 C. v. Smith, 11 Allen, 243, 256, 257. 8 For forms for subornation, see Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev 10th Lond. ed. 575-577, 19th ed. 885-887; Dir. & F. § 968; Wat- son v. §.5 Tex. Ap. 11, 21; C. v. Smith, 11 Allen, 248. The precedents in Tre- maine seem not to be within the modern definitions; as see Rex v. Tasborough, Trem. P. C. 169; Rex v. Hickley, Trem. P. C. 171; Rex v. Hilton, Trem. P. C. 174. 4 Ib.; S. v. Simons, 30 Vt. 620; U.S, v. Wilcox, 4 Blatch. 393; Stewart v. S. 22 Ohio St. 477; P. v. Ross, 103 Cal. 425; Thompson v. S. 89 Wis. 253; C. v. Lane, For SUNDAY, see Lorn’s Day. 157 Mass. 462; 8. v. Joaquin, 69 Me. 2185, U.S. v. Thompson, 12 Saw. 438; 31 Fed. Rep. 331; U. S. v. Dennee, 3 Woods, 39; Stratton v. P. 81 N. Y. 629; C. v. Stone, 152 Mass. 498; P. v. Thomas, 63 Cal. 482. 5 New Crim. Law, II. § 1056; ante, § 938. 6 U.S. v. Wilcox, 4 Blatch. 393. 7 Watson v. 8. 5 Tex, Ap. 11. 8 1 Hawk. P. C. 6th ed. c. 69, § 10; Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 19th ed. 887. ® Rex v. Reilly, 1 Leach, 454. 10 P.v. Evans, 40 N. Y.1. Butsee U.S. v. Thompson, 12 Saw. 438, 31 Fed. Rep. 331. 11 Maybush v. C. 29 Grat. 857. SWEARING, see BLASPHEMY AND PROFANENESS. TAX AND OTHER REVENUE LAWS, see Dir. & F. § 970-975. 464 CHAP. LI1X.] THREATENING LETTERS, ETC. § 1026 CHAPTER LIX. THREATENING LETTERS AND OTHER THREATS, Consult, — for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law, I. § 562, 563, 767 (2); II. § 407, 1200-1201 a. For the indictment and connected questions, Dir. & F. § 976-980. And see the indexes to this series of books. § 1024. A Common-law Indictment — for this offence will sel- dom or never be required in practice, so none will be here given. For though the wrong we are considering is to some extent punish- able by the common law,! the statutory indictment is so much more convenient and effectual that the other is practically unused and unknown. § 1025. The Statutory Indictment — will vary with the terms of the particular enactment on which it is drawn. Under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. ‘29, § 8 (re-enacted, with slight variations, in 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, § 44), to punish one who “shall knowingly send or deliver any letter or writing demanding of any person, with men- aces, and without any reasonable or probable cause, any chattel, money, or valuable security,” it was an approved form to say that on, &c., at, &c., the defendant “ knowingly and feloniously did send to one X a certain letter, directed to the said X, by the name and description of Mr. X, demanding money from the said X, with menaces, and without any reasonable or probable cause ; and which said letter is as follows, that is to say,” &c. ; setting it out verbatim.? § 1026. Tenor or Substance.—It is perceived that within a distinction already explained, the letter in this precedent is set 1 New Crim. Law, IT. § 1201 (1). 2 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. S. v. Young, 26 Iowa, 122; C. v. Carpen- ter, 108 Mass. 15; Buie v. S.1 Tex. Ap. ed. 606. For other forms under various statutes, see Dir. & F. § 977,979; Reg. v. Braynell, 4 Cox C. C. 402; Rex v. Wag- staff, Russ. & Ry. 398; Reg. v. Robertson, Leigh & C. 483; Robinson v. C. 101 Mass. 27; C. v. Moulton, 108 Mass. 307; Rex v. Abgood, 2 Car. & P. 486; Reg. v. Car- ruthers, 1 Cox C. C, 188; Reg. v. Flannery, Jebb, 243; C. v. Murphy, 12 Allen, 449; VOL, 11. — 30 58; Biggs v. P. 8 Barb. 547; Reg. v. Jones, 2 Cox C. C. 434, 1 Den. C. C. 218; Kistler v. S. 54 Ind. 400; Hewitt v. New- burger, 141 N. Y. 538, And see Kessler v. §. 50 Ind. 229; Longley v. S. 43 Tex. 490. 8 Vol. I. § 559-563; ante, § 178, 250, 408, 732, 789, 790, 808, 809, 915, 916: 465 § 1029 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK xrt, out by its tenor, not its mere substance; and such method ap- pears to have been adjudged essential! Assuming this view to be just in principle, it does not follow that the same form of setting out the written or oral words would be required under every statute against the employment of threats for a wrongful purpose. Therefore under some of the statutes the substance of the threat, or the simple fact that the prohibited threat was made, has been held adequate in allegation.” § 1027. 1. Following the Statutory Terms,’ — the indictment must directly allege each of the several facts which together constitute the offence Under a statute requiring the threat to be made “either verbally or by any written or printed communication,” it was held that these words could not be altogether omitted from the allegations; because there might be a threat which was not within them.® 2. “Punishable by Law.” —In an indictment for accusing one of a crime “ punishable by law,” it is not sufficient simply to cover these words in allegation, but the defendant’s act must be so par- ticularized as to disclose its criminal quality. § 1028. 1. Allegation and Proof of Intent— must harmonize; as, if that averred was to extort money, and that proved was to procure the delivering up of a bill of exchange, the proceeding will fail.’ The intent charged may be inferred by the jury from the circumstances, as in other cases. Evidence that the black- mailing letter was sent, not in earnest but as a joke, and that, shortly before the receiver had played severe jokes on the defend- ant, is admissible on the question of intent.® So,— 2. Variance — should in every respect be avoided.!° § 1029. Other Instances — of like threats from the defendant to 1 Rex v. Lloyd, 2 East P. C. 1122, 1124; Tynes v. 8. 17 Tex. Ap. 123. 2 C. +. Moulton, 108 Mass. 307, 308; C. cv. Dorus, 108 Mass. 488; C. v». Good- win, 122 Mass. 19; S. v. Young, 26 Iowa, 122; C. v. Murphy, 12 Allen, 449; S. v. O’Mally, 48 Iowa, 501; S. v. Stewart, 90 Mo, 507; C..v. Philpot, 130 Mass. 59. 8 Rex v. Abgood, 2 Car. & P. 436. 4 Rex v. Dunkley, 1 Moody, 90; S.v. Morgan, 3 Heisk. 262; S. v. Ullman, 5 Minn. 13; C. v. Dyer, 128 Mass. 70; U. 8. v. Fero, 18 Fed. Rep. 901. And see Gay v. §. 3 Tex. Ap. 168. 466 5 Robinson v. C. 101 Mass. 27, 28. 68 Mann v., 8. 47 Ohio St. 556. And see Elliott 7. S. 86 Ohio St. 318; Brabham ev. §. 18 Ohio St. 485. 7 Rex v. Major, 2 East P. C. 1124. 8 Reg. v. Coghlan, 4 Fost. & F. 316. And see March v. S, 3 Tex. Ap. 107; Aycock v. S. 2 Tex. Ap. 381. 9 Norris v. S. 95 Ind. 738, 48 Am. R. 700. 10 C. v. Bacon, 185 Mass. 521; P. v. Jones, 62 Mich. 304; C. v. Buckley, 148 Mass. 27. CHAP, LIX.] THREATENING LETTERS, ETC. § 10296 the same person, or confessions of them, may, to prove the intent and meaning, be shown.! § 1029a. The Meaning—of the threatening language, and whether it contains the threat alleged, is in a case of doubt a question for the jury.2 Ambiguous words may be explained by parol? And the jury are to find their true meaning. § 10296. Other Evidence. — The evidence may assume various other forms, but they need no special explanation.® 1 Rex v. Robinson, 2 East P. C. 1110, * Reg. v. Hendy, 4 Cox C. C. 243; Reg. 1124; Shifflet v. C. 14 Grat. 652; Reg. v. v. Carruthers, 1 Cox C, C. 138; Longley Cooper, 3 Cox C. C. 547; Aycock v.8.2 v. 8. 43 Tex. 490. Tex. Ap. 381; Thrasher v. S. 3 Tex. Ap. 5 C. v. Jones, 121 Mass. 57; Reg. v. 281. See Reg. v. McDonnell, 5CoxC.C. Miard, 1 Cox C. C. 22; Haynie v. 8. 2 Tex. 153; Reg. v. Kain, 8 Car. & P. 187. Ap. 168; Reg. v. Kain, 8 Car. & P. 187; 2 §. v. Stewart, 90 Mo. 507. Mitchell v. C. 75 Va, 856. 3 §. v. Linthicum, 68 Mo. 66. For TIPPLING-HOUSES, see Stat. Crimes, and Dir. & F. § 817-822. TOLLS, OFFENCES AS TO, see Stat. Crimes, and Dir. & F. § 981-985. TRADES, OFFENSIVE, see New Crim. Law, I. § 11388-1144; ante, § 875-877 ; Dir. & F. § 827-831. 467 § 1034 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS, [BOOK XII. CHAPTER LX. : TREASON. § 1030. Introduction. 1031-1035. The Indictment. 1036-1039. The Evidence. 1040, 1041. Questions of Practice. Consult, — for the law of this offence, New Crim. Law. II. § 1202-1255. For the indictment and connected questions, Dir. & F.§ 986-989. And see, for multitudes of incidental questions, the indexes to this series of books. § 1030. How Chapter divided. — We shall consider, I. The In- dictment; II. The Evidence; III. Questions of Practice. I. The Indictment. § 1031. The Indictment —sets out, in language technical to this offence, yet varying in detail with the special facts, the several elements which in law constitute the particular treason.! § 1082. Overt Act.—- One of the most important allegations is of the overt act, — indispensable always. It is common to charge it, in a case of levying war, as an assembling of the traitors arrayed in a warlike manner.? Each particular thing done by each one, or a, detail of the evidence, is not required.t § 1038. Names of Co-conspirators. — Where co-conspirators are necessary to the offence,— that is, others than those made de- fendants,— their names if known should, by analogy to other cases, it appears, be given.5 § 1034. “Contrary to Allegiance.” — The wrongful act must, to constitute the offence, be contrary to the defendant’s duty of ‘ For forms applicable in the United 1 Dall. 35. And see U. S. v. Greathouse, States, for the several treasons, see Dir. & 2 Abb. U.S. 364. F. § 986-989; for levying war, see Archb. 2 Vaughan’s Case, 2 Salk. 634. See Crim. Pl. & Ev, 10th Lond. ed. 492, 493, New Crim. Law. II. § 1231-1284. 19th ed. 785; 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 79, 83; 8 Archb. ut sup. Rex v. Hamilton, Foster, 5; Reg. ». Da- 4 Foster, 220; Respublica v. Carlisle, vitt, 11 Cox C. C. 676; Reg v. Gallagher, 1 Dall. 35. See Rookwood’s Case, Holt, 15 Cox C. C. 291; Respublica v. Carlisle, 683, 686 ; Vaughan’s Case, supra. 5 Ante, § 998 (3). But see ante, § 225. 468 CHAP. Lx. ] TREASON. § 1039 allegiance.1 Hence there must be an averment that it was so. Commonly this allegation is made a part of the conclusion, but probably its location in the indictment is not material.? § 1085, “ Traitorously ’’ — we have seen to be essential.’ II. The Evidence. § 1036. The Evidence —in this offence follows in general the ordinary rules, requiring no special explanation here. As to— § 1037. “Two Witnesses.” —In treason against the United States, the Constitution forbids a conviction “unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on con- fession in open court;” 5 and in most or all of our States, trials for treason against the State are similarly regulated. The Eng- lish, 1 Edw. 6, c. 12, § 22,6 had simply, where there was no plea of guilty, directed that the defendant should be “ accused by two sufficient and lawful witnesses ;” under which provision the two were adequate though testifying to different overt acts of the same species of treason. And so in terms was 7 Will. 3, ¢. 3.7 It is perceived that the rule with us is different. Again, — § 1088. 1. Other Localities. — Within limits which every in- telligent practitioner will understand, there may be evidence of things done in other localities than the one wherein the offence is laid.8 So, — 2. Co-conspirators.— When a conspiring between the defend- ants, or between them and others, has been proved,® what one did may be shown against the rest.! § 1039. a Co-defendant —in an indictment not on trial, if not joined also in the one being tried, may testify for the defendant in the latter. 1 New Crim. Law. II. § 1235. 2 Rex v. Cranburne, 13 How. St. Tr. 221, 226-228; Rex v. Tucker, Comb. 257. And see Hanauer ev. Doane, 12 Wal. 347. 8 Vol I. § 534. 4 Reg. v. Davitt, 11 Cox C. C. 676. U.S. v. Mitchell, 2 Dall. 348; U. S. o. Hanway, 2 Wal. Jr. 139; Respublica v. Malin, 1 Dall. 33; Horne Tooke’s Case, 1 East P. C. 60, 69,25 How. St. Tr. 1; Res- publica v. Carlisle, 1 Dall. 35; Reg. v. Frost, 9 Car. & P. 129. 5 New Crim. Law, II. § 1214. 6 In connection with this, are to be con- sidered 5 & 6 Edw. 6,c. 11, § 12, 1 & 2 Phil, & M.c. 10, § 11, and 7 Will. 3, c. 3, § 2. -Rex v. Gahagan, 1 Leach, 42. 7 High Treason Case, J. Kel. 7,9; Staf- ford’s Case, T. Raym. 407 ; Lowick’s Case, Holt, 688 ; Rex v. Jellias, 1 East P.C. 130; Thomas’s Case, 1 Dy. 99b, pl. 68; Rex ». Gahagan, supra; Tong’s Case, J.Kel. 17, 18. 8 J. Kel. 15, 33. 9 Vol. I. § 1248. 1 Reg. v. Brittain, 3 Cox C.C. 76; Rex v. Stone, 6 T. R. 526, 1 East P. C. 79, 99; Reg. v. Frost, 9 Car. & P. 129, 149. U.S. v. Hanway, 2 Wal. Jr. 139. 469 § 1041 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII III. Questions of Practice. § 1040. vVerdict.—A special finding that the defendant was present among traitors, hallooing, &c., yet silent as to whether or not he was consenting, will not sustain a conviction. The omitted fact is indispensable.! § 1041. Order to Restore Money. — The court will not order the restoration to the prisoner, before trial, of money taken from him,? if it constitutes a part of the proofs.? 1 Rex v. Huggins, 2 Ld. Raym. 1574, 2 Vol. I. § 210-212. 1585. ® Reg. v. Frost, 9 Car. & P. 129. For TRESPASS, FORCIBLE, see Forcirsre TRESPASS. TRESPASS TO LANDS, see Dir. & F. § 990-995. UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, see Riot, &c. UNLICENSED BUSINESS, see Stat. Crimes, and Dir. & F. § 996- 1001. UNLICENSED LIQUOR SELLING, see Stat. Crimes. UNLICENSED LOTTERIES, see Stat. Crimes. UNNATURAL CRIME, see Sopomy. USURY, see New Crim. Law and Dir. & F. VAGRANCY, see Dir. & F. § 1004-1010. VERBAL SLANDER, see LiBEL anp SLANDER. VIOLATION OF SABBATH, see Lorp’s Day. VOTING, ILLEGAL, see Stat. Crimes. WAGER, see Stat. Crimes. 470 CHAP. LXI.] WAY. § 1043 CHAPTER LXI. WAY, § 1042. 1043-1049, 1050-1053. 1054, 1055. 1056, 1057. Tntroduction. Indictment and Pleadings for Non-repair. Indictment for Obstructing. The Evidence. Questions of Practice. Consult,— for the criminal law of public ways, New Crim. Law, II. § 1264-1287. For the various forms of indictment, and related questions, Dir. & F. § 1011-1029. And see, for incidental questions, the indexes to this series of books. § 1042. How Chapter Divided. — We shall consider, I. The Indictment and Pleadings for the Non-repair of a Public Way ; II. The Indictment for obstructing a Public Way; III. The’ Evidence ; IV. Questions of Practice. I. The Indictment and Pleadings for the Non-repair of a Public Way. § 1043. Indictment. —Under the English system of public ways, complicated by prescriptive duties which must be averred’ and proved, more of allegation may be required than under our simpler statutory provisions. Under either system, a prima facie. case must be shown. If the duty and the corporate body whereon it rests are pointed out by public law, on principle, they need not be averred ; otherwise, they must be. Beyond this, the way, its insufficient condition, and the neglect of the defendant therein, must be set out with time and place, all expanded with due par- ticularity. As to which, a bridge is the same as the other parts of the way. More particularly, — 1 For forms and general doctrines, see Dir. & F. § 1011-1029; Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ey. 19th ed. 970; 8 Chit. Crim. Law, 577; Rex v. Devon, 4 B. & C. 770; Reg. v, Turweston, 16 Q. B. 109; S.v. Northum- berland, 46 N. H. 156; Reg. v. New Sa- rum, 7 Q. B. 941; Reg. v. Sainthill, 2 Ld. Raym. 1174; Reg. v. Waverton, 17 Q. B. 562; Reg. v. Midville, 4 Q. B. 240; Cum- berland v. Rex, 3 B, & P. 354; Reg. vu. Denton, Dears. 3,18 Q. B. 761, 14 Eng. L. & Eq. 124; C. v. Newburyport Bridge, 9 Pick. 142; C. y. Newburyport, 103 Mass. 129; C. v. Springfield, 7 Mass. 9; S. v. Madison, 63 Me. 546; C.v. Central Bridge, 12 Cush. 242; S. ». McDowell, 84 N.C. 798, S.v. King, 3 Ire. 411; Hammar »v. Covington, 3 Met. Ky. 494; Rex v. Stough- ton, 2 Saund. Wms. ed. 157, and see the notes, 471 § 1045 SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. § 1044. When the Duty to Repair —is not fully declared in the laws which the court judicially knows, it must be distinctly averred, so as to disclose a legal liability1 And if such liability is different from the common course of custom or law, —as, if the defendant is a private person or a turnpike corporation, the general duty of. repair being on the town or county,— the manner in which it arose must also be alleged.? § 1045. In the Description of the Way,? — the books are not in all respects distinct or uniform as to what is necessary. Pretty plainly the width need not be stated;4 neither need the termini, nor the courses and distances, though practically the termini are often given.® If the latter are alleged, they must, to avoid a variance, be proved.6 And other things of this general sort, obvious to the practitioner, will require attention.’ So the origin of the way, or the manner of laying it out, is not essential; but the simple averment is sufficient that it is a public highway duly established.2 In England, where there are many sorts of public ways, it is common to say that the one in question is a footway, a way for horses, or the like; but it is, at least, doubtful whether so much particularity is necessary,? and in reason it would seem not to be with us. proved.10 general manner.! 1 Rex v. Liverpool, 3 East, 86; Moore v. 8. 26 Ala. 88; Rex v. Auckland, 1 A. & E. 744, 1 Moody & R. 286; Rex v. St. Pancras, Peake, 219. And see Rex v. Scarisbrick, 6 A. & E. 509,1 Nev. & P. 582; S. v. Davenport, &c. Ry. 47 Iowa, 507; S. v. McDowell, 84 N. C. 798; Ward v. S. 12 Lea, 469. 2 Rex v. Penderryn, 2 T. R. 518, 515; S.v. New Jersey Turnpike, 1 Harrison, 222; Reg. v. Bucknell, Holt, 128; S. v. King, 3 Ire. 411; Reg. v. Haughton, 1 Ellis & B. 501, 18 Eng. L. & Eq. 287; Parkinson v. S. 2 W. Va. 589; Rex »v. Machynlleth, 2 B. & C. 166; s. c. nom. Penegoes, 3D. & R. 388. See Byron v. 8.35 Wis. 313. 3 And see post, § 1051. 4 §.v, Madison, 63 Me, 546. Contra, Rex v. All Saints, Cas. temp. Hardw. 105; Rex v. Hatfield, Cas. temp. Hardw. 315. 5 C. v. Newbury, 2 Pick. 51; S. v. New- fane, 12 Vt. 422; Rex v. Haddock, Andr. 137, 145, A472 Yet this sort of description, if made, must be A bridge in a public way may be described in a like 8 §. v. Northumberland, 46 N. H. 156; Rex v. St. Weonard’s, 6 Car. & P. 582; Rex v. Great Canfield, 6 Esp. 136... 7 Rex v. Gamlingay, 1 Leach, 528, 3 T.R. 513; Reg. v. Steventon, 1 Car. & K. 55; Rex v. Harrow, 4 Bur. 2090; S. »v. Dover, 10 N. H. 394 ; Reg. v. Botfield, Car. & M. 151. 8S. v. Raymond,7 Fost. N. H. 888; Aspindall v. Brown, 3 T, R. 265; Reg. v. Turweston, 16 Q. B. 109. ® Rex v. Hatfield, Cas. temp. Hardw. 315. See Allen v. Ormond, 8 East, 4; Reg. v. Lordsmere, 15 Q. B. 689; Reg. v. Turweston, 16 Q. B. 109. But see Reg. v. Sainthill, 2 Td. Raym. 1174, 1175. 10 Rex v. Lyon, Ryan & Moody, N. P. 151; 8. c. nom. Rex v. Lynn, 1 Car. & P. 527; Rex v. St. Weonard’s, 5 Car. & P. 579; S. v. Strong, 25 Me. 297; Reg. uv. Sturge, 3 Ellis & B. 734, 11 Reg. c. Saintiff,6 Mod. 255; S. v. Milo, 32 Me. 57; Reg. v. Adderbury East, 5 Q. B. 187. But see Malone v. 8. 51 Ala. 55. CHAP. LXI.] WAY. § 1050 § 1046. Place.— Where, to render the defendant liable, the way must be in a particular town or other locality less than the county, such place must, in addition to the general venue, be averred.1 § 1047. The Condition — of the way, that it needs repair, and where and wherein, must be stated, and with reasonable particu- larity.2. Yet, for example, the number of feet out of repair in a bridge need not be given? § 1048. Neglects by Official Persons, — required by law to keep public ways in repair, are a species of non-feasance in office, the principles regulating the procedure for which have been already considered. Some cases are cited in a note.é § 1049. The Pleadings. —In England, there are defences to the indictment for non-repair not permissible under not guilty, but requiring a special plea.® This is so, for example, in some cases wherein a parish, obligated “of common right” to repair, would defend itself by casting the duty on another.’ But defences of the kinds liable to arise in this country are, it is believed, by the English practice, allowable under not guilty. Certainly, in prin- ciple, they are; and our American books disclose little if any peculiar practice of this sort in our courts. Il. The Indictment for Obstructing a Publie Way. § 1050. The Indictment — avers, with due particularity, that on, &c., at, &c., in a common highway there, the defendant did 1 Rex v. Upton-on-Severn, 6 Car. & P. 133; C. v. North Brookfield, 8 Pick. 463; Rex v. Spiller, Styles, 108, 3 Salk. 77. 2 Reg. v. Stretford, 2 Ld. Raym. 1169; S. v. Canterbury, 8 Fost. N. H. 195; Rex v, Upton-on-Severn, 6 Car.& P. 133; S.v. Milo, 32 Me. 55; Reg. v. Waverton, 2 Den. C. C. 340, 5 Cox C. C. 400, 8 Eng. L. & Eq. 344. 3 Reg. v. Sainthill, 2 Ld. Raym. 1174, 1175, 1 Salk. 359. * Ante, § 819 et seq. 5 Nowlin ». §. 49 Ala. 41; Massure . S. 36 Tex. 377; S. v. Mathis, 30 Tex. 506; S. v. Forrest, 30 Tex. 503; Sennett v. S. 17 Tex, 308; S. », McMurrin, 1 Ind. 44; Dormar v. S. 31 Ark. 49; S. v. Hageman, 1 Green, N. J. 314. 6 A reference to some of the cases may be convenient; but not in all of them, where the special plea was resorted to, was it even supposed to be necessary, nor do all represent the true modern doctrine. Rex v, Terrel, Comb. 312; Reg. v. Ely, 4 Cox C. C. 281; Rex v. Bridekirk, 11 East, 304; Reg. v. Ashby Folville, 10 Cox C. C. 269; Rex v. Hammersmith, 1 Stark. 357. 7 Anonymous, 1 Vent. 256, 3 Salk. 392; Rex v. St. Andrews, 1 Mod. 112; Rex v. Hornesey, 12 Mod. 13; Rex ». Eastrington,5 A. & E. 765,1 Nev. & P. 193; Rex ». Nottingham, 2 Lev. 112; Reg. v. Barnoldswick. 4 Q. B. 499. 8 1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 497 et seq.; Rex v Norwich, 1 Stra. 177, 181; Rex v. Taunton, St. Mary, 3 M.& S. 465; Rex v. Brown, 11 Mod. 273. 473 § 1052 things which it specifies to the statute, it covers also the statutory terms. SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. obstruction of the way. If ona And in other respects it is drawn after the rules! for nuisance.? § 1051. The Description of the Way — is in substance the samé as stated in the last sub-title.8 but if given, they must be proved.® averred ; to say that it was a public way suffices.® name of the street, if it has one, The termini need not be given; 4 The laying out need not be Whether the or other like designation, to indi- vidualize the transaction, is necessary to be alleged, like the name of a man or the species of an animal injured, would seem to be a question on which usage differs. authorities.’ And there is good It is required by some of the sense in this view.8 § 1052. The Obstruction — should be set out with reasonable 1 Ante, § 861-867. 2 For forms, and the general doctrine regulating them, see Dir. & F. § 1012-1016, 1021, 1024, 1026, 1027; Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev, 10th Lond. ed. 640, 19th ed. 966; Thompson v. 8. 20 Ala. 54; S. v. Lemay, 13 Ark. 405; S. v. Grand Trunk Ry. 59 Me. 189; S. v. Wentworth, 37 N. H. 196; Wood v. 8.5 Ind. 433; S. v. Close, 35 Towa, 570; Rex v. Baxter, Trem. P. C. 196; Rex v. Russell, 6 B. & C. 566; Rex v. Russell,6 East, 427; C. v. Gowen, 7 Mass. 378; C. v. Wentworth, Brightly, 318; C. v. Goodnow, 117 Mass. 114; C.z. Belding, 13 Met. 10; Rex v. Wright, 1 A. & E. 434; C.v. Bakeman, 105 Mass. 53; C. v. Killian, 109 Mass. 345,12 Am. R. 714; Reg. v, Burrell, 10 Cox C. C. 462; Reg. v. Train, 2 B.& S. 640; Reg. v. Hol- royd, 2 Moody & R. 339; C. w. Gloucester, 110 Mass. 491; Rex », Harvey, Trem. P. C. 197; Rex v. H. P. Trem. P. C. 196; Reg. v. Bradford, Bel] C. C. 268, 8 Cox C. C. 309; Reg. v. Hadfield, Law Rep. 1 C. C. 258, 11 Cox C.C. 574; Reg. vw. Betts, 16 Q. B. 1022; C. v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53; C. v. Knowlton, 2 Mass. 530: S. v. Bell, 5 Port. 365; S. v. Beckman, 57 N. H. 174; Reg. v. Mutters, Leigh & C. 491, 10 Cox C. C. 6; Gregory v, C. 2 Dana, 417; C. v, Walters, 6 Dana, 290; C. v, Hicks, 7 Allen, 573; S. v. Mead, 27 Vt, 722; S. v, Tomlinson, 77 N. C. 528; S. v. Clemens, 88 Iowa, 257; S. v. Bacon, 40 Vt. 456; S. v. Vermont Central Rid. 27 Vt. 103; S.«. Baltimore, &c. Rid. 120 Ind. 298; Laroe 474 v. S. 80 Tex. Ap. 374; S.v. Narrows I. Club, 100 N. C.477,6 Am. St. 618; Bailey v. C.78 Va. 19; S.v. Holman, 29 Ark. 58; C. v. Chase, 127 Mass. 7; S. v. Chesa- peake, &c. Ry. 24 W. Va. 809; Wabash, &c. Ry. v. P. 12 Bradw. 448; Riley v. 8. 95 Ind. 446; S. v. Turner, 21 Mo. Ap. 324; S. v. Edens, 85 N. C. 522; S. uv. Beckman, 57 N. H. 174; S.v. Fleetwood, 16 Mo. 448; C.v. Rowe, 141 Mass. 79; C. v. Lagorio, 141 Mass. 81; Cornell v. S. 7 Bax. 520; S. v. Boyd, 86 N. C. 634. 3 Ante, § 1045. 4 Rex v. Haddock, Andr. 137, 145; Rex v. Hamond, 1 Stra. 44; Matthews v. 8. 25 Ohio St. 536; S.c. Hume, 12 Or,’ 133. 5 Reg. v. Botfield, Car. & M.151; Reg. v, Fisher, 8 Car. & P. 612. 5 ® Anderson v. S. 10 Humph. 119; S, v. Collins, 38 Tex. 189; S. v. Gilbert, 73 Mo. 20. ? : ‘ 7 S. v. Hogan, 31 Mo. 840; Cox». 8.3 Blackf. 193; S v. Stewart, 66 Ind. 555; S. v. Withrow, 47 Ark. 551; 8. v. Crump- ler, 88 N. C. 647. 8 See further, on the general subject of this section, Rex v. Downshire, 4 A. & E. 232, 5 Nev. & M. 662; Reg. v. Sturge, 3 Ellis & B. 734, 26 Eng. L. & Eq.171; S.v. Graham, 15 Rich. 310; S. v, Junker, 37 Tex. 478; Nichols v. S. 89 Ind. 298; S. v- Eastman, 109 N.C. 785; Palatka, &c. Rid. v. S. 23 Fla. 546, 11 Am. St. 395; S. v. Smith, 100 N. C. 550. CHAP. LXI.] WAY. § 1054 distinctness, showing a substantial interference with public rights. If it is an encroachment by a building, what particular part was placed in the way need not be stated.2 But it is too loose to say that the defendant erected thereon “a number of wooden sheds’ and buildings, one hundred feet in length and sixteen feet in breadth.” The length and width of the obstruction, or the part of the way obstructed, need not be averred.* If there is tc be an order of abatement, the location must be set out within rules already specified. But otherwise the exact part of the road need not be mentioned.® § 1053. Proceedings other than by Indictment — are in some of the States provided for obstructions to public ways.’ Ill. The Evidence. § 1054, Proof of Way.— That a way is commonly used by the public is, in general, prima facie evidence of its being a public way lawfully established ;* but to this doctrine there are familiar qualifications.2 So, prior judicial proceedings, conclusively or presumptively establishing the way, or proving its existence, may 1S. v. Baker, 58 Ind. 417; Giardina v. Greenville, 70 Missis. 896. 2 §.v. Atherton, 16 N. H. 203. 3 C.v, Hall, 15 Mass. 240, “A certain ‘impediment, to wit, a large quantity of logs, sticks, brushwood, and dirt, did erect and cause to be erected,” &., is good. Thompson v, §, 20 Ala. 54. * §. v. Day, 52 Ind. 483; Rex v. East Lidford, Say. 301; Respublica v. Arnold, 3 Yeates, 417. 5 Ante, § 866 (3); Wood v. S. 5 Ind. 433. And see Rex v. Knight, 7 B. &C. 413, 1 Man. & R. 217. § Matthews v. S. 25 Ohio St. 536. See further, as to the subject of this section, Justice v. C. 2 Va. Cas. 171; S. v. Clem- ens, 38 Iowa, 257; S.v. Portland, &c. Rid. 58 Me. 46; S. v. Collins, 38 Tex. 189; S. v. Graham, 15 Rich. 310; Cox v. S. 3 Blackf. 193; S. v. Lord, 16 N. H. 357. Pettinger v. P. 20 Mich. 336; Crosby v. Gipps, 19 Ill. 309; San Benito v. White- sides, 51 Cal. 416; S. v. Hayden, 32 Wis. 663; Higgins v. Grove, 40 Ohio St. 521; Miller v. S. 72 Ind. 421; S. v. Sweeney, 33 Minn. 23; S. v. Cotton, 29 Minn. 187. 8 C. v. Hicks, 7 Allen, 573; Golahar v. Gates, 20 Mo. 236; Kimbrough v. S. 10 Humph. 97; McWhorter v. S. 43 Tex. 666; Reg. v. East Mark, 11 Q. B. 877; Reg. v. Chorley, 12 Q. B. 515; Holleman v. C, 2 Va. Cas. 135; C. v. Belding, 13 Met. 10; Johns v. S, 104 Ind. 557; S. x. Davis, 27 Mo. Ap. 624; S. v. Schwin, 65 Wis. 207; P. v. Loehfelm, 102 N. Y.1; Michel v. S. 12 Tex. Ap. 108; Berry v. 8. 12 Tex. Ap. 249; Hall v. S. 13 Tex. Ap. 269. And see Shelby v. S. 10 Humph. 165. But this sort of evidence does not sustain an averment that it is a “ public road, lawfully established and classified as a first-class road.” Meuly v. 8. 3 Tex. Ap. 382. ® Golahar v. Gates, supra ; S. v. Strong, 25 Me. 297; Anderson v. S. 10 Humph. 119; S. wv. Sturdivant, 18 Me. 66; S. «. O’Laughlin, 19 Kan. 504. See C. v. Beld- ing, 13 Met. 10. 475 § 1057 be shown.! proved by parol.? SPECIFIC OFFENCES AND THEIR INCIDENTS. [BOOK XII. If it has never been used, its existence cannot be § 1055. Other Questions — of evidence may arise, but they in- volve no principles requiring special elucidation.’ IV Questions of Practice. § 1056. The Staying of Judgment — for the defendant to abate the nuisance, and the imposing of a lighter sentence on his doing it voluntarily, have already been explained. § 1057. Other Questions — of practice have arisen, but either they have found a place in other connections, or they are not of general interest. 1 Reg. v. Hallam, 24 Law T. 109, 29 Eng. L. & Eq. 200; Blodget v. Royalton, 14 Vt. 288; Reg. v. Haughton, 1 Ellis & B. 501, 18 Eng. L. & Eq. 287; Rex v. Whitney, 7 Car. & P. 208; Reg. v. Hick- ling, 7 Q. B. 880 ; O’Dear. S.16 Neb. 241 ; S. v. Ramsey, 76 Mo. 398. SeeS. ve. Wei- mer, 64 Towa, 243. 2 Harrington v. P. 6 Barb. 607; S. v. Cardwell, Bushee, 245; Day. S. 14 Tex. Ap. 26. See S.v. Gilmanton, 14 N. H. 467 ; 8. ce. Spainhour, 2 Dey. & Bat. 547; C.v. Pelding, 13 Met. 10; Thompson v. 8. 20 Ala. 54; McWhorter v. 8, 43 Tex. 666; 476 S. v. Glass, 42 Towa, 56; Chicago v. Wright, 69 Ill. 318; Cemetery Associa- tion v. Meninger, 14 Kan. 312; Mankin . S. 2 Swan, Tenn. 206. 8 Sullivan v. 8. 52 Ind. 309; C. v. Beld- ing, 13 Met. 10; Reg. 7. Lordsmere, 15 Q. B. 689; C. «. Franklin, 133 Mass. 569; Reg. v. Berger, 1894, 1 Q. B. 823. + Ante, § 870; Rex ev. Southampton, 2 Chit. 216; Reg. v. Clueworth, Holt, 339 ; Rex v. Loughton, 3 Smith, 575; Rex v. Lincomhe, 2 Chit. 214. And see Rex v. Chedinfold, Cas. temp. Hardw. 159. INDEXES TO THE CASES CITED AND SUBJECTS. INDEX TO THE CASES CITED IN BOTH VOLUMES, NorTE. — Where the plaintiff is the king or queen (Rex or Reg.), the State, Commonwealth, People, United States (abbreviated S., C., P.,U. S.), or the like, the defendant’s name is put first. (i and ii), the volume A. W., S. v. (1 Tyler, 260) Aaron v. §. (37 Ala. 106) ii. 429 i. 73, 688, 851, 921 —v. S. (89 Ala. 75) 1. 981. a, 959 a, 1227, 1391 — v. S. (39 Ala. 684) i. 59, 980, 1264 — v. §. (40 Ala. 307) i. 1310 — v. §. (31 Ga. 167) li. 633 —, S. v. (1 Southard, 231; 7 Am. D. 592) i, 951, 1281 Abbey v. Dewey (25 Pa. 413) ii, 751 ——, S.v. (29 Vt. 60 ; 67 Am. D. 754) i, 636, 688, 689 Abbot, P. v. (19 Wend. 192) i. 314.4; ii. 966, 968, 969 —., S. v. (R. M. Charl. 244) i. 251, 258 Abbott, C. v. (130 Mass. 472) i. 1046; li. 638 —, C. ». (13 Met. 120) i. 916 — v. P. (75 N. Y. 602) ii. 187 — v. P. (86 N. ¥. 460) 1. 909; ii. 613 — v. S. (69 Ind. 70) ii. 474 —,S. v. (11 Fost. N. H. 434) i. 522, 528, 611, 639 —, S. v. (16 N. H. 507) i. 92) 145 —;S. v. (20 Vt. 537) i, 619 —_, 8. v. (8 W. Va. 741) i. 1083, 1086; ii. 621 -— v. Striblen (6 Iowa, 191) i. 980 Abernathy r. §. (78 Ala. 411) i. 931 — S. ». (Busbee, 428) i. 605 Abgood, Rex v. (2 Car. & P. 436) ii. a Abingdon, Rex v. (1 Esp. 226; Peake, 236 i: 521, 963 Abington, Reg. v. (1 How. St. Tr. ~ 1141 Able, S. v. (65 Mo. 37) i. 1853 , 8. v. (65 Mo. 357) i. 1196 Abraham, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 550; ~ » 8 Cox C. C. 430) i. 1086, 1247 ——, Rex v. (1 Moody & R. 7) i, 762 Abrahams v. Bunn (4 Bur. 2251) __ ii. 429 i. 729 The plaintiffs is first in the other cases, The figures denote the section; the letters Abrahams »v. C. (11 Leigh, 675) i. 1864 —— v. C. (1 Rob. Va. 675), i, 314 a — v. §. (4 Iowa, 541) ~ ij. 121 — 5S. v. (6 Iowa, 117; 71 Am. D. 399) i, 801, 959 a; ii. 120 Abram wv. S. (25 Missis. 589) i. 665 —,S. v. (4 Ala, 272) i. 314, 8l4a Abrams, 8. v. (4 Blackf. 440) i. 691, 1317 — , S. v. (11 Or. 169) i. 1181, 1182 Abrigo v. S. (29 Tex. Ap. 143) i. 63, 384, 928, 951, 959 a Absence, S. v. (4 Port. 397) i. 536; ii. 355, 856, 859 Abshire v. S, (52 Ind. 99) i. 964 Accola, S. v. (11 Iowa, 246) * “4, 1270 Achey v. S. (64 Ind. 66) — i. 975 c, 1269; ii. 634 v. Stephens (8 Ind. 411) ii. 674 Achterberg v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 463) i. 384 Acker v. C. (94 Pa. 284) ii. 1002 — v. S. (23 Vroom, 259) i. 975 c, 1093 Ackert, C. v. (183 Mass. 402) i. 1236 Ackley v. P. (9 Barb. 609) i. 1112, 1116, 1119 Ackroyd, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 158) i. 815 Acosta, P. v. (10 Cal. 195) i. 1277 Acree, Ex parte (63 Ala. 2384) i. 261 Acton, Rex v. (17 How. St. Tr. 461) i. 973 —, Rex v. (2 Stra. 851) i. 256 Adair v. S. (1 Blackf. 200) i. 251, 264 d, 264 f 7|}——, S. v. (68 N. C. 68) i. 1160 Adam, 8S. v. (8 Hawks, 188) i. 3144 —, 8. v. (31 La. An. 717) i. 436 Adams v. Ashby (2 Bibb, 96) i, 2644 —v.C. (1B Monr. 70) i. 264 a — v.C. (23 Grat. 949) ii. 713 —, C. v. (16 B. Monr. 838) i. 1264 —, C. v. (1 Gray, 481) i. 887 (4 Gray, 27) i. 387, 402 (6 Gray, 359) (7 Gray, 43) 479 C. v. C. v. i. 803 C. v. i. 449 ; ii, 980 - ADD Adams, C. v. (127 Mass. 15) i. 425, 444; ii.8 —, C. v. (7 Met. 50) i. 488; ii. 410 — v. Field (21 Vt. 256) ii. 482 b v. Governor (22 Ga. 417) i, 264 a —— v. Gowan (89 Ind. 358) i. 314 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. AHL Addeock, S. v. (65 Mo. 590) ii. 945 Adderbury East, Reg. v. (5 Q. B. 187) ii. 1045 Addington, S. v. (1 Bailey, 310) _ ii. 721 —, S. v. (2 Bailey, 516; 28 Am. D. v. McGlinchy (66 Me. 474) i. 241} 150) i, 1884 — v. Michael (88 Md. 123 ; 17 Am. | Addis, In re (28 Fed. Rep. 794) i. 1318 R. 516) i. 1417 | ——, C. v. (1 Browne, Pa, 285) _1, 938 — v. Moore (2 Selw. N. P. 934) i. 168] —, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 388) i. 1170 v. P. (12 Bradw. 380), i, 264 f| Addison v. S. (48 Ala. 478) i. 1218 —v. P. (1 Comst. 173) i. 53 | —— v. S. (41 Tex. 462) ii. 825 —— v. P. (9 Hun, 89) i, 1185, 1251 |] —— v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 40) ii. 728 v. P, (47 Ill. 376) i. 999 v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 568) i, 264.4 —, P. v. (8 Denio, 190; 45 Am. — , S. v. (2 8. C. 356) i. 278, 861 D. 468) i, 53|—, U.S. v. (6 Wal. 291) i. 1138 —, P. ». (17 Wend. 475) i. 888, 548} Addotto, S. v. (84 La. An, 1) i. 3144 ——, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 299) i. 749, 782 —, Reg. v. (22 Q. B, D. 66; 16 Cox C. C. 544) ii. 784 v. ReQua (22 Fla. 250; 1 Am. St. 191) i. 1848 —, Rex v. (3 Car. & P. 600) ii. 742 —, Rex v. (Cas. temp. Hardw. 23 i. 264 f 7), 1, 202, v. S. (52 Ala. 379) i. 1249, 1252; ii. 989, 991 —v.S. (55 Ala. 143) i 422, 1015.4; ii. 143 v. S. (60 Ala. 52) ii. 713 — ». S. (62 Ala. 177). ii. 36 — v.S. (67 Ala. 89) i. 677 i. 273, 981, 1063, 1170; ii. 602 v. .S. (28 Fla, 511) », S. (52 Ga. 565) i 1005 a — v.§. (65 Ga. 516) i, 951 f —— »v. S. (72 Ga. 85) i. 160. v. §. (11 Ind. 304), i, 1355 y. §. (42 Ind. 373) i, 1067 —— v. §. (48 Ind. 212) i. 2642 v. -§. (29 Ohio St. 412) 4. 977; ii. 592 — v.S. re Ohio St. 462) ii. 149 —— v. S. (1 Swan, Tenn. 466) i, 73 v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 677), i. 1277 v. 8. (19 Tex. Ap. 1) i. 951, 1195, 1199 — v. §. (16 Vroom, 448) ii. 721 , S.v. (16 Ark. 497) i. 611 ——, 8. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 861) iii. 234 —. S. v. (20 Iowa, 486) i, 853 ——, 8. v. (78 Iowa, 292) i. 975 ¢ — , S. v. (20 Kan. 311) i. 965; ii. 158 — ,S. v. (44 Kan. 135) i. 959 a, 966 ¢ ——, 8. v. (14 La. An. 620) i. 495 —, 8. v. (89 La. An. 238) i. 1269 ——,S. v. (40 La. An. 2138) i. 1019 —,, 8. v. (78 Me. 486) i, 612, 725 — , 8. v. (85 N. C. 560), i. 1814 —, S. v. (17 Tex. 232) v. Vose (1 Gray, 51) i Adamson, Reg. v. (2 Moody, 286; 1 Car. & K, 192). ii. 1 i. i. 951, 951.7 i, 1019 480 Addy, S. v. (28 8. C. 4) i. 975 c, 979 —, S. v. (14 Vroom, 118; 89 Am. R. 547) i. 1299 Adkinson, C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 518) Adler, P. v. (3 Par. Cr. 249) —v.S. (85 Ark. 517; 37 Am. R. 48) i, 264 a, 264 /, 1369 — »v. 8. (31 Tex. 61), i. 2644, 1264 Admiralty case (13 Co. 61) i, 58 Adolfson, Territory v. (5, Mont. 287) 1. Adriance v. Lagrave (59,N. Y. 110; i, 2 17 Am. R. 317) i, 2246 Ady, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 140), ii. 187 Agee, S. v. (68 Mo. 264), ii. 90 Agnew v. Cumberland (12 S. & R. 94) i. 1816, 1388, 1889 Aguila, S. v. (14 Mo. 130), ii. 40 Ah Bau, Ex parte (10 Nev. 264) ii. 943 Ah Cha, Ex parte (40.Cal. 426) — i. 1005 Ah Chew, S. v. (16 Nev. 50; 40 Am. R. 488 i. 636, 930 Ah Choy, P. v. (1 Idaho, n. s. 317). ii. 574, 584 Ab Chuey, S. v. (14 Nev. 79; 38 Am, R, 530) i. 965 Ah Chung, P. », (54 Cal. 898). i. 917, 1060 Ah Dat, P. z. (49 Cal. 652) i. 1212 Ah Fong, P. v. (12 Cal. 345), i. 976, 1275 —, P. v. (12 Cal. 424) i. 1264 Ah Fook, Ex parte (49 Cal. 402) i. 891 Ah Fung, P. v, (17 Cal. 377) i. 1107 Ah Gow, P. ». (53 Cal. 627) i. 10054 Ah Hop, P. o. (1 Idaho, n. 8. 698) i. 946, 964, 1354 Ah How, P. v. (34 Cal. 218) i, 989, 1219, 1220 Ah Jow, In re (29 Fed. Rep. 181; 12 i, 1410 Saw. 88) Ab Ki, P. «. (20 Cal. 177) ii. 740, 741 Ah Kim, P. v. (44 Cal. 384) i, 1264 Ah King, P. v. (4 Cal. 307) i, 3l4a Ah Kong, P. v. (49 Cal. 6) i. 9808; ii. 637 Ah Kow v. Nunan (5 Saw. 552) — i. 1810 Ah Kung, S. v. (17 Nev. 361), i, 1054 Ah Lee, P. v. (60 Cal. 85) =i. 975 c, 1086 ——, §. v. (7 Or. 237) i, 1212 —, S. v. (8 Or. 214) i. 965; ii. 602 ——, S. v. (18 Or. 540) ii, 911 ALB Ah Len, P. v. (92 Cal. 282) i, 9755 Ah Loi, 8. v. (5 Nev. 99) 1. 1086; ii. 1006, 1007 a Ah Loy, P.v. (10 Cal. 801) i. 1278 —, P. v. (57 Cal. 566) i. 975¢ Ah Men, Ex parte (77 Cal. 198; 11 Am. St. 263) i, 1411 Ah Mook, 8. v. (12 Nev. 369) i, 1264 Ah Own, P. . (39 Cal. 604) i. 433; ii. 692 Ah Peen, Ex parte (51 Cal. 280) i, 892 Ah Sam, Ex parte (83 Cal. 620) i. 1410 —, P. v, (41 Cal. 645) ii, 455, 456 —'S.v. (7 Nev. 127) i. 439 Ah Sing, P. v. (19 Cal. 598) ii. 724 —, P. v. (51 Cal. 372) i. 1094 i. 975¢ ii. 1002 i. 1275 ii. 64 —, P. v. (59 Cal. 400) —, P. v. (95 Cal. 654) Ah Ti, P. v. (9 Cal. 16) Ah Toon, P. v. (68 Cal. 362) Ah Wah, Territory v. (4 Mont. 149; 47 Am. R. 341) i. 897, 898 Ah Wee, P. v. (48 Cal. 236) i. 301, 980 Ah Who, P. v. (49 Cal. 32) i. 1276 Ah Woo, P. v. (28 Cal. 205) i. 564, 586 Ah Ye, P. v. (81 Cal. 451) i. 567, 1018; ii. 87 Ah Yek, P. v. (29 Cal. 575) li, 954 Ah Ying, P. v. (42 Cal. 18) i, 950 ¢ Ah Yute, P. v. (43 Cal. 613) i. 1086 —, P. v. (56 Cal. 119) i. 1196 Aholtzv. P. (121 Ill. 560) i. 1279 Ahrens, 8S. v. (12 Rich. 498) i. 264a, 264 m Aickles, Rex v. (1 Leach, 294; 2 oe P. C. 675) i. 753 Aiken v.S. (10 Tex. Ap. 610) i. 1250; ii. 96 Aikens, S. v. (82 Iowa, 403) ‘ti. 935 Aikin, P. ». (66 Mich. 460; 11 Am. St. 512) i. 451, 1059 ; ii. 685 —v. 8. (85 Ala. 399) i. oo. 686, 931 a, 1228 ; ii. 689, 628 Ailstock, C. v. (3 Grat. 650) ii. 681 Aiman v. Stout (42 Pa. 114) ii. 681 Ainsworth v. Greenlee, (1 Hawks, 190) ij. 431 — v. 8.(5 How. Missis, 242) ii, 77 —v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 532) i. 975c¢ — v.8.(11 Tex. Ap. 339) i. 975 ¢ — ». Territory (3 Wash. Ter. eel 264 a, 264¢ Airey, Rex v. (2 East, 30; 2 East P. C. 881) ii, 163, 168 Ake v. S. (31 Tex. 416) i. 10194 — v.8. (6 Tex. Ap. 898; 382 Am. R. 686) i, 1050, 1093; ii. 599, 961 —,S.v. (9 Tex. 822) ii, 492 —, S. v. (41 Tex. 166) i, 264% Akehurst, Rex v. (1 Leach, 150; 2 East P. C. 1003) ii, 429 Alabama Great South. Rid. v. Yar-_ borough (83 Ala. 238) Albany Common Pleas, P. v. (19 Wend. 27) i Albatross v. Wayne (16 Ohio, 513) ii, 676 Albee, S. v. (61 N. H. 428; 60 Am. R. 325) i, 50, 68, 69, 118 VOL. 11.— 31 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. ALG ms Reg. v. (Dav. & M. 89; 5 Q. i. 380 ie v. §. (63 Ind. 598) i. 975.0, 1062 —, S. v. (50 Mo. 419) i. 768, 172 Albitz, Ex parte (29 Tex. Ap. 128) i. ‘1086 Albright, P. v. (14 Abb. Pr, 805; 23 How. Pr. 306) i. 1269 Albritton v. S. (82 Fla. 858) ii. 1,3 Alden, C. v. (14 Mass. 388) ii. 911, 914 —— v. §. (18 Fla. 187) ii. 820, 823 a Alderman v. P. (4 Mich. 414; 69 Am, D. 821) 1. 1164; ii. 216, 218, 221 — v. S. (57 Ga. 367) li. 828 —, 8. v, (40 Iowa, 375) ii. 105, 106 Alderson, S. (2Tex. Ap. 10) i. 1264; ii. 767 . (10 Yerg. 523) i, 931 TO ‘Rex v. (Say. 280) ii. 798 Aldrich v, Hawkins (6 Blackf. 125) i. 315 Aldridge v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 447) i. 711 ——, Reg. v. (3 Fost. & F.781) ii. 4820 — 8. (88 Ala. 113; 16 Am. St. 23) 1.682; ii. 138 —,S. v. (86 N. C. 680) i. 612 Aleck, P. v. (61 Cal. 187) i. 584 Aler, S. v. (89 W. Va. 549) ii. 793 Alexander, In re (1 Low. 530) i, 223d ——, Inre (69 Mo. 598; 21 Am. R. 39% i. 262 v. Angle (1C. & J. 148) ii, 794 v, C. (1 Bibb, 515) i. 720 — v. C, (105 Pa. 1) i. 994 ; it 617 — v.P. (96 Ill. 96) i. 600 — , Reg. v. (2 Crawf. & Dix C. C. 126) ii. £63 —— v.S. (3 Heisk. 475) i. 50, 386; ii. 524, 539 — v. §, (9 Ind. 337) ii. 831 — v.S. (60 Missis. 953) ii. 740 — v.S. (4 Tex. Ap. 261) i. 951 ¢ — v.8. (9 Tex. Ap. 48) ii. 726 —v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 614) i, 1277 — v.§. (25 Tex. Ap. 260; 8 Am. St. 438) i. 975 c; ii. 619 — v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 186) ii. 472 — v.§. (31 Tex. Cr. 359) if. 184, 147 —, S. v. (2 Dev. 470) i. 488¢; ii. 9830 —, S. v. (55 La. An. 1100) i. 852 —, S. v. (2 Mill, 170) i. 1021 — , S. v. (56 Mo. 131 ii. 180 ——,, S. v. (66 Mo. 148) _ ii. 599, 600, 620 —, S.v. (30 S.C. 74; 14 Am. St. 879) ii, 608 671 ——v. U.S. (188 U.S. 853) i. 946, es Alfonso v. U. S. (2 Story, 421) ii. 751 Alford v. C. (84 Ky. 623) ii, 506 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 160 ; 14 East, 218n. ii, 910 — v.58. (8 Tex. Ap. 545) i, 162, 172 Alfred, C. v. (4 Dana, 496) i, 400, 401 — v.§. (6 Ga. 483) i. 1275 —— v. S. (37 Missis, 296) 1.894, 909, 1240 — v.S. (2 Swan, Tenn. 581) i. 909, 1261, 1262 Alger, C. v. (7 Cush. 53) ii. 1060 481 ALL INDEX TO THE i. 2647 Alguire v. C. (3 B. Monr. 849) 4. 437 Alibez, P. v. (49 Cal. 452) ‘Alivtre, P. o. (55 Cal. 263) ii, 627 Alkenbrack wv. P. (1 Denio, 80) ii. 710 All Saints, Rex v. (Cas. temp. Hardw. 105) ii. 1045 Allan v. Kirton (2 W. BI. 842) ii, 845 Allday, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 136) i. 1008 Ailee v. S. (28,Tex. Ap. 531) i. 264.4 Allegany Commissioners v. Howard Commissioners (57 Md. 393) i, 68 Allegheny v. Shaw (34 Pa. 801) i. 1818 Allen’s Case, (126 Mass. 224) i. 264a Allen v. C. (2 Bibb, 210) i. 652, 692, 694 — ve. C. (86 Ky. 642) i, 265, 278, 975 ¢ v. C. (2 Leigh, 727) i. 1012 —,C. v. (128 Mass. 46; 35 Am. R. "356) i. 430; ii, 53 —— v. Gibson (4 Rand. 468) ij, 882 v. Kirton (3 Wils. 318) ii, 845 v. McNeel (1 Mill, 459) i oad . 824 —v, Martin (10 Wend. 300; 25 Am.D. 564) i, 204 v. Monmouth (2 Beasley, 68) i. 1417 v. Ormond (8 East, 4) ii. 1045 v. P. (57 Barb. 338) 1. 909 v. P. (77 Ill 484) i. 856 v. P, (82 Ill. 610) ii. 66 —, P. v. (5 Denio, 76) ii, 323 a, 829 ——, P. v. (51 Mich. 176) i. 746 —, P.v. (43 N. Y. 28) 1. 904, 905 — , Reg. v. (1 B. & 8. 850; 9 Cox C. C. 120) i, 1888, 13895 —, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 495) ii. 1015, 1018 a ——, Reg. v. (10 Cox C. C. 405) i. 884 —, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 364; 3 Cox C. C, 270) ii. 1013 ——, Reg. v. (2 Moody, 179; 9 Car. & P. 621) ii, 955 —,, Rex v. (1 Moody, 154) ii. 752a ——, Rex »v. (Trem. P. C. 216) ii. 690 v, 8, (52 Ala. 391) i. 1005 —v. S. (60 Ala. 19) i. 1086, 1095 —v.S. (71 Ala. 5) i. 983 v. 8. (73 Ala, 23) ii. 740 — v.8. (26 Ark. 333) 1. 1004; ii. 595 v. 8. (87 Ark, 433) ii, 586 v. 8. (7 Coldw. 357) i. 940 —v. 8. (21 Ga. 217; 68 Am. D. 457) i. 1180, 1899 v. S. (61 Ga. 166 i, 1269 — v.S. (74 Ga. 769 i. 966 d, 1159 — v. §. (8 Humph. 367) ii. 4324, 459¢ —— v. §. (54 Ind. 461) i, 898 v8. tra Ind, 216) i. 1264 — v.§, (12 Lea, 124) i. 1848; ii. 147, 148 v. 8. (Mart. & Yerg. 294) i, 1299 — v.§. (61 Missis. 627) i, 252, 869, 1193 a v. S. (66 Missis. 385) i, 293 v, 8. (10 Ohio St. 287) i. 1018, 1020, 1166, 1169, 1170 482 CASES CITED. ALM Allen v. S. (34 Tex. 280) i. 1036 — v.S. (42 Tex. 12) ii, 926 —— v.S. (42 Tex. 517) ii, 745 — v. 8. (4'Tex. Ap. 51) i. 59, 931, 1087, 1265 .S. (12 Tex. Ap. 190) i. 1243; ii. 768 —vD v. S. (13 Tex. Ap. 28) ii, 655° v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 820) ii. 113 —— v. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 150) ii, 163 —— v.S§, (16 Tex. Ap. 237) i. 1205 — v.58. (17 Tex. Ap. 637) i. 999; ii.619 — v.58, (5 Wis. 829) i. 3144, 315, 661, 652 —— 0.8. (46 Wis. 383) i. 1265 ——, 8. vu. (1 Ala. 442) i. 750, 755, 849, 1345 —,S.v. (83 Ala. 422) i. 234 a, 2646 ——., 58. v. (47 Conn. 121) i, 931 ——.S8. vo. (1 Hawks, 6; 9 Am. D. 616) ii. 482, 459 a — ,5. v. (3 Hawks, 614) i. 3l4a —,S.v (4 Hawks, 356) ii. 25 —, 8. v. (2 oe el i, 224.4, 264: —,S. v. (94 Ind, 441) i. 764 —, S. v. (82 ee 248) i, 395 —, 8. v. (57 Towa, 431) i. 1170 ——, S. v. (87 a. An. 685) i. 989; ii. 9 ——. 5. v. (1 McCord, 525; 10 Am. D. 687) ii. 806 ——. 5S. v. (22 Mo. 818) ii. 836 — , S. v. (64 Mo. 67) i. 278, 1858 ——, S. ve. (45 Mo. Ap. 551) i, 893 ——, 8. v. (72 N.C. 114) ii. 845 —, S. v. (103 N. C. 433) i, 1079; ii. 721 ——, 8. v. (107 N. C. 805) i, 885 ——, S. v. (8 Rich. 448) i, 943 —, 58. v. (8 W. Va. 680) i. 651, 1363 v, Smith (7 Halst. 199) ii. 883 —— v. Staples (6 Gray, 491) i. 230, 241, 242 —— v. Wright (8 Car. & P. 522) — i. 168 Alley ». P. al Gilman, 109) i. 2647 — v. 8. (82 Ind. 476) i. 1859 Alleyne v. Reg. (5 Ellis & B. 399; Dears. 505; 32 Eng. L. & Eq 130) i. 1365, 1871 —, Reg. v. (4 Ellis & B. 186; 29 Eng. L. & iq. 179) i. 1265, 1871 Alling, S. v. (12 Ohio, 16) i, 1130 Allis v. Beadle (1 Tyler, 179) i, 1841 Allison, In re (18 Colo. 625; 16 Am. St. 224) i. 316, 828, 925 —— v. C. (88 Ky. 254) ii, 984 — vu. C. (99 Pa. 17) i. 909, 1218 —— v. 8, (42 Ind. 354) i. 1099; ii. 869 v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 122) i, 1159, 1242 — v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 402) i. 975 -—, 8. v. (44 Kan. 423) i. 721, 1265 —-, 8. v. (8 Yerg. 428) i. 1023 — UU. Thomas (72 Cal. 562; 1. Am. St, 89) i, 683 Aliphin v, 8, (41 Tex. 79) i, ‘51a Allyn v. 8. (21 Neb. 593) i, 738 Alman; 8. v. (64 N. C. 364) i. 265, 273 Almon, Rex v, (5 Bur. 2686) ii, 800 AND INDEX TO THE Almy, S. v. (3 R. I. 149) i. 1264 Alonzo v. 8S. (15 Tex. Ap. 878; 49 Am. R. 207) i. 1151 Alphin, S. v. (81 N. C. 566) i. 1268 —, S. v. (84 N. C. 745) i, 1276 Alphonse, 8. v. (84 La. An.9) i, 981, 1286 Alsabrooks v. 8. (52 Ala. 24) i. 1034, 1128 Alsberg, In re (16 Bankr. Reg. 116) i. 1411 Alsey v. 8. (39 Ala. 664) ii, 728 Alsman, C. v. (5 J. J. Mar. 28) i. 3l4a Alsop, S.v. (4 Ind. 141) i. 379 Alston v. Alston (4 8. C. 116) i. 1398 v. S. (63 Ala. 178) i. 1247 — v. S. (41 Tex. 39) i. 1004, 1284, 1255 —, S. v. (94 N. C. 930) i, 1120 Alton v. Kirsch (68 111.261) i. 718, 1264 Altree v. Moore (1 Or. 350) ii. 3887 Alvilla v. S. (82 Tex. Cr. 186) i. 1181 Alviso, P. v. (55 Cal. 230) i. 1057 Amsnacus, P. v. (50 Cal. 233) i. 1187 Amann »v. P. (76 Il. 188) i, 688 Ambler, S. v. (56 Vt. 672) ii. 34 Ambs, 8. v. (20 Mo. 214) i. 1827 Amedy, U.S. v. (11 Wheat. 392) i. 1180 American Fur Co. v. U. 8. (2 Pet. 358) ii, 229 American Iron Mountain Co. v. Evans (27 Mo, 552) ii. 230 Ames, P.v. (39 Cal. 403) i. 1169, 1170 —, 8. v. (64 Me. 386) ii. 897 ——, S. v. (10 Misso. 743) i. 879; ii. 494 Amey, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 500) i 211 Amherst Bank v. Root (2 Met. 522) ii. 482a Amidon, In re (40 Mich. 628) i. 1810 —,S. v. (68 Vt. 524) i. 650, 711 Ammons, Ex parte (34 Ohio St. 518) i. 223 — v.§. (9 Fla. 580) i, 68, 73 ——, S. v. (8 Murph. 123) ii, 909 Amos ». 8. (83 Ala. 1; 3 Am. St. 682) i, 1220, 1249 — v. §. (10 Humph. 117) ii. 168 Amphlit, Rex v. (6 D. & R. 125; 4 B. & C. 35) ii. 800 Anable v. C. (24 Grat. 563) ii, 185 Anderdon v. Burrows (4 Car. & P. 210) ii, 683 Andersen v. S. (43 Conn. 514; 21 Am. R. 669) i. 1273, 1279 Anderson, Ex parte (55 Ark, 527) i. 229 —— +. Barksdale (77 Ga. 86) i. 1179 — ». C., (4 Leigh, 693) i. 1364 uv. C. (5 Leigh, 740) i, 1364 — vu. C. (83 Va. 326) i. 1077 — v. Doty (33 Hun, 160) i, 1415 — v. O'Donnell (298. C. 855; 13 Am. St. 728) i, 892, 1264 —, P. v. (39 Cal. 703) ii. 610, 612 —, P. v. (44 Cal. 65) — , Rex v. (7 How. St. Tr. 811) = Ws, (48 Ala. 665; 17 Am. R. 36 i. 729 ii. 139 — v. S. (65 Ala. 558) ii. 486 — v.8. (79 Ala. 5) i. 1213 — v. 8, (84 Ark. 257) i, 1357 —. i. 1057, 1248 S. (24 Fla. 139) i. 980.4, 1179] — CASES CITED. AND Anderson v. S. (14 Ga. 709) i. 909, 9498, 981, 12544 — v.S. (42 Ga. 9) i, 849, 886 — v.S. (68 Ga. 675 ii. 12 v. S. (72 Ga. 98) i. 951a, 1269 — v5. e Har. & J. 174) i. 1862 — v.58. (3 Heisk. 86) i. 1847 —— v. 8. (10 Humph. 119) ii. 1051, 1054 —— v. 8. (26 Ind. 89) i. 685 — v. §. (28 Ind. 2) i, 68, 22, 614; ii, 1002 —— v. 8. (104 Ind. 467) i. 984, 987, 1250; ii. 975 v. §. (2 Kelly, 370) i. 9898 —— v. 8. (6 Lea, 602) i. 1054 —— v. S§. (25 Neb. 550) i. 1238 —— v. 8. (7 Ohio, pt. 2d, 250) i, 622; ii. 425 — v.58. (5 Pike, 444) i. 618, 651, 702, 897, 922, 1002; ii. 544, 548 — v.S. (8 Pin. 367) i. 125, 733 v. 8, (381 Tex. 440) i. 977 — v.58. rc Tex. 389) i, 1857 — v. 8. (1 Tex. Ap. 730) i. 980, ee i. 67 —— v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 542) i ‘951 — v. 8. (11 Tex. Ap. 576) ii. 740 — v.§. (15 Tex. Ap. 447) i.975c, 1110 —— v.8. (16 Tex. Ap. 182) i, 975¢ v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 17) ii. 910a — v. 8. (19 Tex. x 299) i. 264 m —— uv. §. (25 Tex. Ap. 593) ii. 740 — v,S. (27 Tex. Ap. 177; 11 Am. St. 189) i. 1020; ii. 537, 538, 538a —,,S. v. e Bailey, 565) i, 995; ii. 431 — , 8. v. (6 Harring. Del. 493) i. 909 ——, §.v. (103 Ind. 170) i. 614; ii. 902 —,S. v. (17 Kan. 89) i. 1264 ——, 8. v. (84 Kan. 116) i. 1264 —, 5. v. (29 La. An. 774) i. 281, 814@ ——, 5S. v. (25 Minn. 66; 83 Am. R. 455) i, 63; ii. 782 —, 8. v. (41 Minn. 104) i. 1002 —, 8. v. (19 Mo. 241) i. 965, 1268; ii. 965 —_, S. v. (84 Mo. 524) i, 1264 —, 8. e. (86 Mo. 399) i. 1095, 1181, 1182, 1269 , 8. v. (89 Mo. 312) ii, 595 —; §S. v, (96 Mo. 241) i. 68, 1236 —,S8. v. (98 Mo. 461) i. 975c¢ —,S. v. (92 N.C. 732) i. 975c, 1248 —,S. v. (101 N. C. 758) i. 966 b, 970 —, S. v. (3 Nev. 254) i. 416, 612 —, 8. v. (4 Nev. 265) i. 909, 979, 980, 981, 999, 1128; ii. 589, 629 , 5. v. (8 Rich. 172) i, 685 , S. v. (26 8. C. 599) i. 931, 9434, 946, 975¢, 979 —, S. v. (1 Strob. 455) i, 449 , 8. v. (2 Tenn. 6; 5 Am. 1D. 648) ii. 603 —, 8. v. (11 Vroom, 224) i. 180, 145 —, S. v, (6 Wash. 350) ii. 146, 147 —., U.S. v. (17 Blatch. 238) i. 884 483 ANO INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. : ANO Anderson v, Wasatch, &c. Rid. (2 Anonymous (1 Dy. 99a) i, 495, 548 Utah, 518) i. 981 | —— (2 Dy. 208, pl. 5) i. 1299 Andress v. 8. (3 Blackf. 108) i. 2644, 264m | —— (8 Dy. 285 a) i. 684 Andrew v. Lewkner (Yely. 116; Cro. —— (8 Dy. 3804, pl. 56} ii. 548 Jac, 187) i, 605 | —— (3 Dy. 3638 a) i, 618 Andrews, Iéx parte (19 Ala. 582) 1.256, 260 | —— (3 Dy. 3708, pl. 61) i. 1813 —,, C. v. (97 Mass. 543) i. 269 | —— (1 East P. C. 180) ii, 425 ——, C. v. (182 Mass. 263) i. 423, 764, | —— (1 Kast P. C. 805) i. 185 1052; ii. 240 | —— (Fort. 242) i. 1312 —, C. v. (Trial, by Davis, 134) ii. 687 a | —— (4 Halst. 2) i. 1880 —— v. P. (60 Ill. 354) i. 1091; ii. 991 | —— (2 Hayw. 140) : En v. P. (117 Ill. 195) i. 457, 869 a | —— (Holt, 343) 754 —,, P. v. (52 N.Y. 445) i. 1380 |} —— (Holt, 685; 8 Salk. 317) i. 125, 126; ——, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 121) ii. 143 1. 994 —— v. 8. (21 Fla. 598) i. 909, 962, 1098 | —— (Jenk. Cent. 219) ‘i 252 — v. 8. (2 Sneed, 550) i. 273 | —— (J. Kel. 8) i, 437 v. S. (13 Tex. Ap. 348) i. 612 | ——~ (J. Kel. 58) i. 53 —, S. v. (29 Conn. 100; 76 Am. D. — (J. Kel. 83) ii. 188 593 i, 901, 949 b, 1276 | —— (3 Law Ree. 44) i. 726 —, 5. v. (17 Me. 103) i. 10154 | — (1 Leach, 90, note) ii. 188 ——,, S. v. (26 Mo. 169) i. 325 | —— (1 Leach, 264, note) i. 1218 —, S. v. (27 Mo. 267) i. 816 | —— (1 Leach, 480, note) i. 95le ——,, S. v. (28 Mo. 17) i. 488 ) | —— (1 Leach, 464, note) ii. 721 —, U.S. v. (2 Paine, 451) i. 603 | —— (2 Leach, 1108, note) i 44y Androscoggin Rid. v. Richards (41 —— (2 Lewin, 260) i. 258 Me. 233) i. 208 | —— (Lofft, 155) i. 141 Andy v. S. (87 Ala. 23) i. 1018 | —— (Lofft, 160) i. 1268 Aneals v. P. (134 Ill. 401) i. 1034, 1066 | —— (Lofft, 228) i. 487, 469 Angel v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 228) ii. 734 | —— (Lofft, 271) i, 887 — uv. C. (2 Va. Cas. 231) i. 588, 1285 | —— (Lofft, 281) i. 256 —, S. v. (7 Ire. 27) i. 677, 979; ii. 506 | —— (Lofft, 390) i. 196 Angell v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 451) i, 1238 |} —— (Lofft, 400) i. 275 Angelo v. P. (96 Ill. 209; 86 Am. R. — (Lofft, 554) i. 256 182) i. 1181, 1186 | —— (1 MaeN. Ev. 55) i, 1161 , 8. v. (18 Nev. 425) i. 983 | —— — March, 67, pl. 105) ii. 945 Anglo-French Co-op. Soc., In re (14 31 Me. 592) i, 269 Ch. D. 538) i. 207a 0 i. 995, 1002 Angus v. 8. (29 Tex. Ap. 52) i. 9756, 980 | —— tre Me. 207) i,.1040 Ann v. S. (11 Humph. 159) i. 314 | —— (1 Mod. 14) i. 931a Anne v. S. (11 Humph. 205) i, 1315 | —— (3 Mod. 265) i. 788, 1293 Annesley v. Anglesea (17 How. ee -| —— (6 Mod. 179) i, 250 Tr. 1189) 1078 | —— (7 Mod. 47) i. 1269 Annis, C. v. (15 Gray, 197) 1.1094; YL 754 | —— (7 Mod. 58 i. 1275 — , P. v. (10 Colo. 53) i. 279 | —— (7 Mod. 63 i, 264¢ —, P. v. (13 Mich. 511) i. 962 | —— (7 Moi. 97) i. 264g Anonymous (1 Bulst. 205) i. 860, 502 | —— (8 Mod. 248) ii. 718 — (1 Bur. 252) i. 965 | —- (10 Mod. 71) i, 1850 —— (2 Bur. 1082) i, 855 | —— (11 Mod. 8) i, 1284; ii. 425 — (2 Car. & K. 845) i. 233 | —— (11 Mod. 4) i, 2647 — (2 Car. & P. 459) ii. 742 | —— (11 Mod. 5) i. 951 — (5 Car. & P. 542, note) i, 1245 | —— (11 Mod. 220) ii, 793 — (6 Car. & P. 408) i. 683 | —— (11 Mod. 305) ii. 872 —— (9 Car. & P. 78) i. 666 | —— (12 Mod. 40) i. 1189, 1166 — (2 Chit. 422) i. 965 | —— (12 Mod. 504) ii. 862 —— (4 Co. 48a) i, 482, 605, 608 | —— (12 Mod. 512) i, 1138 — (Comb. 3) i, 264 ¢ | —— (Palmer, 368) ii, 865 — (Comb. 45) _ __ i 714) —— (cited 1 Pick. 41) i, 922 —— (Comb. 243) i. 768, 772 — (cited 1 Pick. 42) i. 9496 —— (Comb. 303) i. 508 9 Pick. 495) i, 868 — (stated Cowp. 174) i. 1206 | —— (stated 8 Rich. 461) i. 1206 — (1 Crawf. & Dix C. C. 192) i. 59, | —— (Russ. & Ry. 173) i, 8704 60; ii. 982 | (Russ. & Ry. 177) * 4, 851 — as re, Car, 380) ii. 849 | —~ (Russ. & Ry. 489) i, 676 Cro. Eliz. 201) i. 618; ii, 922 | —— (1 Russ. Crimes, 3d Eng. ed. —— (stated 2 Den. C. C. 522) i, 1283! 695) ii. 968 484 APP INDEX TO THE Anonymous (1 Salk. 50) i. 715 . —— (1 Salk. 105) i, 250 — (1 Salk. 380) i. 771 —— (1 Salk. 396) i. 3814 —— (1 Salk. 405) i. 1146 — (3 Salk. 58; Vent. 2) i, 254 —— (3 Salk. 147) i. 1369 —— (3 Salk. 187) ii. 873 —— (8 Salk. 372, pl. 1) i. 1015a@ —— (2 Show. 60) ii. 870 —— (Sir F. Moore, 5) i. 618 — (Sir F. Moore, 13, pl. 48) i. 1028 —— (Sir F. Moore, 606) i. 196 —— (T. Jones, 233) i. 1803 —_ (‘T. Ray. 68) i. 1291 —— (1 Tenn. 437) i. 1264 — (Trem. P. C. 68) ii. 783 —— (1 Va. Cas. 139) i. 1889 —— (1 Vent. 108) i, 648 —— (1 Vent. 111) i. 648 —— (1 Vent. 256; 8 Salk. 392) ii. 1049 — (1 Vent. 369) i. 769 —— (Willes, 459) i. 196, 207 ——, Rex v. (1 Chit. 698) i. 769 ——, Rex v. (3 Mod. 104) i. 490 —., Rex »v. (4 Mod. 61) i. 889, 847 Ansaleme, S. 1». (15 Iowa, 44) i. 480, 851 Anschicks v. 8. (45 Tex. 148) i. 68 —v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 524) i. 998.4 Anschincks v. S. (43 Tex. 587) i. 1264 Ansley, S. v. (18 La. An, 298) i. 264, 2644, 264 b, 2647 Antelope, The (12 Wheat. 546) — i. 1315 Anthes, C. v. (5 Gray, 185) i. 984 —, C. v. (12 Gray, 29) i. 358 Anthony, P. v. (66 Cal. 397) i. 1074 —. P. v. (4 Johns. 198) ii. 888 v. 8. (29 Ala. 27) i. 629; ii. 648 — v. S. (9 Ga. 264) i, 814a — v.§. (4 Humph. 83) i. 405 —r.8. (Meigs, 265; 33 Am. D. 148) i. 1208, 1212 v. S. (2 R. I. 305) i. 1019, 1021 — v. §. (13 Sm. & M, 263) i. 613; ii. 80 — 5S. v. (7 Ire. 234) i, 901; ii. 10084 —, 8. v. (1 McCord, 285) i. 650 — v, Smith (4 Bosw. 503) ii. 631 — , U.S. x. (11 Blatch. 200) i. 977 Antonez v. S. (26 Ala. 81) i. 251, 2644 Antonio, P. v. (27 Cal. 404) i. 1008; ii. 740 —,S. v. (4 Hawks, 200) i. 980 —,S. v. (2 Tread. 776; 3 Brev. 562) ii, 261 Antrobus, Rex v. (2 A. & E. 788; 4 Nerv. & M. 8565) i. 1886 aoa fe v. (4 Woods, 174; 16 Fed. Rep. 119) 850 as, S. v. (40 Iowa, 151) i 1306 Apgar, Pv, (35 Cal. 389) i. 8144 Apple, P. v. (7 Cal. 289) “i. 786, 1265 Appleby, Rex v. (3 Stark. 83) i. Dee Applegate v. Applegate (1 Harrison, BP Be pplegate ( ty aap CASES CITED. ARM Applegate, P. v. (5 Cal. 295) i. 8144 Arapahoe Commissioners v. Graham (4 Colo. 201) i. 1319 Arata, S. v, (82 La. An. 193) i, 931 Arbintrode v. S. (67 Ind. 267; 88 Am. R. 86) i. 1264 Arbogast, S. v. (24 Mo. 383) i, 514 Archer’s Case (6 Grat. 705) i. 256 Case, cited (1 Plow. 21la; 5 Mod. 350) i. 1001 Archer v, C. (10 Grat. 627) i. 264a, 2647 ——, Rex v. (1 Moody, 143) ii. 988 — ».§. (35 Ga. 1) i. 1012 v. §, (106 Ind. 426) i. 60, 56 —,S8.v. a Iowa, 320) i. 975¢ —S.v. (64N. HW 465) ii. 678 —,§8. v. (84 Tex. 646) ii. 68a Archibald v. §, (122 Ind. 122) i, 1212, 1214 Arcia v. 8. (28 Tex. Ap. 198) i. 488 a, 1120 Ard v. §. (114 Ind. 542) i. 679 Ardaga, P. v. (61 Cal. 371) i. 1278; ii, 967, 968 Arden, S. v. (1 Bay, 487) i. 13824 Ardery v. S. (56 Ind. 828) ii. 354 Argent v. Darrell (2 Salk. 648) i. 1268 Arispe v. 8. (26 Tex. Ap. 581) i. 975c; ii, 740 Arkansas v. Freeman (31 Ark. 266) i. 305, 306 Arlen v. 8. (18 N. H. 568) i. a 1015 Arlett, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 596; Cox C. C. 431) at 951 Arlin, S. v. (7 Fost. N. H. 116) i. 3144 —, 8. v. (39 N. H. 179) i. 301 Armendares v. 8. (10 Tex. Ap. 44) i. 949 Armfield, S. v. (5 Tre. 207) ii. 890 Armington, S. v. (25 Minn. 29) i. 934 Armistead v. C. (11 Leigh, 657; 37 Am. D. 633) i. 909 v. 8. (48 Ala. 340) i. 400 — v.S. (18 Ga. 704) i. 1166 ; ii. 628, 625 Armitage v. 8. (13 Ind. 441) ii. 462 Armor v. 8. (63 Ala. 173) i. 1116; ii. 684 Armstead’s Case (7 Grat. 599) i, 966. Armstrong, In re (182, 1 Q. B. 827; 17 Cox C. C. 349) i, 207 a v. Burrows (6 Watts, 266) i. 792 —, C. v. (7 Gray, 49) i, 402 v. Free (2 Hodges, 197) i. 1276 —— v. Lisle (Trem. P. C. 20) 1: Tol v. P. (88 Tl. 613) i. 980 v. P, (70 N. Y. 38) i, 1061 — v. 8. (83 Ala. 49) 1. 975 c, 981 v, 8. (4 Blackf. 247) i 984 — v. S. (1 Coldw. 338) i. 63 v. S. (27 Fla. 366; 26 Am. St. 72) ii. 673 v. §. (30 Fla. 170) ii. 669, 6738, 678 — vw. 58. (2 Lea, 190) i. 1276 —— v. 8. (Minor, 160) i. 893 —— v. §, (21 Ohio St. 357) ii. 766 ——v. 8. (28 Tex. Ap. 526) i. 458 485 ASH INDEX TO THE Armstrong, S. v. (4 Minn. 335) S. v. (108 Mo, 395; 27 Am. St. 361) i, 448, 713; ii. 784 v. Timmons (8 Harring. Del. 342) i, 1141; ii. 670, 674 _ U.S. v. (2 Curt. C C. 446) i. 51; ii. 603, 606, 607, 621 Arnfield v. Bate (38 M. & S, 173) i. 406 Arnold, C. v. (83 Ky. 1; 4 Am. St. i, 711 ? 114) i. 1268 —, C. v. (3 Litt. 309) i. 1052 — Cv. (4 Pick. 251) ii, 494 v. P. (75 N. Y. 608) i. 1181 —, P.e. (15 Cal. 476) i. 982.4, 1050, 1095 ; ii. 619, 621, 625, 627 ——, P. v. (40 Mich. 710) i. 975 ¢ ——} P. v. (48 Mich. 808; 88 Am. R. 182) i. 1202 —, P. v, (46 Mich. 268) ii. 206, 208 ——, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 621) i. 1199, | 1261 ——, Respublica v. (3 Yeates, 417) ii. 865, 1052 —., Rex v. (16 How. St. Tr. 695) i. 1001 —, Rex »v. (1 Stra. 101) ii. 824 —— v. S. (25 Ala. 69) i, 234 b v. 8. (29 Ala. 40) i. 977 v. 8. (51 Ga. 144) i. 1005, 1005 a — v. 8. (53 Ga. 574) i, 1052 v. 8. (23 Ind. 170) i. 1094 — uv. §. (52 Ind. 281; 21 Am. R. 175) ii, 1002 — v.8. (3 Tex. Ap. 437) i, 2644 v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 435) i. 1250 —v. 8. (11 Tex. Ap. 472) ii, 172 ——,, S. v. (12 Iowa, 479) 1. 72, 909, 915; ‘ ii. 667, 740 —,S. v. (48 Iowa, 566) i. 1248 —,§. u, (18 Ire. 184) i, 1211, 1213 —, 8. v. (107 N. C. 861) ii. 512; 544, 546 —, S. v. (89 Tex. 74) ii, 845 —, 8S. v. (60 Vt. 731) i. 711, 1181 Arnope, Rex v. (Trem. P. C.91) ii. 158 v. Steeves (10 Wend. 514) 1. 191, 214 Aro, P. «. (6 Cal. 207; 65 Am. D. 503) i. 390, 403, 514 Arrance, C. v. (5 Allen, 517) i. 966 ; ii, 724 Arras, P. v. (89 Cal. 228) ii. 718 Arrington, S. v. (38 Murph. 571) i. 1004 Arteaga v. Conner (88 N. Y. 408) i. 250 Artemus v. S. (79 Ga, 512) i. 975¢ Arthur v. S. (22 Ala. 61) i, 724 v. 8. (8 Tex. 403) i, 1857 ——, S. v. (2 Dev. 217) i. 938, 1060 —, 8. v. (21 Iowa, 822) i. 1008 —, S. v. (23 Iowa, 480) i, 978, 1250 ——, S. v. (32 Mo. Ap. 24) i. 1264 — v. Wells (2 Mill, 314) i, 160 Arwo, U.S. v. (19 Wal. 486). i. 65, 66 Arwood v. S. (59 Ga, 391) i. 1279 Asberry, S. v. (87 La, An, 124) i. 981 Ash v. Marlow (20 Ohio, 119) i. 691 — v.S. (56 Ga. 583) i. 905, 1279 ; ii. 63, 656 486 CASES CITED. ATK Ashbrook ». C. (1 Bush, 189; 89 Am. 1). 616) i, 394; ii. 866 Ashburn, Rex v. (8 Car. & P. 50) i. 950d Ashburton, Reg. v. (5 Q. B. 48, note) i. 711 Ashby, Reg. v. (14 How. St. Tr. 695) i. 1862 ——, Territory v. (2 Mont. 89) i. 5164, 519 —— Folville, Reg. «. (10 Cox C. C. 269 - di. 1049 Ashcraft v. De Armond, (44 Iowa, 229) ii. 687 a ——, S. v. (95 Mo. 348) i. 951f Ashe, P. v. (44 Cal. 288) i. 1094, 1116 ——, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 150) i, 948 Ashford vc. 8. (86 Neb. 38) ii. 147 Ashley’s Case (12 Co. 90) i, 168 Ashley, C. v. (2 Gray, 856) ii. 107, 108 —, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K, 198) ii. 138, 721 Ashlock v. C. (7 B. Monr. 44) i. 314 a, 1319 v. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 18) i. 975 ¢ Ashmall, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 236) i. 1036 Ashmore, 8, v. (19 Kan. 544) i, 1264 Ashnauer, P. v. (47 Cal. 98) i. 703 Ashton’s Case (2 Lewin, 147) i. 1207, 1212, 1216 Ashton, C. v. (125 Mass, 384) ii. 184 ——, Rex v. (2 B. & Ad. 750) ii, 845 v. 8. (68 Ga. 25) ii, 187 Ashworth v. S. (63 Ala. 120) i. 8694 — v.58. (9 Tex. 490) i. 1265, 1269 Askea v. S. (75 Ga. 356) i. 1169, 1170 Askew, Rex v. (8 M.& 8.9) i. 276, 10388 Askins, 8. v. (33 La. An. 1258) i. 898 Aslett, Rex v. (2 Leach, 954; 1 New Rep. 1; Russ. & Ry. 67) ii. 824 Aspinall, Reg. ». (1 Q. B. D. 730) ii. 210 ——, Reg. v. (2 Q. B. D. 48) i, 521; ii. 204, 205, 207 Aspindall v. Brown (3 T. R. 265) ii. 1045 Asselin, S. v. (T. U. P. Charl. 184) i. 236 Ast, Rex v. (Car. Crim. Law, 8d ed. 66 i. 1151 Aszman v, 8. (128 Ind. 347) i. 975, 980, : 982 Atcheson v. Everitt (Cowp. 382) i. 707 Atchison v. S. (18 Lea, 275) i. 975.c, 979 Atchison, &c. Rid. v. Baty, (6 Neb. 37; 29 Am. R. 356) i, Atchley v, Latham (3 A. K. Mar. 164 ii. 882 Athea, Rex v. (1 Moody, 329) ii. 188 Atherton, P. v. (51 Cal. 495) i. 980 , 8. v. (16 N. H. 208) ii. 1052 Atkins, Rex v. (3 Mod. 3) i. 707 —— v. 8. (16 Ark. 568) i, 824, 918, 979, 982.4, 1069, 1107, 1285; ii. 611, 621 Atkins v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 8) i. 951, 1279 ——, S. v, (5 Blackf. 458) ii. 403, 405 —, 8. vo. (1 Tenn. 229) i. 1195 ——,S. v. (42 Vt. 252) ii, 786 Atkinson v, Jameson (6 T. R. 25) i. 207 —— v. Lester (1 Scam. 407) i, 981 —— v. Reg. (3 Bro. P. C. 517) i. 1810 AUS INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. BAB Atkinson, Reg. v. (2d. Raym. 1248; Austin, Reg. v. (4 Cox C. C. 885) i. 870 1 Salk. 382; 11 Mod. 79) i, 469, 470 ; | ——, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 796) ii. 9, 587, ii, 862 980, 981 —, Rex »v. (1 Crawf. & Dix C. C. —, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 602) i. 488 161 ) ii. 744) —— v. S. (14 Ark. 555) i. 966 c, 1101, ——. Rex v. (2 Deac. Crim. Law, 1188, 1238 1017) ii. 919] — ». S. (11 Misso. 366) i. 785 —, Rex v. (2 Moody, 278) i, 682} —— v. S. (42 Tex. 345) i. 951; ii. 698 v. S, (19 Tex. Ap. 462) i. 548, 549 v. §. (42 Tex. 355) i. 998.4 —, 8S. v. (9 Humph. 677) i, 814) —— v. S. (15 Tex. Ap. 388) i, 1238 —, 8. v. (6 Jones, N. C. 65) i. 1087 | ——, S. v. (4 Humph. 213) i, 26424 —, 8. v. (29 La. An. 543) i, 931 | ——, S. v. (12 Misso. 576) ii, 494 —. 5S. v. (40 8. C. 863; 42 Am. St. —, 8. «. (79 N. C. 624) i. 975, 980; 877) ii. 5 ii, 190 —— v. Snow (30 Me. 864) i. 980; ——, S. v. (108 N. C. 780) i. 977, 1001 Atkyns, Rex v. (3 Bur. 1706) ti. 371) ——, S v. (6 Wis. 205) i. 1003 Atlanta, &c. Air Line Ry. v. Ray (0 v. Talk (20 Tex. 164) i. 978 Ga. 674) 0 | Austine v. P. (51 Ill. 236) i. 1223 Atlantic Bank v. Frankford (Philips, Autauga v. Davis (82 Ala. 703) ii, 625 N. C. 199) Atlas Mining Co. v. Johnston 3" Mich. 36) i. 904 Attaway v. S. (66 Ga. 363) _ i. 1081, 1279 Attorney-General, In re (Mart. & Yerg. 285) i, 287 ——. Brown (9 C. E. Green, 89) i. 1417 v. Cleaver (18 Ves. 211) i. 1414 v. Detroit (40 Mich: 631) i. 814.4 v. Green (1 Price, 130) i, 965 v. Hane (50 Mich. 447) i. 287 —— v. Hunter (1 Dev. Eq. 12) i. 1417 v. Kwok-a-Sing (Law Rep. 5 P. C. 179; 12 Cox C. C. 565) i, 224 —v. Laragoity (3 Price, 221) i. 95la — v. Lombard, &e. Passenger Rid. (10 Philad. 352) i. 1417 v. Macpherson (Law Rep. 3 P. C. 268) i. 479 — v. Municipal Court (103 Mass. 456) ii. 794a v. New Jersey Rid. &c. Co. (2 Green Eq. 136) i. 1417 v. Ray (11 M. & W. 4f4) i, 714 — v. Stevens (3 Price, 72) i. 1040 —— v. Thacker (2 Price, 116) i, 95la v, Utica Ins. Co. (2 Johns Ch. 371) i. 1412, 1415, 1417 —— v. Young (2 Comyns, 423) i. 408 Atwood, C. v. (11 Mass. 93) i. 480 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 464) i, 1169 —— v. Weems (99 U. S. 183) i, 920 Auckland, Rex v. (A. & E. 744; 1 Moody & R. 286) ii, 1044 Audley, Rex vo. (38 How. St. Tr. 401 ii. 957, 960, 963, 1013 Angsbury, P. v. (97 N. Y. 501) i. 1179 Augustine v. S. (20 Tex. 450) i. 378, oe Austen, Rex v. (D. & R., N. P. 24) i. 1316 —, Rex v. (9 Price, 142) i, 292 Austin, C.u. (7 Gray, 51) i. 917, 986, me — v. P. (102 Ill. 261) 5 i. 1181, 1186 —, P. v. (1 Par. Cr. 154) i, 457, 1069 4] Autey, Reg. v. (Dears. & B. 294; 7 Cox C. C. 329) ii. 439 Avera, S. v. (N. C. Term R. 287) ii, 937 Avery v. P. (11 Bradw. 382) i. 147, 783 Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 596) ii, 438 —’ Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 206) i. 1169 v. 8. (52 Ala. 340) i. 264.4 v. S. (26 Ga. 233) i. 1279 — v.§. (10 Tex. Ap. 199) i. 1196, 1248 —, 8. v. (31 La. An. 181) i, 1241 ——,S8.v. (44.N. H. 392) i. 980, 1178; ii, 677 Aveson v. Kinnaird (6 East, 188) i. 1207 Axiom, S. v. (28 La. An. 621) i. 126 Axt, S. v. (6 lowa, 511) i. 8694 Aycock v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 381) i. 1110; ii, 622, 629, 1028, 1029 Aydelott, S. v. (7 Blackf. 157) ii. 840, 841 Ayer, 8. v. (3 Fost. N. H. 801) i. 908, ‘999 ; ii, 721 Ayers v. S. (71 Ala. 11) i. 975 ¢ v. 8. (88 Ind. 275) i, 1169 v. §. (12 Tex. Ap. 450) i. 1264 —,,58. v. (8 Bax. 96) i. 58 Ayhens, P. v. (85 Cal. 86) i. 405 Ay ere s Case (1 Salk. 103; Holt 84) i. 258, 259 Aylesworth v. P. (65 Il. 301) i. 733, 1354 Aylett v. Rex (3 Bro. P. C. 529; 6 A. & E, 247 n.) i. 666 ——, Rex v. (Mich. 26 Geo. 3) ii, 656 Ayloff, Rex r. (1 Salk. 295) i, 1363 Ayres, C. v. (6 Grat. 668) i. 143 Ayrs v. S. (5 Coldw. 26) i. 118, 868 Azir, Rex ». (1 Stra. 633) ii. 69, 960 Azzopardi, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 203; 2 Moody, 288) ii. 638 Baalam »v. §. (17 Ala, 451) i. 1107; ii. 629 Babb v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 173) i. 975 ¢, 1264 — v.S. (12 Tex. Ap. 491) i. 975c¢ Babbitt, 8. v. (82 Kan. 253) i. 280 Babcock v. New Jersey Stock Yard (5 C. E. Green, 296) i, 1415 — v. P. (13 Colo. 515) i. 909, 9238, 975¢ 487 BAI INDEX TO THE Babcock, S. v. (1 Conn. 401) i. 995 —, S. v. (51 Vt. 570) i, 966) —v. U.S. (84 Fed. Rep. 873) — i. 1015 —, U.S. v. (3 Dil. 577) 1, UIT —,, U.S. x. (3 Dil. 581) i. 1107, 1170 —, U.S. rv. (4 McLean, 113) ii. 922 Baber, S. v. (74 Mo. 292; 41 Am. R. 314) . i. 909, 999 Baccigalupo rv. C. (83 Grat. 807; 86 Am. R. 795) ii. 670 Baccio v. P. (41 N. Y. 265) ii. 963 Bach v. S. (38 Ohio St. 664) i. 981 ——, S. v. (25 Mo. Ap. 654) i. 432, 611 Bachelder, U. S. v. (2 Gallis. 15) i. 612; ii, 824, 882, 883, 886, 88!) Bachman v. P. (8 Colo. 472) i. 1278 , S. v. (6 Lea, 649) i, 286 —— v. Sepulveda (39 Cal. 688) i. 1341 Backhouse, Rex v. (Lofft, 61) i. 199 Backland, U.S. v. (33 Fed. Rep. 156) i. 2647 Backler, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 118) ii. 436 Backus, P. v. (5 Cal. 275) 1. 934, 998, 999 Bacon, C. v. (108 Mass. 26) i. 878; ii. 866 , C. v. (185 Mass. 521) i. 931; ii. 1028 — v. §. (22 Fla. 51) i. 1116, 1169 -— v.§. (10 Tex. 98) i, 1264 —., 8S. v. (7 Vt. 219) i. 408, 528; ii. 182 ——,S. v. (40 Vt. 456) ii, 1050 ——/ S. v. (41 Vt. 526) i. 643 —— »v. Williams (13 Gray, 525) ii. 432¢ Baden, S. v. (37 Minn, 212) i. 1178, 1174 Badger, Reg. v. (4 Q. B. 468; Dav. & M. 375; 7 Jur. 216; 6 Jur. 994) i. 260 —— v.58. (5 Ala. 21) i. 264.4, 264d, 264 m Badgley, P. v. (16 Wend. 53) i. 1058; ii. 404, 414, 472, 789 Badon, S. v. (14 La. An. 783) i. 264 Bagan, S. v. (41 Minn. 285) i. 975, 980 Baggett v. S. (69 Missis. 625) ii. 732 Bagley, C. v. (7 Pick. 279) i. 332 v. Johnston (4 Rich. 22) ii. 789 — v. §, (8 Tex. Ap. 163) ii. 751, 752 Bagwell v. S. (56 Ga. 408) i. 951 ¢ Bailey v. C. (78 Va.19) ii. 1050 —,C.v. (7 J. J. Mar. 246) i. 940 —, C. v. (1 Mass. 62; 2 Am. D. 8) i. B59; ii. 407 — v. Chapman (41 Mo. 536) i. 1276 — v. Culver (84 Mo. 581) i. 1417 —,P. v, (23 Cal. 577) ii. 823.4 — , Reg. v. (7Cox C.C.179) fi. 828.4 ——, Reg. v. (Dears. 244; 6 Cox C. C. 241) ii. 180a ——, Rex v. (7 Car. & P, 264) ii. 911 —, Rex v. (1 Moody, 28) ii. 188, 188 4 —, Rex v. (2 Stra. 1211) de 107 — »v. §. (87 Ala. 44) i, 1317 — v.S. (26 Ga. 579) i. 815 — v. 8. (56 Ga. 314) i. 1275 v. S. (65 Ga. 410) i. 887 — »v. S, (70 Ga. 617) i. 975¢ v. S. (29 Ind. 438) i. 68, 73 ——v. 8. (52 Ind. 462; 21 Am. R. 182) ii. 789, 745 488 CASES CITED. BAK Bailey v. S. (4 Ohio St. 440) i. 454, 457, 101 5 — ». §. (2 Tex. 202) i, 1269 — v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 98) i. 1047 — v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 426) ji. 72a — vu. S. (20 Tex. Ap. 68) i, 4885 —— v. 8. (26 Tex. Ap. 341) i. 264m ——, 8. v. (3 Blackf. 209) i. 1023, 1036 —,S »v. (1 Fost. N. H. 185) ii. 826 ——, 5. v. (1 Fost. N. H. 343) ii. 273, 274 —, 8. v. (11 Fost. N. H. 521) i. 481, 487 —, S. uv. (54 Iowa, 414) i. 1047 —, 8. v. (32 Kan. 83) i, 187, 999 ——, §.v. (4 La. An. 376) ii, 631 ——,, 8. uv. (21 Me. 62) i. 693 , S. v. (21 Mo. 484) i, 408 ; ii. 856 —, 8. v. (84 Mo. 350) ii. 921, 9385 -—, 8. v. (657 Mo. 131) i. 978 —, S. v. (94 Mo. 811) ii. 627 —, 8. v. (100 N. C. 528) 1. 975 ¢, 999 —, S8.v. (1S. C. 1) i, 980a, 1275 v. Wiggins (5 Harring. Del. 462 60 Am. D. 650) : i, 679 Bain v. 8. (70 Ala. 4) 1. 959 a —v. §. (74 Ala. 38) i. 1098 —,, S. v. (112 Ind. 335) —_ i, 287, 1254.4 Bainbridge v. S. (30 Ohio St. 264) i. 816 Baines, Reg. v. (2 Ld. Raym. 1265) i. 580 Bainton, Rex yr. (2 Stra. 1088) i. 772 Baird, C. v. (9 Met. 407) i. 264 a, 264 e —— »v. Fletcher (50 Vt. 603) i. 1247 —, P. v. (11 Hun, 289) i. 892 , 8. v. (9 Kan. 60) i. 1264 Bake, Rex v. (3 Bur. 1781) 11.3871, 372, 380 Bakeman, C. v. (105 Mass. 53) i. 750, 752, 811; ii. 1050 Baker v.C. (2 Va. Cas. 853) i. 1264, 1362 —— v. Gough (Cro. Jac. 82) 1. 793 v. Griffin (10 Bosw. 140) ii. 626 ——. Haines (6 Whart. 284; 36 Am. D. 224) ii. 4325 v. Mygatt (14 Towa, 181) __ ii. 4825 —v.P. i Til. 808) ii. 68a, 80 v. P. (105 Ill. 452) i. 761, 1181 v. P. (40 Mich. 411) i. 975¢ —, P.v. (1 Cal. 408) ‘i. 73, 951 a, 1264, 1270 —, P. ». (89 Cal. 686)’ i. 1274, 1278 , P. v. (8 Hill, N. Y. 159) i454 ——,, P. v. (89 N. Y. 460) i. 1810 —, P. v. (3 Par. Cr.181) i. 71, 78, 75, 13877 —, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 254) ii. 653 ——, Reg. v. (11 Mod. 235) ii. 380 ——, Reg. »v. (1895, 1 Q. B. 797) ii. 924 —, Rex v. (2 Moody & R. 58) i. 1215 —— v. 8. (30 Ala. 521) i. 1014, 1332 —— v. §. (39 Ark. 180) i. 1348 —— v.§. (17 Fla. 406) — v.S. (15 Ga. 498) 4. 909; ii. 945 v. S. (84 Ind. 104, i. 360 v. 8. (57 Ind. 255) i. 1018 — v. 8. (28 Missis. 243) i. 849, 853, 884 ——v.S. (12 Ohio St. 214) i. 691, 1389, 1391; ii. 2 i. 9750, 978 i, 909, 925, 1238 BAL INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. BAN Baker v. S. (81 Ohio St. 314) ii. 163, 183 | Baldwin, S. v. (79 Towa, 714) ii. 514 v. §. (3 Pike, 491) i, 1296 | ——, S. v. (86 Kan. 1) i. 975c, 980 a, 1179, —v.8.(4 Pike, 56) i, 449, 458, 457, 1180, 1357 1827 ; ii. 895 | ——, S. ve. (79 Mo. 243) i. 1814 v. §. (38 Tex. Ap. 525) i, 931, 949 | ——, S. v. (80 N. C. 390) ii. 941 —v.S. (4 Tex. Ap. 223) i.981, 975c,] ——, S. v. (14 S.C. 185) i. 1004 1277 | ——, S. v. (1 Tread. 289; 3 Brev. — v.S. (7 Tex. Ap. 612) i.1248] 309) i. 909, 934 — v.&. (14 Tex. Ap. 332) i. 488 | Baldy, S. v. (17 Iowa, 39) i. 416, 999 —— v. 8. (21 Tex. Ap. 359) i. 264 m | Bales v. S. (63 Ala. 30) i. ae ee 931 a, — v. 8. (23 Tex, Ap. 657) i, 264m 4; ii, 686 — v. 8. (25 Tex. Ap. 1; 8 Am. — e.§. (19 Ark. 220) i, ait 1319 St. 427) i. 461; 1288 ; ii. 45a | Balize, S. v. (88 La. An. 542) i, 1264 — v.58. (24 Vroom, 45) i. 1114} Ball v. C. (81 Ky. 662) i. 1050 — v. S. (80 Wis. 416) ii. 740 | ——, C. v. (6 Bush, 291) i. 2644 —, S. v. (4 Humph. 12) i. 138 v. Cobus (81 Bur. 866) i. 622 — 5%. v. (58 Ind. 417) ii. 1052 | ——, P. v. (42 Barb. 324) i. 899 —, 5S. v. (1 Jones, N. C. 267) ii. 531 | ——, P. v. (14 Cal. 101; 73 Am. D. —,S. v. (80 La. An. 1134) i, 1895 ; 631 ) ii. 703 ii, 617 | ——, Rex v. (1 Moody, 30) ii. 88 ——, S. v. (48 La. An. 1168) i. 1181) -——, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 132; 1 —, S. v. (18 Lea, 326) i.951a| Camp. 824) i. 1126, 1276 —, S. vu. (84 Me. 52) i. 887, 400 | —— v. S. (48 Ark. 94) i. 68, 78; ii. 481 —, 8. v. (19 Mo. 683) i. 1272, 1363! ». S. (7 Blackf. 242) ii. 492 — , S. v. (20 Mo. 338) i. 882 | —— v. S. (26 Ind. 155) ii. 882 —, 8. v. (24 Mo. 487) i. 1195 | —— v. S. (381 Tex. Cr. 214) i, 1264 —,, S.v. (86 Mo. Ap. 58) i. 966 | ——, S. v. (27 Mo. 824) i. 1298, 1343; —_,d. v. (63 N. C. 276) i. 977, 999, ii. 595 1015a|—— ». U. 8.(140 U. 8.118) i. 278, 316, — , S. v. (69 N. C. 147) i. 977 1293, 1858, 1365 ; ii. 531, 534 —, S. v. (70 N. C. 530) i. 449, 1015 a} Ballance v. Forsyth (21 How. U. 8. —.,S8. v. (106 N. C. 758) i721] 389) i. 316 —,.S. v. (83 W. Va. 319) i. 861, 909, 965 | Ballard v. S. (81 Fla. 266) ii, 621 v. U.S. (1 Minn. 207) i. 264 m, 1166 | —v.8. (19 Neb. 609) i. 869 a, 1050; ii. a8 —. U.S. v. (3 Ben. 68) i, 925, 982 a, v. 8. (48 Ohio St. 840) i. 184 949 a ——, 8. v. (2 Murph. 186) i. 509 —-v. {koune (44 Ill. 42; 92 Am. —, S. «. (79 N. C. 627) i. 9665 1. 149) ii. 809 | ——, S. v. (97 N. C. 443) ii. 733 Balbo. v. P. (80 N. Y. 484; 19 Hun, —, U.S. v. (8 McLean, 469) i. 405 424 Balch, S. v. (81 Kan. 465) v. Shaw (7 Cush. 282) i, 1344 Balckman, S. v. (89 La. An, 847) i. 9594 Baldry, Reg. v. (2 Den. C. C. 480; Sg C. C. 528; 12 Eng. L & Tig. 590) i. 1219, 1228, 1224, 1258 Baldwin’s Case (2. Tyler, 473) i Baldwin, Ex parte (60 Cal. 432) i. 9756 — Ex parte (69 Iowa, 502) i. 56 v. C. (26 Pa. 171) i. 1317 —, C. v. (129 Mass. 481) i. 386 v. P. (1 Seam. 304) ——, Rex v. (3 Camp. 265; Russ. & 1.488 Ry. 241; 2 Leach, 928n. j ii. 11, 980 — v5. (2 Ind. 383) i. 703 —— vu. S. (12 Misso. 228) i. 909; ii. a —— v. §. (12 Neb. 61) i. 884.4 — v. §. (6 Ohio, 15) i, 1265; ii. 282 —— v. S. (1 Sneed, 411) ii, 732, 751 —— v. 8, (31 Tex. Cr. 589) i. 975¢ —,S. v. (1 Dev. & Bat. 195) i. 761, 768, 769 ; ii. 864 —,, S. v. (70 Iowa, 180) ii, 829 —,S. v. (78 Lowa, 787) i, 2647 Ballenger, S. v. (10 Iowa, 368) i. 788, 797, 1269 Ballentine v. S. (48 Ark. 45) i. 592 Baller, S. v. (26 W. Va. 90; 58 Am. R. 66) : ii. 86, 127 Ballew v. S. (36 Tex. 98) i. 1264, 1276 Ballou, C. v. (124 Mass. 26) ii. 106, mi Balls, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C. 828; 12 Cox C. C. 96) ii. 821 —, Rex v. (1 Moody, 470) i. 1128 ; ii. 428 Baltimore, Rex v. (4 Bur. 2179) i. 255, 256 Baltimore and Ohio Rld. v. Polly (14 Grat. 447) i. 1001 Baltimore, &c. Rid., S. v. (120 Ind. 298) ii. 1050 Baltimore, &c. Ry. v. New Albany, &e. Rid. (53 Ind. 597) i, 815 Baltzeager v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 5382) i. 1275 Bamber v. C. (10 Pa. 339) i. 229 Bambridge’s Case (17 How. St. Tr. 883) i. 958 Bancroft, S. v. (22 Kan. 170) i. 1277 —.,S.v. (10. N. H. 105) ii. 181, 184 Bandy, S. v. (2 Ga. Decis. 40) i, 228 Bangeneaur, P. v. (40 Cal. 6138) — i. 1272 489 BAR Bangor v. Brunswick (30 Me. 398) i. 966.a —, 8. v. (30 Me. 341) i. 127 —'S. v. (38 Me. 692) i, 1286 — S. v. (41 Me. 533) i118 Banister, S. v. (85 S. ©. 290) i, 1212 Bank of Lexington v. Taylor (2 Sm. : & M. 27) i, 1366 Bank of Pennsylvania v. Haldeman (1 Pa. (RP. & W.) 161) ii. 432 ¢ Bank Prosecutions (Russ. & Ry. 378) - i ii. Bank of Vincennes v. 8. (1 Blackf. 267) i. 145 Banker, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 26) i 1261 Bankhead, S. v. (25 Mo. 558) ii. 296, 297 Banks, Ex parte (28 Ala. 28) i. 72 — , Ex parte (28 Ala. 89) i, 261 v, Farwell (21 Pick. 156) i. 211 v. Murray (2 Southard, 849) ii. 383 , Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 238) ii. 746 —, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 393; 5 Eng. Rep. 471) ii. 233, 284 —, Reg. v. (6 Mod. 246) i, 931 —, Reg. v. (11 Mod. 33) i. 1269 —, Rex ». (1 Esp. 144) i. 799 —— v.§. (72 Ala. 522) v. S. ( 84 Ala. 430) v. S. (42 Ga. 544) i, 124], 1244 —— v. S, (28 Tex. 644) i. 488 v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 591) i. 97, 661, 975¢ i. 1858; ii. 688 i, 1220, 1242 —, 8S. v. (48 Ind. 197) i. 977, 979, 981 — , S. v. (48 Iowa, 595) i. 1079 —'S. v. (28 La. An, 92) i, 1264 ——, S. v. (78 Me. 490) i, 1181, 1186 saa, Bait 73 Mo. 592) i. 975 c, 978 ——., 8. v. (10 Mo. Ap. 111) i. 975 b Bankus v. 8. (4 Ind. 114) ii. 996 Banner Publishing Co. v. S. (16 Lea, 176) i Bannigan, 451) Bannon, C. v. (97 Mass. 214) Banta v. P. (53 Ill. 434) Bantley, S. v. (44 Conn. 587; 26 i. Territory v. (1 Dak. 1.975 ¢; ii. 574, 684 i. 860 Am. R. 486) i. 978 Baptiste, S. v. (26 La. An. 134) i. 847 Barada, S. v. (49 Mo. 504) i. 3l4a Baramore v. S. (4 Ind. 524) i. 713 Barbee, S. v. (93 N. C. 498) i. 762 Barber, Ex parte (16 Tex. Ap. 369) i. 1207, 1214 ——— rv. P. (17 Hun, 366) ii, 168, 187 —, P. v. (115 N.Y. 475) ii. 674 ——, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K, 434) i. 1040 —, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 442) i. 1949 —,, Rex ». (1 Root, 76) i. 1197 v. S. (78 Ala. 19) ii. 148 v. 8. (5 Fla. 199) i. 1281 —x». 8, (13 Fla. 675) i, 934; ii. 367 v. §. (50 Md. 161) i. 587, 636 — , S. v. (89 N. C. 523) i. 1265 Barbone, Rex v. (Trem. P.C. 73) ii. 807 Barbot, Rex v. (18 How. St. Tr. i. 934 1229) 490 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. 75 ¢ i. 2646 Barbour, P. v. (9 Cal. 230) i. 814 — v. 8. (87 Ark. 61) i. 1887 Barclay v. C, (26 Pa. 503; 64 Am. D. 715) if. 871 v. §. (55 Ga, 179) i. 486 Barcus v. 8. (49 Missis. 17; 19 Am. R. 1) i. 1100 Bard v. 8, (55 Ga. 819) i. 1009 Bardwell v. Collins (44 Minn. 97) i. 100 a Barfield, 8. v. (8 re. 844) 1.78; ii, 609, 616 Barge v. C. (3 Pa. (PB. & W.) 262; 23 Am. D. 81) i. 124, 755 Barger v. S. (6 Blackf. 188) i. 884 Bargis v. 8. (4 Ind. 126) i, 724 Barham v. Nethersal (4 Co. 20a) __ ii. 794 —,, 8. v. (82 Mo. 67) i. 975 a, 1250 —, 8. v. (79 N.C. 646) ii. 123 Barhight, C. v. (9 Gray, 113) j, 232 Barkelow, P. v. (87 Mich. 455) ii. 216 Barker, Ex parte (87 Ala. 4; 13 Am. St. 17) i. 2246 ——, Ex parte (7 Cow. 143) i. 1265 ——. Ex parte (1 Cox, 418) i, 1268 —— v. C. (19 Pa. 412) ii. 794d, 808, 810 — »v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 122) ii, 737 — ,, C. v. (12 Cush. 186) ii, 536 — v. Coleman (35 Ala. 221) i. 1178; ii. 677 —, P. v. (60 Mich. 277; 1 Am. St. 501) i. 909, 923, 925, 943.4, 966 b, 1139, 1220; 4i. 631 v. Pool (6 Misso. 260) i. 1179 ——. Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 3826) 1. 959e ——, Rex v. (8 Bur. 1265) i. 1403 —, Rex v. (3 Car. & P. 589) ii. 965 —, Rex v. (1 East, 186) i, 1344 —— v. §. (48 Ind. 163) i. 979, 981; ii. 703 v. 8. (36 Tex. 201) i. 1170 —, S. v. (43 Kan. 262) i. 91a —,, S. v. (64 Mo. 282) i. 439 —, S. v. (107 N. C. 913) i. 855 —, S. v. (28 Ohio St. 583) i. 480 ——, S. v. (18 Vt. 195) i. 636; ii, 816 v. Thorold (1 Saund. Wins. ed. 47 i. 824 ——. U.S. v. (2 Wheat. 895) i. 1316 Barkley 7. S. (Meigs, 93) i, 264 Barkwell ». S. (4 Ind. 179) i, 279 Barlow v. C. (3 Binn. 1) i, 1838 —,C. v. (97 Mass. 599) i, 1070 —— »v. 8. (2 Blackf. 114) i. 911 —— v. 8. (77 Ga, 448) i. 96 Barnaby v. S. (196 Ind. 539) i. 1265 Barnacle, C. v. (184 Mass. 215; 45 Am. R. 319) ii, 615, 680 Barnard v. Bartlett (10 Cush. 601; 57 Am. TD. 123) i. 205 —, C. v. (6 Gray, 488) i. 378 —,, Rex »v. (1 Car. & P. 87) i. 1161, 1170 —— v. S. (88 Ala. 111) i, 975¢, 1074 Barnardiston, Rex v. (9 How. St. Tr. 1333) i, 983 Barnards v. S. (88 Tenn. 183) 1,975 ¢ Barnes v. Allen (80 Barb. 663) i, 1241 BAR INDEX TO THE Barnes, C. v. (122 Mass. 242) ii. 204 — v. Marion (54 Lowa, 482) i. 1316 v. Nicholson (1 Penning. 326) ii. 883 — v. P. (18 Lil. 62; 65 Am. D. 699) i. O83; ii, 752 — _, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C. 45; 10 Cox C. C. 255) ii, 721 — , Rex v. (2 Stra. 917) i. 1809 — v. S. (8% Ala. 204; 16 Am. St. 48) i, 1189; ii. 970 — >» S. (19 Conn. 3898) i. 452, 1327 — v.58, (20 Conn. 232) i. 488, 443 v. 8. (60 Missis. 355) i. 981 v8. (36 Tex. 356) 1. 969, 1223, 1232, 1289 —— v. S. (36 Tex. 639) i. 68, 72 — v. S. (48 Tex. 98) ii. 745 v. 8. (5 Yerg. 186) i. 870, 379, 662, 665, 849 —, S. v. (7 Jones, N. C. 20) i. 865, 1264 ——, 8. v. (384 La. An. 895) i. 909 -~—,S.v. (29 Me. 561) i. 761, 762, 980 —, 8. v. (382 Me. 580) ~—s i. 818; ii. 788, , 784, 8U0 — , S. v. (20 Mo. 413) i, 849 —, 8. v. (59 Mo. 154) i. 278, 733, 1858 — , S. v. (82 8. C. 14; 17 Am. St. $82) i. 1883 Barnesciotta v. P. (10 Hun, 187) 4 ele ii. Barnett v. C. (84 Ky. 449) — v. P. (4 Ill. 825) 1212, 1270 — , Rex v (8 Car. & P. 600) i, 212 —., Rex v. (2 Russ. Crimes, 3d ; i. 975c, 1091 i. 1196, 1209, Eng. ed. 117) _ i, 60 —v. S. (34 Ala. 260) i. 264 a —v.§. (54 Ala. 579) i. 1394 — v. §. (83 Ala, 40) i. 126, 975¢; ii. 968, 968 — v. §. (89 Ala. 165) ii, 934 — v.§. (36 Me. 198) i. 1370 —v.§. (17 Tex. Ap. 191) i. 1278 — ,S.v. (8 Kan. 250; 87 Am. D. 471) i, 2394; ii. 1008 —, S. v. (63 Mo. 300) i. 733 Barney’s Case (5 Mod. 823) i, 258 Barney, C. v. (10 Cush. 480) di. 41 —— v. P. (22 Ill. 160) i. 946; ii. 969 vy §. (12 Sm. & M. 68) — i. 851, 884 —, U.S. v. (5 Blatch. 294) ii. 441 Barnhart, P. v. (59 Cal. 381) di, 180 ——, P. v. (59 Cal. 402) i. 1276 —., U.S. v. (22 Fed. Rep. 285) i. 3144 Barnoldswick, Reg. v. (4 Q. B. 499) ii. 1049 Barns v. Hughs (1 Lev. 249) i. 49 —,, S. v. (25 Tex. 654) : i. 625 Barnsley Rioters’ Case (1 Lewin, 5) i. 1162 Barnwell v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 745) i, se —, 8. v. (80 N. C. 466) ii, 607 Baron v. P. (1 Par. Cr. 246) i, 1015 Barr v. Gaines (8 Dana, 258) ii. 809 — v. P. (108 Ill. 110) i, 68 CASES CITED. BAR Barr v. P, (118 Il. 471) ii. 94, 979 — v. 8. (10 Tex. Ap. 507) i. 1098 — ». S. (16 Tex. Ap. 833) i. 1855 —, S. v. (30 Mo. Ap. 498) i. 612 Barrara v. 8. (42 Tex. 260) i. 1167, 1169 Barrera v. S. (82 Tex. 644) i. 264a Barretry, Case of (8 Co. 360) ii. 100 Barrett, C. v. (9 Leigh, 665) i. 141, 144 —— v. Crane (16 Vt. 246) i, 724 —, P. v. (2 Caines, 804; 2 Am. D. 239) i. 821 ——, Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 263) ii. 105 —, Rex v. (2 Lewin, 263) i. 6Y1 —, Rex v, (2 Lewin, 264) i. 801 -— v. 8. (24 Ala. 74) i. 1318 — v. §. (25 Tex. 605) i. 1269 uv. &. (9 Tex. Ap. 83) i. 126, 951 v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 64) i. 951, 975 — v.S8, (1 Wis. 175) i, 1001; ii. 975 — 8. v. (54 Ind. 434) i. 784 —_, 8. vu. (8 Iowa, 586) —_—i. 69, 72, 488; ii. 460 —, 8. v. (40 Minn. 65) i. 1220 — 5S. v. (42 N. H. 466) i. 825, 1285, 1286 Barric, P. v. (49 Cal. 342) i, 969, 1223, 1288 ; ii, 752 Barringer v. Nesbit (1 Sm. & M. 22) i, 1276 — v.P. (4 Kern. 593) i. 966 b Barron v. Baltimore (7 Pet. 248) i. 64 —— v. P. (1 Barb. 136) i. 950 b, 1269 v. P. (1 Comst. 386) i, 1195 —— v. P. (78 Ill. 256) i, 849, 854, 886, 1250 ——,, S. v. (74 Ind. 374) i. 286 —, §. v. (37 Vt. 57) i, 984 Barronet, Reg. v. (Dears. 51; 1 Ellis B. 1; 16 Eng. L. & Eq. 361) i, 252. 255, 256 Barrontine, S, v. (2 Nott & McC. 553) i. 938 Barrow v. 8. (80 Ga. 191) — i. 975c, 1279 —, S. v. (30 La. An. 657) i. 279 Barrows v. P. (11 Ill. 121) i. 72 —, S. v. (76 Me. 401; 49 Am. R. 629) i, 1020, 1181 —, 8. uv. (67 Vt. 576) i, 183 Barry, Ex parte (85 Cal. 603 ; 20 Am. St! 248) ii, 797 —, In re (136 U. S. 597) i. 1411 —, C. v. (9 Allen, 276) i. 981, 982 —, GC. v. (11 Allen, 263) i, 976 -—, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 389) i. 425, 458 Bartemeyer v. Iowa (14 Wal. 26) i. 1865 Barter v. C. (3 Pa. (P. & W.) 253) i. 892 Barth v. S. (18 Conn. 432) i. 1800 —, 8. v. (258. C. 175; 60 Am. R. 496) i. 1112 Barthelemy v. P. (2 Hill, N. Y. 248) ii. 801 — , Reg. v. (Dears. 60) i, 256 Barthelow v. S. (26 Tex. 175) ii. 941, 942 Bartholomew v. P. (104 Ill. 601; 44 Am. R. 97) i. 1181, 1185 —, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 366) ii, 921 Bartilson, C. v. (85 Pa. 482) ii. 206 Bartlett v. Humphreys (Hardin, 622) i. 694 491 BAT INDEX TO THE Bartlett, P. v. (14 Cal. 651) ii, 302 —, P.'v. (3 Hill, N. Y. 570) i, 2647 ——’ Reg. v. (2 Cox C.C. 245) 1. 299 —— Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 832) i, 1155, 1261 v. §. (22 Ohio St. 205) i. 1362 v. . (28 Ohio St. 669) 1.872, 946, 1358 ——, S. v. (9 Ind. 589) i, 1259, 1264, 1265, 1272 ii. 218 —,, S. v. (30 Me. 132) ——} 8. v. (47 Me. 388) i. 241, 245, 889 ——, S. v. (55 Me. 200) —_§, 281, 603, 668, 1183, 1186, 1265; ii. 143, 700, 718 ——, S.v. (43 N. H. 224; 80 Am. D. 154) ii. 599, 673 ——, 8. v. (11 Vt. 650) i. 1360 Bartley, C. v. (188 Mass. 181) i. 611 v, §. (111 Ind. 358) i, 1265 , 8. v. (84 La. An. 147) ii, 514 Barton v. P. (135 Ill. 405 ; 25 Am. St. 375) ii. 163, 169, 187 — , P. v. (88 Cal. 176) i. 1291 ——, Rex v. (i Moody, 141) ii. 402, 415 — v.8. (29 Ark. 68) ii. 703 — v. S. (67 Ga, 653) i. 269 v. 8. (18 Ohio, 221) i. 1124 — v. 8. (24 Tex. 250) i. 264 f —— v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 261) i, 278, 979 —— v. §. (28 Tex. Ap. 483) i, 1125 —— v. §, (23 Wis. 587) ii. 487 — 8. v, (82 La. An. 278) i. 269 -—, S.v. (19 Mo. 227) i. 999, 1247 ; ii. 754 —, 5. v. (71 Mo. 288; 8 Mo. Ap. 15) i. 68, 71, 909, 1310 Bartow, U.S. v. (20 Blatch. 349) i, 767 Bartrum, Rex v. (8 East, 269) i. 1314 Bartz, P.v. (53 Mich, 493) i. 183 Baruch, In re (24 Abb. N. Cas. 109) i. 2246 Basebe +. Matthews (Law Rep. 2 C. P. 684) i. 691 Basham ». C. (87 Ky. 440) i, 1249 Bass, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 822) i, 212 i. 849, 860, 887 i. 229 b, 326 i. 1356 ii. 972 i. 279, 1269 v. 8. (387 Ala. 469) — v. 8. (29 Ark. 142) v. S. (17 Fla. 685) — v. 8. (16 Tex. Ap. 62) —, S. ». (12 La. An. 862) Bassett v. 5. (41 Ind, 303) v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 41) —, 8.x. (34 La. An. 1108) —_, 58. v. (4 Vroom, 26) i. 1268 v. Spofford (11 N. H. 127) ii. 123 Bassette v. S. (22 Vroom, 502) i. 892 Bassham v. S, (38 Tex. 622) —_i. 700, 1003, 1087 ; ii, 625 Basten v. Carew (3 B. & C. 649) i. 718 Batchelder v. C. (109 Mass. 361) i, 1264 v. Currier (45 N. H.460) — i. 216, 316 ——,S.v. (5 N. H. 549) ii. 844 ——) 8. v. (6 Vt. 479) i721 Batchelor, 8. v. (15 Mo. 207) i. 761, 768 Bateman v. S. (64 Missis. 233) ii. 661 ——. 5. v. (8 Ire. 474) i. 1138; ii. 429 Baten’s Case (9 Co. 53 b) ii, 871 Bates, ix parte (29 Tex. Ap. 138) — v. Enright (42 Me. 105) 492 i. 256 i. 1304 3 | Bayliss v. P. (46 Mich. 221) CASES CITED. BEA Bates, P. v. (88 Hun, 180) 1.314 a —, P. v, (2 Par. Cr. 27) ii. 960 —— v. Reiskenhianzer (9 Ind.178) 1.1268 —v.S. (81 Ind. 72) i. 628; ii. 846 — v. S. (19 Tex. 122) i. 948 — v.§. (12 Tex. Ap. 26) i. 711 —— v. 8. (12 Tex. Ap. 139) i. 1854 ——,, S. v. (10 Conn. 872) i. 460 —,S.». (46 La. An. 849) ii. 750 v. U.S. (11 Bis. 70) i. 1264; ii. 790 Bather v. Brayne (5 C. B. 653) i. 1276 Bathurst, Rex v. (Say. 225) i, 601, 1015; ii. 871, 372, 380 Baton Rouge v. Cremonini (36 La. An. 247) ii. 276 Batre v. S. (18 Ala, 119) i. 984, 1139 Batson, S. v. (31 Mo. 343) ii. 845 Batten v. S. (80 Ind. 394) ii. 631 Batterson v. S. (63 Ind. 531) ii. 961 Battis, C. v. (1 Mass. 95) i. 795 Battle v. S. (54 Ala. 98) i. 850 v. 8. (74 Ga. 101) i. 1209 —— v.§. (4 Tex. Ap. 595; 30 Am. R. 169) ii, 82, 952 ——, S. ex rel. (7 Ala. 259) i, 269 Baude’s Case (Cro. Jac. 41) i, 413 Bauerman, S. v. (72 Ala. 252) i. 1264, 1272 Baugh v. S. (14 Ind. 29) ii. $68 —, U.S. v. (4 Hughes, 501) i, 145 Baughman, P. v. (18 Ill. 152) i, 2646 Baumbauer v. 8. (76 Ind. 351) i. 1264 Baurose v. S. (1 Iowa, 374) i. 668, 893 Bauson v. Offley (3 Salk. 88) i. 51, 52; ii. 638 Baxter v. Abbott (7 Gray, 71) ii. 675, 682, 683, 687 —— v. P. (2 Gilman, 578) ii. 12 —— v. P. (3 Gilman, 368) i. 909, 945, 948, 949, 951, 980, 1001, 1188; ii. 4 —, Rex v. (2 East P.C.781; 5T.R. 83; 2 Leach, 578) i, 5389, 632, 689; ii, 981, 982 —, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 196) ~ ii. 1050 ——, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 265) i. 1310 v. S, (15 Lea, 657) i, 1212, 1357 —, S. v. (41 Kan. 516) i. 278 Bayaud, U.S. v. (21 Blatch.217) i.747, 798 Bayley, Reg. v. (Dears. & B. 121) ii. 8234 i. 717, 795 Bayly, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 216) _ ii. 690 Bayne v. 8. (29 Tex. Ap. 182) i. 975 c, 980 ——, S. v. (88 Mo. 604) i, 1127; ii. 189 Baynton, Reg. v. (14 How. St. Tr. 597 i, 1825 Bayonne, §S. v. (23 La. An. 78) i. 551, 676 S. v, (36 La. An. 761) ii. 699 Bays v. 8. (6 Neb. 167) i. 1598 Baysinger v. S. (77 Ala. 60) i. 814 v. 8. (77 Ala. 63 ; 54 Am. R. 46) ii. 415 Baza, P. v. (53 Cal. 690) ii. 48a Bazell v. S. (89 Ala. 14) i. 1317 Beacall, Rex v. (1 Car. & P, 310) ii. 823.4 ——, Rex v. (1 Car. & P. 454) ii, 384 ——, Rex v. (1 Moody, 15) il. 884 Beach, P. v. (87 NY. 508) i. 1081 BEA Beach, Rex 7. (Cowp. 229) i. 662 —— v.8. (32 Tex. Cr. 240) i. 1170; ii, 983 — v. U.S. (14 Saw. 549) i. 1047 Beacom, Ex parte (12 Tex. Ap. 318) i. 256 Beadon, 8. v. (17 8S. C. 55) ii. 63 Beaird, S. v. (84 La. An. 104) i Beal v. S. (15 Ind. 378) —, S. v. (68 Ind. 345; 34 Am. R. 263) i, 1181, 1182 —, S. wv. (82 Me. 284) Beale v. C. (25 Pa. 11) Beall, In re (26 Ohio St. 195) — v. S. (53 Ala. 460) — v. §. (39 Missis. 715) i, 859 i. 1279 i, 1878 i. 1303 i. 581; ii. 139 i, 262 Bealoba, P. v. (17 Cal. 389) i, 278 Beam v. Link, (27 Mo. 261) i, 857 —, P. v. (66 Cal. 394) i. 438 Beaman, C. v. (8 Gray, 497) i. 703; ii. 708, 729 Bean, C. v. (11 Cush. 414) ii, 845, 846 —, C. v. (111 Mass. 438) ii. 68 — v. Moore (2 Pin. 392; 2 Chand. 44 i. 706 —v.S. (17 Tex. Ap. 60) i. 1003, 1159; ii. 606, 543 —,, S. v. (77 Me, 486) i. 1391 —— S. v. (21 Mo. 267) ii, 108 —) S. v. (21 Mo. 269) i. 1015, 1332 ——' 8. v. (36 N. H. 122) i. 2047, 8144, 1021, 1033 —,, S. v. (19 Vt. 580) i. 1015; ii. 406, 416 Beaney, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 416) i. 620 Bear, Rex v. (2 Salk. 417) ii. 791 Beard, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 142) i. 969, 972 —, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 143) i. 682, 1098, 1100; ii. 472 —, Rex v. (Jebb, 9) i. 620 v. §. (54 Ind. 413) i. 1269 — v.S,. (57 Ind. 8) i. 700 —v. S. (71 Md. 275; 17 Am. St. 536) i. 975c, 984, 986, 986 a, 987; ii. 112 — , S. v. (1 Dutcher, 384) i. 768; ii, 921 —, S. v. (31 Mo. 34) i. 1817, 1819 Beardall v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 681) i. 145, 1400 Bearden v. S. (44 Ark. 831) __ i, 269, 278 Beardmore, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 497) i. 951, 1168 Beare, Rex v. (1 Ld. Raym. 414) i, 559, : 660; ii. 789 Bearse, C. v. (108 Mass. 487) i. 522, 613; ii. 644, 645 Bearss, P. v. (10 Cal. 68) ii. 8, 14 Beasley v. Beckley (28 W. Va. 81) i. 894 —— v. P. (89 Ill. 671) i. 423, 425, Ch — v. 8. (18 Ala. 635) i. 519, 536, 598 ; ii. 77 — v. 8, (50 Ala. 149; 20 Am. R. 292) — v. §. (59 Ala. 20) —— v. 8. (64 Missis. 618) —— ».§. (2 Yerg. 481) i. 1804, 1817 —, S. v. (82 La, An. 1162) i, 981 Beasom, S. v. (40 N. H. 367) i. 482; ii. soa i, 981 i. 460 i. 975¢ INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. 7|——v. S. (21 Ind. 225) BED Beason v. S. (72 Ala. 191) i, 1144 —— v. S. (84 Missis. 602) i. 851, 881 Beatey v. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 421) i. 951, 1276 Beaton, S. v. (79 Me. 314) i. 896 Beatty, P. v. (14 Cal. 566) i. 635, 879, 1851, 1352 —, P. v. (89 Hun, 476) i i. 1264 ——) 8. v. (90 Mo. 143) ii. 714, 740 —, S. v. (Phillips, N. C. 62) ii. 983 Beaty v. S. (82 Ind, 228) i, 454 —, S. v. (25 Mo. Ap. 214) i. 966 6, 1117, 1181, 1182 Beauchamp, P. v. (49 Cal. 41) i, 952a —— v.S. (6 Blackf. 299) i. 78, 281, 665, 934, 940, 1100, 1355 —— »v. Tennel (1 Bibb, 441) i. 1247 Beaucleigh, S. v. (92 Mo. 490) i, 1020, 1127; ii. 189 Beaudet, 8. v. (58 Conn. 586; 55 Am. RB. 155) ii. 67 Beaudien v. S. (8 Ohio St. 634) i. 980 i. 270, 272; ii. 40 Beaumont »v. §. (1 Tex. Ap. 533; 28 Am. R, 424) Beavan, Rex v. (Ryan & Moody N. P. 242) ii. 887 Beaver, P. v. (49 Cal. 57) ii. 152 —, P. v. (88 Cal. 419) i. 975 b Beavers, Rex v. (1 East P. C. 883) i. 337 — v. 8. (58 Ind. 530) 1.951, 951 b, 1079, 1265, 1856; ii. 514, 548, 688 Beaverts v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 175) i. 159 Bebee v. P. (5 Hill, N. Y. 32) i. 1195 Bechtel v. Carslake (8 Stock. 500) i. 1417 Bechtelheimer v. S. (54 Ind. 128) _ ii. £89 Beck, P. v. (21 Cal. 385) ii. 1006 —, P. v. (58 Cal. 212) i. 1094, 1181, 1185 —— v. §. (67 Ga. 351) i. 1276 v. 8. (20 Ohio St. 228) i, 911 —v. S. (44 Tex. 430) ii, 742 Becker v. Crow (7 Bush, 198) i, 1245 —, P. v. (48 Mich. 43) ii. 1007 a —, P.v. (20 N. Y. 354) i. 230 —, 8. v. (12 Or. 318) i. 1268 ——, S. v. (80 Wis. 8138) i. 263, 264a, 264 Beckham v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 52) i. 975; ii. 740 Beckley, C. v. (3 Met. 830) i. 687; ii. 884 Beckman, S.v (67 N.H. 174) ii, 1050 Becknall, S. v. (41 Tex. 319) i. 2644 Beckwith v. P. (26 Ill. 500) ii, 642 —,, P. v. (42 Hun, 366) i. 1264 — ». Philby (6 B. & C. 685; 9 D. & R. 487) i. 181 i, 229 —, S. v. (1 Stew. 818; 18 Am. D. 46). i, 887 — v. U. S. (16 Ct. Cl. 250) i, 286 Beck worth, S. x. (68 Mo. 82) ii. 142 Bedee v. P. (73 Ill. 820) i, 816 Bedell v. S. (60 Missis. 492) i. 1005 —, S. v. (65 Vt. 641) ii, 84 Bedford ve. 8. (6 Humph. 552) i. 1278 — v.§. (2 Swan Tenn. 72) i. 278, 691, 1856 493 BEL INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. BEL Bedinger, C. v. (1 Va. Cas. 125) i. 68 | Bell, C. v. (Addison, 156) i. 478 Bedingfield, Reg. v. (14 Cox C. C. ——, C. v. (102 Mass. 163) ii. 740, 745 341 : i, 1212] —— v. Clapp (10 Johns. 263; 6 Am. Beebe, S. v. (83 Ind. 171) 1.147] D. 389) i, 204, 207, 244 — 8. vo. (18 Kan. 589; 19 Am. R. — v. Morrisett (6 Jones N.C. 178) 93) i. 249; ii. 941 i. 1179; ii, 677 ——,S. v. (17 Minn. 241) i. 874, 1115; } —— v. Oakley (2 M. & S. 259) i. 208 ii. 782 | —— v. P. (1 Seam. 897) i, 663, 665 —, U.S. v. (2 Dak, 292) i. 1220 | —, P. v. (49 Cal. 485) i. 1116, 1178; Beech, Rex v. (Doug. 194; 1 T. R. ii. 631, 670, 671 237; 1 Leach, 133) i. 562 | —., P. e. (70 Cal. 38) i 1264 Beecher v. Anderson (45 Mich. 543) — , Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 37) i, 764 i. 198, 1403] —) Rex v. (Andr. 64) . 258 —, S. v. (25 Conn. 589) i. 814 a | ——, Rex vo. (5 Car. & P. 162) i. 1261 Beekman ». S. (4 Iowa, 452) i, 1269 | —, Rex »v. (2 Stra. 995) i. 1268 Beel v. Pierce (11 Ill. 92) ii. 883 v. S. (44 Ala. 893) i. 125, 893, 808 Beeler v. Cardwell (83 Mo. 84) ii, 883 | —— v. S. (48 Ala. 684; 17 Am. R. — 2 Huddleston (3 Coldw. 201) i. 706] 40) i. 1004, 1015 a v. (6 Cal. 246) i. 976 | —— v. S. (59 Ala. 55) i. 981, 931 4 ne 5. v. (8 Blackf. 222) i, 1276 | —— wv S. (74 Ala. 420) ii. 58 Beeman, S. v. (35 Me. 242) i, 488 e | —— v. S. (75 Ala. 25) i. 720 Beere, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 472) i. 948) —— v. S. (5 Eng. 636) i. 1857 ; ii. 269 Beerman, U. S. v. (6 Cranch C. C. —v. 8. (41 Ga. 589) ii. 732 412) ii, 482 | —— v. 8. (73 Ga. 572) i. 1170 Beers v. Beers (4 Conn. 535; 10 Am. — v. §. (42 Ind. 335) i. 763, 1356 D. 186) i, 893 | —— »v. §. (46 Ind. 453) i. 127; ii. 752 Beery v. U.S. (2 Colo. 186) i. 948, ‘1298, —— v. 8. (57 Md. 108) 1.984, 086; ii. 481 1239; ii. 772 | —— v, S. (1 Swan Tenn. 42) ii. 808 Beeston, Reg. v. (Dears. 405) i. 1195 | —— v. S. (25 Tex. 574) i. 686 Beeton, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 414; — v8. : Tex. Ap. 598) i, 471 2 Car. & K. 960; 8 Cox C. C. 451) ——v. 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 215; 28 Am. 1.457; ii. 981} BR. 429 i. 1254 a, 1265 i. 1213 Beets,v. S. (Meigs, 106) i, 12:33 Regvarly v. 8. (8 Bax, 520) Behee, 8. v. (17 Kan. 402) i. 1005; ii. ae 1383 a Behler v. S. (22 Ind. 345) i. 1012 — v.S. (112 Ind. 140) 1. 1256 Behm, S. v. (72 Iowa, 533) ii. 588 a Behrendt, In re (22 Fed. Rep. 699) i, 224 Belirens v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 121) i. 975, 978 Beigler, P. v. (8 Par. Cr. 316) j. 257 Beine, In re (42 Fed. Rep. 645) i, 141] Bejandio, U. S. v. (1 Woods, 294) : 1. 671; ii. 259 Bejarano v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap 265) = i. 1247 Belasco v. Hannant (38 B. & S. 18) ii, 281 Belcher, P. v. (68 Mich, 825) ii. 713 S. (125 Ind. 419) i. 1248 — , S. v. (13 8. C. 459) 4. 981, 995, 1212 —— v. Skinner (28 Neb. 91) i. 951 Belding, C. v. (18 Met. 10) i. 989 6 ii. 1050, 1054, 1088 Belencia, P. v. (21 Cal. 544) ii. 608 Belew, S. ». (79 Mo. 584) i. 778; ii. 910 a Helk, S. v. (76 N. C. 10) i. 162; ii. 63.4 Bell’s Case (Foster, 480 ; 1 East, 644) i, 633 — Case (7 Grat. 646) i, 961 f Bell, Ex parte (19 Fla. 608) i3l4a —, Ex parte (56 Missis, 282) i. 264 a, 1298 — v. Byrne (18 East, 554) ii 791 — v. CO. (8 Grat.600) i. 879,768,772, vb1/ 494 — v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 538) i, 975 ¢ v. 8. (20 Tex. Ap. 445) i, 975 ¢ — »v.8. (31 Tex. Cr. 276) i, 1265 — v. 8. (20 Wis. 599) ii, 186, 139 —, e v. (49 Iowa, 440) i. 400 — 5. v. (3 Ire. 506) i, 379, 606 —,S. v. (27 Md. 675; 92 Am. D. 658) i. 422 —,S. v. (26 Minn. 888 ii, 66 ——, S. v. (68 Missis. 345) i, 1264 —, S. v. (58 Missis. 823) i. 779 ——, S. v. (70 Mo. 633) i. 975 c, 979 —, S. v. (65 N. C. 313) i. 495, 648; ii. 716, 752 ——,S. v. (6 Port. 365) i. 1269; ii. 1050 —— v. Senneff (83 Ill. 122) ii. 936 a —— «. Singer Manuf. Co. (65 Ga. 452) i. 1416 ——, Territory v. (5 Mont. 662) i. 495, 653 Bell’s Gap Rid. v. Pennsylvania (134 U. S, 282) i. 100 a Bellair v. S. (6 Blackf. 104) on 816, 883 Bellamy, Rex v. (Ryan & Moody, N. FP; 171) i. 1341; ii. 910 Bellengehiam’s Case (1 Dy. 84a) i, 846 Beller v. Jones (22 Ark. 92) ii. 679 — v. §. (90 Ind. 448) 4. 718 Bellinger v. P. (8 Wend, 595) i. 280, Sat b Bellville, S. v. (7 Bax. 648) i, 822 Belote v. 8. (86 Missis. 96; 72 Am. D. 163) 1, 1242; ii, 739, 741 Belstead, Rex v, (Russ. & Ry. 411) ii. 721 Belt, Rex v. (1 Salk. 686) ii, 946 BEN 2 Beleon, Hi eX v JS: & (24 . (1 Salk. 372) i. 769 S. C. 185; 58 Am. R. i. 1144, 1212; ii, 629 Belverman »v. S. (16 Tex. 130) i. 1050; ii. 848, 850 Beman, P. v. (22 Hun, 283) i, 1377 Bembridge, Rex v. (3 Doug. 3827) i. 276 Bemis, P. v. (51 Mich, 422) i. 281; ii. 514 Bemmerly, P. v. (87 Cal. 117) i. 906, 932 a, 1094 Ben »v. S. (22 Ala. 9; 58 Am. D. 234) 1. 959 a, 1359; ii. 647 —— v.S. (37 Ala. 103) ii. 612 —, 8. v. (1 Hawks, 434) i. 1150 Benavides v. S. (31 Tex. 579) i. 1207, 1212 — v. 8. (31 Tex. Cr. 173) i. 1265 Bench, S. v. Ne Mo. 78) ii. 718 Benecke, U. . v. (98 U.S. 447) ii, 829 Benedict v. s (2 Wis. 313) i, 1887, 1343, 1871 —— v. §. (14 Wis. 423) i. 1005 a Beneke, S. v. (9 Iowa, 203) i. 636, 639, 892, 893, 894, 1264 Beneux v. 8. ae Ark. 97) i, 688 Benevides v. 8, (14 Tex. Ap. 878) i. 975¢ Benfield, Rex v. (2 Bur.980) —_i.487, 448, 469; ii. 60, 808, 811 pon : Rossiter (4 T. R. 505 ; 2 H. BI. 418) i. 264 aeanen ¢ vy = (1 Iowa, 542) 1.778; ii. 68, 859 —,S. v. (7 Conn. 414) ii. 483 Benjamin, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 201) i. a 799 — v.8. (25 Fla. 675) 264 a Benn, Rex v. (Cas. temp. Hardw. 98) i, 264 /, 264 n Bennac »v. P. (4 Barb. 31) i. 228 —— v. P. (4 Barb. 164) i. 722, 1217, 1879 Benner v. Porter (9 How. U. s. 235) i, 314 a, 316 —,, S. v. (64 Me. 267) i. 909, 982, 1082, 1146, 1262 Bennet, C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 235) i. 478, 711, 1268; ii. 83, 953 — v. §. (24 Wis. 57) i. 887, 911 (1 Root, 249) i. 1188 (2 Tread. 692; 3 Brev. ii. 742, 746 ,S. v. (2 Tread. 693; 3 Brev. 15 ii. 716, 769 i, 596, 601 i. 264 ¢ i, 992, 1269, 1279 i, 231 i. 459, 460; ji, 828, 329, 832 i. 1178; ii. 677 —,S.v. i's, v. = — »v. Talbot (1 Salk. 212) v. Watson (3 M. & S. 1) Bennett v. C. (8 Leigh, 745) C. v. (7 Allen, 533) , C. uv. (118 Mass. 443) —— v, Fail (26 Ala. 605 To? — v. Mathewes (68. C. 478) ii. 482 6 —— v, P. (94 Tl. 681) i. 256 ——~ v. P. (96 Ill, 602) i. 428; 41. 740 —,P.v. (37 N. ¥. 117; 98 Am.D, 551) i. 655, 658, 665, 668 ; ii. 721 —, P.v. (49 N.Y. 187) i. 961, 97, 1057, 1107, 1265, 1889 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. BEN Bennett, Reg. v. (2 Den. C. C. 240; 4 Eng. L, & Eq. 560) ii. 919, 921 uv, 8. (62 Ala. 370) ii, 754 v. 8. (18 Ark, 694) i. 1278 —— v. 8. (86 Ga, 401; 22 Am. St. 465) i. 1098, 1119 —— v. S. (8 Numph. 118) i, 287, 700, 1115, 1382 — v. S, (3 Ind. 167) i. 597, 606 —— v.S, (31 Iowa, 24) 1. 1162 v. 8. Mare & Yerg. 183) i. 882 —— ve. 8. (1 Swan Tenn, 411) - i. 799 —— v. S. (27 Tex. 701) i. 870 a —— vt. S. (80 Tex. 446) i. 264 a —— v. 8. (30 Tex. 521) i, 1012, 1035 v. 8. (4 Tex, Ap. 72) i. 314 v, 8. (12 Tex. Ap. 15) i. 975 ¢ uv, 8, (17 Tex. Ap. 148) i, 1810 v. S. (380 Tex. Ap. 341) i. 1066 v, S. (57 Wis. 69; 46 Am. R. 26) i. 68, 15 a, 1179; ii. 666 — v.8. (2 Yerg. 472) i. 287 —, 8. v. (4 Dev. & Bat. 48) i, 1188, ii, 383, 386 i. 909, 931, 1808 ; —, S. v. (14 La. An. 651) 1212 —, 8S. v. (75 Me. 590) i, 1265 —, 8. v. (102 Mo. 356) i. 147, 713 —, 8. v. (93 N. C.503) i. 1298 —— v. Smith (21 Barb. 489) i. 1087 v, Talbois (1 Ld. Raym. 149) i. 546 —, U.S. x. (16 Biaich. 338) i, 816, 1000 —, U.S. v. (17 Blatch. 857) i. 447, 966; ii. 407 Bennington, S. v. (44 Kan. 688) i. 975¢, 976 Benson, In re (84 Fed. Rep. 649) i, 224 —— v. McMahon (127 U. S. 457) i, 224 —— v. Offley (2 Show. 610; 8 Mod. 121) i. 61; ii 3 —, P. v. (6 Cal. 221; 65 Am. D. 506 ii. 966 —, P. v. (52 Cal. 380) i. 1277 ——, Rex v. (2 Camp. 508) 4. 9838¢ — v.§. (68 Ala. 544) ii. 808 — v.§. (1 Tex. Ap. 6) ii, 833 —, 8S. v.(88 Ind. 60) i. 145 —, U.S. 2 (12 Saw. 477; 31 Fed. Rep. 896) i. 931 Benstine v. S. (2 Lea, 169; 31 Am. R. 598) ii. 966 Benthal, S. v. (6 Humph. 519) ii. 21 Benthall, S. v. (82 N.C. 664) i314 a3 ii, Bentley v. Cooke (8 Doug. 422) ii, 69 —, P. wv. (75 Cal. 407) i. 1074; ii. 227 —.P.»v. (77 Cal. 7; 11 Am. St. 225) ‘i. 816, 1181, 1185, 1248; ii. 228 ;——, Rex v, (6 Car. & P. 148) i, 1261 Benton v, 8. (80 Ark. 828) i, 949, Pg —, S. v. (2 Dev. & Bat. 196) i, 909, 981 —, 8. v. (65 Iowa, 482) i. 966d —, 8. v. (48 N. H. 551) i. 264.0 Benzion, S. v. (79 Iowa, 467) i, 2647 495 BER Berberricb, P. v. (20 Barb. 224) i. 3144 Berchet, Rex v. (1 Show. 106) i. 141 Berens, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F, 842) i, 298, 964 Bergemann v. Backer (157 U. S. 655) ii. a 684 Bere v. P. (17 Ill. 426; 65 Am. D 672) i. 1195, 1244, 1246 Berger, C. v. (3 Brews. 247) i 909 , Reg. v. (1894, 1 Q. B. 828) ii. 1055 Bergin v. S. (81 Ohio St. 111) ii, 670, 671 Bergman, S, v. (87 Minn. 407) i, 315 —, S. v. (6 Or. 341) i. 686 Berkley, Rex v. (1 Keny. 80) i. 1878 v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 122) i, 276 —, S. v. (92 Mo. 41) i. 951, 951 a Berks v, Pile (18 Pa. 498) i. 1316 Berliner v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 181) i. 795 Berman ». P, (101 Ill, 822) i, 1264 Bernadotti, Reg. v. (11 Cox C. C. 316) i, 1212 Bernal, P. v. (10 Cal. 66) i, 1144 Bernard, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 240) i. 733a —, 5S. v. (45 Iowa, 234) i. 1152 Berner, P. v, (13 Johns. 383) i, 229 Berney v. 8. (69 Ala. 220) i, 1247 Bernhard v. S, (76 Ga. 613) i. 1005 Berning, S. v. (91 Mo. 82) i. 1005 a Berrian v. S. (2 Zab. 9) i. 844, 845, 665, 352, 1364 Berrien v. S. (83 Ga. 381) i. 486 Berriman, Reg. v. (6 Cox C. C. 888) i. 1242 —, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 601) i. 683 Berrisford v. 8. (66 Ga. 58) ii. 426 Berritt, S. v. (17 N. H. a i. 3l4a Berry v. Adamson (6 B. & C. 528; 2 Car. & P. 503) i, 157 — ». C. (10 Bush, 15) i. 1241 —,C. v. (5 Gray, 93) ii. 998 —, Reg. v. (1 Q. B. D. 447) 1. 950c; ii. 666, 667 ——, Rex v. (1 Moody & R. 463) i. 597 —, Rex v. (4 T. R. 217) ii. 809 v. 8. (63 Ala. 126) i. 860 — v. 8, (65 Ala. 117) i, 888 — v.S. (Dudley, S. C. 215) i, 229 — v.8.(10Ga. 611) i. 979, 989 a, 995, 998, 1176, 1228, 1247, 1254; ii. 676, 754, 778 —— v. S. (87 Ga. 579) i, 975 c, 1279 —— v.§. (81 Ohio St. 219; 27 Am, R. 506) i, 978 — v8. i Tex. Ap. 515) i. "O7be — »v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 249) ii. 1064 v. 8. (30 Tex. a, 423) i. 1181, 1184 —, S. v. (8 Greenl. 179) i, 264 a —, 8. v. (4 Halst. 374) i, 606 —,S.v. {ea Mo. 504 ii. 992 —, S. v. (62 Mo. 596 i. 772, 778 —, S. v. (83 N. C, 603) i. 3144 Berryhill v. Kirchner (96 Pa. 489) ii, 4326 Berryman v. Wise (4 T. R, 866) _ ii. 804 Bersch v. 8. (18 Ind. 434; 74 Am. D. 263) i. 982, 1128, 1140, 1170 ; ii. 428 Bertin, S. v. A La. An, 46) i. 273, 965 Bertrong v, 8, (2 Tex. Ap. 160) « i, ‘1260 496 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. BIG + Bescher v. S. (32 Ind. 480) i. 814 Besimer v. P. (15 Ill. 489) i. 264.4, 264.5 Bess, S. v. (31 La. An. 191) i. 1265 ——, S. v. (20 Mo. 419) i. 611 Bessette v. S. (101 Ind. 85) i 975a; ii. 967 Best, Reg. v. (2 Ld. Raym. 1167; 6 Mod. 137; 1 Salk. 174) —i. 61; ii. 241 —, S.v. (7 Blackf. 611) i, 286 i. 687 Beatin, ‘Cu. (il Gray, 54) i. 1264 Beswick, S. v. (18 R. I. 211) i, 100 Bethel v. C. (80 Ky. 526) i. 975e; ii. 975 —, Rex v. (5 Mod. 19) i, 1301 —, 8. vr. (97 N. C. 459) i, 1181, 1182 Bethell’s Case (1 Salk. 348) i. 1410 Bethell, Reg. v. (6 Mod. 17) i. 600, 1877, 1878 Bethune v. S. (48 Ga. 505) ii. 133 Betsall, S. v. (11 W. Va. 703) i, an ii. 138 Betsworth, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 93) ii. 158 Bettesworth, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 22 i, 1006; ii. 820 Bettilini, U. S. v. (1 Woods, 654) i. pcr 436 Betton, C. v. (56 Cush. 427) i. 126; ii. 52 Betts, Reg. v. (16 Q. B. 1022) ii, 1050 v. §. (66 Ga. 508) i. 852, 1190, 1249 — v.§. (93 Ind. 375) ii. 115 Bevans, P. v. (52 Cal. 470) i. 360 —, U.S. v. (3 Wheat. 336) i. 314a Beverlin, S. v. (80 Kan. 611) i. 612 Beverly, 8. v. (14 Vroom, 189) i. 8lda Bevington v. 8. (2 Ohio St. 160) ii. 470 Bew, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 480) ii, 730 Bezy, P. v. (67 Cal, 223) ii, 612 —, P. v. (73 Cal. 186) i. 1279 Bibb v. S. (83 Ala. 84) i. 622 ——, S. v. (68 Mo. 286) ii. 406, 416 Bibby, P. v. (91 Cal. 470) ii, 428 Bibel v. P. (67 Ill. 172) i, 897 Bickerdike v. Dean (21 Ill. 199) i, 8144 Bickford, U.S. v. (4 Blatch. 387) i. 764, 959.4 Bickley v. Norris (2 Brev. 252) ii, 382 Bicksler, U.S. v. (1 Mackey, 341) i. 1169, 1265; ii. 266 Bickum, C. v. (153 Mass. 386) i. 421 Biddle v. Ash-(2 Ashm. 211) i, 1417 — v. C. (188. & R. 405) i, 893 — v. Ramsey (52 Mo. 153) i. 468 — »v. S. (67 Md. 304) i, 948 Bidwell, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 222) ii. 897 Bieber v. 8. (45 Ga. 569) ii. 980 cia a S. v. (82 Mo. 276) _ ii. 1M, 897 —, .v. (1 McCrary, 42) 1891 Bielby, = v, (21 Wis. 204) i. 184, 436 Bielfus, P. v. (59 Mich. 576) i. 975, 1277 Biemel ». 8. (71 Wis. 444) i, 281 Bierbach, S. v. (47 Wis. 629) i, 1265 Bierce, s. v, (27 Conn, 819) i, 611, 628 — v. Stocking (11 Gray, 174) ii. 682 Bishy v, 8, (6 Tex. Ap. 101) ii. 105 Bigelow, C. v. (8 Met. 235) i, 1126 —,C.v, (8 Piel, 31) ii. 886 BIR INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. BIS Bigelow v. Hartford Bridge (14 mi Bird, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 44) ii. 721, 722 665; 86 Am. D. 502) 7|——, Reg. v. (5 Cox C.C.11; 2 Eng. — v. Stearns (19 Johns. 39; 10. L. ’& Eq. 439) i, 253 Am, D. 189) i. 267 | ——, Reg. v. (17 Cox C. C. 387) ii. 916 Biggerstaff v. C. (11 Bush, 169), —, Reg. v. (2 Den. C.C.94; 5 Cox i. 814; ii.914] C.C.20; 2 Eng. L. & Eq. 448) 1.816, Biggs v. P. (8 Barb. 547) ii, 1025 1040 v. §. (29 Ga. 723; 76 Am. D. —,, Rex v. (2 B. & Ald 522) i. 691 630) ii. 95 | ——, Rex v. (2 Show. 87) i. 200 Bigham v. 8. (31 Tex. Cr, 244) ii, 142 | —— v. 8. (14 Ga. 43) i. 849, 9494, Bignold, Reg. v. (4 D. & R. 70; D. 1276; ii. 607 &R.N. P. 59) i. 963 | —— v. S. (50 Ga. 585) i. 868, 959.a, 962, Bilansky v. S. (3 Minn. 427) i. 1843; 1190 ii, 584 | —— v. S. (58 Ga. 602) i. 811, 856, 886, 1857 ——,, S. v. (3 Minn. 246) i. 314a | —— v. 8. (55 Ga. 317) — i. 980; ii. 618, Bilbo, S. v. (19 La, An. 76) i, 405 620 Bill v. C. (7 Grat. 201) i, 8144, | -— v. S. (107 Ind. 154) i, 1181, 1182 — v. P. (14 Il. 482) i, 975, 979 | ——, S. v. (1 Misso. 585) i, 1278 —, P. v. (10 Johns. 95) i. 1021, 1176 | —_, U. S. v. (2 Brev. 85) i. 1018 v. 8. (29 Ala. 34) i. 931a | ——, U.S. v. (1 Sprague, 299) -1. 66 —— v.§. (5 Humph. 155) i. 1078 | Birdg v.S. (81 Ind. 88) ii. 845 —, S. v. (18 Ire. 373) i. 314 | Birdsall, C. v. (69 Pa. 482; 8 Am. R. —, S. v. (6 Jones, N. C. 34) i.1078| 283) i. 449, 13827 —, S.v. (15 La, An. 114) i. 909 v. Phillips (17 Wend. 464) i. 722 Billard v. S. (80 Tex. 367 ; 94 Am. D. Birdsong v. S. (47 Ala. 68) i. 911, 1218 317) ii. 740 | Birdwell, S. v. (86 La. An, 859) ii. 618 Bille, S. v. (35 La. An. 851) i. 1275 629 Billigheimer v. 8. (82 Ohio St. 485) Birge v. S. (78 Ala. 435) i. 1151 ii, 816, 818 |. Birkett, Reg. v, (8 Car.& P. 732) i. 1170 Billinglea v. S. (56 Ga. 686) ii. 152 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 86) ii, 4274 Billings v. Avery (7 Conn. 236) i. 264.8, | —- Rex». (Russ. & Ry. 251) 4. 1169; ca 264} ii, 416 v. §. (107 Ind. 64; 67 Am. R. Birmingham, &c., Ry., Reg. v. (1 aa 7 i. 7138] & D. 457 —, S. v. (72 Mo. 662) i, 733 | ——, Reg. v. (3 Q. B.223) i. 788, ‘950 a Billingslea v. 8. (68 Ala. 486) i. 850; Birmingham U. Ry. v. Hale (90 Ala. ii.630] 8) i. 1095 Billingsley, S. v. (43 Tex. 93) ii. 20| Birney v. S. (8 Ohio, 280) i, 522 Billingsly v. S. (3 Tex. Ap. 686) i. 1264| Birnie, Rex _v. (6 Car. & P. 206; 1 Billington, S. v. (83 Me. 146) i, 315 Moody & R. 160) 1, 234 Billis v. S. (2 McCord, 12) i, 946 | Bisaner, S. v. (97 N.C. 603) ii. 857 Billy v. S. (2 Nott & McC. 356) i, 314; | Biscoe v. S. (67 Md. 6) i, 1220 ii. 824 | ——, S. v. (7 Eng. 683) i. 868 Binfield v. S. (15 Neb. 484) i. 1189 ish v. C. (18 ‘Grit, 785) i. 188 Bing v. S. (52 Ark. 263) i. 975 c, 979 . v. (81 Cal. 113) i. 1181, er Bingham v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 21) i. 405 94 Binney, Reg. v. (1 Ellis % B. 810; —, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 302) ii ‘O11 18 Eng. L. & Eq. 318) i, 1817 | ——, Rex v. (Andr. 220) i. 769 Binns, Rex v. (26 How. St. Tr. 605) —, Rex v. (1 Stra. 9) i, 253 001 v. S. (30 Ala. 84) i. 69, 73; ii. 482d, — v. S. (385 Ark. 118) i 998 a 475, 481 —— v. S. (38 Ind. 277) i, 951 a | —— v. S, (9 Ga. 121) i. 905, 9516 — v.S8. (46 Ind. 311) i. 1066; ii. 624 | —— ». S. (62 Missis. 289) i. 68, 72 —— v. S. (57 Ind. 46 ; 26 Am. R. 48) — v. 8, (48 Tex. 390) i. 980, 1148 i, 1081; fi, 628, 625, 629 | ——,, S. v. (7 Conn..181) i, 814 —— 1. S. (66 Ind. 428) i. 9756 —, 8. v. (1 D. Chip. 120) i, 690, Birch, Ex parte (3 Gilman, 134) i. 1167 1188; ii. 916, 983, 934 —, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 185) * i. 1009 | —, S. v. (15 Me, 122) i, 674, 675 a ——, Rex v. (1 Leach, jes 2 W. Bi. —, S.v. (22 Mo. Ap. 435) ‘tL. 168 790 ; 2 East P. C. 980 ii, 418 | ——, S. ve, (73 N. C. 44) i. 1004 Bircham, P. v. (12 Cal. 50) i. 264a|—,S. v. (98 N. C. 778) i, 459, 1249, Birchim, "8. v. (9 Nev. 95) i. 264a 1252 Bird v. Bird (23 La, An. 262) i. 316| Bishop of Lincoln v. Wolferstan — v. Davis (1 McCarter, 467) i. 1151 (1 W. BI. 490) i, 406 — , P. v. (60 Cal. 7) i. 975c, 978 | Biss, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 778) ii. 510 VOL. 11.—~ 32 497 a BLA Bissett, Reg. v. (1 Cox C.C.148) i. 816 Bissex v. Bissex (8 Bur. 1729) i. 406 Bissot v. 8. (53 Ind. 408) i. 68, 10154 Bitancourt, P. v. (78 Cal. 1) i. 1265 Bitman, S. v. (18 Iowa, 485) ii. 62 Bittick v. McEwen (7 Heisk. 1) i, 1850 —v.S. (40 Tex. 117) i. 1005 a; ii. 68 a, 77 Bitting v. S. (13 Iowa, 600) i, 452 Bittinger, S. v. (55 Mo. 596) ii. 829 Bittings v. S. (56 Ind. 101) ii. 419 Bitton, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 92) i. 733 Bivens v. S. (6 Eng. 455) i. 1264, 1278, 1278, 1357; ii. 600 Bixbe v. S. (6 Ohio, 86) i. 472, 1018, 1028 Bixby v. 8. (15 Ark. 395) i. 1279 Bixler, S. v. (62 Md. 354) ‘i 922 Bixley, Ex parte (13 Ark. 286) i. 1264 Blaby, Re v. (1894, 2 Q. B.170) ii. 249 Black v. S. (83 Ala. 81; 3 Am. St. 691) i. 458, 459; ii. 754 — v.S. (36 Ga. 447; 91 Am. D. 772) 1.1285 v. S. (47 Ga. 589) i. 9514 — v. §. (57 Ind. 109) ii. 62 v. 8. (2Md, 376) i. 537 v8. (is Tex. 377) i. 909 v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 868) i. 1049, 1076, 1077, 1196 — v,S. (8 Tex. Ap. 329) i, 1086 v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 124) ii, 147 —— vr. S. (27 Tex. Ap. 495) i..1279 . §. (59 Wis. 471) i. 977, 1169 —, =, v. (59 Towa, 890) i, 1181 —,S.v. (6 Jones, N.C. 510) = 1. 966.4 —,S.v. (42 La. An. $61) i, 952 a —, 8. v. (63 Me. 210) i. 1152; ii. 960 ——, 5. v. (9 Misso. 689) i. 639 —, S. v. (12 Mo. Ap. 531) i. 683 —' S. ». (31 Tex. 560) i. 685 ——, U.S. v. (12 Bankr. Reg. 340) i. 1181 Blackburn »v. C, (12 Bush, 181) i. 981, 1244, 1248 v. 8. (71 Ala. 819; 46 Am. R. 323) i. 962 — »v. S. (3 Head, 690) i, 316 —— rv. S. (28 Ohio St. 146) i. 1053; ii. 608, 645, 674 —— ». 8. (39 Tex. 153) ii. 68a — v.58. (44 Tex. 457) ii. 721 ——, S. v. (80 N. C. 474) i, 1209, 1212 Blackman v. C, (124 Pa. 578) i. 405 v. Johnson (35 Ala. 252) 1.1178; ii.677 ——, P. v. (1 Denio, 632) i. 264.7, 264 m — v. 8. (86 Ala. 295) i. 1094 — v.8. a Ga. 288) i. 951, 951a —— v. S. (78 Ga. 592) i. 975 a, 1074 —— v. §. (80 Ga. 785) i. 68, 909 —,S. v. (32 Kan. 615) i. 685 Blackson, Rex v. (8 Car. & P. 48) 1, 449 Blackstone rv. 8. (15 Ala. 415) ii. 847 — , S. v. (74 Ind. 592) ii, 924 Blackwelder, S. v. (Phillips, N. C. 38) i. 273 Blackwell, P. v. (27 Cal. 65) i. 281, 1350, 1356 — »v. 8S. (67 Ga. 76; 44 Am. R. 717) i. 965, 975 ¢ 498 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. BLA: Blackwell v. S. (11 Ind. 196) i. 1144 —— v. S. (8 Pike, 320) i, 264e —v. 8. (29 Tex. Ap. 194) i. 948 a, 1085 ; ii. 628 —— v. S. (30 Tex. Ap. 416) i. 854 —— v. §. (30 Tex. Ap. 672) _ ii. 992, 995 —., S. v. (9 Ala. 79) i. 979, 982, 1395 —, S. v. (3 Ind. 529) ii. 840 Blacquiere v. Hawkins (1 Doug. 378) i, 1268 Blagden, Reg. v. (10 Mod. 296) i. 141 Blair v. Hamilton (32 Cal. 49) i 1845 — v. Marye (80 Va. 485) i, 279, 286 —— v. S. (52 Ala. 348) i. 946, 976, 980, 1857 — , S. v. (72 Iowa, 591) i, 242 ——,S v. (13 Rich. 93) ii. 998 —, S. uv. (53 Vt. 24) i. 814 Blaisdell v. Raymond (4 Abb. Pr. 446; 14 How. Pr. 265) ii. 793 —, 8. v. (83 N, H. 388) i. 638 —, S. v. (49 N. H. 81) i. 887, 706 ——,, S. v. (59 N. H. 828) ii. 984 ——, U. S.»v. (3 Ben, 182) i. 287, 292, peer 1164 Blake v. Beech (1 Ex. D. 320) i. 717 — v. Burke (42 Md. 45) i. 189 —, C. v. (12 Allen, 188) i, 888, 891, 1265 — v, Irish (21 Me. 450) i, 978 —— v. P. (73 N. Y. 586) i. 975 a ——, Reg. v. (6 Q. B.126) _ ii. 210, 211, 227, 230, 245 —v.§8. (3 Tex. Ap. 149) i. 390 —— v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 581) i. 1250 — , S. v. (25 Me. 350) i. 1082 ——, S. v. (89 Me. 322) ii. 959 Blakeley, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 176) : 229 ; i. 472 Blakely v. S. (24 Tex. Ap. 616; 5 Am. St. 91 2) i. 1170 ——,, S. v. (83 Mo. 359) i. 665 Blakeney, S. v. (83 S. C. 111) ii, 584 Blakesley, S. 7. (89 Kan. 152) ii, 838 —, S. v. (48 Kan. 250) i, 451 Blalack v. S. (3 Tex. Ap. 376) i. 264 a Blalock v. Pillsbury (76 Ga. 493) j. 68, 74 Blan, S. v. (69 Mo. 317) 1. 966 d, 1015; ii. 520, 527 Blanc v. Murray (86 La. An. 162; 51 Am. R. 7) i. 1417 Blanchard, C. v. (105 Mass. 178) i. 706¢ , S. v. ‘(14 Towa, 628) i. 884, 472, 486 Blanchette, C. v. (157 Mass. 486) ii, 166 Bland v. P. (8 Scam. 864) — i. 51; ii. vi 8 — »v. S. (75 Ala. 574) i. 931 —— v.§. (2 Ind. 608) i. 1086, 1279, 1384 —v.§. (4 Tex. Ap.15) i. 1012, 1094 —, 8. v. (97 N. C. 438) i. 160, 161 Blandford v. 8. (10 Tex. Ap. 627) i, 2246 Blanding, C. v. (3 Pick. 304; 15 Am. D, 214) i. 53, 1100 ; ii, 800, 805 Blankenship ». S. (55 Ark. 244) i. 1086 ; ii, 740, 752 —v.S. (5 Tex. Ap. 218) ii, 754 BLU Blankenship, S. v. (21 Mo. 594) Blankenshire v. S. (70 Ala. 10) i. 8lda Blankman, P. v. (17 Wend. 252) i. 264, f Blanton v. Breckenridge (Litt. Sel. Cas. 25) i. 1879 — v. §. (1 Wash. 265) ii. 585 Blauvelr, S. v. (9 Vroom, 806) ii. 172, 183 Blea, Reg. v. (8 Car, & P. 735) i, 597 Bleasdale v. Darby (9 Price, 606) i. 1362 —, Reg. » (2 Car. & K. 765) i. 51, 459 Bledsoe v. C. (6 Rand. 678) i. 95la —, S. v. (47 Ark. 238) i. 484; ii. 2870 Bleekley, S. v. (18 Mo. 428) i. 875 Blemer v. P. (76 Ill. 265) i. 590, 1277 Blend v. P. (41 N. Y. 604) i, 314 i. 688 Blennerhassett, 8. v. (Walk. Missis. 7) i. 1021, 1166 Blevins v. S. (68 Ala. 92) i. 931 v. §. (81 Ark. 53) 1. 264.0 —v. S. (Meigs, 82) i, 1855 Blige v. S. (20 Fla. 742; 51 Am. R. 628) i. 951 Blincoe, C. v. (38 Bush, 12) i. 264 f Bliss, S. r. (21 Minn. 458) i, 1264 Bliven, P. v. (112 N. Y. 79; 8 Am. St. 701) i, 832; ii. 1, 3. 4 Blize, S. v. (111 Mo. 464) ii. 927 Blizzard, S. v. (70 Md. 885; 14 Am. St. 366) ii. 178, 175, 178 Block v. 5. (66 Ala. 493) i. 688 — v. S. (100 Ind. 357) i. 902 — uv. S. (44 Tex. 620) ii. 321 v. §. (20 Tex. Ap. 175) i. 1274 Blocker v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 279) i. 975 ¢ — v. 8. (27 Tex. Ap. 16) i. 975¢€ —, S. v. (14 Ala. 450) i. 869 Blodget v. Royalton (14 Vt. 288) ii. 1054 — v. S. (8 Ind. 403) i. 548, 549 —, S. v. (1 Root, 584) ii. 429, 433 Blodgett v. Race, (18 Hun, 132) i. 280 —, U.S. v. (85 Ga. 336) 1.867, 877, 934 Bledow, S. v. (44 Wis, 135) i. 1264 —, S. v. (45 Wis. 279) i. 1005; ii. 359 Blood v. Bates (31 Vt. 147) i, 1291 —, C. v. (141 Mass. 571) i.975¢, 1121 Bloodsworth, S. v. (25 Or. 83) ii. 187 Bloodworth, S. v. (94 N. C. 918) i. 636 Bloom, In re (53 Mich. 597) i. 1827 — S. c. (68 Ind. 54; 34 Am. R. 24 7) i. 1113 —, S. v. (17 Wis. 521) i. 816 Bloomer v. P. (1 Abb. Ap. 146) i. 1101 — v. §. (3 Sneed, 66) i. 872; ii. 56 Bloomgart, U. S. v. (2 Ben. 356) i. 233 Bloombuff ». S. (8 Blackf. 205) _ i. 1005 Bloomington v. Heiland (67 Ill. 278) i. 264 a, 268 Blount v. S. (49 Ala. 381) i. 1005 a, 1085, 1087 — v, §. (76 Ga. 17) i. 486; ii. 751 Blue v. C. (4 Watts, 215) ij, 942 —,S8.». i. 1006 84 N. C. 807) ‘Bluff v. 8. (10 Ohio St. 547) 1.1128; ii. 428 Bluitt v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 89; 41 Am. ’ BR. 666) ii, 153 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. BOS Blumenberg v. S. (55 Missis. 528) Blunt v. C. (4 Leigh, 689; 26 Am. D. i. 711 341) i. 976 — v.8. (9 Tex. Ap. 234) i. 8144 —, 8. v. (59 Iowa, 468) ii. 972 Blythe v. S. (4 Ind. 525) i. 286, 305 v, 8. (47 Ohio St. 234) i. 965 —, S. v. (1 Dev. & Bat. 199) i, 825 Boaler, Reg. v. (17 Cox C. C. 669) ii. 804 Boardman, Reg, v. (2 Moody & R. 147; 2 Lewin, 181) ji. 402, 415 — ,S. v. (64 Me. 528) ii. 112, 113 v. Woodman (47 N. H. 120) ii. 678 Boas, P. v. (92 N. Y. 560) i. 1264 Boatwright, S. v. (10 Rich. 407) i. 981, 945 Bob v. §.-(29 Ala. 20) i, 752 v. 8, (82 Ala. 560) i. 1220, 1239, 1241, 1254; ii. 62 — v. 8. (7 Humph. 129) i. 18651 uv. S. (2 Yerg. 173) i. 1266, 1877 Bobhitt, 8. 7. (70 N. C. 81) ii. 912 Boddie v. 8. (52 Ala, 395) ii. 960, 968 Boddy v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 528) i.975¢, 980 Bodekee, S. v. (84 Iowa, 520) i, 1094 Bodine v. C. (24 Pa. 69) i. 2644 ——, P. v. (1 Denio, 281) i. 906, 909, 934, 945, 949, 1118, 1119, 1179, 1265; ii. 607, 629 ——, P. v. (Edm. Sel. Cas. 36) i. 947 ——’ P. ». (7 Hill, N. Y. 147) i. 71 Bodkin, Reg. v. (9 Cox C. C. 403) i. 1228 , Reg. v. (9 Cox C. C. 404) i. 969 Bodle, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 186) — i. 966 c Bodly, S. v. (7 Blackf. 855) i. 931 Boeger v. Langenberg (97 Mo. 3890; 10 Am. St. 822) i. 209 Boenninghausen, Ex parte (91 Mo. 301) i. 1410 ——, Ex parte (21 Mo. Ap. 267) i. 1410 Bogain, S. c. (12 La. An. 264) i. 980, 1003 Bogart, P. v. (86 Cal. 245) i. 495; ii. 705 —, P. v. (8 Par. Cr. 143) ii. 886 Bogert v. P. (6 Hun, 262) i. 1866 Bogget v. Frier (11 East, 301) ii. 138 Boggs, P. v. (20 Cal. 432) i. 999, 1013 S. (45 Ala. 30; 6 Am. R. 689) i.919 v. Washington Commissioners (10 Neb. 297) i. 1817 Bogle, Ex parte (20 Tex. Ap. 127) i. 1306 Bogue, S. v. (5 Md. 852) i. 8144 Bohan, S. v. (15 Kan. 407) i. 68, 7], ree ——, 8. v. (19 Kan. 28) i, 981, 1265 Bohanan »v. S. (18 Neb. 57; 58 Am. R, 791) i. 909, 975 b ——, S.v. (76 Mo. 562) i. 68, 73; ii. 601 Bohannon «. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 271) i. 1858 ; ii. 506, 584 —, S. v. (21 Mo. 490) i. 761, 768; ii, 855, 856 Boies, S. v. (41 Me. 844) i. 264.0, 2644, 264 m, 1264 Bojorquez, P. v. (55 Cal. 463) i. 1262 499 BON Bolam, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 192) i, 730, 981, 951 5 Boland v. P. (19 Hun, 80) i. 1120 — v. P. (25 Hun, 423) i, 440 —,, S. v. (12 Mo. Ap. 74) ii. 914 Bolanger, P. v. (71 Cal. 17) i. 1159 Bolanz v. C. (24 Grat. 31) i. 264 f Bolding v. S. (23 ‘Tex. Ap. 172) i. 909 Bold’s Case (1 Salk. 53) i. 1013 Bolds, S. v. (37 La. An. 312) i. 951 Boldt v. 8. (72 Wis. 7) i. 68 Bolen v. 8. (26 Ohio St. 871) i. 1184 Boles v. S. (46 Ala. 204) ii. 86 v. S. (24 Missis. 445) i. 876, 882, 931 —v. 8. (9 Sm. & M. 284) i. 980 — v.S. (18 Sm. & M. 398) i. 926, 999 v. S. (138 Tex. Ap. 650) i. 431 —— v.58. (18 Tex. Ap. 422) ii. 56 Bolin v. S. (9 Lea, 516) i. 1209 Boling, P. v. (88 Cal. 380) Bolkom, C. v. (3 Pick. 281) i. 975c, 980, 1101 i. 481, 1841 ; ii. 494 Bollig, Ex parte (31 Ill. 88) i..1300, 1301, 1306 Bolling v. S. (78 Ala. 469) i. 966d —— v. S, (54 Ark. 588) i, 269; ii. 671 Bollinger, S. v. (69 Mo. 577) i. 1264, 1272 Bollman, Ex parte (4 Cranch, 75) i. 226 Bolt, S. v. (7 Blackf. 19) i. 882 Bolton, Rex v. (1 Stra. 141) i. 1899 —— v. 8. (5 Coldw. 650) i. 390, 404 ae Rex v. (8 D. & R. 65; 5 B. &C. 334) i,275, 276 Bolun »v. P. (73 Ill. 488) i. 1327 Bomar, Ex parte (9 Tex. Ap. 610) i. 256 Boncher, 8. v. (59 Wis. 477) i. 590, 1264 Bond, Ex parte (9 S. C. 80) i. 1410 v. C. (88 Va. 581) i. 265, 273 v. P. (89 Ill. 26) i. 977, 979, 1005 4 —, Reg. v. (10 Cox C. C. 331) i. 950 — , Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 517 ; 4 Cox C. C. 231; 3 Car. & K. 337) i. 1259; if. 768 ——, Rex v. (27 How. St. Tr.528) i. 982.4 —— v. 8. (17 Ark. 290) i. 893 —-v.§. (21 Fla. 738) i, 962; ii. 618 — v. 8. (28 Ohio S. 349) i. 980, 1050 1291, 1856 ; ii. 670, 671 — v.S. (20 Tex. Ap. 421) i. 951, 1189 —, dS. v. (8 Iowa, 540) ii. 731, 769 Bonds, P. v. (1 Nev. 33) i. 980 v. 8. (Mart. & Yerg. 142; 17 Am. D. 795) i, 665; ii. 666 Bone ». McGinley (7 How. Missis. 671) 897 —, S. v. (7 Jones, N.C. 121) i. 909, 938 Bonfanti o. S. (2 Minn, 123) i. 1266 ; ii, 673, 687 b Bonfield ». Milner (2 Bur. 1098) i. 124 Bonilla, P. v. (38 Cal. 699) ii. 539 Bonker v. P. (87 Mich. 4) i. 1101 Bonnard v. 8. (25 Tex. Ap. 173; 8 Am. St, 431) i. 1247 Bonnell v. S. (64 Ind. 498) i.1011; ii. 165 —, 8. v. (46 Mo. 396) i. 769; ii. 175 500 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. BOR BOHR, C. v. (97 Mass. 587) ii. 89 —, C. v. (9 Met. 410) i. 1100 —, Ree uv, (7 Cox C. C. 18) ii. 700 ——, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 386) i, 1212 v. S. (65 Ala. 242) i. 665, 1220 — v. §. (67 Ga. 510) i. 278 v. S. (29 Tex. Ap. 223) i. 9594 Bonneville v. S. (53 Wis. 680) i, 928 Bonney, P. v. (19 Cal. 426) 1. 959.a, 968, 966 c, 994, 999, "1004 —, S. v. (84 Me. 223) ii. 467 —, S. v. (84 Me. 883) i. 661; ii. 403 v, Van Buren (2 Greene, Iowa, 230) i. 1316 Bonny, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 106) ‘i 168 Bonsell v. U.S. (1 Greene, Iowa, 111) ii.4 Booby v. 8. (4 Yerg. 111) i. 907, 932, 949 6, 1146, 1270 Boody v. P. (48 Mich. 34) i. 1810 Booker «. S. (76 Ala. 22) i. 1060, 1116 v. §. (8 Tex. Ap. 227) i. 1372 Bookhout v. S. (66 Wis. 415) i, 951 Bookser »v. S. (26 Tex. Ap. 593) i. 1076 Boon, C. v. (2 Gray, 74) i. 235; ii. 864 v. S. (1 Kelly, 618) i. 909, 934 —v.§. (1 Kelly, 631) i. 849, 909 v. 8. (42 Tex. 237) i. 1276 —, 8. v. (18 Ire. 244; 57 Am. D. 555) ii. 149 —, S. v. (4 Jones, N. C. 463) ii. 158 — , S. v. (80 N. C. 461) i. 946 Boone v. 8. (8 Lea, 739) i. 1810 Boorns’s Case (1 Greenl. Ev. § 214, note) 1218 tipone ¥ S. (10 Ohio St. 575) i. 1332, ss7, 146 Booth, In re (3 Wis. 1) . i 228 v. Birchard (4 Wis. 67) i. 804 v. C. (4 Grat. 525) i. 1073 v. C. (16 Grat. 519) i. 851, 858 —— v. C. (5 Met. 535) i. 1827 i. 488 —,C.v. 8 Rand. 669) ——, C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 394) ii. 65 —— ». Hanley (2 Car. & P. 288) i. 170, 183 —,, Rex v. (2 Keny. 172) i. 256 ——, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry 7) i. 515; ii. 271 Boothe v. 8, (4 Tex. Ap. 202) i, 1018, 1087 ; ii. 638 Bootie, Rex v. (2 Bur. 864) ii. 941 Bootle v. Blundell (19 Ves. 494) i. 1276 Boott, C. v. (hacker Crim. Cas. 390) ii. 307, 308 Booty, Rex v. (2 Keny. 575) ii, 941 Bootyman, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 300) i. 648, 645 ; ii. 884 Bordeaux, S. v. (93 N. C. 560) i. £694, 1285; ii. 916 Borden, C. v. (61 Pa, 272) i. 725 Boren v. Darke (21 Ohio St. $11) i, 260 — (23 Tex. Ap. 28) — i. 492, "3016 *, (21 Tex. 591) i. 1264 fa U. S. v. (19 Blatch. 249) i. 738a Borgetto, P. v. (99 Mich. 336) ii. 679 Borgman, 8. v. (2-Nott & McC. 384, note) i, 1248 BOU Boring v. Williams (17 Ala. 510) i. 891, 892 Bork v, P. (16 Hun, 476) — i. 640; ii. 820, 32 ——, P. v. (78 N. Y. 346) —, P. v. (96 N. Y. 188) i. 1810 Borlin v. C. (99 Pa. 42) i. 264 m Bornemann, U. 8. v. (85 Fed. Rep. 824) i. 661 i. 1862, 1366 Borowsky, S. v. (11 Nev. 119) i. 898 Borrett, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 124) i. 1180 Borron, Rex v. (3 B. & Ald. 482) — i. 299, 726 Borschenious v. P. (41 Ill. 286) i. 1817 Borst v. Beecker (6 Johns. 332) i, 923 Borthwick, Rex v. (1 Doug. 207) i. 409 ; ii. 3 Borum.v. 8. (66 Ala. 468) ii. 769 Boscovitch, P. v. (20 Cal. 436) i, 1191 Boscowitz, Ex parte (84 Ala. 463; 5 Am. St. 384 i. 1047 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. BOW Boulo v. S. (51 Ala. 18) i, 849, 884 Boult, C. v. (1 Browne, 237) i. 264 m 1] Boulter, Reg. v. (2 Den. C. C. 896; 5 Cox C.C. 548; 9 Eng. L. & Eq. 537) ii, 982 Boulton, Rex v. (5 Car & P. 587) ii. 721 Bounty Case (cited 1 East, 3138) =i. 1021 Bourdon, Reg. v. (2 Car & K. 366; 2 Cox C, C. 169) i. 1345 Bourland v. Skimnee (6 Eng. 671) i. 1279 Bourne v. Rex (2 Nev. & P. 248; 7 A. & E. 58) i. 1868, 1873 — v.§. (8 Port. 458) i. 1269 Bouser v. 8. (Smith, Ind. 408) i. 6389 Boutte v. Emmer (48 La, An. 980) i. 183 Bouvier, Ex parte (12 Cox C. C. 308; 4 Eng. Rep. 550) i. 224 Bowden ». P. (12 Hun, 85 ii. 935 a —v.§. (1 Tex. Ap. 187) i. 1161, 1164, Boss, 8. v. (74 Ind. 80) i. 489 1895 Bosshard v. 8. (25 Tex. Supp. 207) i.711 | —— v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 56) ii. 63 Bost v. Bost (87 N. C. 477) i. 1265 | —— v. 8. (12 Tex. Ap. 246) i. 68 Bostick v. S. (34 Ala. 266) ii. 460 | ——, S. cv. (71 Me. 89) i. 946 v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 705) i. 1277 | Bowditch v. Balchin (5 Exch. 378) i. 188 —, S. v. (4 Harring. Del. 563) i. 1228, | ——, Rex v. (2 Chit. 278) i. 1269 1233 | Bowe, P. v. (58 How. Pr. 393) i. 253 Bostock v. 8. (61 Ga. 635) i, 965} Bowen, Ex parte (46 Cal. 112) i. 1411 Boston, Rex v. (4 East, 572 ; 1 Smith, —, P. v. (49 Cal. 654) ii. 68, 970 202) ii. 429, 9388 a | ——, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 509) i . 951d —v. , Reg. v. (1 Den. C.C.22; 1 Cox S. (5 Tex. Ap. 383; 32 Am. R. 575) i Boston, &c. Rld., C. v. (101 Mass. 201 ) ii. 587 —, C. v. (133 Mass. 383) i. 1015 Bostwick, Ex parte (1 Cow. 143) i. 1403 Boswell v. C. (20 Grat. 860) ii. 670, 672, 673 —, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 584) i. 1285 — v.§. (92 Ga. 581) ii. 152, 153 —. S. v. (104 Ind. 541) i. 145, 870 v. Stewart (11 Ala. 629) i. 1899 Bosworth, C. v. (6 Gray, 479) i. 979, 1034 1143, 1265 —, GC. v. (113 Mass. 200) i. 780, 810, 817 —/C. v. (22 Pick. 897) i. 1161, 1169, 1170 Botfield, Reg. v. (Car. &M.151) ii. 1045, 1 Bothel, Reg. v. (Holt, 157) i. 1864, 1877 Botkin, S. v. (71 Iowa, 87 ; 60 Am. R. 780) ii. 276 Botto v. S. (26 Missis. 108) i. 373 Bottomley v. U. S. (1 Story, 185) i. 1128; ii. 189, 836 Bouche’s Case (Cro. Eliz. 200) i. 49 ; ii. 941 Boucher, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 141) i. a ——, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 150) ii, 915 Boudreaux, 8. v. (14 La. An. 88) i. 279, 1287 Boudrie, C. v. (4 Gray, 418) ii. 758 Bougher, S. v. (3 Blackf. 307) i. 611 Boujet, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 11) ii. 152 Bouldin, Ex parte (6 Leigh, 639) i. 279 v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 332) i, 1097 v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 624) i, 1810 Boullemet cv. S. (28 Ala. 83) i, 980 C.C. 88; 1 Car. & K. 601) i. 486, 439, 782 —, Reg. v. (13 Q. B. 790) ii. 163, 168 v. S. (108 Ind. 411) i. 733, 1854 — v.8. (3 Tex. Ap. 617) i. 931 — v. 8. (28 Tex. Ap. 103) i. 264 a, 264 b v. §. (28 Tex. Ap. 498) i. 706 a, 1005 a —, S. v. (16 Kan. 475) i, 50, 51, 52, 374, 984, 1005 a, 1010 —, 8. v. (4 McCord, 254) ‘i. 1205, 1206 —'§.v. (178. C. 58) i. 188 —, U.S. v. (8 MacAr. 64) i. 931; ii. 183 Bower, Rex v. (Cowp. 823) ii. 158 — v. S. (5 Misso. 364; 32 Am. D. 325) i. 1241; ii. 585 Bowers, C. v. (8 Brews. 350) ii, 983 — v. P. (17 Ill. 373) ii. 884, 886, 888 — v. P. (74 Il. 418) 1. 989 a — v.58. (24 Tex. Ap. 542; 5 Am. St. 901) ii. 228 —, S. v. (17 Iowa, 46) i. 939, 940, 1202; ii. 746 —, S. v. (65 Md. 363) i. 1264 Bowes, Rex v. (cited 4 East, 171) i. 61; ii, 286 Bowie v. S. (19 Ga. 1) - 1. 980, 1269 Bowler, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 773) i. 967 v. S. (41 Missis. 570) — i. 585, 706 a, 1094; ii. 187 Bowles v. S. (58 Ala. 335) i, 1250; ii. 618 —— v. 8. (7 Ohio, 2d pt. 243) ii —v. 5S. (5 Sneed, 360) 501 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. BRA BOY Bowlin v. C. (12 Bush, 5; 92 Am. D. Boyes, Reg. v. (1 B. & S. 311) i. 1169, 468 i. 1088 i (19 11) oe Bowling v. C. (79 Ky. 604 i. 1169 | Boyett, Ex parte Tex. 4 —, a Go'Humpi. 3u) i. 403, 405; | —— v. S. (26 Tex. Ap. 689) — i. 68, 951, % i 921 | Boy S. (2 Port. 100) i. 881 "383 Bowlus, S. v. (8 Heisk. 29 ii. 921 | Boyington »v. 8. ort. i, » 88: Bowman ». cs 14 B. Moan 390) i, 261 | ——, 8. v. (56 Me. 512) i. 636, 639 —, P. v. (81 Cal. 566) i, 733 | Boykin v. 8. (84 Ark. 443) ii. 740 —, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 101) j. 815 | Boyle, C. v. (9 Philad. 592) i. 995, 1002 ——’ Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 887) i. 789, 817 | ——v. P. (4 Colo. 176; 34 Am. R. — v. 8. (19 Neb. 523; 56 Am. R. 76) _ _i 919 750) i. 951 |—— v. 8, (97 Ind. 822) i. 1207 — v. S. (40 Tex. 8) i. 951 a | —— v. S. (105 Ind. 469; 55 Am. R. v. S. (41 Tex. 417) i. 931| 218) 4.1181, 1207 —, S. v. (103 Ind. 69) i, 698 | —— v. S. (87 Tex. 359) i. 541; ii. 718 ——, 8. v. (45 Iowa, 418) i. 999 | ——v. S. (57 Wis. 472; 46 Am. R. —! §. v. (73 Iowa, 110) i860] 41) i, 1180 —, S.v. (78 Iowa, 519) i, 683, 1354 v. §. (61 Wis. 440) ii. 629, 681 —, 5. o. (80 N. C. 432) i. 1254 | ——, S. v. (28 Iowa, 522) i. 612, 1015; —, S. ». (6 Vt. 594) ii, 269 ii. 585 —'v, Sanborn (5 Fost. N.H. 87) ——, 8. v. (10 Kan. 113) i. 1264, 1269 ii, 432 a | ——, S. v. (25 Md. 509) i. 1864, 1871 —, U.8.e, (2 Wash. C. C. 828) i. 387; | ——, S. v. (1 Mo. Ap. 18) i. 1368 di, 911] ——, S. v. (104 N.C. 800) i. 975 c, 979 Bowser, Reg. v. (8 Dowl. P. C. 128) ii. 375 | Boyles, S. v. (7 Blackf. 90) ii. 833 Box v. 8. (84 Missis. 614) * i, 853 | Boyleston v. Kerr (2 Daly, 220) i, 1838 Boxley v. C. (24 Grat. 649) i. 1277 | Boylson, S. v. (8 Minn. 488) ii, 65 v. Collins (4. Blackf. 320) ii. 387 | Boynes, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 65) ii. 184 Boyall, Rex v. (2 Bur. 832) ii. 941 | Boynton, C. v. (12 Cush. 499) ii. 868 Boyce v. Christy (47 Mo. 70) i. 405 | ——, C. v. (3 Law Reporter, 295) ii. 215 v. Whitaker (I Doug. 98) i, 608 | ——, C. v. (2Mass.77) , ii. 457 Boyd, In re (384 Kan. 570) i. 1317 | ——, C. v. (116 Mass. 348) i. 1159 v. C. (1 Rob. Va. 691) i, 228 | ——, S. v. (75 Iowa, 753) i, 1801 — v. Durand (2 Taunt. 161) i. 206 | Bozier v. S. (5 Tex. Ap. 220) ii, 187 — v. Gunnison (14 W. Va. 1) ii. 751 | Brabham v, 8. (18 Ohio St. 485) ii. 1027 — v. McConnell (10 Humph. 68) ii. 409 | ——, S. v. (108 N. C. 793) i. 975 ¢, 1249 — v. S. (88 Ala. 169; 16 Am. St. Brabson, S. v. (38-La. An. 144) ii. 506 31) i, 893 ; ii. 70| Bracken, C. v. (14 Philad. 342) ii, 165 — v. 8. (4 Bax. 319) i. 1110] Brackett v. S. (2 Tyler, 152) i. 724, 1879 v. §. (6 Coldw. 1) i. 1850, 1400 | Brackville, S. v. (106 N.C. 701) i. 1077 S. (7 Coldw.69) i. 425, 458, 684 v. S. (17 Ga. 194) i, 187, 228, 977, 1018, 1276 ; ii. 506, 892 v. S.(2 Humph. 89) i. 1220, 1244; ii, 842 v. S. (14 Lea, 161) 4.1179; ii. 638 8. (16 Lea, 149) i. 1149 v. &. (11 Tex. Ap. 80) i. 1054 », S. ie Tex. Ap. 446) i Ui _ i, 1108 —— »v. §. (24 Tex. Ap. 570; 5 Am. St. 908) i. 975 c, 1170; ii. 740 — v. 8. (28 Tex. Ap. 137) i. 975c —, 5. v. (2 Hill, S.C. 288; 27 Am. | D, 376) i, 872, 1153; ii. 69 —, S. v. (37 La. An. 781) i. 951 —,S.o. ee La. An. 374) i. 7380 a ——, S. v. (86 N. C. 634) ii. 845, 1050 —, S. v. (35 S.C. 269) i. 1810 —— v. U.S. (142 U.S. 450) i, 1120 —., U.S. v. (45 Fed. Rep. 851) i. 168; ii, 604 —, U.S. (5 How. U. 8.29) =i, 1815 Boydell v. Jones (4M & W.446) ii. 793 Boyer, C., (1 Binn. 201) ii. 781 — v.8. (16 Ind. 451) i. 816, 865 502 Braconier v. Packard (186 Mass. 50) i. 1408 Bradberry v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 875) ii. 914 Bradbury, Rex v. (2 Leach, 639, note) i, 1259 Braddy, S. v. (104 N. C. 737) i, 1274 Braden v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 22) i. 1264 Bradford, C. v. (126 Mass. 42) i, 1255 ——, Reg. v. (Bell C. C. 268; 8 Cox C.'C. 809) ii, 1050 — v.§S. (54 Ala, 230) i. 1400 v. 8. (3 Humph. 370) ii, 269 —— v. §. (15 Ind. 847) i. 874, 909, 921, 1270 ——, S. v. (33 La. An. 921) ii. 64 ——, S. v. (57 N. H. 188) i. 849, 853, 882 Bradish v. 8. (85 Vt. 452) i. 1268 Bradlaugh, Ex parte (8 Q. B. D. 509) ii. 794 —— v. Reg. (3 Q. B. D. 607) i, 521; ii. 790, 794 a, 794 b, 808 ——, Reg. v. (15 Cox C. C. 156) i. 763 ——, Reg. v. (15 Cox C. ©. 217) i. 1019 ——, Reg. v. (2Q. B. 1D, 569 ; 21 Eng. Rep. 269) ii. 790 BRA INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. BRA Bradley, Ex parte (4 Ire, 543) i. 1339 | Brailey, C. v. (184 Mass. 527) i, 1254 — as Bond (87 Ark. 226) i. 1816 | Brainard, S. v. (25 Iowa, 572) i. 980 , Cv. (2 Cush, 553) i. 388 | —— v. Stilphin (6 Vt. 9; 27 Am. D. —v. a (1 Root, 361) ii. 429] 582 687 —— v, Gompertz (1 Man. & R. 567) i. 263 a —— v. P. (21 Ill. Ap. 78) i. 950 6 —— v. 8. (69 Ala. 318) i. 1317 ——v. 8. (32 Ark. 704) ii, 92, 142, 145 v. §. (20 Hla. 788) i. 436 — v. 8. (31 Ind. 492) i, 1049; ii. 673, 675 v. S. (10 Sm. & M. 618) ii. 67 —, §. v. (1 Blackf. 43) i. 2643 —, 8. v. (48 Conn. 535) i. 931; ii. 163, 223 S. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 164) ii. 36 S. v. (80 La. An. 326) i. 1293, 1325 —, 8. v. (82 La. An. 402) i, 850 —, S. v. (68 Mo. 140) ii. 163, 182 —, S. v. (90 Mo. 160) i. 951 S. v. (9 Rich, 168) i. 472, 1019, 1151 ; —, S.v. (34 Tex. 95) i. S. (12 Ct. Cl. 578) Bradner, P. v. (107 N. Y. 1) i. 733 Bradshaw v. C. (10 Bush, 576) i. 1087 C. (16 Grat. 507; 86 Am. D. i. 1400 —— v. Perdue (12 Ga. 510) ii. 123 — v. S. (17 Neb. 147) i. 1094 v. Territory (3 Wash. Ter. 265) ii, 239 Bradstreet v. Cannon (2 Cow. 615) i. 1018 v. Furgeson (17 Wend. 181; 23 Wond. 638) i, 228, 230, 235 Bradwell, P. v. (2 Cow. 445) i. 314 Brady v. Beason (6 Ire. 425) i. 1843 — v. C. (11 Bush, 282) i. 979 ——, C. v. (7 Gray, 320) ii. 935 a ——, P. v. (72 Cal. 490) i, 931 —,, P.u. (56 N. Y. 182) i. 220, 222, 223 223 a, 1411; ii. 216 — v. Price (19 Tex. 285) i. 159 v. Reg. (4 Ir. Law, 21; 2 Jebb & Symes, 647) ii. 864 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 327) ii. 933. —, Rex v. (2 Leach, 803) ii. 881 — v. Richardson (18 Ind. 1) i, 128 —— v.S. (7 Bax. 87) i. 1015a v. S. (48 Ga. 311) i. 951a —— v. 8. (5 Tex. Ap. 343) i. 1054 —, 8. uv. (27 Iowa, 126) ii. 740 ——, S. v. (44 Kan. 435; 21 Am. St. 296) ii. 801 —, 8. v. (107 N. C. 822) i. 919; ii. 208, 216, 229 —, S$. n. (14 Vt 353) i, 662 Brage v. Boston and Worcester Rid. (9 Allen, 54) i, 1276 —— v. Lorio (1 Woods, 209) i. 1346 —— v. P. (78 Ill. 828) i. 926 —— v. Rush (35 Ind. 405) i, 378 —v.8. (17 Tex. Ap. 219) Bragle, P. v. (88 N. . Rf. 269) ii. 740 Y. 685; 42 Am. i. 278 i: Brainerd, S. v. (56 Vt. 582; 48 Am. R. 818) i. 852, 864 Braithwaite, Reg. v. an Cox C. C. 264; 1 Fost. & F. 638 ii. 932 — Reg. v. (8 Cox C. C. 444) ii. 932 — v. s (28 Neb. 832) i. 682 Brake v. S. (4 Bax. 861) i. 1276 Brakefield v. S. (1 Sneed, 215) i. 909, 1212 Braley, C. v. (1 Mass. 193) ii. 666 Bramer, Ex parte (37 Tex. 1) i. 257 Bramlett v. S. (81 Ala. 876) i. 78, 74, 76 Bramley, Rex r. (Russ. & Ry. 478) ii. 721 Branch v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 96) ii. 617 3 i. 861 Branchport and Penn Yan Plank Road, P. c. (6 Par. Cr. 604) ii. 869.4, 871 Brandon, Ex parte (49 Ark. 143) i. 1410 vw. P. (42 N. Y. 265) i. 1182, 1188, 1186 —, Rex v. (Comb. 70) i. 661 —,§. v. (28 Ark. 410) i. 777 —, 8. v. (7 Kan. 106) i, 489 Brandreth v. Lance (8 Paige, 24; 34 Am. D. 368) i. 1416 —, P. v. (86 N. Y. 191) i 1053 Brandt v. C. (94 Pa. 290) i. 1248 —, 8. v. (41 Iowa, 593) i. 849, 1264 Brangan, Rex v. (1 Leach, 27) i. 959 a Branham v. C. (2 Bush, 3) i. 264 4 , S. v. (18 S.C. 389) i. 400, 1262 Branigan, Ex parte (19 Cal. 183) i. 216 Brannan, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 826) ii 496 , 8. v. (3 Nev. 238) ii. 88 Brannen, S. v. (8 Jones, N. C. 208) i Branner v. Chapman (11 Kan. 118) ‘iL 123 Brannigan v. P. (38 Utah, 488) i. 854, 855, 975 ¢ — , P. v. (21 Cal. 337) i. 999 v. U. §. (July Term, 1869, pamph.) i. 855 Brannon, P. v. (47 Cal. 96) i. 1094 —_— , Reg. v. (14 Cox C. C. 394) i. 461 — , S. v. (45 Mo. 329) i. 994, 999 Branstetter, S. v. (65 Mo. 149) i. 975¢ Brant, S. v. (14 Iowa, 180) i. 581; ii. a 4 Brantley v. S. (18 Sm. & M. 468) i. 887; ii. 68 — , S. v. (63 N. C, 518) i. 980 Brantly v. S. (4 Bax. 307) i. 1819 Branum, S. v. (23 Ark. 540) i, 1887 Brashears v. 8. (58 Md. 563) i. 975 a@ Brasier, Rex v. (1 Leach, 199) ii. 961 Brassfield v. S. (55 Ark. 556) ii. 683 Braswell vr. C. (6 Bush, 544) i, 825 —— v. §, (42 Ga. 609) i. 1276 —.S. v. (82 N. C. 693) i. 975 a Brauer v. S. (25 Wis. 413) i. 1078; ii. 972 Braun, Reg. v. (9 Cox C. C. 284) i. 458, 461 503 BRE INDEX TO THE Braunschweig, S. v. (36 Mo. 397) —, S. v. (88 Mo. 587) Bravo v. S. (20 Tex. Ap. 188) Bray, Reg. v. (15 Cox C. C. 197) — v.8. (41 Tex. 203) i, 1854 i. 1121 ii, 153 a —v. 8. (41 Tex. 560) — , S. v. (1 Misso. 180) ii. 58 — , S. », (67 N.C. 283) i, 272 —, S. v. (89 N. C. 480) i. 1006 v. U.S. (1 New Mex. 1) i, 814 Brayman, C. v. (136 Mass. 438) Braynard, C. v. (6 Pick. 113) i, 264n Braynell, Reg. v. (4 Cox C. C. 402) i. 1255; ii. 1025 Brazier, Rex v. (1 East P. C. 448) ii. 961 —— v. S. (44 Ala. 387) i, 981, 932 a Brazil, S. v. (1 Rice, 257) ii. 998 Brazleton v. 8. (66 Ala. 96) i. 907; ii. 841 Breaux, S. v. (32 La. An. 222) i, 931 Breckenridge v. Anderson (8 J. J. Mar. 710) i. 1276 —, S. v. (67 Iowa, 204) i. 1125 ——, S.v, (33 La. An. 310) i. 1054; ii. 1008 Breden v, 8. (68 Ala. 20) i. 931 Breeden, 8. v. (58 Mo. 507) Breeding v. S. (11 Tex. 257) i. 853 v. 8. (81 Tex. 94) i, 264, 1264 Breedlove v. S. (26 Tex. Ap. 445) i. 966¢ Breeme, Rex v. (1 Leach, 220) i. 573 Breen v. P. (4 Par. Cr. 880) i. 977; ii. 630 , S. v. (59 Mo. 413) i. 981, 949 b Breese, P. v. (7 Cow. 429) i, 379 v. S. (12 Ohio St. 146; 80 Am. i. 981 D. 340) i. 489; ii, 144, 747 Brennan, C. v. (150 Mass. 63) i. 49 — v. P. (7 Hun, 171) ii. 965 —— v. P. (15 Ill. 511) i. 68, 72, 798; ii. 677 ——v. P.(110 Ill. 535) i. 707 a; ii. 180 — , Reg. v. (3 Crawf. & Dix C. C. 109) ii. 753 Brennan’s Liquors, S. v. (25 Conn. 278) i. 207, 208, 241, 243, 316, 893, 894, 95 0b Brent, S. v. (100 Mo. 531) —_ i. 1181, 1182 Brereton, Rex v. (8 Mod. 328) i. 585 Bressler v. P. (117 Ill. 422) —_—i. 857, 858, 966 c, 1298 Brett v. Catlin (47 Barb. 404) i. 1149 Brette, 8. v. (6 La. An. 658) i, 1277 Brettun, C.v. (100 Mass. 206 ; 97 Am. D. 95 ii. 702, 732 Brew, S. v. (4 Wash. 95; 31 Am. St. 904) ii. 714 Brewer v. C. (8 Bush, 550) i. 264 f -—, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 863) ii. 412, 483 — v. 8. (6 Lea, 198) i. 264 a, 264 m ——v.S. (12 Tex. 248) i. 946 — v. 8. “i Tex. Ap. 248) i. 890 — »v.§, (18-Tex. Ap. 456) i. 546 —, §. v. (33 Ark. 176) i. 425; ii. 25 —, 8. v. Blackf, 45) i. 1363 — , S. v. (53 Iowa, 735) ii. 1002 —?S. v. (8 Misso. 378) i. 857 ——, 8. v. (98 N. C. 607) i, 1264 Brewington, S. v. (84 N. C. 783) i, 388 504 CASES CITED. BRI Brewster v. S. (63 Ga. 639) i. 975 € — _, S. v. (85 La. An, 605) i, 254 ,S.v. (7 Vt. 118) ii, 741 Brez v. S. (89 Tex. 95) i, 1261 Brice, Rex v. (2 B. & Ald. 606) i, 962 — v. S. (2 Tenn. 254) i. 1014 —, S. v. (2 Brev. 66) ii. 494 Briceland v, C. (74 Pa, 463) i. 966 d, 1063, 1067 Brick, P. v. (68 Cal. 190) i. 1310 Brickell, S. v. (1 Hawks, 354) i. 661 Bridekirk, Rex v. (11 East, 804) ii. 1049 Bridewell, Ex parte (57 Missis. 177) i, 2642 Bridge’s Case (Cro. Jac. 639) i. 410 Bridge v. Eggleston (14 Mass. 245 ; 7 Am. D. 209) i. 1270 v. Oshkosh (71 Wis. 863) i, 1111 Bridgeford v. Lexington (7 B. Monr. 47 i. 1138 Bridgers v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 145) ii. 328 —,, S. v. (87 N. C. 562) i. 708 — , S. v. (114. N. C. 868) ii. 740 Bridges, Ex parte (2 Woods, 428) i. 1406, 1411 — v. §. (37 Ark, 224) i. 423 —— v. S. (38 Ark. 510) i, 268 — v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 579) i. 1341 —, 8. v, (29 Kan. 138) i. 1094, 1275 —, S. v. (24 Mo. 353) i, 482 —,S. v. (1 Murph. 184) i. 1884 Bridgman v. Grafton (51 Vt. 478) i. 279, 285 ——, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 271) i. 951 —, S. v. (49 Vt. 202; 24 Am. R. 124) i. 1128 —, U.S. v. (9 Bis. 221) i. 224 b Brien, S. v. (10 La. An. 453) ii. 618 ——,S. v. (8 Vroom, 414) i. 1020 Brigg’s Case (1 Rol. 836; stated, 14 East, 167) i. 196 Briggs v. Byrd (12 Ire. 877) i. 980 —— v. C. (82 Va. 554)" i. 1085 ——, ©. ov. (11 Met. 573) i, 402 —,C.» : Pick. 429) i. 1084, 1248 —, C. v. (7 Pick. 177) i, 1896 v. Gleason (27 Vt. 114 i, 1279 —, P. v. (1 Dak. 302) i, 315, 811 ——,, P. v. (60 How. Pr. 17) i, 865 ——, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 106) i. 963 ——, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 199) i. 1068, 1121 —, Rex v. (1 Moody, 318) ii. 514, 654 —, 8. v. (1 Aikens, 226) ii. 838 —, S. v. (1 Brev. 8) i. 950 b —, S. v. (68 Iowa, 416) ji. 1254 a —, S.v. (84 La. An. 69) i, 959 a —,, S. v. (27 8. C. 80) i. 981, 948, 959 a , S. v. (84 Vt. 501) ii, 404, 415 —, U.S. v. (8 Mackey, 585) i. 1278 Brigham, C. v. (147 Mass. 414) ee ; 0) —. C. v. (16 Pick. 10) i. 1264 —— v. Peters (1 Gray, 189) i. 432 4 —, S. v. (63 Mo. 258) i. 1815 BRI INDEX TO THE Bright, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 887) i. 183 — v.58. (76 Ala. 96 i. 792 —-— v. 8. (90 Ind. 348) i, 1285 — v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 68) i. 1274 —, 8. uv. (2 Car. Law Repos. 634) i, 1010 i. Brightman v. Bristol (65 Me. 426 ; 20 Am. R. 711) ii. 871 Brightwell v. S. (41 Ga. 482) i, 85 Briley, S. v. (8 Port. 472) i. 629; ii, 855, 856 Brill v. 8. (1 Tex. Ap. 152) i. 806, 814, 913 — v5. . Tex. Ap. 572) ii. 768 Brilliant, P. v. (68 Cal. 214) ii. 921 Bringard, P. v. (89 Mich. 22; 88 Am, CASES CITED. BRO Brizzolari v. §. (37 Ark. 364) i. 8144 Broadbeck, C. v. (124 Mass. 319) i. 975 c, 978 Broadbent v. Imperial Gas Co. (7 De G. M. & G. 486) i. 1417 Brock v. S. (26 Ala. 104) ii. 63 —— v. S. (22 Ga. 98) i. 139, 405, 1297 v. S. (23 Ga. 871) i, 1265 — v. Stimson (108 Mass. 520; 11 Am. R. 390) i. 187, 214 Brocker, S. v. (82 Tex. 611) ii. 843 Brockman, S. v. (46 Mo. 566) i. 1223 Brockway v. Crawford (3 Jones, N. C. 488; 67 Am. TD. 250) i. 168 Broderick, 8. v. (61 Vt. 421) i. 1181, 1185 Broderip, Rex uv. (7D. & R. 861; 5 R. 844) 1,783 a} B. & C. 239) i. 1402 Brinklett, Rex v. (8 Car. & P. 416) Brogy v. C. (10 Grat. 722) i. 1195; ii. 963 i. 683 | Broll v. 8. (45 Md. 356) i. 1265 Brinkley v. S. (89 Ala. 34; 18 Am. Bromley v. P. (150 Ill. 297) ii. 153 St. 87) i. 618 | ——, U.S. v. (4 Utah, 498) i. 1827 — v. 8. (54 Ga. 371) i, 68, 71, 931,| Bronson, C. v. (14 B. Monr. 361) _ i. 248, 951 b, 951 ¢ 250, 263 a — v. 8. (58 Ga. 296) i. 1274; ii. 687 a] —— v. Noyes (7 Wend. 188) i. 263.4 Brinkman v. Rueggesick (71 Mo. 553) — v. P. (82 Mich. 34) i. 909, 949, 949 b ij. 687 a| —— v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 46) i. 1274; ii.63 Brinster v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 612) i. 98 a| Brooke v. Ewers (1 Stra. 118) i. 1268 Brinyea, S. v. (5 Ala. 241) i. 980 a,| ——, Rex v. (2 T. R. 190) i. 148, 254 1291 ; ii. 670, 671 | Brookes, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 543) ii. 185 Brisac, Rex v. (4 East, 164) i. 57, 61;| ——, Rex v. (Say. 167) i. 1005 a ii. 236 | —— v. Warren (2 W. BI. 1273) i. 207 Brisbane, S. v. (2 Bay, 451) i. 666, 964 | Brookin v. 8. (26 Tex. Ap. 121) i. 224 8, Briscoe, S. v. (80 La. An. 483) i. 1050; ; 975 ¢ ii. 599| Brooklyn, P. v. (1 Wend. 318; 19 —, S. v. (80 Mo. 6438) i.145] Am. D. 602 i. 1403 Brister v. 8. (26 Ala. 107) 1. 68, 78, 882,} Brooks, Ex parte (29 Fed. Rep. 83) 989 a, 978, 999, 1001, 1003, 1028, 1. 1810 1220, 1241, 1244, 1285 | —— v. Bruyn (18 Ill. 539) ii, 888 ——, S. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 150) i. 534, 1262 Bristol’s Case (2 Salk. 650) i. 1268 Bristol, P. v. (22 Mich. 299) i, 1265 Brite v. S. (24 Tex. 219) i, 264 a, 264.8 — v. §. (10 Tex. Ap. 368) i. 1277 i, 685, 1034 —, S. v. (73 N. C. 26) Britt x. S. (9 Humph. 31) i. 1128; ii. 169, 171, 173, 189 Brittain, In re (93 N. C. 587) i. 1298 v, Allen (3 Dev. 167) ii. 794 —, Reg. v. (8 Cox C. C. 76) — i. 966. a, 1248; ii. 227, 1038 — ».S. (7 Humph. 159) i. 1892, 1395 Brittin v. S. (5 Eng. 299) i. es ii. Brittleton, Reg. v. (12 Q. B. D. 266 ; 15 Cox C. C. 431) i. 1152 Britton v. C, (1 Cush. 302) i, 1515 —, Reg. v. te Cox C. C. 627) ii. 933 a —, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 354) i. 1097 , v. 8. (4 Coldw. 178) i. 1082, 1248 , S. v. (80 Mo. 60) i, 360 ——, 8. v. (18 Vroom, 251) i. 239 a —, U.S. v. (2 Mason, 464) i. 51, 64, 653; ii, 408, 404, 433, 434, 475, 480 — v.C. (61 Pa. 352; 100 Am. D. 645) i. 158, 160, 168, 196 ——, C. v, (9 Gray, 299) i. 623, 1169 ——v. P. (88 Ill. 827) i. 951 f v. P. (49 N. Y. 436; 10 Am. R. 398) ii. 1006 —, P.v. (181 N. ¥.821) i. 975¢, 1116 ——} Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 151) ii. 906, 915 —, Rex v. (Trem. P.C. 175) i. 894; ii. 346 ——, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 195) ii. 875 — v.58. (5 Bax. 607) ii. 991 a — v5. fe Ga. 612) ii. 58 — v. §. (90 Ind. 428) i. 975c¢ — v.S. (2 Tex. Ap. 1) i. —— v. §. (4 Tex. Ap. 567) ii. 105, 107, 111 —— v.§. (26 Tex. Ap. 184) i, 1247 —— v. 8. (29 Tex. Ap. 582) ii. 921 S. v. (9 Ala. 9) i. 853, 875, 876, oe » —, S. v. (80 La. An. 835) i. 1018 —— 8. v. (89 La. An. 239) i. 951a ——_§. v. (92 Mo. 642) i. 909, 959, 1226 ——'S. v. (94 Mo. 121 i. 665, 700 — S. v. (99 Mo. 137 i. 1254 a ——, U.S. v. (4 Cranch, C.C. 427) ii. 285, 286 505 BRO INDEX TO THE Brookshaw v. Hopkins (Lofft, 240) i. 178 Brookshire, S. v. (2 Ala..808) i, Wea 92 Broome v. Reg. (12 Q. B. 834) i. 389, 662, 666, 668 Broomhead v. Chisolm (47 Ga. 390) i. 1307 Brooster v. S. (15 Ind. 190) — i. 546, 548, 713, 1269 Brotherton v. Brotherton (41 Towa, 112) iL O51f v. P. (75 N. ¥. 159) i. 699, 1050, 1094, 1212 ; ii. 673 —, P. vw. (43 Cal. 530) i. 909 —, P. v. (47 Cal. 388) ii. 482 ¢ v. 8. (80:Tex. Ap. 869) i. 9314, 1265 Broughton v. Moore (Cro. Jac. 142) i. 605 , Rex v. (2 Stra. 1229) ii. 927, 928 —, Rex v. (Trem. P.C.111) i. 1801; ii. 357 —, S. v. (7 Ire. 96; 45 Am. D. 7) i, 857, 858, 1255, 1256 Broussard, S. v. (39 La. An. 671) ii. 680 S. v. (41 La. An. 81; 17 Am. St. 396) i. 999 Brow »v. S. (103 Ind. 133) i. 293 Broward v. 8. (9 Fla. 422) i. 763 Browder v. 8. (9 Ala. 58) i. 264 b v. S. (80 Tex. Ap. 614) i. 975c, 980.a, 1265 Brown’s Case (112 Mass. 409; 17 Am. R. 114) i, 220 Brown, Ex parte (65 Ala. 446) i. 285 , Ex parte (68 Cal. 176) i, 262 —., Ex parte (28 Fed. Rep. 653) i. 220, 2 23 a ——, Ex parte (40 Fed. Rep. 81) i. 145 —-, In re (32 Cal. 48) ii. 595 v. Brashier (2 Pa. (P. & W.) ey ii. 128 . (14 Bush, 398) i. 1264; ii. 683 x, C. (2 Leigh, 769) i, 909, 1167, 1169 v. C. (9 Leigh, 683; 838 Am. D. 263) i, 1241 — ».C. (11 Leigh, 711) i, 980 v. C. (8 Mass. 59) i. 590, 707 ; ii. 463 — vC. (73 Pa. 321; 18 Am. R. i. 1205, 1208, 1215 — ».C. (76 Pa. 319) i, 1125, 1241; ii. 633 v. C. (78 Pa. 122) i. 661, 708, oe 980 v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 516) i, 909; ii,-305 v. C, (86 Va. 466) — i. 651, 685,-702, 984,987 — »v.C. (86 Va. 935) i. 1166 —, C.v. (7 Gray, 319) i. 264 m —, C. v. (14 Gray, 419) i. 436 —, ©. v. (8 J. J. Mar. 597) i. 1364 —, C. v. (103 Mass. 422) i. 1161, 1164 —, C. v. (121 Mass. 69) i. 875, 1179 —, C. v. (128 Mass. 410) i. 1356 —, C. v. (130 Mass, 279): i, 1020 —. C. v, (147 Mass. 585; 9 Am. St. 736) i. 850, 875, 907 ; ii. 415 — , C, v. (150 Mass. 330) i. 12544 —, C. v, (150 Mass. 334) i, 1285 506 CASES CITED. BRO Brown, C. v. (18 Met. 365) ii. 875, 877 —, C. v. (12 Philad, 600) i, 1298 v. Cockerell (83 Ala. 38) i. 978 —— v. Duffus (66 lowa, 1938) i. 1410 —— v. Hillegas (2 Hill, S. C. 447) i. 1018 —— v. Jerome (102 Ill. 371) i. 314a —— v, Levee Commissioners (50 ' Missis. 468) i —— v. Mobile (28 Ala. 722) i. 720 — v. Moore (79 Me. 216) : —— v. P. (4 Gilman, 489) i, 976, 980 —— v. P. (8 Hun, 562) i. 1188 — ov, P. (26 Ill. 28) i. 2647 — v. P. (66 Ill. 344) i. 562 — v. P. (91 Ill. 506) i. 1236 v. P, (24 Ill. Ap. 72) i. 264 f —— v.P. (17 Mich. 429; 97 Am.D. 195) i. 1068 v. P. (29 Mich. 232) ii, 708, 705 v. P. (39 Mich. 87) i. 2394 —— v. P. (89 Mich. 57) i, 1810 ——, P. v. (27 Cal. 500) ii. 697 —, P. v. (46 Cal. 102) 1. 95la ——, P. v. (47 Cal. 447) ii, 82, 976, 979 —, P. uv. (48 Cal. 258) i. 909; ii. 74 — , P. v. (53 Cal. 66) i. 1181, 1186 —, P. v. (54 Cal. 243) i, 951 —. P. v. (56 Cal. 405) i, 1093 —, P. v. (59 Cal. 345) i, 1094 —, P. v. (72 Cal. 390) i. 909 ——, P. v. (53 Mich. 581) i. 1179; ii. 963 —, P. v. (54 Mich. 15) i, 795, 1299 —, P. v. (72 N. Y. 571;,28 Am. R. 183) i, 1181 —, P. v. (23 Wend. 47) i. 8144 v. Enlltps (71 Wis. 239) i. 779 ——, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 291; 8 Cox cr c. ‘127; 2 Car. & P. 504) —, Reg. v. (7 Ellis & B. 757) i, 1402 —,, Reg. v. (2 Fost. & F. 559) ii. 472 kee v. (17 Law J. x. s. M.C. i, 780 ——, Reg. v. (10 Q. B. D. 381; 16 Cox ©. C. 199 99) ii. 652 i. 780 ——, Reg. v. (3 Salk. 172) ii. 413 —, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 588n) 4. 1192 —, Rex v. (11 Mod. 273) ii. 1049 ——, Rex v. (Moody & M. 163) i. 401 ——, Rex v. (1 Salk. 376) i, 131 — »v. Rice (57 Me: 55; 2 Am. R. 11) i, 1298 v. 8. ie Ala. 47) i. 384 ——v.8. (46 Ala. 175) i. 1118, 1120 v. 8. (47 Ala. 47) i. 1271, 1874; ii. 902, 909, 912 —— v. S. (52 Ala. 345) ii. 48, 48 —— v. S. (63 Ala. 97) i. 1003 — v. 8. (74 Ala. au i, 1207, 1310, 1357 —— v. S. (79 Ala. 51) i. 1181, 1184 — v.§. (79 Ala. 61) i. 1071 v. S. (83 Ala, 83; 3 Am. St. 685) ii. 601 — v. S. (13 Ark. 96) i, 78, 607, 884, 1356, 1378 — v. 8. (24 Ark. 620) i, 266, 1858 BRO INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. BRO Brown v. S. (55 Ark. 598) ii. 627 | Brown v. S. (13 Tex. Ap. 59) i. 1279; v. S. (5 Eng. 607) i. 851, 856, 1015 ii. 127 — v.58. (7 Eng. 623) i. 803 | —— v. S. (15 Tex. Ap. 581) ii. 988 — v.§, (18 Fla.-472) ii. 521 | —— v. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 197) ii. 65 — v. 8. -(31-Fla. POT) ii. 586 | —— vz. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 245) i. 846, 347 — v.8. (28Ga.199) i. 966, 976, 978, | —— v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 826) i. 264a, 264 cp ae 1052, 1269, 1270; ii. 18 ) —— v. S. (26 Tex. Ap. 808) i. 1287, 1288, — v. 8. (28 Ga. 439) i. 901, 9495 1242 — v. 8. (40 Ga. 689) i. 987 | —— v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 65) i. 264 m, 688 — v. 8. (44 Ga. 300) ii. 700 ] —— v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 879) i. 855, 612 — .$. (61 Ga. 502) i. 1279 | ——»v. S. (32 Tex. Cr. 119) i. 1265 — v. 8. (55 Ga. 169) i, 1279; ii. 67 | —— v. S. (20 Vroom, 61) ii. 281 — v.38. (58 Ga, 212) i, 962 v. 8. (5 Yerg. 867) i, 472 — v. 8. (69 Ga. 456) i, 1057; ii. 184, ] ——, S. v. (24 Conn. 316) i, 8144, 727 162, 739, 740 —, Soi (1 Dev. 187; 17 Am. D. — v. §. (60 Ga. 210) i975] 6562) ii. 700 — v. 8. (61 Ga. 311) ii 152 | ——, S. v. (5 Eng. 78) i, 922 — v. S. (65 Ga. 332) i, 951a | ——,, S. v. (6 Eng. 104) i. 691 — v.S. (76 Ga. 623) i, 1054 | ——-, S. wv. 4 Harring. Del. 505) —i. 188 — v. §S. (85 Ga. 713) i. 951 , 8. v. (3 Heisk. 1) ii. 57 — v.S. (8 Heisk. 871) i, 9504) —, S. v. (1 Houst, Crim. 589) i. 1241 —— v. §. (7 Humph. 155) i, 700, 1855 | ——, S. v. (@ Humph. 89) i. 486, 448, 479, —— v. S. (16 Ind. 496) i. 893, 897 484 a, 528, 703 —v.S. i Ind. 576) i. 909, 943, 949 | —, S. e. (25 Iowa, 561) ii. 740 — v. 8. (71 Ind. 470) i. 229b, 1220 | —, S. v. (48 Iowa, 382) i. 1244 —— v. 8. (76 Ind. 85) ii. 841 | ——, S. v. (8 Jones, 443) ii, 734 — v. 8. (105 Ind. 385) i, 1015 a | —, S. v. (15 Kan. 400) i. 909 — v.58. (110 Ind.-486) ii, 518 | —, S. v. (21 Kan. 38) ii. 585 — v. §. (111 Ind. 441) i. 1005a | —, S. v. (22 Kan. 222) i. 998a; ii. 627 — v. S. (82 Missis..433) i. 982, 1058, | —, S. v. (54 Kan. 71) ii. 979 1212, 1213 — , S. v. (13 La. An. 266) i. 2646 —— v. S. (57 Missis. 424) i. 921, 949 ; —, 8. v. (21 La. An. 347) i, 611; ii. 68, v. §. (60 Missis. 447) i. 1277 ; v. S. (9 Neb. 157) i. 3144, 975¢ | ——, 8. v. (27 La. An. 236) i, 1264 v. §. (16 -Neb.-658) i. 399, 478 | ——, S. v. (85 La. An. 340) i. 1271 — v. S. (18 Ohio St. 496) i. 68, 75, 397, | ——, S. v. (85 La. An. 1058) i. 1834 1020, 1023 a; ii. 9, 821, 829, 931 | ——, S. v. (41 La. An. 410) i. 975c — v. §. (26 Ohio St. 176) ii. 848 | ——, S. v. (31 Me. 520) i, 332 — v. S. (85 Tenn. 4389) i. 951, 1269 | —, S. c. (75 Me. 456) i. 1265 — v.58. (16 Tex. 122) i. 1012 | —, S. v. (12 Minn. 490) ii, 857, 358 —— v. 8. (23 Tex. 195) i. 980, 989 a,| ——, S. v. (12 Minn. 538) ii, 608, 670 1093, 1269 | —, S. v. (41 Minn. 819) ii, 604 — v. S. (32 Tex. 124) ii. 752 | ——, S. v. (82 Missis. 275) i. 264a, 952a — v. §, (34 Tex. 525) i. 264, 264d | ——, S. v. (8 Misso. 210) i. 624 — v. S. (35 Tex. 691) ii. 722 | —, S. v. (63 Mo. 439) i. 1110; ii. 615, — «. S. (38 Tex. 482) i. 966d 620, 629 — v.8. (40 Tex. 49) i. 264 d | —, S. v. (64 Mo. 367) i. 849, 884, 999 — v.§. (1 Tex. Ap. 154) i. 1057 | ——, S. v. (71 Mo. 454) i. 909 ——v. 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 61) i. 617 | ——, S. v. (78 Mo. 681) ii, 144 —r.S. (2 Tex. Ap. 115) i. 1144; | —, S. v. (75 Mo. 317) — i. 1856; ii. 740 ii, 207 —, 8S. v. (1 Mo. Ap. 86) — i. 1058, 1241 — v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 139) i, 1241 , S.v. (1 Mo. Ap. 449) i, 1264 —— v.8. (2 Tex. Ap. 189) ii. 105 | ——, S. v. (3 Murph. 224) i. 825 ——v. §. (3 Tex. Ap. 294) i. 951, 1189, | ——, S. vw. (8 Nev. 208) i. 59 1193 a, 4264 —, S. v. (67 N. C. 470) i. 1152 — v.58. (4 Tex. Ap. 275) ii: 603 | —, S. v. We N. C. 81) i. 706 — v.S. (5 Tex. Ap. 126) i, 1264 | —, 8. v. (76 N. C. 222) i, 1150 — v. §. (5 Tex. Ap. 546) i, 1264 | ——, S. v. (81 N. C. 568) i. 701 v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 188 i, 264a | ——, S. v. (100 N. C. 519) i. 981 — 7.8, (6 Tex. Ap. 286 i. 68, 1274 | ——, S. v. Ne N. C. 645 ii. 541 v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 619) i. 612, 812; ] ——, S. v. (118 N. C. 645) —_ ii. 786, 1002, ii. 130 1005, 1006 —— uv. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 48) i. 1274 | ——, S. v. (47 Ohio St. 102; 21 Am. —v.S. (9 Tex. Ap. 81) i. 980, 1085,| St. 790 + 1,759, 961 — v.58. (11 Tex. Ap. 451) i. 711! —, S, v. (5 Or. 119) i. 1264, 1272 507 508 BRU INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. BRY Brown, §. v. (7 Or. 186) i, 931, 9984 ; Brummitt, Reg. v. (Leigh & C.9; 8 —, S. v. (4 Port. 410) i. 711; ii. 784} Cox C.C. 418) ii, 752 ——, 8.2. (4 R. I. 528; 70 Am. D. Sanaa parte (47 Mo. 255) i. 1827 168) i. 1128; ii. 414, 428, 482.4, 455, | Brunell, 8. v. (29 Wis. 485) i. 677 456, 459 a ii, 112, 118, ud —,8.v (148.C. 380) i. 720 | Bruner, S. v. (65 N. C. 499) i. 1020 —, 8. v. (248. C, 224) i, 387] Brunet v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 621) i. 1086 —, S. v. (33S. C. 151 ii. 140} Brunetto, S. v. (18 La. An.45) i. 314, —, S. e. (8 Strob. 508) i. 982 a, 939, 1207; ii. 624, 676 1169, 1332 | Brunker, S. v. (46 Conn. 827) i. 399, 461 —., S. uv. (84 Tex. 146) i, 2644 | Brunson v. S. (97 Ind, 95) ii. 945 —, S. v. (27 Vt. 619) ii. 790 | ——, S. v. (1 Root, 807) ii. 429, 432 6 —.,S. v. (31 Vt. 602) i. 698 | Brunswick, Rex v. (1 Moody, 26) ii. 721 —,, S.v. (49 Vt. 437) i. 469] Brunton, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 454) — §. v. (6 Wash. 609) ii, 887, 888 i, 1164, 1165 , 8 v.(7 Wash. 10) ii. 105 | Brush v. Cook (Brayt. 89) ii. 824 ——,, S. v. ( Winst. ii. 54) i, 424, 449 v. Robbins (8 McLean, 486) i. 1842 v, San Benito Sup. Ct. (72 ey Brusle, 8. v, (84 La. An. 61) 1. 264 a. 14) 1264 | Brutton v. S. (4 Ind. 601) i. 636 — v. Schock (77 Pa. 471) i. 1046 Bruzzo, P. v. (24 Cal. 41) i, 1021, 1161 — v. U.S. (150 U. S. 93) i, 1248] Bryan, Ex parte (44 Ala. 402) i. 68, 269 —. U.S. wv. (40 Fed. Rep. 457) i. 1181, |, Rex v. (2 Stra. 1101) i, 682, 639 1182 | —— «. S. (43 Ala. 821) i, 1264 —, U. S. vo. (2 Low. 267) i, 799, 806 | —— v. S. (45 Ala. 86) i, 624 — U.S. v. (3 McLean, 233) i. 320, 485 v. §. (19 Fla. 864) ii, 525 —, U.S. v. (1 Saw. 531) i. 763 v. 8. (62 Ga. 179) ii. 152 —— v. Webber (6 Cush. 560) i, 123 v. 8. (4 Iowa, 349) i. 897, 1264 Brownbridge v. P. (38 Mich. 751) i. 1807 | ——, S. v. (40 Iowa, 379) i. 909 Browne, Reg. v. (6 Mod. 87) ii. 413 | ——, S. v. (19 La. An. 435) i, 405 —, Rex v. (8 Car. & P. 572) ii, 98386 | ——, S. v. (112 N. C. 848) ii, 181 Brownell v. P. (88 Mich. 782) i. 1117; | —— v. Smith (10 Mich. 229) ii. 383 ii. 638 4 v. Walton (20 Ga. 480) ii. 677 Brownfield, S. v. (838 Mo. 448) —_i. 68, 72} Bryant, Ex parte (84 Ala. 270) i, 256, Browning, Reg. v. (8 Cox C. C. 487) 261 i. 1145; ii. 191} —, a parte (24 Fla. 278; 12 Am. — v. 8. (80 Missis. 656) i. 78, 978,| St. 2 i. 1801 1094; ii. 231 vw ie: (66 Ill. 188) i. 68, 1412 — v. §. (33 Missis. 47) i. 314, 951a, v, C. (3 Bush, 9) i. 264 f 999, 1078, 1079, 1275 | —, C. v. (9 Philad. 595) i, 181 — v.§. (1 Tex. Ap. 96) i. 9804 v. Jackson (6 Humph. 199) ii, 674 — v.§. (2 Tex. Ap. 47) i. 82; ii. 63, v. 8. (36 Ala. 270) i. 680 77, 78 | —— v. 8. (79 Ala, 282) i. 761 v. §. (26 Tex. Ap. 432) i. 951 a v. 8. (7 Bax. 67) ii. 604 ——, S. v. (78 N. C. 555) i. 981 | —— v. S. (80 Ga. 272) i, 1279 Brownlee v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 255) i. 1117 | ——»v. 8. Ind. 400) i, 806, 816 Brownlow, S. v. (7 Humph. 68) i. 560, 561 v. 8. (106 Ind. 549) i, 1275 Brownson, S. rv. (42 La. An, 186) i. 1181 | —— v. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 144) i. 975 ¢ Broxton v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 97) — i. 975 c; | —— v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 107) i. 1265 ii, 945 | —— v. S. (25 Tex. Ap. 751) ii, 740 Bruce v. §. (87 Ind. 450) i, 1265 | —, S. v. (55 Iowa, 451) i, 264k —,5. v. (48 Iowa, 530; 30 Am. R. —,S.v. (14 Mo. 840) i. 548, 551 403) i. 999, 1095 | ——, S. v. (55 Mo. 75) i. 980, 1040; ii. 610, -——, 8. v. (88 La. An. 186) i. 1262 613, 615 —, 8. v. (24 Me. 71) i, 1841, 1896 ; | —, S. v. (98 Mo. 273) i. 909; ii. 679 ii. 68 —, 8. v. (65 N. C, 827) i, 158 —, S. v. (77 Mo. 193) _ 1.703 | —,, S. v. (17 N. H, 823) ii. 419 nt S. v. (106 N. C, 792) i. 989 a | —, S. v. (9 Rich. 118) i. 59 , 8. v. (26 W. Va. 158) i. 407 | —, S. v. (21 Vt.479) i. 814, 999, 1002 Brucker v. 8. (16 Wis. 333) i. 855, 992 | ——, S. v. (10 Yerg. 527) i, 921 Bruffey, S. v. (11 Mo. Ap. 79) ii. 144 Bryce, 8. v. (11 8. C. 342) i. 931 Brugh v. Shanks (5 Leigh, 598) _ i. 1279 | Bryden, C. v. (9 Met. 187) i. 388 Bruin, 8. v. (84 Mo, 537) ii. 741, 742, 744 | Bryson v. 8. (20 Tex. Ap. 566) 1, 975 Brulo v. P. (16 Hun, 119) i. 966 ¢ | ——,S. v. (79 N. C.651) i. 601 ‘Brumley v. 8. (11 Tex. Ap.114) i. 814.a,| —,S. v. (84 N.C. 780) i, 280 864 !—, 8. v. (90 N.C. 747) i, 899 BUD Bryson, Territory v. (9 Mont. 32) i. 909, 2 1279 Bubb, Reg. v. (4 Cox C.C. 455) ii. 553 Bubser, C. v. (14 Gray, 83) i. 858, 752 Buccieri, C. v. (153 Pa. 535) ii. 666,674,679 Buchanan, Reg. v. (8 Q. B. 883) i. 130; ii. 898 — v. S. (24 Ga, 282) i. 902, 909 —,S.v. (5 Har. & J. 317; 9 Am. D. 534) i. 1862 ; ii, 205, 216, 221 —,, S. v. (5 Har. & J. 00) i. 1022 , S. v. (1 Ire. 69) i. 764 , 8. v. (85 La. An. 89) i. 711, 1248 Buchanan County Court, 8. v. (41 Mo. 254) i. 1816 Bucher v, Jarratt (8 B. & P.143) ii. 758 Buchler, S. v. (103 Mo. 203) i. 966, 975 c, 1097, 1249 Buchman v. S. (59 Ind. 1; 26 Am. R. 75 i, 1817, 1818 Buck v. C. (107 Pa. 486) ii. 13 —t.S8. (1 Ohio St. 61) i. 1015, 1827, 1882 —, dS.v. (ie Iowa, 382) i, 443 —, S. v. (46 Me. 581) ii. 714 —-, S. v. (738 N. C. 266, 630) i. 314a Buckalew v. 8. (11 Tex. Ap. 352) ii. 188 Buckfield Br. Rd. v. Benson (43 Me. 374) i. 128 Buckhannon v. C. (86 Ky. 110) i. 975 ¢ Buckingham, C. v. (Thacher Crim. Cas. 29) ii. 800 —,C. v. (2 Wheeler Crim. Cas. 181) ii. 798 — , Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 171) ii. 75 — v. S. (32 Ark. 218) i. 12544 Buckland v. C. (8 Leigh, 732) i, 488 ; ij. 401, 406, 410, 447, 451, 452 Buckler’s Case (1 Dy. 69a) i. 408, 411, 413; ii. 580 Buckley, C. v. (148 Mass. 27) ii. 1028 —, P. v. (49 Cal. 241) i. 1010 ——, Reg. v. (18 Cox C.C. 293) ii. 625 — v.58. (2 Greene, Iowa, 162) i. 612; li, 425, 452 — v. S. (62 Missis. 705) i. 1181, 1182 —, S. v. (40 Conn. 246) i, 986 a, 987 —, S. v. (60 Iowa, 471) ii. 740 —, S. v. (72 N. C. 358) i, 1142 —— v. Thomas (1 Plow. 118) i. 546 Buckman, S. v. (8 N. H. 203; 29 Am. D. 646 i, 601; ii. 878 Buckminster v. Perry (4 Mass. 593) ii, 682 Bucknell, Reg. v. (Holt, 128) ii, 1044 Buckner v. S. (56 Ind, 208) i. 1400 — , S. v. (52 Ind. 278) i. 641 —, S. v. (25 Mo. 167) i, 273, 931, 931 a, 943 Buckrice v. P. (110 Ill. 29) i. 68 Buckworth, Rex v. (2 Keb. 408; T. INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. BUN Buel v. P. (78 N. ¥. 492; 34 Am. R. 555) i. 975 c, 980 Buell, In re (3 Dil. 116) i, 223 6, 1410 — v. §. (69 Ind. 125) i. 1264 Buffington, 8. v. (20 Kan. 599; 27 Am. R. 198) i, 1247 — v. Smith (58 Ga. 341) i. 264 a, 2647 Buffum, S. v. (2 Fost. N. H. 267) . i. 264 a Buford v, C. (14 B. Monr, 24) i. 931, 1015 ; ii. 494 — »v. S. (44 Tex. 525) i. 980 — v. Speed (11 Bush, 338) i. 100 a Bugbee, C. v. (4 Gray, 206) i. 418; ii. 57 —, P. ». (1 Idaho, 96) i. 264 m —, S. v. (22 Vt. 82) i. 1014 Bugg v. 8. (47 Ala. 50) i, 931 u, 1357, 1359 Buhs, 8. v. (18 Mo. 318) i. 277 Buie v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 58) ii. 1025 — v.S. (1 Tex. Ap. 452) i, 68, 951 — , S. v. (48 Tex. 532) ii, 982 Bull, Ex parte (42 Cal. 196) i, 229 —, In re (4 Dil. 323) i. 1411 v. C. (14 Grat. 618) i, 1212, 1265, 1268 ——, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 22) i. 959 a, 966 c ——, Reg v. (12 Cox C. C. 31) i, 1195 Bulla, S. 2. (89 Mo. 595) i. 1181, 1182 ; ii. 1007 a Bullard v. Boston, &c. Rid. (64 N. H. 27; 10 Am. St. 367) i. 975 5 —, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 353; 4 Eng. Rep. 603) i. — v.S,. (38 Tex. 504; 19 Am. R. 30) i, 897 —, S. v. (72 N C, 445) i. 518 a, 636 —, S. v. (100 N. C. 486) i. 1117 —, 8S. v. (16 N. H. 189) i. 999, 1247 Bulliner v. P. (95 Ill. 394) Bullinger, S. v. (54 Mo. 142) Bulloch v. 8. (10 Ga. 47; 54 Am. D. i.118, 1191, 1198 i, 6v2 369) i, 981, 1015; ii. 9, 327, 329 Bullock v, Dunlap (2 Ex. D. 48) i. a ii. 76 ——, Reg.v. (Dears. 6583; 36 Eng. L. & Eq. 608) ii, 87, 89 — v, 8. (12 Tex. Ap. 42) i. 1268 —, 8. v. (13 Ala. 413) i. 612, 1100 ' I, —, S. v. (63 N. C. 570) i, 922 Bulman, C. v, (118 Mass. 456; 19 Am. R. 469) i. 448 e; ii. 276@ Bulmer, Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 476; 9 Cox C. C. 492) ii. 187, 188 Bulson v. P. (81 Ill. 409) i, 263 a, 1882 Bumberger, P. v. (45 Cal. 650) i, 976 Bunce, Rex v. (Andr. 162) i, 624 Bundy, C. ». (5 Gray, 305) i. 1817, 1819 i. 686 Raym. 170 i. 1195 | ——, S. v. (64 Me. 507) ; Budd, P. v. (57 Cal. 349) i. 264 ¢| Bungardner, S. v. (7 Bax. 163) i. 121, —, P.v. (117 N. Y.1; 15 Am. St, 975, 976 460) i. 452 | Bunger, S. v. (14 La. An. 461) i. 239 a, Budge, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 619) i. 229 b 909, 931, 932, 949, 980, 1265 509 BUR INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. BUR Bunn, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C, 316; + Burgess, S. v. (78 Mo. 234) i. 68 Eng. Rep. 56+) 2|—, S. v. (74 N. C. 272) i, 1269 Bunnell, S, v. (81 Ind. 315) i 717 | ——, Territory v. (8 Mont. 57) i. 909, 999 Buntain »v, 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 485) ii. 146 | ——, U.S. v. (8 McCrary, 278) i. 145 v, S. (15 Tex. Ap. 490) i. 1094 | Burgiss, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 488) i. 212 v. §. (15 Tex. Ap. 515) i. 951a| ——, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 490) ii. 412 Bunten, S. v. (2 Nott % McC, 441) Burgwyn, S. v. (87 N. C. 572) i. 1220 ii. 767, 768 | Burhans v. Tibbits (7 How. Pr. 21) : Buntin v. S. (68 Ind. 38) i. 975; 11.63 i. 1013 —, S. v. (123 Ind. 124) i. 700 Burbage, Rex v. (3 Bur. 1440) i. 1409 Burbank v. Horn (39 Me. 233) ii. 123 Burch, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 407) i. 458 v. S. (55 Ala. 138) i. 1873 i. 860 8. (48 Tex. 376) Burchard v. S. (2 Or. 78) i. 440 Burcher, C. v. (2 Rob. Va. 826) i. 851 Burchfield v. S. (82 Ind. 680) i. 1254 a Burd v. S. (89 Tex. 509) i. 571 Burden v. P. (26 Mich. 162) i. 962, 966 b, 978 Burdett v. Abbott (14 East, 1; 15 Dow, 165; 4 Taunt. 401) i, 196, 201 v. Colman (14 East, 168) i. 160,185 —, Reg. v. (Dears. 431) i. 963 —, Rex v. (8B. & Ald. 717; 4 B. & Ald. 95; cited 5 D.& R. 616) i. 51, _ 64, 55, 61, 1046, 1100; ii. 805 —, Rex v. (4 B. & Ald. 314) ii. 788 —, Rex v. (1 Ld. Raym. 148) i. 580; ii. 3861 — v. 8. (9 Tex. 43) i. 315 Burdick, S. v. (9 Iowa, 402) i. 3l4u Burding, C. vw. (12 Cush. 506) Bureau v. Thompson (89 Ill. 566) i. 123 Buren v. S. (16 Lea, 61) ii. 481 Burfey v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 519) i. 931, 1242 Burford, Ex parte (3 Cranch, 448) i, 228, 236 Burgamy v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 572) —i. 688 Burgdoerfer, 8. v. (107 Mo. 1) i, 1363 Burge v. 8. (32 Tex. Cr. 859) i, 1265 —, 8S. v. (7 Iowa, 255) i. 1001, 1269, 1279; ii. 187 Burger v. Northern Pacific Rid. (22 Minn. 343) ii. 677 Burges v. Bracher (8 Mod. 238) i, 1005a Burgess’s Case (Cro. Car. 365) i, 207 — Case (J. Kel. 27; 1 Leach, 324, ii, 138 i. 665, 698 note) Burgess v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 483) —— v. Coney (Trem. P. C. 315) i. 1391; ii. 756, 762; —, P. v. (85 Cal. 115) i. 442, 443; ii. 133 —, Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 258) ji. 655 i. 3814a —, Rex v. (1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 865) ii. 957 —, Rex v. (1 T. Raym. 84) ii, 387 — v. 8. (44 Ala. 190) i, 441; ii. 838 —— v.§. (12 Gill & J. 64) i, 1269 ——, S.v, (4 Ind. 606) i. 646 —, S. v. (40 Me. 592) ii. 846 —, S. x. (24 Mo. 381; 69 Am. D. 433) — , 8. v. (75 Mo. 641) 510 i. 700 i, 1855 Burk v. C. (5 J. J. Mar. 675) i. 1003, 1004 — v. S. (2 Har. & J. 426) i. 446, 456, 931 — v.§. (81 Ind. 128) i. gl4; ii, 901 v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 336) 1. 975c¢ Burke, Ex parte (58 Missis. 50) i. 230 v. Bell (36 Me. 317) i, 188 —~, CO. v. (12 Allen, 182) ii, 751 —, C. v. (16 Gray, 82) i, 425 ——, C.v. (121 Mass. 39) i. 1264 — v. P, (23 Ill. Ap. 36) ii. 867 ——, Reg. v. (10 Cex. C. C. 519) i. 959.4 —, Reg. v. (11 Cox C.C. 188) i. 929 v. §. (71 Ala. 377) i. 1108 —».§. (72 Ind. 392) i. 1268 — rv. 8. (34 Ohio St. 79) ii, 188 — v.8. (5 Tex. Ap. 74) ii, 142, 976 — v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 156) i. 9666 —, S. v. (88 Me. 574) i. 1015, 1391, | 1396 —, S. v. (66 Me. 127) i, 241 —, §.v. (73 N. C. 83) i. 541; fi, "1002 —, S.v. (108 N. C. 750) i, 854 —, 8. v. (54N. H. 92) i. 495, 553, ‘950 a Burket v. Boude (3 Dana, 209) i. 892 —_,S. v. (2 Mill, 155; 12 Am. D. 662 i. 897 ) Burkett, Rex v. (Andr. °230) i. 765, 768, | 772 Burkhard v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 599) Burkhardt, In re (33 Fed. Rep. 25) i, 281 i. 315 Burkhart, C. v. (23 Pa. 521) i. 725; ii. 500 Burklow v. P. (89 Ill. 123) i. 1368 Burks, Rex v. (7 T. R. 4) i. 602; ii. 783 Burley, Rex v. (3 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 601, note) i. 1164 — v.8. (1 Neb. 385) i. 273, 1350, 1853 Burlingham, S. v. (15 Me. 104) i. 762, 872, 882 Burlington v. James (17 Kan. 221) i. 1264 Burnaby, Reg. v. (2 Ld. Raym. 900) i. 675 Burnby, Reg. v. (18 Law J. n. 8. M. C. 29) i. 763 —, Reg. v. (5 Q. B. 348) i, 768 Burner v. C. (18 Grat. 778) i, 388 Burnett v. Blackmar (48 Ga. 569) i. 950a v. Phalon (4 Bosw. 622) i. 1279 ——, Rex v. (4 M. & S, 272) i, 508 — v. 8. (87 Ga. 622) i, 1255 v. S. (14 Lea, 489) ii. 628 — v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 288) i. 264, 264 6 —, S. v. (6 Heisk. 186) i, 891 —, 8. v. (81 Mo. 119) ii. 1002 Burney, P. v. (29 Cal. 459) i, 1264 Burnham v. Ayer (36 N. H. 182) ii, 482a —— v. Hatfield (6 Blackf. 21) i. 857 BUR Burnham, S., v. (44 Me. 278) i. 264°h, 264 7 —, S.v. (15 N. H. 896) ii, 221 Burns v. C. (8 Met. Ky. 18) i. 980 —,C. v. (8 Gray, 482) i. 1265 —— v. Erben (40 N. Y. 468) i. 168 v. La Grange (17 Tex. 415) 1,892 —v. P. (69 Barb. 581; 5 Lans. 189) ii, 910, 911, 912, 918 v, P. (126 Il. 282) i. 975c — v. P. (1 Par. Cr, 182) - i. 61 —, P. v. (63 Cal. 614) ii, 142 —, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 34) i. 1255 —— v. §. (5 Ala, 227) i. 691 v. §. (49 Ala. 370) ii. 626 — v.S. (61 Ga. 192) i. 1086 — v. S. (80 Ga, 544) i, 984 — v. S. (89 Ga. 527) i. 975 — v. 8. (12 Tex. Ap. 269) ii. 1002 —,S. rv. (8 Ala. 313) ii. 660 —, S. v. (18 Fla. 185) i, 1863 ——, S. v. (833 Mo. 483) i. 994 —, 8. v. (48 Mo. 438) i. 384 —, S. v. (54 Mo. 274) i, 951a —, S. v. (85 Mo. 47) i. 906, 946 —, 8. v. (99 Mo. 471) i. 1265 —, S. v. (8 Nev. 251) i. 677, 678 ——, U.S. v. (5 McLean, 28) i. 1016; ii. 254, 255, 271 Burnside v. Ennis (43 Ind. 411) _ i. 1298 —, 8. v. (87 Mo. 843) i. 909, 932, 1019, 1270 Burr v. C. (4 Grat. 534) i, 1125 — v. Harper (Holt, N. P. 420) ii. 432 5 —, 38. v. (81 Mo. 108) i. 975 c, 980 —.. U.S. v. (1 Burr’s Trial) i. 65, 229, 232, 233, 256, 909 — ,U. S. v. (Burr’s Trial, Coombs’ ed. 133) i. 983 Burrell, Reg. v. (10 Cox C. C. 462) ii. 1050 — v. S. (129 Ind. 290) i. 850, 1353 — v.S. (25 Neb. 581) i, 1827 v, §. (16 Tex. 147) i. 1264; ii. 584, 595 — v. 8. (18 Tex. 718) i. 909, 918, 951 a, 978, 1091, 1208 —, S. v. (86 Ind. 313) ii, 808 Burress v. C, (27 Grat. 934) i. 562 ; ii. 482¢ Burridge, Rex v. (8 Mod. 245) i, 931 —, Rex v. (3 P. Wins. 439) i. 392, 602, 1006, 1288; ii. 8, 945 Burris v. 8. (88 Ark. 221) i. 951, 1250; ii. 602 —, S. v. (4 Harring. Del. 582) i. 68, 71 Burroughs, P. v. (1 Par. Cr. 211) i. 488 e ; ii, 912, 921 — v.S. (17 Fla. 648) i. 689, 711, ae —— v. S. (33 Ga. 403) i, 926, 949.4 — 2. a (72 Ind. 334) i, 713 U. S.v. (3 McLean, 405) i. 478, 1016; ii. 710, 721, 788 Burrow v. Brown (59 Tex. 457) i. 1130 — v.S. (7 Eng. 65) i. 988; ii. 165 a Reg, v. (11 Cox C. C. 268) ii. 188 Be v. (2 Moody & R, 124) i. 962, 974 S. (84 Ind. 629) =i, 1101; ii. 147 =a y, INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. BUT Burrows »v. §. (187 Ind. 474; 45 Am. St. 210) Vi. 751 ——, S. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 74) ii, 87 —,S. v, (Kirby, 259) i, 2644 Burrus, In re (186 U. S. 586) i. 1411 Burt, P. v. (51 Mich. 199) i. 162 v. 8. (3 Brey. 418) ii. 386 —— v. S, (23 Ohio St. 394) ii. —, S. v. (41 La. An. 787) i. 1209 —, 8. v. (25 Vt. 378) i. 597, 598; ii. 56, 65 Burthe, S. v. (89 La. An. 828) i. 1264 Burtine v. 8. (18 Ga. 534) i. 118, 999 Burtles v. S. (4 Md. 278) i. 979 Burton’s Case (Cro. Eliz. 148) i. 600 Burn v. Burton (8 Greene, Iowa, 6) "Fat C. v. (4 Leigh, 645; 26 Am. D. 837) i. 853 —— v. March (6 Jones, N. C. 409) i. 1039 ii. 123 —, Reg. v. (Dears. 282) i. 1056 —, Reg. v. (2 Fost. & F.788) — i. 1040 v. S. (6 Blackf. 339) i, 2644 —— v.§. (75 Ind. 477) i. 803 v. &. (16 Lea, 185) i. 1317 — v. 8. (3 Tex. Ap. 408; 30 Am. R. 146) ii. 64, 66 — v.8. (9 Tex. Ap. 605) i. 951, 966 d, —— v. 8. (16 Tex. Ap. 156) ii. 118 —, S. v. (3 Ind. 98) ii. 357 —, 8. v. 04 N. C. 947) ii, 1264 v. Scott (8 Rand. 399) ii. 670 —— v. Thompson (2 Bur. 664) i. ane Busby v. S. (77 Ala. 66) 461 Bush, C.v. (112 Mass. 280) i. 989 8 ; ii. 104 v. Dunham (4 Mich. 339) ii. 883 —— v. Kentucky (107 U.S. 110) i. 815, 930 —, P. v. (40 Cal. 344) i. 1880 —, P. v. (68 Cal. 6238) i. 965 —, P. v. (71 Cal, 602) i. 73 —— Pe. (4 Hill, N. ¥, 138) ii. 74, 86,91 —_, P. v. (8 Par. Cr. 652) ii, 138 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 372) i. 561 — v.S. (18 Ala. 415) i, 620, 624 — v.8. (77 Ala. 88) ii. 427 — v. §. (21 Fla, 569) i, 1265 — v.58. (65 Ga. 658) i. 1094 — v.S. (6 Tex. Ap. 64) ii, 285, 286.4 —, S. v. (122 Ind. 42) i. 1076, 1094 Bushell’s Case (Vaugh. 185) i. 982 c, 998 a Bushman »v, C, (188 Mass. 507) i. 423, 450 Bushnell, Ex parte (8 Ohio St. 599) i. 761, 774 —, Ex parte (9 Ohio St. 77) i. 1410 Busick v. 8. (19 Ohio, 198) i. 909, 949 d Buster, P. v. (63 Cal. 612) i. 978 — v. 8. (42 Tex. 816) i. 1012; ii. 696 Butcher, C. v. (4 Grat. 644) i, 486; ii. 846 —, Reg. v. (Bell C. C. 6; 8 Cox C. C. 77) . 183 ——, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 228) i. "963, 69, 972 ——, Rex v. (1 Leach, 265, note) i. ‘1242 Butland, C. v. (119 Mass. 817) i. «aad ii. 511 BUT INDEX TO THE Butler v. Baird (5 Rich. 154) ii. 751 — v.C. (81 Va. 159) i. 289.4; ii. 189 —, C. v. (1 Allen, 4) i, 756 —, C. v. (144 Pa. 568) ii. 764 — v. Craig (2 Har. & McH, 214) i. 1898 v. P. (4 Denio, 68) _ ii. 180, 1834 , P.v.(8Cal.485) i. 854; ii. 615, 628 , P. Pp. v. (1 Idaho, n. s. 231) i. 702 — v. (8 Par. Cr. 877) ii. 584, 610 ——, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 221; 2 Cox C. C. 132) i, 1124 i, 252 i. 733 b, 979, 1001 — v. Robinson (75 Mo. 192) i. 682 v. 8. (22 Ala. 43) i, 488, 586, 784, 1269; ii. 460 v. 8. (72 Ala. 179) i. 9984 v. S. (84 Ark. 480) i. 1223 —v. 8. (7 Bax. 35) i. 1094 —— v. S. (97 Ind. 373) i. 1299 — v. S. (97 Ind. 378) i. 918, 1205 — v. 8. (3 McCord, 383) i, 482 — v. 8. (12 Sm. & M. 470) i. 2644, 264 b — v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 638) i, 1296 — v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 529) i. 1264 — v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 635) ii. 946 ——, S. v. (Conference, 331) ii. 383 —, S. v. (29 La. An. 354) i, 1248 —, S. v. (26 Minn, 90) ii. 318 —, 8S. v, (47 Minn. 483) ii, 418 a —_, 8. v. (Taylor, 262) ii. 383 — 5S. v. (388 Tex. 560) i. 2647 —,, 8. v. (8 Yerg. 83) i, 868 v. Turley (2 Car. & P. 585) i. 167 — , U.S. v. (1 Hughes, ©. C. 457) i. 878, 939, 940, 959 a; ii, 228, 229 U.S. v. (4 Hughes, C. C. 612) i. 145 —v. Washburn (6 Fost. N. H. 251) i, 216 — v. Wentworth (84 Me. 25) i. 145 Butman’s Case (8 Greenl. 113) i. 479, 606 Butman, S. v. (42 N. H. 490) i. 1130 Butolph v. Blust (41 How. Pr. 481) i. 183 — v. Blust (5 Lans. 84) i, 183 Butt v. Conant (Gow. 84) i, 183 —— v. Tuthill (10 Iowa, 585) i. 1270 Butterfield, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 522) i, 666 —, S. v. (75 Mo. 297) i. 982 a; ii. 144, 740 Butterfoss v. S. (13 Stew. Ch. 825) i. 1417 Butterick, C. v. (100 Mass. 1; 97 Am. D. 65) ii. 820, 320 —,C.v. (100 Mass. 12) i. 412, 488d; ii. 416, 419, 436 Butterwick, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 196) i. 691 Butterworth, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 132; 2 Eng. Rep. 195) ji. 724, 780 —, Rex v. (Russ, & Ry. 620) i. 1037, 1391 Buttery, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry, 342) ii. 486 Buttram v. 8. (4 Coldw. 171) i, 1081 Butts, C.v. (124 Mass. 449) i, 668 512 CASES CITED. CAD Buxton v. S. (89 Tenn. 216) i. 991 —, S. v. (2 Swan, Tenn. 67) ii. 826, 884 Buyck, S. v. (2 Bay, 563; 1 Brev. 460 i O51 ) : i. 9 Buzine, S. v. (4 Harring. Del. 572) i. 228, 228.4 Buzzard, C. v. (5 Grat. 694) i. 711 — v.§, (20 Ark. 106) i, 750, 755, 793 Buzzell, C. v. (16 Pick. 153) i. 905, 916, 917 — v. 8. (69 N. H. 61) i. 1268 ——, S. v. (69 N. H. 65) i. 965 Byam v. S. (17 Wis. 145) i. 665 —, S. v. (64 Iowa, 409) i, 384 Byars v. Mt. Vernon (77 Ill. 467) i. 717, 1264 Bybee, C. v. (6 Dana, 219) i, 691 — v. S§. (36 Tex. 366) i. 1021 —, 8. v. (17 Kan. 462) i. 982 Byce, C. v. (8 Gray, 461) i. 314.a, 9758 Byerly, C. v. (2 Brews. 568) ii. 732 Byers v. C. (42 Pa, 89) i. 184 —, 8. v. (80 N. C. 426) i. 1068 —, 8. v. (100 N. C. 612) i. 975; ii. 601 Bykerdike, Rex v. (1 Moody & R. 179) ii, 283 Byler v. Jones (79 Mo. 261) i, 224d Bynam v. S. (17 Obio St. 142) ii. 402, 415 Byrd v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 490) i. 1157, 1167 — v. §. (68 Ga. 661) i. 1288 — v.58. (1 How. Missis. 163) i. 814a, 665, 921, 951,f, 1850 —— v. §. (1 How. Missis. 247) i, 283, 730, 966 a, 1265, 1270, 1868 —— v. §. (57 Missis. 243; 34 Am. R. 440) i. 1162 ——, 8S. v. (28S. C.18; 18 Am. St. 660 ii, 914 Byrne, Reg. v. (6 Cox C. C. 475) ii. 260 —— v. S. (60 Missis. 688) ii, 824 —— v. §. (12 Wis. 619) i. 486, 636 ——, 8. v. (47 Conn. 465) ii. 963 ——, S. v. (24 Mo. 151) i. 73, 980 —., U.S. v. (19 Blatch. 259) i, 931 Byrnes v. P. (87 Mich. 515) ij. 148 —, P. v. (80 Cal. 206) i. 980 —, P. v. (83 Hun, 98) i, 222 Byron, S. v. (83 Wis. 119) i, 1264 — v. S. (35 Wis. 313) ii, 1044 Byrud, S. v. (23 Minn. 29) i, 8144 C. T., Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 144) ii, 915 Cabarga v. Seeger (17 Pa. 514) ii. 482.4 Cable v. P. (46 Ill. 467) i. 2647 —— v. S. (8 Blackf. 531) ii, 278 Cachute v. S. (50 Missis. 165) i. 8694 Cadd, P. v. (60 Cal. 640) i, 975e Cadle, 8. v. (19 Ark. 613) i. 180, 429, oe ; ii, 786 Cadman, Rex v. (1 Moody, 114) _ii. 645 Cadwell v. King (4 Cow. 207) ii. 670, 674 —— v.S. (17 Conn. 467) ii, 114 ——, S. v. (1 Jones, N. C. 289) 4. 943 Cady v. C. (10 Grat. 776) i. 845; ti. 456 — v. 8. (44 Missis, 332) i, 1238 CAL INDEX TO THE i. 975¢ i. 611 i, 926, 975 a, 1032 1. 975¢, 977 Cady v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 238) ——, S. v. (47 Conn. 44) —, 8. v. (80 Me, 413) —,, 8. v. (82 Me. 426) ——, S. v. (Winst. i. 197) i. 488 € Cesar v. S, (80 Tex. Ap. 274) i. 1035 Caffey, S. v. (2 Murph. 320) i. 488 Cattrey'v. Drugan (144 Mass. 294) i. 214 Catty’s Case (2 East P. C. 995) ii, 429 Cage, Ex parte (45 Cal. 248) i, 818 —, P. v. (48 Cal. 828; 17 Am. R. 436) i. 806, 818 Cagle v. S. (6 Humph. 391) - i. 1804 Cahill, In re (110 Pa. 167) i. 3144 , C. v. (12 Allen, 540) ii, 1002 — v. P. (106 Ill. 621) 1.196, 201; ii. 67 Cahoon, P. v. (88 Mich. 456) i. 975 a, 1152 Cain, Ex parte (9 Misso. 769) i. 691 v. Cain (1 B. Monr. 213) i, 1270 —, C. v. (14 Gray, 7) i. 402 —, C. v. (102 Mass. 487) i: 1896; ii. 48d —, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 309) ii. 724 —, Reg. v. (2 Moody, 204) ii. 721 — v.58. (55 Ala. 170) i. 2647 —v.S. (4 Blackf. 512) i. 97, 711 v. S. (44 Ind. 435) i. 1018 v. 8. (18 Sm. & M. 456) i. 1265 — v.§S. (18 Tex. 887) i. 822, 585, 1236, 1237 — v. §. (18 Tex. 391) i. 376, 379 v. S. (15 Tex. Ap. 41) i, 275 —, 8. v. (6 Blackf. 422) i. 849 — S. v. (1 Hawks, 352) i. 140, 763 —, 8. v. (2 Jones, N. C. 201) i. 978 —, 5S. v. (20 W. Va.679) i. 966 c, 1212 Calder, 8. v. (2 McCord, 462) ii. 998 Caldwell, Ex parte (62 Missis. 774) i. 1264 i. 264 d, 2647 i. 518, 602, 603 — v.C. (14 Grat. 698) —, C. v. (14 Mass. 330) — v. Murphy (1 Kern. 416) ii. 626 v. Raymond (2 Abb. Pr. 193) ii. 786 —v. 8. (49 Ala. 34) i. 541 ; ii. 840 — v.§. (55 Ala, 123) i,1317 — v. 8. (5 Tex. 18) ii. 96 v. S. (41 Tex. 86) i. 161 —»v.S. (12 Tex. Ap. 302) i. 946 — v. 8. (28 Tex. Ap. 566) i. 99, 329, 235, 414, 951, 975c —, S. v. (21 Mo. Ap. 645) i. 1264 —,,S. v. (112 N. C, 854) ii. 181 — uv. Texas (137 U. S. 692) i. 100a —, U.S. v. (8 Blatch. 181) i, 2246 — »v. Wright (25 Ill. Ap. 74) __ i. 1808 Caleb v. 8. (39 Missis. 721) i. 998.2, 999 Calef v. Phelps (25 Conn. 114) i, 1264 Calfielde v. —— (1 Rol. 189) i, 1882 Calhane, C. v. (108 Mass. 431) i, 1264 Calhoun v. Buffington (25 Mo. 443) 1.1315 zy. S. (4 Humph. 477) i. 73, 1855 ——v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 840) i. 1060 Calkins v. 8. (14 Ohio St. 222) ii. 432 — v. S. (18 Ohio St. 366; 98 Am. D. 121) i. 682, 1186 — v.§. (21 Wis. 501) i, 1268 VOL, IL. — 33 CASES CITED. CAM Call, C. v. (21 Pick. 509; 32 Am. D. 284) i. 49, 1002, 1006, 1008, 1125 —, C. v. (21 Pick. 515) i, 382, 355, 1253; ii. 174 —, 8. v. (1 Fla. 92) i. 1266 — S. v. (48 N. H. 126) ii. 165, 168, 178, ; 87, 191 Callaghan, P. v. (4 Utah, 49) ii. 603 —., Rex v. (1 MeN. Ev. 385) i. 1218 Callahan, C. v. (108 Mass. 421) i. 1223 —, P. v. (29 Hun, 580) i. 784 — v. 8. (2 Stew. & P. 379) i, 1266 — v. S. (30 Tex. 488) i. 951, 951 a — ».S. (41 Tex. 43) ii, 779 —,S. v. (124 Ind. 364) i. 553 — 5S. «. (55 Iowa, 364) i. 1003 Callan v. Gaylord (8 Watts, 821) ii. 800 v. Wilson (127 U. 8. 540) i, 891 Callanan, Rex v. (6 B. & C. 102; 9 D. & R. 97; 2 Russ. Crimes, 3d Eng. ed. 638) ii, 914, 915 Callegari, S. v. (41 La. An. 578) i. 1858 Callendine, S. v. (8 Iowa, 288) i, 822; ii. 462, 468 Calley, S. v. (104 N. C. 858; 17 Am. St. 704) ii. 115 Callicot, In re (8 Blatch. 89) i. 1411 Calloway v. 8. (75 Ala. 37) i, 892 v. 8. (1 Misso. 211) i. 1362 — v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 585) ii. 718 Calton, P. v. (5 Utah, 451) ii. 673 v. Utah (180 U. 8. 88) 1.975 ¢;3 ii. 688.4 Callum, S. v, (28 La. An. 49) i. 1264 Calvert v. 8. (91 Ind. 473) i. 1268 v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 154) li. 287 a —, §. v. (82 La. An. 224) i. 1857 Calvin, P. v. (60 Mich. 118) ii. 1002 v. 8. (23 Tex. 577) i, 1264 ——v. §, (25 Tex. 789) i. 97 —,§. v. (R. M. Charl. 142) i. 118, 966 c —) S. v. (R. M. Charl. 151) i. 611, 1018; ii, 416, 456 Cambridge, C. v. (4 Met. 35) i, 1815 Camden v. Edie (1 H. BL. 21) i. 1362 Cameron, Ex parte (81 Ala.87) i. 1265 , In re (44 Kan. 64; 21 Am. St. 262) ii. 176 v. Hodges (127 U. S. 322) i. 316 — v.. (14 Ala. 546; 48 Am. D. 111) i. 1175 v. 8. (138 Ark. 712) - 1, 229, 562 — v. 8. (44 Tex. 652) ii, 746 v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap.332) i. 975 c, 1126 —, 8. v. (2 Chand. 172) 1.881, 945, 1213 —! 8. v. (117 Mo. 871) ii, 175 — 8. v. (40 Vt. 655) i. 1066, 1186; ii 712, 748 — U.S. v. (6 McCrary, 93; 15 Fed. Rep. 794) i. 1206 Camfield, Rex v. (1 Moody, 42) ii. 188 Camilo, P. v. (69 Cal. 540) i Camp v. Moseley (2 Fla. 171) — v. §. (27 Ala. 53) v. S. (25 Ga. 689) 513 1287 ; ii. 642 CAN INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. CAR Camp ». S. (3 Kelly, 417) i. 611; ii. 965] Cane v. Watson (Morris, 52) i. 1013 —, 8. v. (28 Vt. 551) i. 1275, 1276 | Caniff, P. v. (2 Par. Cr.686) __ i. 940; Campbell, Ex parte (20 Ala. 89) i, 258, ii. 739, 745 : 263 | Canning, Rex v. (19 How. St. Tr. — v. C. (84 Pa. 187) i. 1159; ii. 1,4,| 288) ii, 983 ¢ 515, 629 | Cannon, In re (47 Mich. 481) i, 224 a, —— v. C. (59 Pa. 266) ii. 285, 286 224 b — v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 314) i. 1020, 1868 | —, C. v. (18 Philad. 456) i. 1268 — , C. ». (7 Allen, 541; 83 Am. D. — v. §. (60 Ark. 564) ii. 585 705) i. 1124 | —— v. S. (57 Missis. 147) i. 949 5 — , ©. v. (103 Mass. 436) fi. 982 | —— v. 8.(5 Tex. Ap. 34) i. 733 a v. Day (16 Vt. 558) i. 980 | — v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 172) ii. 751 v. Drake (4 Ire. Eq. 94) ii. 758 | ——, S. v. (84 Iowa, 322) i. 264 a v. P. (16 Ill. 17; 61 Am. D. 49) —, 8.v. (90 N.C. 711) i, 852 i. 1054] ——;S. v. (11 Or. 312) i. 1342 —— v, P, (22 Ill, 234) i. 287 | Cansler, S. v. (75.N. C. 442) ii, 858, 824 — v. P. (109 Ill. 565; 50 Am. R. Cantaline v. S. (33 Ala. 439) i, 264 m 621) i. 975 b | Cantellow v. Trueman (2 Dowl. P. C. — v. P. (34 Mich. 351) ii. 975] 2) i. 1882 — v.P. (8 Wend. 636) . ii. 915, 916, 921 | Canter v. P. (1 Abb. Ap. 805) i. 828, 829 —, P. v. (40 Cal. 129) ii. 18, 595 | Canterbury, Rex v. (8 East, 213) i. 14038 —, P. v. (59 Cal. 243; 48 Am. R. 257) i. 144; ii. 627 —, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 386) i. 96, 708 v. Reg. (1 Cox C. C. 269; 2 Ib. 463 ; 11 Q.B.799) i. 1005, 1016, 1827 ; — ,S. v. (8 Fost. N. H. 195) i. 457 ; ii. 1047 Cantey v. Platt (2 McCord, 260) ii. 482 6 Cantieny, S. v. (84 Minn.1) i. 188, 1212, 1 317 Cantrell v. Clark (47 Ark. 239) i, 306 ii. 778 | ——, S. v. (2 Hill, S.C. 389) i, 611; ii. 846 — , Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 82) i. 546, | Cantrill v. P. (3 Gilman, 356) ii. 885, 888 648, 549, 551 | Cantu v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 402) i, 951 —, Reg. v. (8 Crawf. & Dix C. C, Cantwell v. S. (18 Ohio St. 477) i. 998 33 i, 1888 | Canty, S.v. (41 La. An. 587) i. 1001 ——, Respublica v. (1 Dall.354) ii, 383 | Canwell, Reg. v. (11 Cox C.C.263) ii. 57 — v.§. (16 Ala, 144) ii. 871 | Capers, S. v. (61 Ga. 263) i. 264 @ — v. S. (23 Ala. 44) i. 1078, 1097, | Capewell, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 549) i. 485 1178, 1218, 1242, 1249; ii. 629, 633, 67 Caples, Ex parte (58 Missis.358) i. 951 / 7| Capp, C.v. (48 Pa. 53) i. 1272 — ».S. (55 Ala. 80) i. 1254; ii. 754] Capps v. S. (4 Towa, 502) i. 603, 524 v, 8. (88 Ark. 498) i. 1212, 1216 | ——, S.v. (71 N.C. 98) ii. 724 — v.58. (11 Ga. 353) i, 1208, 1212 | Car Soy, P. v. (57 Cal. 102) i. 950 —— v.8. (10 Ind. 420) : i. 680 | Carabin, P. v. (14 Cal. 488) i. 314; ii. 746 — v.§. (35 Ohio St.70) i. 622; ii. 329 | Caradice, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 205) ii, 738 —— v.58. (3 Tex. Ap. 33) 1, 966 b| Card v. S. (109 Ind. 415) i. 1125; ii. 428 — v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap, 84) i 700 | Carden v. S. (84 Ala. 417) i, 1092, 1250 —, S. v. (1 D. Chip. 218) i. 814 a | —— v.S. (89 Ala. 180) ii. 705, 732 — , S. v. (19 Kan. 481) i, 1814 | Carder v. S. (17 Ind. 307) i. 618; ii. 68 a —, S. v, (107 N. C. 948) ., _d 166 | Cardoza, 8. v. (11 S.C. 195) i. 3144, —, 8. v. (20 Nev. 122) ii. 963, 965 931, 1248, 1268; ii. 232, 243 —, S. v. (1 Rich. 124) _ 4.1195 | Cardoze, C. v. (119 Mass. 210) ii. 112, 115 —-, 5S. v. (35 S.C. 28) i. 931, 1110 | Cardwell, S. v. (Busbee, 245) ii, 1054 v. Thompson (16 Me. 117) i. 718 | —-, S. v. (95 N. C. 643) i, 1336 Campion, C. v. (105 Mass. 184} i, 1264 | Carel, C. v. (105 Mass. 582) ii. 902 Camplin v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 108) i. 1098; | Carey, C. v. (2 Brews. 404) i. 966, 1115 ii. 754 |] ——, C.v. (12 Cush. 246) i. 162, 168, 170, Canada v. C. (9 Dana, 304) i. 268 181, 1208 —, C.v. (13 Pick. 86) i, 264 a | —, C. v. (103 Mass. 214) i. 446, 1015 a —,S. v. (48 Iowa, 448) i. 68, 72 | ——, C. v. (2 Pick. 47) ii. 415, 481, 447, Cannady, 8. v. (78 N. C. 539) i. 1514 449, 454 Canby v. Griffin (8 Harring. Del. —, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 238) ii, 106 338) : i. 264 7 | —— v. S. (7 Humph. 499) i, 1058 Cancemi v. P. (16 N. ¥.601) i. 905, 1114 Cargen v. P. (89 Mich. 549) i. 238, 909, — v. P. (18 N, Y. 128) i. 898, 1371, 946; ii, 584 1379 | Cargill v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 481) i. 264 a Candler, S. v. (8 Hawks, 398) i, 1179; | Carland, S. v. (8 Dev. 114) ii, 922 ii. 482 a, 459 a | —, S. v. (90 N. C. 668) i, 920, 921, Candy v. S. (8 Neb. 482) i, 457 1049, 1095 514 CAR Carland, Territory rv. (6 Mont. 14) i. 1264; ii. 216 Carleton v. Rugg (149 Mass..550; 14 Am. St. 446) i. 1417 Carlile v. Cooper (6 C. E. Green, 576) i. 1416 ——, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 229) ii. 794 b ——, Rex v. (2 B. & Ad. 362; 4 Car. & P. 415 i, 314, 1350, 1869 —, Rex »v. (2 B. & Ad. 971) i. 1367, 1369 —, Rex v. (3 B. & Ald. 167) ii. 790 — , Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 686) i. 958, 963 —, Rex v. (1 D. & R. 585) i. 1839 Carlisle, Respublica v. (1 Dall. 35) ii. 1031, 1082, 1036 — , Rex v. (1 D. & R. 474) i. 1803 — v.58. (76 Ala. 75) ii. 187 — v. S. (32 Ind. 55) i. 371 —, S. v. (57 Mo. 102) i. 999, 1238 Carll, Ex parte (106 U.S. 521) i. 1410 —., U.S. »v. (105 U.S. 611) i. 522, 610, 623 Carlton, In re (17 Cow. 471) i. 1411 v. C. (5 Met. 582) i, 450, 1827 —,P. v. (57 Cal. 88; 40 Am. R. 112) i. 625 —,P.v.(115N.Y.618) i. 159, 975, 978; ii. 602 —, S.v. (107 N. C. 956) i, 1264, 1814 —, S. v. (48 Vt. 636) i. 1086 Carlyle, S. v. (388 Kan. 716) i. 1826 Carman v. Newell (1 Denio, 25) i. 314 — , S. v. (63 Iowa, 180; 50 Am. R. 741) i. 893 Carmichael, S. v. (3 Kan. 102) i. 1264, 1272 Carmisales v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 474) ii. 728 Carmody v. S. (105 Ind. 546) i, 264.4 Carnahan, S, v. (17 Iowa, 256) i. 1079 Carnal v. P. (1 Par. Cr. 272) —_i.. 903, 905 , P.v. (1 Par. Cr. 256) =i. 999, 1270 , P. v. (2 Seld. 463) i. 1401 Carnes v. S. (28 Ga. 192) i. 1274 Carney, C. v. (4 Grat. 546) i, 649 —— v. S. (118 Ind. 525) ii, 975 Carnot, U.S. v. (2 Cranch C. C. 469) i. 930 Carny’s Case (8 City Hall Rec. 44) ii. 185 Carothers, S. v. (1 Greene, Iowa, 464) i, 74 Carpenter v. Bristol (21 Pick. 258) i. 1403 —, C. v. (8 Mass, 268) i. 1818 —, C. v. (108 Mass. 15) ii. 1025 —— v. Carpenter (8 Bush, 288) ii. 674 —— v. Dane (9 Wis. 274) i. 805 —— v. P. (8 Barb. 6038) i. 984 —— »v. P. (64 N. Y. 483) i, 881, 931 —, P. v. (7 Cal. 402) i. 2645 — _, P. v. (86 Hun, 315) i, 982 a —,, P. v. (102 N. Y. 288; 38 Hun, 490) i. 918 — , Reg. v. (11 Cox C. C. 600) _ ii. 188 — v. Robinson (1 Holmes, 67) ii. 677 — v. S. (26 Ga. 622) i. 1278, — v. S. (4 How. Missis. 163; 34 Am. D. 116) . i, 897, 1351 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. CAR Carpenter v.S. (14 Ind. 109) i, 713 ; ii. 492 — v. §. (8 Misso. 291) i, 677 —, 8. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 867) i. 1098 —, 8. v. (28 Lowa, 506) i. 8144 — , S. v. (62 Mo. 594) i. 611 —, 8. v. (74.N. C. 230) i. 400 —, 8. v. (20 Vt. 9 4. 897 —, S$. v. (54 Vt. 561) ii. 887 —, U.S. v. (6 Dak. 294) ii, 222 Carper v. 8. (27 Ohio St. 572) i. 744, 756, 1298 Carr, In re (8 Saw. 316) i, 184 , C.v. (114 Mass. 280; 19 Am. . 845) i. 75 —— v. Conyers (84 Ga. 287 ; 20 Am. St. 357) i. 1821 —, Reg. v. (10 Cox C. C. 564) ii. 983 5 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 377) ii. 652, 653 5 — v. 8. (42 Ark. 204) i. 1151 — v. 8. (48 Ark. 99) i. 159 — v. S. (18 Ga. 328) i. 1278 — v.58. (14 Ga. 858) =i. 1279; ii. 611, 617, 621 —— v. §. (76 Ga. 592) i, 932 v. 8. (84 Ga. 250) i. 1047 — v. S. (185 Ind. 1; 41 Am. St. 408) ii. 628 v. §. (1 Kan. 381) i. 1264 u. 8. (41 Tex. 548 i. 980 — v. 8. (24 Tex. Ap. 562; 5 Am. St. 905) i. 975c, 1223, 1241, 1277 —,S. v. (Coxe, 1) i. 1021, 1166 —,S. v. (1 Fost. N. H. 166; 63 Am. D. 179) i, 1279 —, S. v. (4 Iowa, 289) i, 264a —, S. v. (48 Iowa, 418) i. 7066 ——, 8. v. (5 N. H. 867) ii. 407, 431, 482 a, 455, 457, 459 a —, S. wv. (6 Or. 138) i. 586 —, 8. c. (13 Vt. 571) i. 1265, 1278 — , S. uv. (63 Vt. 37) i, 1217 ; ii. 696 —, U.S. v. (3 Saw. 302) i. 814a — U.S. v. (182 U. S. 644) i. 1131 Carrell, Rex v. (1 Leach, 237) i. 573 ; ii. 188, 1384 Carrick v. S. (18 Ind. 409) i. 1010 —, S. v. (16 Nev. 120) i. 909, ea ii. 82 Carrick-on Suir, Reg. v. (16 Cox C. C. 571) i, 269 Carrier, P. v. (46 Mich. 442) i, 926 Carrillo, P. v. (54 Cal. 63) i. 975¢ —, P. v. (70 Cal. 648) i. 975 c, 1094 Carrington, C. v. (116 Mass. 37) i. aaa Carro, S. v. (26 La. An. 877) _ ii. 708, 782 Carroll v. C.(84 Pa. 107) i. 814 a, 951; ii. 629 —, C. v. (15 Gray, 409) i. 400 —, P. v. (54 Mich. 334) ii. 152 ——, P. v. (8 Par. Cr. 22) i, 894 — vv. 8. (23 Ala. 28; 58 Am. D. 282) i, 1228 — v.S. (8 Humph. 815) i. 949, 965, 1113 ; ii, 625 515 CAR INDEX TO THE i. 966 a i. 909, 965, 1020 i, 975, 1170 Carroll v. S. (11 Lea, 480) —— v.58. (5 Neb. 31) v, 8. (3 Tex. Ap. 117) v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 463) i. 264 —,S. »v. (5 Ire. 139) i. 1354 —, S. v. (81 La. An. 860) i, 1248 —,S. v. (80 S.C. 85; 14 Am. St. 883) i. 975c, 1236, 1237 Carrow v. P. (1138 Tl. 550) i. 68, 72 Carruthers, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 138) i. 762; ii. 1025, 1029a Carskadon v. Williams (7 W. Va. 1) i. 1248 Carson v. C. (1 A. K. Mar. 290) i. 82 v. Dalton (59 Tex. 500) i. 378 ——, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 308) ii. 334, 335 v. S. (50 Ala. 134) i. 909, 980, 1115 CASES CITED. CAS Cartwright, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 106) ii. 196 — v.S. (12 Lea, 620) i. 909, 994, 1277 v. 8. (16 Tex. Ap. 473; 49 Am. R. 826) i. 975 a, 975 —, S. v. (10 Or. 198) i. 1853 —, 8. », (10 ‘Tex. 280) i. 1264 v. Wright (6 B. & Ald. 615) ii. 791 —— v. Wright (1 D. & R. 230) ji. 792 Carty, P. v. (77 Cal. 213) i. 986, 1197 Carver’s Case (7 Ct. Cl. 499) i. 303 Carver v. P, (89 Mich. 786) i. 985; ii, 473 ——, S.v. (49 Me. 588; 77 Am. D. 275) i. 756, 888, 886, 887; ii. 9 —,S. v. (49 Me. 588; 77 Am. D. 2 75) i, 1285 Caryl, P. v. (12 Wend. 547) v. S. (80 Ga. 170) i. 975 ii. 455, 456, —, S. v. (66 Me. 116) i. 1183 4594 Carstairs v. Stein (4 M. & S. 192) i. 1268] Casados, S. v. (1 Nott & McC. 91) Carstaphen, S. v. (2 Hayw. 238) i. 994 i. 612, 1188 Cartee, S. v. (48 Mo. 481) i. 130 | Casas v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 59) i. 1054 Carter v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 169) i. 1112, | Casat v. S. (40 Ark. 511) i, 946; ii. 674 1113 | Case v. C. (1 Va. Cas. 264) i, 1265 —, C.v. (11 Pick.277) i. 951, 951. a ——»v. Hawley (Wright, 382) i. 691 —, P. v. (29 Barb. 208) ii. 377, 388 —, P. v. (48 Hun, 165) i. 1264 — _, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C.65; 1Cox C. C. 170; 1 Car. & K. 741) i. 682, 1130; ii. 427 a —, Reg. v. (6 Mod. 167) i. 488, 688, 1045; ii. 906, 983 5 — , Reg. v. (12 Q. B. D. 522; 15 Cox C. C. 448) ; ii. 740 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 134) i. 1100; ii. 427 — , Rex v. (2 East P. C. 985) ii. 417 — , Rex v. (7 Mod. 172) i. 256 — Rex v. (W. Kel. 159) i. 256 v. 8. (83 Ala, 429) i. 978, 981 v. S. (63 Ala. 52; 85 Am. R. 4) ii. 961 — v. S. (6 Coldw. 537) i. 8lia v. 8. (20 Fla. 754) i. 975¢ v, 8. (46 Ga. 637) i. 1279 — v. 8. (48 Ga. 43) i. 860 v. 8. (53 Ga. 326) i. 488 — v. S. (56 Ga. 463) i. 720, 984; ii. 671, 675 — v. 8. (75 Ga. 747) i. 853 —— v. §. (2 Ind. 617) i. 605, 987 — v.8. (9 Lea, 440) i, 9984 — »v. S. (87 Tex. 362) i. 1220 — v. 8. (20 Wis. 647) ——, 8. v. (Conference, 210) — 8. v. (1 Houst, Crim. 402) —, S. v. (39 Me. 262) —,S8.v.(72N.C.99) i. 1058; ii. 754 ——, S. v. (113 N. C. 639) ii. 786, 751 Carthage Turnpike v. Andrews (102 Ind. 188; 52 Am. R. 658) i 1111 Carthaus v. 8. (78 Wis. 560) i. 318, 975 c, 982; ii. 631 Cartright, 8. v. (20 W. Va. 82) i. 9984 516 i. 1112 i. 243 — v. P. (76 N. Y. 242) ii. 933. v. §. (26 Ala. 17) ii. 766 v. 8. (5 Ind. 1) 4.314, 1279, 1285, 1345 v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 228) i, 485 —, S.v. (93 N. C. 645; 58 Am. R, 471) i. 1121 v. Shepherd (2 Johns. Cas. 27) i. 1379 ——, U.S. v. (8 Blatch. 250) i, 226 Cases of Champagne, U.S. v. (1 Ben. 241) ii. 482 Casey, C. v. (11 Cush. 417; 59 Am. TD. 150) . 1218 —,, P. v. (53 Cal. 360) i. 975¢ —, P. v. (72 N. Y. 893) i. 1868; ii. 63, 63 a, 65 ——, P. v. (96 N. Y. 115) i. 909 ——, Reg. v, (18 Cox C. C. 614) i. 70 v. S. (37 Ark. 67) i. 909, 1170 v. S. (20 Neb. 138) i. 10154, 1077 v. S. (5 Tex. Ap. 462) i. 718 —_ §. v. (44 La. An. 969) i. 925 Casford, S. v. (76 Iowa, 330) i. 975; ii. 975 Cash v. S.(10 Humph. 111) i. 449, 451, 455, 966 — v.§S. (2 Tenn. 198) ii. 25, 26 ——, 8. v. (386 Kan. 623) i, 1264 Casily v. S. (82 Ind. 62) i. 465 Casinova v. 8. (12 Tex. Ap. 554) i. 951 Casio, Territory v. (1 Ariz. 485) ii. 740 Cason, S. ». (20 La. An, 48) i. 1264, 1272; ii. 700 — S. v. (28 La. An. 40) i. 1894 Caspary, S. », (11 Rich. 356) i. B54 Casper, Reg. v. (2 Moody, 101; 9 Car. & P, 289) ii. 980 — v.S. (47 Wis. 635) 1. 975¢; ii, 239 Cass, Rex v. (1 Leach, 298, note) i. ere i. 1140 — v.§, (2 Greene, Iowa, 353) ii, 68a —_S. v. (41 Tex. 562) CAU Cassaday v.S. (4 Tex. Ap. 96) i. 264.4 Cassady, S. v. (12 Kan. 650) i. 788; ii. 4, 740, 742 —, 8. v. (52 N. H. 500) ii, 63, 884 Cassel, S. v. (2 Har. & G. 407) i. 605 Cassiano, P. v. (30 Hun, 388) i. 270 Cassidy, P. v. (183 N. Y. 612) i. 1238 — ve. Palo Alto (68 Iowa, 125) i. 1816 —, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 79) i. 959 a, 966 c Castanedo v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 582) i. 931 Castello v. S. (86 Tex. 324) ii. 700 , 5. v. (62 Iowa, 404) i. 1142 Castellow v. S. (15 Tex. Ap. 551) ii. 740 Castenada v. 8. (11 Tex. Ap. 390) i. 975¢ Castillo v. S. (81 Tex. Cr. 145; 37 Am. St. 794) ii. 963 Castle v. S. (75 Ind. 146) i. 1093 Castleberry v. S. (68 Ga. 49) i, 314 Castles, C. v. (9 Gray, 128) i.614; ii. 401, 414 Castleton, P. v. (44 How. Pr. 238) ii. 822, 826 Caston v. 8. (81 Tex. Cr. 304) ii. 433 Castor, S. v. (93 Mo. 242) ii. 740 Castra v. De Uriarte (16 Fed. Rep. 93) i. 224 — v. Gill (5 Cal. 40) li. 882 —— v. Murray (Law Rep. 10 Ex. 213) i. 1862 —— v. Reg. (6 Ap. Cas. 229; 14 Cox C. C. 546) i. 1827 ——, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 9 Q. B. 350; 12 Cox. C. C. 454) i. 68, 966 d, 1827 ; ii. 587 —,, Reg. v. (5 Q. B. D. 490; 14 Cox C. C, 436 : i. 1827 Caswell, P. v. ( 21 Wend. 86) ii. 982 — ,5.v. (T. U. P. Charl. 280) i. 227 Catapodi, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 65) ii. 269 Cate, S. v. (58 N. H. 240) ii. 290 Cates v. West (2 T. R. 183) i. 1362 Cathcart v. C. (37 Pa. 108) j. 105, 979, 1118, 1252, 1269, 1310, 1856, 1359; ii. 603 Catherall, Rex v. (2 Stra. 900) i. 575, 577 Cathing v. S. (62 Ga. 243) i. 1410 vate S. v. (8 Vt. 5380; 23 Am. D. 230 ) i. 980 Cato v. 8. (9 Fla. 163) i. 1275; ii. 974, 975 v. 8. (72 Ga. 747) 1. 909, 975 ¢ Cator, Rex v. (2 East, 361) ii. 806 a -——, Rex v. (4 Esp. 117) ii, 432 oa Ba Catterall, Rex v. (Fitzg. 266) i. 1809 Caudle v. Seymour (1 Q. B. 889; 1 Gale & D. 454) i, 187, 228 —,, S. r. (63 N. C. 30) i. Caudwell, Reg. v. (17 Q. B. 503; 2 Ten. C.C. 872, note; 6 Eng. L. & Eq. 352) i. 276, 1038 Caulfield v. Hudson (8 Cal. 889) i.314a —, S. v. (23 La. An. 148) _i. 123, 909, 997, 998 a, 999 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. CHA Causey v. 8. (79 Ga. 564; 11 Am. St. 447 ii ) ii. 754 —, 8. v. (48 La, An. 897) i. 68, 71, 850 Cauthron v. 8. (43 Ark. 128) i, 264 m Cavanagh, P. v. (62 How. Pr. 187) i. 65 —, P. v, (1 Par. Cr. 588) i. 1888 Cavaness v. 8, (48 Ark. 331) i, 1057 Cave v. Masey (83 B. & C. 735) i. 1362 , S. v. (81 Mo. 450) ii. 902, 921 Cavender v. 8. (126 Ind. 47) i. 1079, 1116 Cavendish, Reg. v, (2 Cox C.C.175) i. 71 Caveness,'S. v. (78 N. C. 484) i. 313 Caverly, S. v. (61 N. H.446) i. 899, 405 Cavitt v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 190) i. 906 Caw v. P. (8 Neb. 857) ii. 625, 633 Cawley v. S. (87 Ala. 152) i. 458, 1827 Cawood, C, v. (2 Va. Cas. 527) i. O51, ? 1855 Cawthorn v. S. (68 Ala. 157) i. 884, 1264 Cayton, C. v. (2 Dana, 138) i, 2646 Cearfoss v. S. (42 Md. 403) i. 825 Cecil v. Brigges (2 T. R. 689) i, 421 Cellier, Rex v. (7 How. St. Tr. 1183) 1. 1001 Celluloid Manuf. Co. v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. (183 Blatch. 375) i. 1416 Cemetery Association v. Meninger (14 Kan. 312) ii. 1054 Central Bridge, C. v. (12 Cush. 242) ii. Central Crim. Ct., Reg. v. (11Q.B. D. 479; 15 Cox C.C. 824) i. 1402 Central Rld. &c. Co. v. Gamble (77 Ga. 584) i. 878 Certain Intoxicating Liquors, S. v. (64 Iowa, 300) i. 245 (See Intoxicating Liquors.) Cesena, P. v. (90 Cal. 381) i, 1269 Cesure v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 19) i. 1120 Chabbock, C. v. (1 Mass. 144) i. oe 12 Chadbourne, §. v. (74 Me. 506) i. 940 Chadderton, Rex v. (5 T. R. 272) i. 691 Chadwick, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 163) _ ii. 456 ——,, Reg. v. (11 Q. B. 205) i. 1868 ——, Reg, v. (1 Russ. Crimes, 5th — Eng. ed. 176) ii. 10 — , Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 181) ii. 187 —, S. v. (10 Or. 428) i. 757 Chaffee v. Taylor (8 Allen, 598) ii. 432@ Chahoon ». C. (20 Grat. 788) i. 2894, 922 Chairs, S. v. (9 Bax. 196) i, 852 Chalkley, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 258) i. 570, 619; ii. 845 Chalmers, C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 76) _ i. 1285 Chamberlain, Ex parte (4 Cow. 49) i. 959 b — ». 8. (5 Blackf. 573) ii, 269 —— v. 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 451) ii, 63 , S. v. (75 Mo. 882) i. 685 —— S. v. (89 Mo. 129) —, 8. v. (6 Nev. 257) 517 i. 491, 1181, 1182 i. 97, 360, 870, 385, 708 CHA Chamberlain, U.S. v. (12 Blatch. 390) ii. 432 ¢ Chamberlayne, Rex v. (1 T. R. 103) i. 691 Chamberlin, 8. v. (80 Vt. 559) ii. 921, 924 Chambers, In re (80 Kan. 450) i. 1264 —— v. Clearwater (1 Abb. Ap. 341) INDEX TO THE CASES CITED, CHA Chaplin. v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 87) i. 951 Chapman v. Barney (129 U.S. 677) i.316 v. C. (5 Whart. 427 ; 84 Am. D. 65) i, 595 ; ii, 48, 45 C. v. (11 Cush. 422) i. 332, 762; ii. 620, "647, 552 2 i. 123, 314, 8316 | —, C. v. (1 Va. Cas. 138) ii. 75 —— v. P. (105 Tl. 409) i. 975, 978, 1181, — v. P. (39 Mich. 357) ii. 584 1183] -—, P. ». (62 Mich. 280; 4 Am. St. — v.P. (4Scam. 351) i. 611, 1015 a, 1180 867) ii. 957 —, P. v. (18 Cal. 382) ii. 740 | ——, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 119) ii. 837 — v. §. (26 Ala. 59) i. 1241; ii. 100 | ——, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 558) i, 254, 256, — v. 8. (85 Ga. 220) i. 384, 400 gene. ae v. S. (42 Tex. 254) i. 980 —, S. v. (2 Greene, Iowa, 308) ii. 716 Rep. 160) — , S. v. (30 Iowa, 179) i. 1239 | —— v. Rochester (110 N. Y. 278; 6. —,S.v. (45 La, An. 36) =i, 981, 931a] Am. St. 366) i. 1417 —, S. v. (87 Mo. 406) i. 1207 v. 8. (18 Ga. 736) i, 400, 688 Chamblee v. S. (78 Ala. 466) i. 931 v. §. (2 Head, 36) i. 1012 Chambless v. 8. (20 Tex. 197) i, 2647, | —, S. v. (88 La. "An. 348) i. 8144 264 h | ——, S. v. (6 Nev. 820) ii. 4, 1002 Chambliss v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 896) i. 1857 | ——, U. S. v. (8 McLean, 390) ii, 916 Champ ». C. (2 Met. Ky. 17; 74 Am. D. 338) i. 1276; ii. 685, 972 Champeau, S. v. (52 Vt. 818; 36 Am. R. 754) i. 850, 852 Champer v. S. (14 Ohio St. 431) ii, 24 Champion, Ex parte (52 Ala. 311) i. 236 Champlain v. P. (2 Comst. 82) i, 264 f, 264 m Champney’s Case (2 Lewin, 52) i, 789 — Case (2 Lewin, 258) ii, 928 Chancellor v. S. (83 Ark. 815) i, 1846 —, S. »v. (1 Strob. 347; 47 Am. D. 557) i. 1888, 1884 Chandler, Ex rel. (45 La. An. 696) ii. 666 C. (1 Bush, 41) i. 1020 —— v. LeBarron (45 Me. 534) ii, 482 . (4 Par. Cr. 231) ii. 191, 456, 459 a —, Reg. v. (Dears. 453; 6 Cox C. C. 519) i. 894; ii. 5384 —, Rex v. (1 Ld. Raym. 545) i. 189 — , Rex v. (1 Ld. Raym. 581) i, 396 — v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 587 ii. 988 —, 8. v. (2 Hawks, 439) i, 622, 698 , 5. v. (31 Kan. 201) i. 452 , S.v. (86 La, An. 177) i. 1285 , 8. v. (79 Me. 172) i. 264 m , S. v. (24 Mo. 871; 69 Am. D. 32) ii. 77 a v, (42 Vt. 446) ii, 921 haney v. 8. (81 Ala. 842) i. 981a, 1086 a8, (4 Eng. 129) i. 1264 v. §, (23 Tex. 23) i, 1264 —,S8. v. (9 Rich. 488) ii. 718 Chapin v. James (11 R.1. 86; 23 Am. R. 412) i, 815 —. Marlborough (9 Gray, 244; 69 Am. D. 281) i 1111 — v. §. (24 Conn. 236) i. '314a Chap ppel, Rex. (1 Moody & R. 395) i. 1261 — v. 8. (7 Coldw. 92) i. 1066 v, 8. (8 Yerg. 166) i. 1855 Chappell v. 8. (52 Ala. 359) ii. 1002, 1005, 06, 1007 —v.S. (71 Ala. 822) i, 962 v. §. (80 Tex. 613) ' 1, 263.4 Chapple, Reg. v. (17 Cox C. C. 455) i. 762 ——,, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 77) ii. 846 Chard, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 488) ii. 731 Chares, P. v, (26 Cal. 78) i, 976 Charge to the Bristol Grand Jury (5. Car. & P. 261, note) i. 166 Chee to the Grand Jury (2 Saw. 667 i. 867 Charity, S. v. (2 Dev. 543) i. 1188 Charles v. P. (1 Comst. 180) ii. 778 —, P. v. (Edm. Sel. Cas. 264) i, 265 —2.8. (4 Port. 107) i. 314 — v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 658) i. 981 —, S. v. (14 La. An. 649) i. 1264 ——, U.S. v. (2 Cranch C.C. 76) i. 857, 858, 1255 Charleston, In re (34 Fed. Rep. 531). ‘i i, 22: —— v. Schroeder (4 Rich. 296) i 572, 689 b Charlesworth, Reg. v. (1 B. & S. 460; 9 Cox C. C. 40) 1. 749, 811, 822, 825 ——, Rex v. (2 Stra. 871) i. 715 Charnock’s Case (Holt, 301) i. 400 — Case (3 Salk. 81) i, 1030 Charnock, Rex v. (12 How St. Tr. 1877) i, 296, 729 Charter v. S. (86 Missis. 75) i, 286 Chartrand, Territory v. (1 Dak. 379) ii, 118, 115 Chase, Ex parte (43 Ala. 308) i, 68, 73 — »v. Blackstone Canal (10 Pick. 244 —, 8. v. (17 Ark. 561 ; 65 Am. D. i. 1403 452) i, 220, 314 | ——, C. », (127 Mass. 7) i 1050 Chapleau, P. v. (121 N. Y. 266) i, 1292, —; G.». (147 Mass. 597) ii, 63 1238 ' —— v. P. (2 Colo. 481) i, 264A 518 CHE INDEX TO THE Chase v. P. (2 Colo. 528) — i. 239, 264 a, 264 b, 264 f; ii. 490 — v. P. (40 Il. 352) ii, 673 v. 8. (46 Missis. 683) i. 872; ii. 609 —— v.S. (Spencer, 218) i. 849 — v.58. (60 Wis. 510) ii. 584 —, 8. v. (87 La, An. 165) _ i. 975 c, 980 —, U.S. v. (27 Fed. Rep. 807) i. 1287 Chatburn, Rex v. (1 Moody, 403) i. 597 Chatham Bank, S. v. (80 Mo. 626) i. 949 Chathams, C. v. (60 Pa.181; 88 Am. 1. 539) i. 1006, 1008 Chauncey, C. v. (2 Ashm. 90) i. 882, 883, 889 Chauvin, Ex parte (T. U. P. Charl. 14) i Chaveney, Rex v. (2 Ld. Raym. . 139 1368 ii, 128 Chavis v. §. (88 Tex. 446) i. 761 —,5S. v. (80 N. C. 353) i. 975 c, 1854; ii, 613 Cheafor, Reg. v. (2 Den. C. C. 361; 5 Cox C. C. 367; 15 Jur. 1065) di. 706 Cheaney v. S. (86 Ark. 74) i. 1310 Cheatham v. 8. (59 Ala. 40) i. 776 v. 8. (67 Missis. 835; 19 Am. St. 310) i. 68, 72, 298, 975 b, 975 c, 1169; ii. 629 Cheatwood, S. v. (2 Hill, S. C. 459) i. 479, 612 Checkets, Rex v. (6M.&S. 88) i. oe Chedinfold, Rex v. (Cas. temp. Hardw. 159) li. 1056 Chee Gong, S. v. (16 Or. 584) i. 1066 Cheek v. C. (87 Ky. 42) i. 1012 —, C. v. (1 Duv. 26) i. 267 CASES CITED. CHI Cherry, S. v. (72 N. C. 128) 1.3144 —, 8. v. (1 Swan, Tenn. 160) i. 449 Chesapeake, &e. Ry., S. v. (24 W. Va. 809) ii. 1050 Chesham, Reg. v. (8 Russ. Crimes, Sth Eng. ed. 482) i. 1255 Chesley v. Brown (2 Fairf. 148) ' Chester, Rex v. (1 T. R. 396) i. 1408 Chetwynd, Rex v, (18 How. St. Tr. 289) i. 1006 Chevallier, S. v. (86 La. An. 81) — i. 1071 Cheverton, Reg. v. (2 Fost. & F. 838) i. 1057 il Chew Sing Wing, P. v. (88 Cal. 268) i. 975 c, 979, 981 Chicago v. Wright (69 Ill. 318) "ii. 1054 Chicago, &c. Ry., S. v. (63 Iowa, 508) i. 864 i. 460 i. 1098, 1100 Chichester v. Hill (15 Cox C. C. 258) ii. 762 Chick v. S. (7 Humph. 161) ii. 856 Chidester v. S. (25 Ohio St. 433) ii. 412, 751 Chidley, Reg. v. (8 Cox C.C. 365) i. 1255 —, S. v. (77 Towa, 442) Chichester’s Case (Aleyn, 12) Child, C. v. (10 Pick. 252) i, 1265 —., C. v. (13 Pick. 198) i. 707 —, Reg. v. (5 Cox C. C. 197) ii. 910, 933 a, 933 b —, 8. v. (40 Kan, 482) i. 1066 —,S. v. (42 Kan. 611) i, 521, 1873 ——, S. v. (44 Kan. 420) i. 1895 Childers v. S. (52 Ga. 106) i. 1169, 1170 v. 8. (16 Tex. Ap. 524) i. 486 v. 8, (25 Tex. Ap. 658) i. 264 m — v. S. (30 Tex. Ap. 160; 28 Am. v. §. (1 Ala. Sel. Cas. 107; 38 St. 899) ii. 610, 613 Ala. 227) i. 458, 549 | ——, 8. v. (74 N. C. 180) i. 977 cv. 8. (385 Ind. 492) i. 994, 1086 ; v, San Jose Mercury Pr. &c. Co. ii. 625] (105 Cal. 254) ii. 801 v. §. (4 Tex. Ap. 444) i, 978 | Childress v. S. (86 Ala. 77) | i. 975 —, S. v. (25 Ark. 206) i. 816 | —— v. 8. (10 Tex. Ap. 698) ii. 740 —, Se. {i Ire. 114) ii. 431, 459 a| Childs v. S. (55 Ala. 28) i, 1265 —, S. r. (63 Mo. 864) i. 733, 770; | —— v. S. (58 Ala. 349) i. 1094 ii. 829 | —— v. 8. (76 Ala. 93 i. 975 c, 981 Cheere, Rex v. (4 B. & C. 902; 7 D. — v.§. (10 Tex. Ap. 183) i. 1280 & R. 461) ii, 285, 286 a | Chiles v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 260) i. 597 Cheeseman, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 455) — v.§. (45 Ark. 148) i, 983 1. 8 | Chilson, C. v. (2 Cush. 15) i, 816 Chenango, P. v. (1 Johns. Cas. 179) Chilton, S. v. (89 Mo. Ap. 51) i. 860 i. 8144 Chenango Sessions, P. v. (2 Caines Cas. 319) i. 1268, 1404 Chenery v. Goodrich (98 Mass. 224) ii. 786 Cheney, C. v. (6 Mass. 347) i. 144, 251 , C. v. (108 Mass. 33) i. 706 “Chenier, S. v (32 La. An. 108) i, 783 i. 1112 Cheny v. S. (7 Ohio, 222) ' i, 851 Cherry, C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 20) —- v. S. (6 Fla. 679) —i. 698, 699, 1264, 1346 — v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 4) i, 1264 —, S. v. (Meigs, 282) i, 2644 —,5S. v. (3 Murph. 7) i, 408 Chin Mook Sow, P. v. (51 Cal. 597) i, 9380, 1209 Chin Wah, S. v. (12 Nev. 118) i. 1264 Ching Hing Chang, P. v. (74 Cal. 389) i. 975 c, 978 Ching Ling, S. v. (16 Or. 419) i, 1276; ii. 608 Chinn’s Petition (2 T. B. Monr. 871) i, 1879 Chiovaro, C. v. (129 Mass. 489) i. 1287; ii, 525 Chisholm, C. v. (103 Mass, 213) i. 641 — v. Doulton (22 Q. B. D. 736; 16 Cox C. C. 675) ii. 519 877 CHU Chisolm v. S. (45 Ala. 66) i, 553 Chittem, S. v. (2 Dev. 49) ii. 13 Chittenden v. Mitchell (28 Vt, 131) i, 2644 — v. 8. (41 Wis. 285) i. 1381 Chitty, S. v. (1 Bailey, 379) i. 1285 Chitwood v. 8. (18 Ark. 453) i. 1265, 1268 Chivarrio v. S. (15 Tex. Ap. 380) i. 63 Choate, C. v. (105 Mass. 451) i. 1061, 1066 ; ii. 53 ——v. §. (2 Tex. Ap. 302) i, 1264 Choen v. S. (52 Ind. 847 ; 21 Am. R. 179) i. 683 — *.S. (85 Ind. 209) i. 704, 975 b Choice v. S. (31 Ga. 424) i..1179, 1265 Choiser, P. v. (10 Cal. 310) ii. 514 Chorley, Reg. v. (12 Q. B. 515) ii. 1054 Choteau v. Rice (1 Minn. 192) i. 316 Chouteau v. Pierre (9 Misso. 3) i. 917 Choy Ah Sing, P. v. (84 Cal. 276) i. 1250 Chrisman rv. 8. (18 Neb. 107) ii, 897 v. S, (54 Ark. 288; 26 Am. St. 44) ii. 602, 661 Christ v. P. (3 Colo. 894) —_i. 68, 73, 269 Christensen, P. v. (85 Cal. 568) i. 1094 , S. v. (21 Minn. 500) i, 1264 Christerson, P. v. (59 Ill. 157) i. 286 Christian v. C. (138 Bush, 264) i. 1019 — v. C. (23 Grat. 954) ii. 82 — v.C. (5 Met. 334) i. 1871 — v. C. (5 Met. 530) i. 1872, 1378 —, CO. v. (7 Grat. 631) i. 138 —, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 388) ii. 910 — ,S. v. (30 La. An. 367) 1.272, 711,901 Christian Society v. Macomber (3 Met. 235) Christie, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 579) ——, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 75) ——, Rex v. (Car. Crim. Law, 3d ed. i. 677 i, 934 i, 964 232) i. 1212 — v. §. (44 Ind. 408) i, 926 Christman, P. v. (66 Ill. 162) i. 1095 Christmas v. 8. (53 Ga. 81) i951 — , S. v. (4 Dev. & Bat. 410) i, 1857 —, 8. v. (6 Jones, N. C. 471) i. 976; ii. 675 —, S. v, (101 N. C. 749) ii. 140 Chumley v. S. (20 Tex. Ap. 547) i. 1120 — v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 87) i. 1170 —, S. v, (67 Mo. 41) — i. 1011; ii. 63, 77 Chun Heong, P. v. (86 Cal. 829) i. 975, 1066, 1147 Chung Ah Chue, P. v. (57 Cal. 567) i. 1196 Chung Lit, P. v. (17 Cal. 320) i. 923, 946 Church, C. v. (1 Pa. St. 105; 44 Am. D. 112) i, 761, 768, 1868, 1878 v. P. (10 Bradw. 222) i. 405 —, S. v. (43 Conn. 471) i. 1120 —, S. v. (8 Iowa, 252) i, 314a Churchill, C. v. (2 Met. 118) i. 1276 ; ii. 570 —, C. v. (11 Met. 588; 45 Am. D. 229 ii. 965 —,S. v, (48 Ark. 426) i, 892 520 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. CLA Chute v. §. (19 Minn. 271) i. 965; ii. 866, 867 Chyo Chiagk, S. v. (92 Mo. 895) i. 1U2u Cicely v. 8. (18 Sm. & M. 202) i. 980, 1094, 1275, 1278 Cicero v. S. (54 Ga. 156) i. 980, 9804 Cigars, U. S. v. (L Woolw. 123) i. 1090 City Council v. King (4 McCord, 487) i. 685 —— v. Payne (2 Nott & McC. 475) i. 188 —— v. Seeba (4 Strob. 319) i. 720 Claasen, In re (140 U. 8. 200) i. 1365 Claassen v. U.S. (142 U. 8. 140) i. 1327, 1329, 1332, 1368 Clackner v. S. (83 Ind. 412) ii. 740 Claflin, U. S. v. (18 Blatch. 178) i. 825 Claim of Ison, In re (6 Or. 469) i, 286 Clammer v. S. (9 Gill, 279) i, 1348 Clampitt v. S. (3 Tex. Ap. 688) i. 1264, 1400 —— v.58. (9 Tex. Ap. 27) i. 68, 72, 951 Clancy, C. v. (7 Allen, 587) — i. 498, 559; ii. 404, 406 Clanton v. §. (18 Tex. Ap. 139) _i. 887, 858, 918 Clap, C. v. (4 Mass. 168; 3 Am. D. 212 i. 1100 Clapp, C. v. (16 Gray, 237) i. 431 v. Fullerton (84 N. ¥. 190; 90 Am. D, 681) ii. 678 Clapper, S. v. (59 Iowa, 279) i. 870 Clapton, In re (8 Cox C. C. 126) ii. 827 Clare v. P. (9 Colo, 122) —— v. §. (68 Ind. 17) i. 975, 1076 i. 728, 869 4 —— v. 8. (5 Iowa, 509 i. 514 Clarissa, S. v. (11 Ala. 57) i, 852, 881, 1239 Clark, Ex parte (85 Cal. 203) i. 1410 —, In re (2 Ben. 540) i, 223 6 ——, In re (9 Wend. 212) j. 220, 222, 2234 —— »v. Bradstreet (80 Me. 454; 6 Am, St. 221) i. 965 uv. C. (16 B. Monr. 206) i, 486 ; ii. 415, 466 —— v. C, (29 Pa. 129) i. 931, 951 f v. C. (128 Pa. 555) i. 909, 975c, 1094 ; ii. 638a@ — v. C. (4 Pick. 125) i, 1378 —, C. v. (2 Ashm. 105) i, 627 C. v. (2 Browne, 323) i. 877, 878, 881 C. v, (6 Grat. 675) i. 772; ii. 86, 90 —, C. »v. (130 Pa. 641) i. 1262 —, C. v.(2 Va. Cas. 401) i, 674, 798 v. Cleveland (6 Hill, N. Y. 344) i. 189, 1388 —— »v. Ellis (2 Blackf. 8) i, 892 v. Freeman (11 Beav. 112) _ i. 1416 v, Freeman (25 Pa. 133) ii. 482@ —— v. Mitchell (64 Mo. 564) i, 891 v, P. (31 Il. 479) i. 1276 — v.P. (2 Lans. 329) ii. 176 —— v. P. (1 Scam. 117) i. 68, 72, 540 —— v. P. (6 Thomp. & C. 88) ii. 151 —, P. uv. (84 Cal. 578) i. 1250; ii. 618 CLA Clark, P. v. (2 Hun, 520) ii, 151 —,, P. v. (28 Hun, 374) i. 892 —, P. v. (10 Mich. 310) ii, 216, 220 —, P. v. (33 Mich. 112) , PR. v. (1 Par. Cr. 860) i. 443, 1179 i. 275, 277 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. CLE Clarke, Rex v. (2 Leach, 1036) ii. 761 ——,, Rex v, (8 Stark. 241) ii. 963, 966, 978 . 8. (78 Ala. 474; 56 Am. R, 45) i. 1181, 1182 —, P. v. (3 Seld. 385) i. 1401] —— x. S. (87 Ala. 71) i. 931, 1181, 1183 — v. Periam (2 Atk. 337) ii. 107 ) —— v. S. (85 Ga. 75) i. 1275; ii. 608, 606 — v. Post (113 N. Y. 17) i. 820 |] —— v. S. (82 Ind. 67) i. 465 —, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C. 54) — v. 8. (8 Ohio St. 630) ii. 402, 418 a 1. 1266 | ——, S. v. (81 Minn. 207) i. 571 —, Reg. v. (5 Q. B. 887) i. 1320 v. Territory (1 Wash. Ter. 68) ii. 63 —, Rex v. (1 D. & R. 48) i, 681, 793 v. Tyler (30 Grat. 134) i. 1800 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 181) ii, 751] ——, U.S. v, (40 Fed. Rep. 825) i. 496, —, Rex »v. (Russ. & Ry. 358) i. 546, 626 ; ii. 790 686 ; ii. 508 | Clarkson, P. v. (56 Mich. 164) i. 1127 —v.§. (19 Ala. 552) i, 611, 624, 639 | ——, S. v. (3 Ala. 878) i. 756, 849, 1345 — v.58. (46 Ala. 307) i, 360 |} —, S. v, (59 Mo. 149) i. 1264, 1272 v. 8. (49 Ala. 37) i. 978 | Clary v. Clary (2 Ire. 78) ii. 678 v. S. (8 Bax. 591) i. 1856 , P. v. (72 Cal. 59) i. 975 c, 980 — v. S. {12 Ga. 350) i, 405 | ——, P. v. (17 Wend. 874) i. 264 f, 2649 v. S. (387 Ga. 191) i. 1098 v. 8. (83 Ark. 561) — i. 610; ii. 1002 v. S. (4 Humph. 254) i, 273 | ——, S. v. (64 Me. 869) ii. 217, 222 —v.§. (1 Ind. 253; Smith, Ind. —, S. v. (248. C,116) i. 975c; ii. 153 161) i 665, 869 | Claudius, S. x. (1 Mo. Ap. 551) i, 965 v. S. (4 Ind. 268) i. 118] Claunch, Ex parte (71 Mo. 288) i, 230 —— v. 8. (14 Ind. 26) _ ii. 481, 456, 459 @| Clauson, P. v. (2 Utah, 502) ii. 740 v. S. (0 Ind. 436) i. 890} Claussen v. La Franz (1 Iowa, 226) i. 981 — v. S. (50 Ind. 514) i. 1182] Clavert v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 538) 1, 484a@ — v.5. (12 Ohio, 483; 40 Am. D. Clawson, S. v. (80 Mo. Ap. 189) i. 612 481) ii. 678, 688, 685, 687 | ——, S. v. (82 Mo. Ap. 93) i. 1278 — v.§. (3 Tex. Ap. 388) i. 1803 | —— v. U.S. (1138 U. 8. 148) i. 258 — vu. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 57) ii. 754] —— v. U.S. (114 U.S. 477) i. 850, 851 — v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 350) i. 931 a} Claxton v. S. (2 Humph. 181) i. 981 — v.§. (18 Tex. Ap. 467) i. 983, 1124] Clay v. P. (86 Il. 147 ii. 789 v. §. (27 Tex. Ap. 405) ii. 740 | ——, Reg. v. (5 Cox C. C. 146) ii. 965 v. 8. (28 Tex. Ap. 189; 19 Am. —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 276) i. 966d St. 817) i. 975, 999, 1199, 1248, 1261, 1274; ii. 740, 1006, 1007 a — v, §. (29 Tex. Ap. 357) i. 488 —— v. 8. (30 Tex. Ap. 377) i. 1274 —,S. v. (5 Dutcher, 96) ii, 850 —, 8. v. (3 Fost. N. H. 429) i, 486 —,S. v. (3 Ind. 451) i. 512 ——,, S. v. (69 Iowa, 294) ii. 9638 —, S. v. (72 Iowa, 30) ii. 175 —, S. v. (78 Iowa, 492) i. 975 ——., S. uv. (8 Ire. 226) ii, 700 —,S. ev. (84 Kan. 289) i, 718, 999 —, S. v. (32 La. An, 558) i. 269 —, S. v. (18 Mo, 432) i. 13848 —, S. v. (15 Ohio, 595) i. 264. a, 13871 —,S. v. (15 8. C. 403) ii, 631 — , S. v. (4 Strob. 311) i. 1252 —,5S. v. (2 Tyler, 277) ii. 910 —, S. v. (87 Vt. 471) i. 1265 — , S. ». (42 Vt. 629) i. 909; ii. 188, 142 —, U.S. «. (Crabbe, 584) ii. 815, 821, 829, 776.4 i. 1264 Clarke, Ex parte (62 Cal. 490) i, 13837 —, In re, (2 Q. B. 619) —— v. P. (16 Colo. 511) i. 1278 — , P. v. (42 Cal. 622) i. 1264 — , Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 421) fi. 147, 148 ——, Reg. v. (2 Fost. & F. 2) i. 1213 —,, Rex v. (1 Bulst, 208) i. 399 v. Richardson (2 A. K. Mar. 199) i. 1317 —— v. Robinson (7 W. Va. 348) i. 1179 — v.5S. (43 Ala. 350) i. 1006 —— v. 8. (6 Misso. 600) i. 3l4a v. 8. (40 Tex. 67) ii. 3 — , S. v. (100 Mo. 571) i. 81, 499 Clayton, Rex v. (2 Keb. 409) ii. 100, 863 v. S. (100 Ind. 201) i. 9984 —v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 515) i, 1254a; ii, 945 —., S. v. (100 Mo. 516; 18 Am. St. 565) i. 521, 585, 1094; ii. 56, 67 —, S. v. (11 Rich. 581) i. 472, 854, 899; ii. 2 Claytor v. Anthony (6 Rand. 285) i. 1248 Cleary, C. v. (152 Mass. 491) i. 1165 —, Reg. v. (2 Fost. & F. 850) — i. 1212 —,S. v. (40 Kan. 287) i. 975c, 980a Cleaveland v, §. (34 Ala. 254) ii. 364 —— v. 8. (20 Ind. 444) i. 688 Cleaver, Respublica v. (4 Yeates, oe i. 765, 768 Cleaves, S. v. (59 Me. 298; 8 Am. R. 422 i. 1186 Cleek v. C. (21 Grat. 777) i. 1291, 1810, 1383, 1884 Clegg, S. v. (27 Conn. 593) i, 314a Clellans v. C. (8 Pa. 223) i. 1878 521 CLI INDEX TO THE i. 1264 Clem v. C. (3 Met. Ky. 10) i. 860, 986 a; — v. S. (31 Ind. 480) ii. 600 — v. S. (83 Ind. 418) i. 868, 909 —— ov. S. (42 Ind. 420; 13 Am, R. 369) i. 752, 806, 811, 812, 814 Clemens, S. v. (88 Iowa, 257) i. 1169, 1170; ii. 1050, 1052 Clement v. Fisher (1 Man. & R. 481; 7B. & C. 459) ii. 600, 794 — , S. v. (42 La. An. 583) i. 449, 540; ii. 425 b, 426 Clementine v. S. (14 Mo. 112) ii. 112, ae Clements, Ex parte (50 Ala. 459) i. an — v. Clinton (Mart. & Yerg. 198) ii. 882, 383 i. 975c, 1118 i, 614; ii. 414, 419 —, P. v. (42 Hun, 353) —, P. v. (26 N.Y. 193) — _, P. v. (107 N. Y. 205; 42 Hun, 3538) ii, 918 —, Reg. °v. (2 Den. C, C. 251; 5 Cox C. C. 191) i, 865, 1208 — v. S. (50 Ala. 117) i. 160; ii. 603 v. S. (84 Ga. 660; 20 Am. St. 385) ii. 1001 —, U.S. vu. (3 Hughes, 509) i. 1020 Clemons, P. v. (37 Hun, 580) ii, 963 v. S. (4 Lea, 23) i, 1242; ii. 941 — , S. v. (9 Towa, 534) i. 1845 —, S. v. (51 Iowa, 274) i. 975, 1207 Clendon, Rex v. (2 Stra. 870; 2 Ld. Raym. 1572) i, 443; ii. 60 —, Rex v. (2 Stra. 911) i. 68 Clenny, S. v. (1 Head, 270) i. 814, 817 Clepper v. 8. (4 Tex. 242) i. 315 Clere v. C. (3 Grat. 615) i. 1015 Clerk, Rex v. (1 Salk. 870) i. 595, 1337 Cleveland, P. v. (49 Cal. 577) i. 951a, 980.a, 1170 —v. 8. (86 Ala.1) .975¢, 980, 1049; ii, 599 —, S. v. (58 Me. 564) ii. 584, 594 — v. Welsh (4 Mass. 591) i. 123 Clevenger, S. v. (25 Mo. Ap. 655) i. 499, 648, 649 Clevinger, S. v. (14 Ind, 366) i. 713 Clewes, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 221) i. 1107, 1222, 1232, 1233, 1239, 1241, 1261; if. 629 Cleworth, Reg. v. (4 B. & 8. 926) ii. 813 Clews, P. v. (4 Abb. N. Cas. 256) i. 966d —, P. v. (57 How. Pr. 245) i. 763 —, P. v. (14 Hun, 90) i. 254 —, P. uv. (77 N.Y. 39) i, 2640 Click v. 8. (3 Tex. 282) —, 8. v. (2 Ala. 26) i. 761; ii. 689 i. 370, 611, 629 Clifford, Ex parte (29 Ind. 106) —i. 1310 — , C. ». (8 Cush. 215) ii, 1002 — v.8. (56 Ind. 245) i. 975, 984; ii. 175 — v. S. (30 Md. 575) i. 1310 — v. §, (29 Wis. 327) i, 586 — , S. v. (58 Wis. 118) i, 1265 522 CASES CITED. COB Clifford v. S. (58 Wis. 127) i, 1299 —,S.v. (14 Nev. 72; 33 Am. R. 526) i. 740 - Clifton, Rex v. (5 T. BR. 498) i. 58, 691 —, Rex v. (6°T. R. 844) i. 691 —— 2. 8. (5 Blacké. 224) ii. 714 v. S. (58 Ga. 241) 1. 814a, 931; ii. 2, 105, 106, 118 —, S. v. (830 La. An. 951) i, 1004; ii. 187 —? 8. v. (24 Mo. 376) ii. 845 ——) §. v. (73 Mo. 430) i. 887 Cline, P. v. (74 Cal. 575) 4. 951 f, 975; ii. 740 7|——~, P. v. (83 Cal. 874) i. 1353 —, Pv. vr Mich. 290) ii, 173 8| Clingan v. East Tenn. &e. Rid. (2 Lea, 726) i. 931 Clink v. Russell (58 Mich. 242) i, 251 Clinton v. Estes (20 Ark. 216) ii. 12, 229, 230, 674 — v. S. (6 Bax. 507) i, 1855 , S. v. (67 Mo. 880; 29 Am. R. 508) j. 1181, 1182; ii. 412, 4325 Clogston, S. v. (63 Vt. 215) li, 921 Cloonan, P. v. (50 Cal. 449) i. 1169, 1170 Cloonen, C. v. (151 Pa. 605) ii. 684 Close, S. v. (85 Iowa, 570) ii. 877 a, 1050 Clothier, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 118) i. 1018 Clough, P. v. (59 Cal. 438) i. 943 —, P. v. (78 Cal. 348) i. 1169, 1170 v. S. (7 Neb. 820) i. 931, 946, 9668, 1097, 1269, 1352; ii, 628, 637 —, S. v. (49 Me. 573) i. 856 a, 861 -—, S. v. (23 Minn. 17) i. 279 Clouser, S. v. (72 Iowa, 302) i. 969 Clubb v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 192) i. 1151 Cluck v. S. (40 Ind. 263) i. 1110; ii. 634 Clueworth, Reg. v. (Holt, 339) — i. 1294; ii. 1056 Cluggish v. Rogers (13 Ind. 538) i. 229a@ Clum v. Smith (5 Hill, N.Y. 560) i. 1270 Clump, 8. v. (16 Mo. 385) i, 982, 1166, 1246, 13938° Cluverius v. C. (81 Va. 787) i. 907, 918, 1353; ii. 577, 590, 625 Clyburn, S. v. (16 S.C. 875) i. 931, 966 Coalheavers’ Case (1 Leach, 64) i. 468 Coates v. P. (72 Ill. 803) ii. 8, 4, 6a ——., Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 394) ii, 652 —— v. §. (50 Ark. 330) ii. 671 v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 16) i. 1287; ii. 967 v. §. (81 Tex. Cr. 257) ii. 1834, 189 Coats v. Darby (2 Comst. 517) - ii. 868 v, Elliott (23 Tex. 606) i. 979 v. P, (4 Par, Cr. 662) —_i. 449, 1116, 1169 ; ii. 829 Cobb, C. v. (120 Mass. 356) ii. 278 —— v. Lucas i Pick. 1) i. 687 v. P. (84 Ill. 511) i, 314 —— v. 8. (27 Ga. 648) i. 931, 949d, 9752, 1238, 1264 — v. 8. (45 Ga. 11) i. 9814 — v.S. (76 Ga. 664) i. 1074 — ». 8. (27 Ind. 133) i. 668 i, 264a, 2640 —, 8. v, (71 Me. 198) COF INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. coL Cobb, S. v. (44 Mo. Ap. 875) i. 264.a, 264c | Coffman v. C. (10 Bush, 495) i. 979 Cobbet, Respublica v. (8 Yeates, 93) —, P. vu. (24 Cal. 2380) ii. 670, 671 i. 264n | —, P. v. (59 Mich. 1) i. 931 Cobden, Reg. v. (3 Fost. & F. 833) i. 1125; | Cofren, S. v. (48 Me. 364) i. 895 : ii, 153 | Cogan v. Ebden (1 Bur. 883) i. 1014 Cobia v. S. (16 Ala. 781) ii. 595 | Coggin v. Jones (29 Ga. 257) i, 1279 Coble v. Coble (79 N. C. 589; 28 Coggswell, S. uv. (3 Blackf. 54) ii, 358 Am. R. 338) i. 9754 | Coghlan, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 316) v. 8. (81 Ohio St. 100) i. 1120 ii. 1028 Coch, P. ve (68 Cal. 627) ii. 48a | Cogswell v. S. (49 Ga. 103) i. 994 Cochilin v. P. (93 Ill. 410) i. 1277 | Cohea v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 153) i, 1248 Cochran, Ex parte (20 Tex. Ap. 242) i.261 v. §. (11 Tex. Ap. 622) i. 1170 — »v. Butterfield (18 N. H.115; 45 Cohen, C. v. (120 Mass. 198) i. 1891, Am. D. 363) ii. 482 a, 800 1896; ii. 980 —— v. Loring (17 Ohio, 409) - i. 9|—, C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 158) i. 1285 —, P. v. (61 Cal. 548) i. 909, 982 a v. Coleman (71 Ala. 496) i. 1317 v. S. (30 Ala. 542) — i, 454, 461, 586 | —— v. Huskisson (2 M. & W. 477) i. 170 — v. 8. (62 Ga. 731) i, 931 | —— v. P. (7 Colo. 274) * i. 611 v, 8. (7 Humph. 544) i, 995, 998. a, | —— v. P. (5 Par. Cr. 830) ii. 981, 983 1270, 1278 | —, P. »v. (8 Cal. 42) ii. 829 — v.58. (28 Tex. Ap. 422) ii, 601 | —, Reg. v. (8 Cox C.C. 41) i. 1052 Cochrane, Rex v. (3 M.&8.10) i. 276, ; ——v. S. (50 Ala. 108) 1, 1094, 1170; 1038 ii, 751 — v. S. (6 Ma. 400) i. 112; ii. 47 |—— v. S (32 Ark. 226) i, 400, 1074 — v.S. (30 Ohio St. 61) i. 1866 | —— v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 337) i. 975 c, 980 Cock v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 659) i. 68, 75, v. 8. (20 Tex. Ap. 224) ii. 329 814, 949 | Cohn, P. v. (76 Cal. 386) i. 1049 Cockburn, Rex v. (3 Cox C. C. 543) —_S. v. (9 Nev. 179) i. 1182; ii. 50 ii. 963 | Cohron v. S. (20 Ga. 752) i. 994 Cocke v. C. (13 Grat. 750) ii. 410, 486 | Coit v. S. (28 Ark. 417) i. 1402 —, S. v. (87 Tex. 155) i, 2647 | Cokely, Reg. v. (13 U. C. Q. B. 521) ii. 885 Cocker v. S. (31 Tex. 498) i. 978, 980 | —— ». S. (4 Iowa, 477) i. 8390; ii. 63 Cockerell, Rex v.(Andr. 260) i. 1005a! Coker v. S. (20 Ark. 53) i. 999, 1255, Cockerham, S. v. (1 Ire. 381) i, 691 1268 ; ii. 621 —, S. v. (2 Ire. 204) i. 1810, 1884 | —— v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 88) 1.665, 931 Cockfield, S. v. (15 Rich. 316) ii. 710 | Colbath v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 391) ii. 595 Cockin’s Case (2 Lewin, 235) ii. 742 | Colbert v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 314) i. 1064 Cockman, S. v. (Winst. ii. 95) i. 909, 949 | ——, S. v. (29 La. An. 715) i. 966, 982 a Cockreham v. 8. (7 Humph. 11) _ ii. 285, | ——, S. v. (75 N. C. 368) i. 769, 771 290 | Colby, C. v. (128 Mass. 91) ii. 867 Cockroft, Reg. v. (11 Cox C. C. 410) —, P. v. (54 Cal. 87) ° i. 850 ii. 966 | Colclough, S. v. (31 S. C, 156) i. 951, 959 a Cockrum »v. S. (24 Tex. 894) ii. 584, 595 | Coldiron, Ex parte (15 Tex. Ap. 464) Cocks v. Purday (2 Car. & K. 269) ii. 686 i, 252 Codd v. Cabe (1 Ex. D. 352) i. 190 | Cole’s Case (Sir F. Moore, 466) i. 578 Codding v. Bradford (116 Pa. 47) i. 1816, | —— Case (W. Jones, 170) i. 722 1317 | —— Trial (7 Abb. Pr. n.s.321) ii. 675 Cody v. S. (8 How. Missis. 27) i. 909, | Cole v. C. (5 Grat. 696) =i. 1124; ii. 725 982, 1857 | —— v. P. (84 Ill. 216) ii. 222 —,, S. v. (18 Or. 506) i. 975 c, 978 v. P. (87 Mich. 544) ii. 752 Coe, C. v. (115 Mass. 481) ii. 167, 178, | ——, P. v. (54 Mich. 238) ii. 751 184 | —, P. v. (48 N. Y. 508) i. 1195 Coella, S. v. (3 Wash. 99) i. 814, 975; | ——, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 35) i. 1116 ii. 621 | ——, P. v. (6 Par. Cr. 695) i, 262 Coffee v. S. (25 Fla. 501; 23 Am. St. —, Rex v. (1 Russ. Crimes, 5th 525 i, 1218, 1262) Eng. ed. 881) ii. 970 — v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 548) i. 1118 | ——, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 198) ii. 875 v. S. (5 Tex. Ap. 545) i. 975¢ | —— v. S. (5 Eng. 318) i. 278, 275, 1310; —, S. v. (56 Conn, 399) i. 1255 ii, 655, 658 Coffeen, In re (88 Mich. 311) i. 1410 | —— v. S. (29 Ohio St. 226) 1. 3l4a@ Coffelt v. S. (27 Tex. Ap. 608; 11 — v. S. (40 Tex. 147) i. 980, 1137 Am. St. 205) i. 486 ; ii. 1005 | —— v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 67) i. 801 Coffey, S. v. (41 Tex. 46) i, 440 | —— v. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 461) i. 61 Coffin v. Coffin (4 Mass.1; 8 Am. — v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 686; 19 Am. i, 2074 i. 1264 D. 189) St. 856) 523 COL INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. COL Cole, S. v. (63 Iowa, 695) ii. 629, 632 | Collins, C. v. (188 Mass. 483) ii. 782 —, S. v. (12 La, An. 471) i, 2647, 2647 v. Carnegie (1A. & E. 695) ii. 804 —,S. v. (83 La. An, 1356) i. 1817, 1818 v. Dispatch Pub. Co, (152 Pa. — , S. v, (88 La, An. 848) i. 712, 1192] 187; 34 Am. St, 686) ii. 801 —, S. v. (94 N. C. 958) i. 989, 1179 | —— v. Hutchins (21 Ga. 270) si. 978 —,S. v. (17 Wis. 674) i. 768, 851, 882, v. Lean (68 Cal. 284) i. 240, 241 883 | —— v. Makepeace (13 Ind. 448) ii. 409 , S.v. (19 Wis. 129; 88 Am. D. —— v. P. (39 Il. 283) i. 541, 699; ~ 678) i. 878, 947, 1128; ii. 428, 433, ii. 751, 1002 455, 456 | —— v. P. (98 Ill. 584; 38 Am. R. —, U.S. v. (5 McLean, 518) i. 1078; | =~ 105) i. 1169 ii. 227, 229 v. i (103 Ill. 21) i. 1279 Colee v. 8. (75 Ind. 511) i. 1094 P. (4 Thomp. & C. 77; 1 Coleman v. C. (25 Grat. 865 ; 18 Am. : Hom 610) _ 162 R. 711) i. 9756; ii. 412 | —, P. v. (48 Cal. 277) _ i, 1250 v. C. i Va. 1) ii. 972 | ——, P. v. (64 Cal. 293) ii. 1007 a — v.C. (2 Met. Ky. 382) i. 250, 2644 | ——, P. v. (7 Johns. 549) i. 687 v. P. (55 N. Y. 81) i. 1070, 1128 ;| ——, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 461) ii. 412 ii. 990 | ——, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 805) i. 981 a, 962 —— v. P. (58 N. ¥. 555) i. 1129; ii. 990] ——, Rex v. (2 Leach, 827) i. 605, 606 —— v.8. (55 Ala. 173) i. 1817 | —— v. S. (88 Ala. 434; 72 Am. D. — uv. S. (59 Ala. 52) i.1094} 426) i. 1000; i 991 — v.§.(71 Ala. 312) i. 764 | —— v. S. (88 Ala. 212) 892 — v. S. (87 Ala. 14) i. 1249 v. S. (13 Fla. 651) — i. 186, 140, 1850 — v. §. (17 Fla. 206) i. 975, 998 a | —— v. S. (31 Fla. 574) 931 —— v. 8. (28 Ga. 78) i. 1270 | —— v. S. (73 Ga. 76) ii. “1018 —— v. 8. (111 Ind. 563) i, 975 | ——v. S. (3 Heisk. 14) ii. 92, 646 v. 8. (10 Md. 168) i. 264a v. 8. (8 Ind. 344) i. 279, 280 v. S. (59 Missis. 484) i. 917, 1116 |} ——». S. (11 Ind. 312) i, 229 v. 8. (14 Mo. 157) i. 1154 v. S. (48 Tex. 577) i. 572, 688 v. S. (44 Tex. 109) i. 1169, 1810 | —— v.S. (8 Tex. Ap. 323 ; 30 Am. R. v. 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 512) ii. 142 142) i, 378 v. 8. (26 Tex. Ap. 252) ii. 147 | —— v. S. (5 Tex. Ap. 37) i. 390 —, 5S. v. (22 La. An. 455) i. 1079 v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 38) i. 1121 — , S. v. (27 La. An. 691) i. 276, 666, | —— v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 72) i. 1269 667, 909; ii. 670, 672, 678, 674, 682, | —— v. S. (6 Tex. an 647) i711; ii. 764 687 a | —— v. §. (12 Tex. Ap. 356) i, 264 m —,S.v. (5 Port. 82) i. 449, 453, 457, v. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 274) i, 264 m 764, 13832 | —— v. S. (20 Tex. Ap. 197) i. 540; ii. 146 —, S8.v. (68. C. 185) i. 978 | ——v. S. (20 Tex. Ap. 399) 1.1218, 1242 —, S.v. (8S. C. 237) i. 68, 72, 354, 931 v. 8. (25 Tex. Supp. 202) ii. 92, 127 —,S. v. (17S. C. 478) ii. 584 | ——, S. v. (19 Ark. 587) i611; a 346 —, S. v. (20S. C.441) 1. 906 ; ii. 670, 685 | ——, S. v. (6 Bax. 151) 1348 — v. Southwick (9 Johns. 45; —, 8. v. (8 Dev. 117) i. 698, 700, 1879 6 Am. D. 253) ii. 783 | ——, S. v. (8 Hawks, 191) ii. 269 Coley, Reg. v. (10 Cox C.C. 586) i. 1223 | ——, S. v. (20 Iowa, 85) i. 980, 1063, 1077, Collberg, C. v. (119 Mass. 350; 20 1079, 1152 Am. R. 828) ii. 61 | ——, 8. v. (32 Iowa, 36) i, 1197 Collens, S. v. (87 La. An. 607) i. 682 | ——, S. v. (8 Ire. 407) i. 980, 989 d, 1859 Colleton, P. v. (59 Mich. 573) i. 314a | —, S. v. (383 La. An, 152) i. 1858 Collett, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 498) ii. 188 | ——, S. v. (15 Lea, 434) i, 1274 Colley, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 475) ii. 34 | ——, S. v. (81 Mo. 652) i. 995 ——, Rex v. (Moody & M. 829) i. 1192 | ——, S. uv. (86 Mo. 245) 1.931, 975c, 9984 Collier v. Hicks (2 B. & Ad. 663) i. 726 ,S.v. (70 N. C. 241; 16 Am. R. —,, P. vu. (1 Mich. 187; 48 Am. D. 771) i, 313 699) ii. 921] ——, S. v. (72 N. C. 144) ii, 738 — v.§. (13 Ark. 676) i. 1207 | —, S. v. (98 N. C. 564) i. 9665 —— v.58. (20 Ark. 86) i. 314a, 949, 1019, | —, S. v. (88 Tex. 189) ii, 1051, 1052 1212, 1218, 1264; ii. 15 | ——, S. v. (20 Vroom, 167) i, 966 d — v. S. (2 Stew. 388) i. 1357 | ——, U. S. v. (1 Woods, 499) i, 849 —— v. Simpson (5 Car. & P. 73) ii. 686 | Collis, S. v. (78 Iowa, 542) i, 870 Collins, Ex parte (94 Mo. 22) i. 1810 | Collison, P. v. (85 Mich. 105) i. 977 — v. C. (12 Bush, 271) i. 1195, 1207 | Collyer, S. v. (17 Nev. 275) i, 882 —, C. v. (2 Cush. 556) i. 1265 | Colmere, P. v. (23 Cal. 631) i. 1276 —, C. v. (9 Leigh, 666) i. 188! Colquitt v. S. (61 Ala. 48) i. 1057 524 CON Colson, P. v. (49 Cal. 679) i. 905 — v.S. (7 Blackf. 590) i, 639 Colt v. Kves (12 Conn. 248) i. 891, 894 — v. P. (1 Par. Cr, 611) i. 558, 931, 981 a, 1362 —, P. v. (3 Hill, N. Y. 482) i. 1265; ii. 514 Colter, Ex parte (385 Ind. 109) i. 261 —,, 8. v. (6 R. I. 195) i. 489 Colton, C. v. (8 Gray, 488) ii. 488, 813 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. CON Cone, S. v. (82 Ga. 663) i, 2647 —,S. rv. (1 Jones, N. C. 18) ii, 969 Coney, Reg. v. (8 Q. B. D. 5384; 16 Cox C. C. 46) i. 978; ii. 24 — 1.8. (43 Tex. 414) i. 977 v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 62) i. 443; ii. 63, 67 Congdon, P. v. (77 Mich. 351) i. 975 ¢, 978 ——, §. v. (14 RB. 1. 267) i. 850, 851 —, 8. z. (14 R. I. 458) i. 901, 965 Conger, P. v. (1. Wheeler Crim. Cas. 448 —, C.v. (11 Gray, 1) i. 660, 665, 1391, ) ii. 178 1396 Congleton, P. v. (44 Cal. 92) i. 68, 72; v, §. (7 Tex. Ap. 50) i. 951 ii. 68a i. 1816 | Conkey v. P. (1 Abb. Ap. 418; 5 Columbia, P. xv. (67 N. Y. 830) —, P.v. (184. N. Y. 1) i, 2244 Columbia Common Pleas, P. v. (1 Wend. 297) i. 1270 Colvert v. Moore (1 Bailey, 549) i, 285 Colvig v. Klamath (16 Or. 244) i. 286 Colvin, S. v. (90 N. C. 717) ii. 86 Colwell, S. v. (3 R. 1. 284) i, 585, 586 Coman, P. v. (49 How. Pr. 91) i. 264A — v. S. (4 Blackf. 241) i. 1399 Combs v. P. (39 Ill. 183) i. 264. a, 264.c — , Rex v. (Comb, 243) i. 768 —v.S8. (75 Ind. 215) — . 9755; ii. 627 — , S. v. (47 Kan. 186) ii, 821, 322 Comer, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 516) ii. 764 v. 8. (26 Tex. Ap. 509) i, 586 Comerford v, 8. (23 Ohio St. 599) i. 1862 Comfort v. C. (6 Whart. 437) ii. 896 — v. P. (54 Ill, 404) ii. 740, 741 — , S. v. (22 Minn. 271) i. 611 —., 5S. uv. (5 Misso. 357) i. 613 Comings, S. v. (54 Minn. 359) ii. 329 Commander v. S. (60 Ala. 1) i. 983; ii. 630 Commerell, Rex v. (4 M.&8. 203) 1.1814 Commissioners v. Hall (7 Watts, am) v. Hanion (1 Nott & McC. 664) 5 | ——, S. v. (88 N. H. 81) Par. Cr. 31) i. 856, 889, 1249, 1331; ii, 957, 968, 965 Conkle, S. v. (16 W. Va. 786) i. 733 Conklin v. 8. (8 Ind. 458) i. 229 —— v. 8. (25 Neb. 784) i. 828 Conkwright v. P. (35 Ill. 204) ii. 741 Conlee v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 222) i. 626 ; ii. 808 Conley v. P. (80 Ill. 236) i. 941 8. (5 W. Va. 522) i, 486 —, S. v, (89 Me. 78) i. 379, 660, 662, 665, 980, 1004, 1018 ; ii. 520, 521, 528, 532, 541, 549 Conlin, S. v. (27 Vt. 818) i, 806, 810, 817, 892 Conn v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 890) i. 975 b Connaghan v. P. (88 Ill. 460) i. 1277 Connecticut River Rid. C. v. (15 © Gray, 447) i, 284, 285 Connell, C. v. (8 Grat. 587) ii. 941 —— v.County Judge (2 Head, 189) i. 1317 ——, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 190) ii. 255, 259 smn B.S (2 Tex. Ap. 422) ii. 727 —, S. v. (49 Mo. 282) i. 878, 1264, 1265, 1269 0s i. 1189 Connelly v. Magowan (3 T. B. Monr, i. 432 a 152) i. 1869 v, Lynah (2 McCord, 170) i 1403 —, 8. rv. (3 Hill, S. C. 149) ii. 869 4 34) i. 892 Compton v. P. (86 Ill. 176) i. 264 m | ——, S. v. (7 Mo. Ap. 40) i. 999 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 139) ii, 141 | Conner v. C. (3 Binn. 38) i, 187, 230 — v. §. (13 Tex. Ap. 271;, 44 — v. C. (13 Bush, 714) i, 612 Am. R. 703) i, 1152 | —— v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 30) ii. 910 —,S. v. (13 W. Va. 852) i. 882 | ——, C. v. (9 Philad. 691) i. 816 — 58. ». (77 Wis. 460) i. 68, 74 | —— v. P. (20 Ill. 881) i, 264 ¢ —— v. Wilder (40 Ohio St. 180) i, 2242 | —— v. 8. (25 Ga. 615; 71 Am. D. Comstock, S. v. (46 Iowa, 265) ii. 957, 967 184) i. 123, 408, 931 ——, S. v. (20 Kan. 650) i. 9750 | —— v. S. (18 Ind. 428) i, 1359 —) 8. v. (27 Vt. 553) i. 107, 260, 717,| — v. S. (14 Mo. 861) ii, 141 1331 — v.8. (84 Tex. 659) i. 1046, 1093, 1241 Conant, P. v. (59 Mich. 565) i. 1272 | —— v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 455) ii. 740 Conatser v. S. (12 Lea, 436) i, 909 | —— v. S. (17 Tex. Ap. 1) i. 975 ¢ Concannon, C. v. (5 Allen, 602) ii. 821,) —— v. S. (4 Yerg. 1373 26 Am. D. 326, 829] 217) i, 1859 Conde, Reg. v. (10 Cox C. C, 547) i. 1111} —, S. v. (5 Blackf. 325) i, 665 Condenv. Coulter (Cas. temp. Hardw. Conners v. 8. (31 Tex. Cr. 458) i. 976¢ $14) i, 705 | —— v, S. (47 Wis. 5238) ii. 962 aie S. v. (5 Jones, N.C, 418) i. 1164 | ——, S. v. (20 W. Va. 1) i, 269 Cone, C. v. (2 Mass, 132) ii, 466 Connolly, 8. v. (8 Rich, 387 i. 1016 —— ». 8, (18 Tex. Ap. 483) i. 975 c, 978, | Connor, C. v. (5 Leigh, 718 i. 1050 1265 ' —— v. P. (4 Colo. 184) i, 2644 525 coo Connor ». S. (29 Fla. 455; 30 Am. St. 126) ii, 197 —, 8. v. (2 Bay, 34) i. 258 — , S. v. (5 Coldw. 811) ii. 724 —, 8. v. (59 Iowa, 357; 44 Am. R. 636) ii, 660 Connors, C. v. (116, Mass. 35) i, 4U2 — v. P. (50 N. ¥. 240) i. 118, 1183, 1186 — v.8. (16 Vroom, 211) ii. 77 Conolly v. P. (8 Scam. 474) ii. 56, 85 Conoly v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 412) ii. 180, 146 Conover v. S. (86 Ind. 99) i. 798 Conrad, S. v. (21 Mo. 271) i. 761 — 8. v. (95 N. C. 686) i 1222 , Territory v. (1 Dak. 363) i. 1310, 1373 Conraddy v. P. (5 Par. Cr. 234) i. 160 Conroy, P. v. (97 N. Y. 62) i. 975c¢ Conspirators, Rex v. (2 How. St. Tr. 159) i. 973 Constable, Rex v. (7 D. & R. 663; 8 B. & Ad. 659, note) i, 275 Constitution v. Woodworth (1 Scam. 511) i. 1264 Converse, In re (187 U. S, 624) i. 100 a, 612 , P. v. (74 Mich. 478; 16 Am. St. 648) ii. 829 Conway v. Reg. (7 Ir. Law, 149; 1 Cox C. C, 210) i, 822 — v. §. (4 Ind. 94) i, 486 v. S. (118 Ind, 482) i. 1020, 1179 ——, 8. v. (35 La. An. 350) i, 931 —, 8. v. (23 Minn. 291) i. 998 a, 1285 Conyers v. 8. (50 Ga. 103; 15 Am. R. 686) i. 1049 Coogan, Rex v, (1 Leach, 448) i. 789 Cook’s Case (Cro. Car. 587) i. 195 Case (4 Harg. St. Tr. 737; 18 How. St. Tr. 811) i, 612, 934 Cook v. Berth (108 Mass. 73) i. 706 — »v. C. (86 Ky. 663) i, 298, 969 —, C. v, (18 B. Monr. 149) i, 547, 624 ——, C.v. (68. & R. 577; 9 Am. D. 465 i. 1036 v. Cook (53 Barb. 180) ii, 674 —— v. Cox (3 M. & S. 110) i. 580; ii. 789 —— v. P. (2 Thomp. & C. 404) i, 458 —, P. uv, (14 Barb. 259) i. 683, 687 —— P. v. (46 Hun, 34) i. 1264 ——, P. v. (10 Mich. 164) i. 711, 977 —, P. v. (39 Mich. 236 ; 33 Am. R. 880) ii. 619 —, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 12) ii. 731 —— v. Parham (24 Ala. 21) i, 1179 ——, Rex v, (4 D. & R. 114) i. 681 —, Rex v, (1 Man. & R. 526) i, 691 ——, Rex v. (Russ, & Ry. 176) i, 649 —'v. S. (88 Ala. 62; 3 Am. St 688) ii, 84, 48 4 v, 8. (7 Blackf. 165) , i 8l4a —— v. 8. (20 Fla. 802) i, 860 —v. 8. (26 Fla. 698) i. 611 —. S (11 Ga, 68; 66 Am. D. ) i, 888, 400 — v, §. (26 Ga. 693) i. 639, 951 a, 1004, 1005 a, 1007 526 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. Coo Cook v. S. (29 Ga. 75) i. 1278 — v. 8. (16 Lea, 461) ii. 740 —— v. 8. (49 Missis. 8) ii. 764, 765 — v. §S. (4 Tex. Ap. 265) i. 982 a; ii. 705 v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 96) i. 1159 v. §. (30 Tex. Ap. 607) i. 1198 v. S. (4 Zab. 848) i. 1179, 1218 ; ii. 978, 976 ii. 401, 402, 417 —,S. v. (62 Ind. 574) —S. v. (65 Iowa, 500) if, 965 —'§. v. (17 Kan. 392) ii, 681, 632 —, 8. v. (20 La. An, 145) i. 457; ii. 8, 1002 —, S. v. (23 La. An, 347) i. 1196 —, S. v. (1 Misso. 547) i. 379 —, S§. v. (84 Mo. 40) i. 1181, 1182 —, 8. v. (15 Rich. 29) i, 1228, 1238 —, 8. v. (Riley, 234) i, 665, 666 — ». Territory (8 Wy. 110) ii. 598, 599 v. U.S. (188 U.S. 157) i. 64 —, U.S. 0. (17 Wal. 108) i. 405, 634, 635, 636, 638, 772; ii, 829 Cooke, Petitioner (15 Pick. 234) i. 1264, 1368, 1410 —, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 582) i. 701, 1098 ; ii. 427 a ——, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 586) ii. 422, 472 —,, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 64) i, 53 ——, Rex v. (2 B. & C. 618) i. 798 ——, Rex v. (2 B. & C. 871) i. 793 — , Rex v. (1 Car. & P. 821) i. 1040, 1818 ——, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 559) i, 488 ——, Rex v. (7 D. & R. 673; 5B. & C. 538) i. 1086 —— »v. State National Bank (52 N. Y. 96) i, 815 Cooksie v. S. (26 Tex. Ap. 72) i. 975a, ii. 320 Cooley, C. v. (6 Gray, 850) i. 191, 1177; ii. 68, 895 ——, C. v. (10 Pick. 87) i. 602; ii. 1010 v. 8. (55 Ala. 162) i, 1254a@ Coolidge v. Choate (11 Met. 79) ii. 751 —— v. Guthrie (1 Flip. 97) i. 314a —-, U.S. v. (2 Gallis. 364) i. 865 Coombes, Rex v. (1 Leach, 388; 1 East P. C. 367) i. 58; ii. 688 Coon, P. v. (45 Cal. 672) i. 486, 488 8 ; ii. 738 —, P. v, (15 Wend. 277) ii. 826 — v. 8. (13 Sm. & M. 246) i. 49, 1241 ——, S. v. (18 Minn, 518) i, 1005 Cooper v. Adams (2 Blackf. 294) i. ee 188 —— v. Bissell (15 Johns. 318) i. 1014 —— »v. Booth (8 Esp. 135 i, 196 —, C. vo. (6 Allen, 495 ; 81 Am. D. 762) i, 1212 — ». Marlow (3 Misso. 188) ii. 809 — »v. P. (18 Colo. 837, 373) i, 892. ——, P. v. (42 Hun, 196) i. 8144 —, Reg. v. (8 Car. & K. 818) ii. 742 —, Reg. v. (8 Cox C.C. 647) ii. 1029 —, Reg. v. (1 Q. B. D..19) ii, 187 —, Reg. v. (2Q. B.D. 510) i. 9802; ii. 182, 187 COP Cooper, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 585) i. 1100, 1289 ——, Rex v. (2 Stra, 1246) i. 530; ii. 100, 200, 868 —v. 8. (63 Ala. 80) i. 1086; ii. 740 —— v8. (79 Ala. 54) i. 966 —v.§. (86 Ala. 610; 11 Am. St. 84) i. 1047, 1097 — v. S. (87 Ala. 185) ii. 740 v. §. (88 Ala. 107) i. 1274, 1285 v. 8. (63 Ga. 515) i. 704 v. S. (47 Ind. 61) i. 816 v. . (75 Ind. 62 ii. 290 v. S. (79 Ind, 206) i, 423, 700; ii. 698 5 v. 8. (120 Ind. 377) i. 884 a, 998 a, 1279 v. 8. (64 Md. 40) i. 747, 930 v. S, (53 Missis. 393) i. 1277 v. 8. (59 Missis, 267) i. 869 a v. §. (16 Ohio St. 328) i, 909 v. §. (19 Tex. 449) i, 1078 — v.§. (23 Tex. 331) i. 1175; ii. 676 — v.8. (6 Tex. Ap. 215; 32 Am. R. 571 i. 264 i ) v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 194) i. 951, 1054, 1195 —— v. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 341) i. 1279 —v. S. (29 Tex. Ap. 8, 19; 25 Am. St. 712) i. 1170 —,, S. u. (2 Black, 226) —, 8. v. (31 Kan. 505) —, 8. v. (45 Mo. 64) i. 976 —’ S. v. (71 Mo. 436) i. 1181 — , S. v. (85 Mo. 256) i. 1125 —,S. v. (103 Mo. 266) i. 975 c, 1050 ——} S. v. (88 N. C.671) i. 981 Cooster, S. v. (10 Iowa, 453) i. 486 ——, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 4 P. C. 599; 12 Cox C. C. 557) — i. 1284, 1255, 1256 Coote, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 557; Law Rep. 4 P. C. 599) i, 1255 Coover, S. v. (49 Mo. 482) i. 123, 730 Cope, Rex v. (6 A. & E. 226; 7 Car. & P. 720) ii. 822 —, Rex v. (1 Stra. 144) ii, 227 Copeland, Reg. v. (5 Cox C. C. 299) i. 867 v. 8. (7 Humph. 479) i. 1278 — v. S. (23 Missis. 257) ji. 912 —, S. v. (65 Mo. 497) i. 1863 —, S. v. (2 Swan, Tenn. 626) i. 750 Copeney v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 473) i. 1265 Copenhaven ». S. (14 Ga. 22) i. 908, 951 a Copley, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F.1097) i, 963 Copp, S. v. (84 Kan. 522) i. 860, 854 ——, S.v. (15 N. H. 212) i. 487; ii. ee Coppack v. 8. (86 Ind. 618) ii, 915 Coppage v. C. (8 Bush, 582) i, 1202 Coppard, Rex v. (8 Car. & P. 59; Moody & M.118 i. 488 a; ii, 910 Coppenburg, S. v. (2 Strob. 278) _ i. 478, 689 a, 1159, 1160; ii. 982, 988 a Copperman v. P. (56 N. ¥.691) i. vo ii. INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. COR Coppersmith, S. v. (88 N. C. 614) i. 314¢@ Copping v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 61) i, 585 Copsey, P. v. (71 Cal. 548) i. 934 Corbett, P. v. (28 Cal. 328) i. 733 v. 8. (81 Ala. 329) i. 980 b, 1241, 1244; ii. 751 — v. 8. (24 Ga. 391) i, 258 —,S. v. (1 Jones, N. C. 264) ii. 161 —— v. Sullivan (54 Vt. 619) i, 184 , Territory v. (8 Mont. 50) i. 1170 Corbin, P. v. (56 N. Y. 3863; 15 Am. R. 427) i. 1128; ii. 428 v. Shearer (3 Gilman, 482) i. 980 5 Corbit v. Smith (7 Iowa, 60; 7] Am. D. 4381 ii, 674 Corcoran, S. v. (88 La. An, 949) i. 1085 Cordell v. 8. (22 Ind. 1) ii. 524 Cordes, S. v. (1 Rice, 152) i. 1275 Cordova v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 207) i, 1249 — v.S. (6 Tex. Ap. 445) i. 1264 Cordy, Rex v. (8 Car. & P. 425) i. 779. Core, S. v. (70 Mo. 491) i, 909, 1881 Corey v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 490) i. dl4a Corkin, C. v. (136 Mass. 429) i. 1126 Corkrey, S. v. (64 Me. 521) i. 1264 Corley v. S. (28 Ala. 22) i. 1081, 1147 — 2.8. (50 Ark. 305) i. 457, 989, 1220, 1236 —— v.§. (87 Ga. 332) i. 1279 v. §. (8 Tex. Ap. 412) i. 870; ii. 286 a Corlies, C. v. (8 Brews. 575; 8 Philad. 450 i. 58, 61; ii. 206, 236 — v. Corlies (2 Harrison, 167) ii. 886 Corneille v. S. (16 Ind. 282) ii, 67 Cornelison v. C. (84 Ky. 583) i. 892, 1262 Cornelius v. C. (15 B. Monr. 5389) i. 314 a, 1247, 1248, 1264, 1276; ii. 229, 622 —, Rex v. (2 Stra. 1210) i. 965 v. 8. (7 Eng. 782) i. 665, 999 — v. §. (18 Tex. Ap. 349) ii, 972 Cornell, C. v. (2 Dana, 136) i. 1050 —, Pv. (16 Cal. 187) i, 1264 — yr. 8. (7 Bax. 620) i. 611; ii. 1050 v. S. (6 Lea, 624) i. 1310 —, S.v. (45 Mo. Ap. 94) i, 717 ——, U.S. v. (2 Mason, 91) i. 65 Cornes v. Wilkin (79 N. Y. 129) i. 683 Cornetti, P. v. (92 N. Y. 85) i, 909 Cornhill’s Case (1 Lev. 149) i, 1869 Corning v. Lowerre (6 Johns. Ch.. 439) i, 1 . 1417 ——,, P.v. (2 Comst. 9; 49 Am. D. 364 i i, 281 9 | Cornish, S. v. (5 Harring. Del. 502) ei is Cornwall’s Case (Sir F. Moore, 302) ae i, Cornwall v. Gould (4 Pick. 444) i. 1014 Cornwell v. S. (Mart. & Yerg. 147) i. 665 —v. S. (58 Missis. 885) i. 869 a, 1843 Corrigan, S. v. (24 Conn. 286) i. 481, 592 Corson, 8. v. (1 Fairf. 473) i. 280, 233 527 cou Corson, S. v. (59 Me. 187) i. 98a; ii. 902, 918 —, S. v. (12 Misso. 494) Cortes, In re (136 U. S. 330) Cory v. 8. (53 Ga. 236) i. 869 a, 877 i, 224, 1410 i. 1266 — v. S. (55 Ga. 236) ii. 329 — v. Silcox (5 Ind. 370) i. 1001 Cosgrove, S. v. (16 R. I. 411) i, 926 Costello, C. v. (119 Mass. 214) ii, 436 —, C. v. (121 Mass. 371; 28 Am. R. 277) i. 276 — , C. v. (128 Mass. 88) i. 1002 —, P. v. (1 Denio, 88) i. 452, 458, 460, 1169 Costley, C. v. (118 Mass. 1) 3. 50, 56, 384, 980, 1003, 1094, 1354; ii. 615 Costly v. S. (19 Ga. 614) i, 946 Coston v. Coston (25 Md. 500) i. 1564 Cotta, P. v. (49 Cal. 166) i. 68, 74, 905, 978, 1248 Cotten v. McGehee (54 Missis, 621) i. 1842 —— , S. v. (36 La. An. 980) i. 1291 Cotteral, P. v. (18 Johns. 115) i. 1100 Cottingham, U. S. v. (2 Blatch. 470) i. 948 Cottle, P. v. (6 Cal. 227) i. 909 Cotton v. Mississippi, &c. Boom Co. an (19 Minn. 497) i. Cox C. C. 400; 5 ——, Reg. v. (12 Eng. Rep. 479) i. 1128; ii. 628 ». 8. (87 Ala. 75) i. 118 —— pv. S. (87 Ala. 103) i. 1181, 1183; ii. 972 —— v. S. (31 Missis. 504) i. 853, 909, 980 ; 1 ii, 615 v. 8. (4 Tex. 260) i. 966d v. 8. (7 Tex. 547) i. 264. — »v. 8. (29 Tex. 186) i. 1269 — v.§. (82 Tex. 614) i. 68, 72 3 DoE —v. 43 Tex. 169) i. 859 —, S. vu. (4 Fost. No H. 143) i. 878, 375, 798 ; ii. 7382 —, S. v. (29 Minn. 187) ii. 1053 v. U. S. (9 How. U. 8. 579) i, 8144 Cottrill, S. v. (81 W. Va. 162) i, 893 Couch v. §. (63 Ala. 163) i, 850 — v. S. (28 Ga. 367) i. 951f; ii. 486 — v. S. (24 Tex. 557) ii, 278 Coughlin, C. v. (123 Mass. 436) —i. 184; ii. 892 v. P, (18 Ill. 266; 68 Am. D. 641) i, 980 b, 1071 —— v. P. (144 Ill. 140) i, 909 Couk, Territory v. (2 Dak. 188) i, 626 Couley v. S. (12 Misso. 462) _ i, 969, 1220 Coulson, Reg. v. (1 Den, C. C. 592; Temp. & M. 332; 4 Cox C,C. 227; 1Eng L. & Eq 550) ii. 183 —— vr. 8. (16 Tex. Ap. 189) ii, 789 Coulter, S. v. (46 Mo. 664) i. 889, 519 Council, S. v. (1 Tenn. 305) i, 1100 Counsil, S. v. (Harper, 53) ii. 981 Counts v. S. (19 Tex. Ap. 450) 1. 975, 1079 County, Rex v. (2 Russ, Crimes, 3d Eng. ed. 118) i. 60 528 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. cox County Judge, P. v. (40 Cal. 479) i. 1878 County Prison Superintendent, C. v. (97 Pa. 211) i. 951 Coupenhaver, S. v. (89 Mo. 480) —_ i. 1270 Coupey v. Henley (2 Esp. 540) i. 181, 184 Court, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 486) i, 1227 Courtney, P. v. (28 Hun, 589) i. 1170 —, P. v. (94 N. Y. 490) i. 1181, 1183 —v. 8. (3 Tex. Ap. 257) ii. 702 — v. §. (13 Tex. Ap. 502) i. 975¢ Courvoisier, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 362) i. 969, 971 Cousins, C. v. (2 Leigh, 708) i. 59 —, 8. v. (58 Iowa, 250) i. 1170 Coveney, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 667) i. 2345 Covenhoven »v. S. (Coxe, 258) i, 845 Cover, Rex v. (1 Sid. 91) ii, 362 Covington v. C. (3 Bush, 478) i. 264 a — v.§. (79 Ga. 687) i. 975¢ —, 8. v. (4 Ala. 603) i. 1088 ——, 8. v. (2 Bailey, 569) i. 1241 —, S. v. (45 La, An. 979) i. 909 —, S.v. (94 N. C.913; 55 Am. R. 650) ii. 403 Covy v. S. (4 Port. 186) i, 870, 378, 374, 452 Cowan »v. S. (22 Neb. 519) i. 612, 1094; ii. 175 —,, S. v. (1 Head, 280) i. 865, 868 —, S. ». (7 Ire. 239) i. 1244, 1259; ii. 1008 a — , S. v. (29 Mo. 330) i. 145 Coward v. Baddeley (4 H. & N. 478) i. 170 S. (6 Tex. Ap. 59) i, 951; ii. 629 Cowell v. Patterson (49 Iowa, 514) i 2846 —v. ——, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 617) ii, 982 —, S. v. (12 Nev. 387) ii. 149 Cowen ». P. (14 IIL. 348) ii. 170 — v.S. (8 Tex. Ap. 380) i. 264m Cowgill, P. v. (98 Cal. 596 i. 981, 1118 Cowle, Rex v. (2 Bur. 834) i. 68 Cowles v. Brittain (2 Hawks, 204) i. 892 —— v. Dunbar (2 Car. & P. 565) i. 168, 181, 214 — v.58. (50 Ala. 454) ii. 167, 175, 187 Cowley v. P. (21 Hun, 415) i. 1097 v, P. (83 N. Y. 464; 88 Am. R. 64) i, 1179 Cowman »v. S, (12 Md. 250) i. 786, 1287 Cowper, Rex v. (Skin. 687) i, 141 Cox, Ex parte (12 Tex. Ap. 665) i. 68, 74 ——,, Ex parte (29 Tex. Ap. 84) i. 1827 — v. C. (125 Pa. 94) i. 1169 —, C. v. (7 Allen, 577)) ii, 846 —— v. Coleridge (1 B. & C. 87; 2 D. & R. 86) i. 233, 726, 1299 — v. Ledward (124 Pa. 435) i. 1074 — v. P. (19 Hun, 430) i, 425, 1238 v. P. (80 N. Y. 600) i. 495, 653, 909, 925, 1238; ii. 689 —, P. v. (9 Cal. 82) i, 1285; ii. 558, 534, 684 —, P. v, (40 Cal. 275) —, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 494) ii, 820 ii. 707 CRA INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. CRA Cox, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 90) ii. 18 | Craig, Ex parte (4 Wash. C. C. 710) —,, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 664) ii, 67, 97 i. 212 ——, Reg. v. a Fost. & F. 42) ii, 984 | ——, C. v, (15 B. Monr. 534) i, 1264 —, Rex v. (2 Bulst. 258) i. 605 | ——, C. v. (6 Rand. 731) i. 264 g —, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 588) i, 1204 | —— v. Noblesville, &c. Gravel Road — , Rex v. (1 Leach, 71) i. 618; ii. 922] (98 Ind. 109) i. 1179 —— uv. 5. (76 Ala. 66) i, 475 | ——, P. v. (59 Cal. 370) i. 860 Cox v. S. (3 Blackf. 193) _ii. 1051, 1052 | ——,, P. w. (48 Mich. 502) i. 981 v. 8. (82 Ga. 515) i. 980 | —, Reg. v. (21 U. C. Q. B. 552) i. 585 v. 8. (64 Ga. 874; 87 Am. R. 76), i. 931, 951, 1085 — v. S. (30 Kan. 202) i, 314 — v.§. (41 Tex. 1) i. 884, 980 b —v. 8. (48 Tex. 101) i. 59 —v. S. (5 Tex. Ap. 118) 1. 951 — v.58. ie Tex. Ap. 493) ii. 637 —v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 1) i. 9984 — v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 495) i. 869a — v.58. (8 Tex. Ap. 254; 34 Am. R. 746) 1.68; ii. 625 v. S. (138 Tex. Ap. 479) ii. 916 — v S. (28 Tex. Ap. 92) i. 384, 9984, 1196 — 8. v. (29 Ark. 115) i. 1264 —, S. v. (3 Eng, 486) i. 814.4, 892, 897 —, S. e. (6 Ire. 440) i, 700, 1013 —, S. v. (33 La. An. 1056) i, 1353 —, S. v. (82 Mo. 566) i. 689 — , S. v. (65 Mo. 29) i. 68, 951 f ——, S. v. (67 Mo. 46) i. 1363 —, 8. x. (52 Vt. 471) i, 852 —— v. Thomason (2 Tyrw. 411; 2 Cromp. & J. 362) di. 787 Coxon, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 651) “ 304 Coxwell v. 8. (66 Ga. 309) ii. 629 Coy, Ex parte (82 Fed. Rep. 911) i.2240 Coy kendall v. Durkee (13 Hun, 260) 4 i, 1417 - Coyle v. C. (100 Pa. 573; 45 Am. R. 397 ) i. 1050 v.C. (104 Pa. 117) i. 8144; ii, 685 —, S. v. (38 Me. 427) i, 227 Coyles v. Hurtin (10 Johns. 85) i. 181, 185, 186 Coyodo, P. v. (40 Cal. 586) i. 981, 982 a Cozens, C. v. (1 Ashm. 265) i. 1317 —, S. v. (6 Ire. 82) i, 479 Crabtree v. Reed (50 II]. 206) i. 1095 —— v. S. (1 Lea, 267) i. 975c¢ — v.S. (3 Sneed, 302) i. 998 a Craddock, Reg. v. (2 Den. C. C. 31) " ii. 9 Craft v. Boite (1 Saund. 6th ed. 241) ii, 794 —v. C. (24 Grat. 602) i. 951 a, 964 — v. C. (80 Ky. 349) i. 1169 v. 8. (8 Kan. 460) i, 708, 1161, 1170; ii. 065 —, 8. v. (72 Mo. 456) ii. 1008 ——,S. v. (Walk. Missis. 409) i. 636 —,, S. v. (Walk. Missis. 587) i, 1871 Crafton, U.S. v. (4 Dil. 145) ii, 246 Craggs’s Case (2 Lewin, 35) i. 1169 Craig, Ex parte (19 Mo. 887) i. 1817 VOL. 11.— 34 — v.S8. (8 Heisk. 227) — v.8. (30 Tex. Ap. 619) — ., S. v. (78 Iowa, 637) i, 869 a, 994 —,S. v, (81 N. C. 588) i. 1006 — U.S. «. (4 Wash. C. C. 729) ii. 432 b, 586 —— v. Werthmueller (78 Iowa, 598) i, 50, 63, 65 i. 1086, 1238 Craighead, S. v. (82 Mo. 561) Cram v. Cram (838 Vt. 15) ii. 678 Cramlington’s Case (Cro. Jac. eS 8, 502 i. "302, 502 ii. 187 Cramlington, Rex v. (2 Bulst. 208) Cranage, Reg. v. (1 Salk. 3885) Cranburne, Rex v. (13 How. St. Tr. 221; 4 Harg St.'I'r. 704) i. 762, 956; ii, 1034 i, 1882 i. 251, 264 m , v. S. (10 Conn. 339) i. 519, 637 Crandell, U. 8. v. (4 Cranch C. C. 683) ii. 800 Crane v. S. (3 Ind. 193) i. 641; ii. 865, 869 —,8.v. (110 N.C, 680) 1. 975, ‘994, : 1076 —, S. v. (4 Wis. 400) i, 354 Crank, S. v. (2 Bailey, 66; 25 Am. D. 117) i. 909, 931, 984, 1223, 1285; ii. 9, 12, 14, 525 —, S. v. (75 Mo. 406) i. 1112; ii. 740 Cranmer, Rex »v. (1 Ld. Raym. 721; 12 Mod. 647) i, 1888 Cranor v. 8. (89 Ind. 64) i. 717, 720 Crapo, P. v. (76 N. Y. 288; 32 Am. R, 802 i. 1181, 1185; ii. 740 Crass v. 8. (80 Tex. Ap. 480) i. 886, 1128 i, 265, 926, 988, 1348, 1853 Craton v. Hanley (1 Barnes, 8rd ed. 255) i, 1843 —, oe {Rube & Ry.14; 2 East 01) Crandall, Ex parte (2 Cal, 144) — v.S, (6 Blackf. 284) Craton, S. v. (6 Ire. 164) P.C.6 i. 619; ii. 785 Cravey v. S. (26 Tex. Ap. 84) 1. 264 m —,S. v. (12 La. An. 224) i. 264 Crawford, Ex parte (12 Neb. ay) Sin 31 i. 1264, 1265 —, C. v. (12 Cush. a —,,C. v. (9 Gray, 128) i. 899 —, C. v. (9 Gray, 129) i. 689 b —— v. P. (12 Colo. 290) i. 976 ¢ —, P. v. (48 Mich. 498) i. 966 a —-v.S. (44 Ala. 45) i. 977 —v. §. (44 Ala, 382) i, 611; ii. 156 529 CRI Crawford v. S. (86 Ala. 16) i. 461 v. 8. (4 Coldw. 190) i. 980, 1241 — v.§. (12 Ga. 142) 4. 980, 980 b, 1072, 1085, 1107; ii. 638 —— v. S. (50 Ga. 249) i. 1268 — v.58. (2 Ind. 182) i, 606; ii. 782, 751 — v.§. (15 Tex. Ap. 501) i. 975a; 975 b v. S. (2 Yerg. 60; 24 Am. D. 467) i. 1270 —,, 8. v. (2 Ind. 238) ii. 472 ——,, 8. v. (66 Iowa, 318) ii. 62 ——, S. v. (11 Kan. 32) ii. 673 —, 8.v. (a8 Kan. 726; 42 Am. R. 182) i, 1417 —, S. v. (18 La. An, 300) ii, 416 — , S. v. (84 Mo. 200) . i. 1094 ——, S. v. (99 Mo. 74) 1. 408, 992; ii. 58 Crawley, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 162) | ii. 922 Crawshay, Ex parte (8 Cox C. C. 356) i141 Creasman, S. v. (10 Ire. 895) i. 905 Credit v. Brown (10 Johns. 865) i. 1241 Credle, S. v. (63 N. C. 506) i. 1264, 1272 Creech, S. v. (38 La. An. 480) i. 931 , S.v. (1 Mo. Ap. 370) i. 847 Creed, C. v. (8 Gray, 387) i. 371; ii. 656 ——, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 63) ii. 836 v. White (11 Humph. 649) i, 966 b Creek v. S. (24 Ind. 151) i. 872, 999 , 8. v. (78 Ind. 189) i. 8l4a Creekmore v. C. (5 Bush, 312) i, 2644 Cregier v. Bunton (2 Strob. 487) —_i. 940 Cregor, C. v. (7 Grat. 591) i, 1148 Creight, S. v. (1 Brev. 169; 2 Am. D. 356) . i, 661, 662 Creighton v. C. (83 Ky. 142; 4 Am. St. 148) i. 160, 162 , 8. v. (1 Nott & McC. 286) i. 700, 701 Crenshaw, P. v. (46 Cal. 65) ii. 10 , 5. v. (82 La. An. 406) ii. 628 v. Slate River Co. (6 Rand. 245) INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. CRO Crim v. Kessing (89 Cal. 478; 23 Am. St. 491) i. 1848 — v. §. (48 Ala. 53) i. 1293 Crimm v. C. (119 Mass. 3826) — i. 849, 853 Crimmins, S. v. (81 Kan. 376) i. 461 Crippen v. P. (8 Mich. 117) i, 934, 1269; ii. 869 a, 874 1.750, 811, 812 v.S. (3 Heisk. 25) — , 8. uv. (1 Ohio St. 399) i. 264 a, 264 b Crisham, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 187) _ ii. 957 Crisson v. S. (51 Ga. 597) i. 1062 Crist v. S. (21 Ala. 187) i. 1848 Crittenden, Ex parte (Hemp. 176). st i. —, S. v. (88 La. An. 448) i. 479 —,, U.S. v. (Hemp. 61) i, 890, 772 Crocke v. S. (7 Bax. 89) i, 1261 Crocker, C. v. (108 Mass. 464) i, 1228, 1233 —— v. Hoffman (48 Ind. 207) i. 996 — , Rex v. (2 Leach, 987; 2 New Rep. 87; Russ. & Ry. 97) i. 884; ii. 429, 472, 477, 478 — v. S. (47 Ga. 568) i. 815 v. 8. (Meigs, 127) i. 857, 858 v. 8. (60 Wis. 553) ii, 666 ——, S. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 484) i. 183 Crockett, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 544) i. 1212 v. 8. (18 Ala. 387) i. 919 — v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 526) 5 — v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 226) ii. 754 —— v. §. (52 Wis. 211; 38 Am. R. 738) i. 997 —,, §. v, (82 N. C. 599) i. 1254 Croff v. Ballinger (18 Ill. 200; 65 Am. D, 735) i, 1086 Crofoot v. P. (19 Mich. 254) i. 1265 Croft v. 8. (6 Humph. 317) i. 978 , S.v. (15 Tex. 575) ii, 79 Crofton v. 8. (25 Ohio St. 249) ii, 120 Crofts, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 219) i, 816 Crogan, S. v. (8 Iowa, 528) i. 371; ii. 491 Croker v. S. (47 Ala. 58) i. 1293; ii. 700, i, 1416, 1417 782 Crepps v. Durden (Cowp. 640) ii. 814| Cromwell v. Bank of Pittsburg (2 Cresap v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 529) i. 264a,] Wal. Jr. 669) i. 1841 ’ 264 b | —— vv. S. (12 Gill & J. 257 i. 68 Crespin, Reg. v. (11 Q. B. 918) ii. 56 | Cronin, P. v, (84 Cal. 191) i. 653, 1073; Cressinger, 8. v. (88 Ind. 499) i. 1264 ii, 539 Creswell v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 1) i. 1277 | Cronk uv. P. (181 Ill. 56) i, 1275, 1278 Crew v. McCafferty (124 Pa. 200; 10 Cronkhite v. §. (11 Ind. 807) i, 144 ; Am. St. 578) i. 1343 ii. 79, 665 Crews, Ex parte (78 Ala. 457) i. 1806 | Crook v. Dowling (8 Doug. 75) ii, 933¢ —— v. P. (120 Ill. 317) 1, 975 c, 1093 v. S. (27 Tex. Ap. 198) i. 975 c, — v. 8. (8 Coldw. 350) ii. 1006 1195, 1248 —— v. Threadgill (85 Ala. 384) i, 1175 | ——, S. v. (91 N. C. 536) i, 721 Cribb v. 8. (9 Fla. 409) i. 1834 | Crooke, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 921) ii. 406 Crickmer, Reg. v. (16 Cox C. C. 701) ——, Rex v. (2 Stra. 901) ii, 424 : i. 1125 | Crooker, 8. v. (95 Mo. 389) ii, 1638 Crighton v. Dahmer (70 Missis. 602 ; Crookes, Rex v. (3 Bur. 1841) i. 767 35 Am. St. 666) i. 1412 | Crookham v. 8. (5 W. Va. 510) i. 1086, —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 62) ii, 816, 1207, 1855; ii. 633 318, 822, 328, 334 Crilley v, S. (20 Wis. 244) ii. 740 530 Crooks, Reg. v, (5 U. C. 0. 8. 733) i. 718 Croom, Ex parte (19 Ala. 661) i. 251, 268 CRO INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. CRU Cropper v. C. (2 Rob. Va. 842) i. 814 a,; Crowder v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 51; 19 316, 1410} Am. St. 811) i. 1238 ——. Reg. v. (2 Moody, 18) i, 931 | Crowe, C. v. (1 Va. Cas. 125) i. 1264 U.S. (Morris, 259) i. 1012, 1223 v. P. (92 Ill. 231) ii. 783 —, U.S. v. (Morris, 190) i. 849 | —— v. Peters (63 Mo. 429) ii. 678 Cropsey v. Henderson (68 Ind, 268) i. 279 |—, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 251) i, 258 Crosby’s Case (12 Mod. 66) i. 258 | Crowell v. S. (384 Ark. 4382) i, 1265 Crosby v. Gipps (19 Il. 309) ii. "1053 Crowey, P. v. (56 Cal. 36) i. 685, 850 —, U.S. v. (1 Hughes, C. C, 448) i. 610 | Crowhurst, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. Cross, Ex parte (1 C. B. wn. 8.5738) i. 228] 870) ii, 746 , In re (146 U. 8.271) i, 1810, 1811 | ——, Rex v. (2 Ld. Raym. 1868) i. 554 — v. Burke (146 U.S. 82) i, 1810 | Crowley v. C. (11 Met. 575) i. 1825, 1827, — v. North Carolina (132 U. 8S. 181) i. 1894 —— v. P. (47 TL. 152; 95 Am. D. 474) i, 488, 1125, 1159 ; ii, 407 —, P. v. (185 N. Y. 636; 31 Am. St. 850) i, 220, 223 a, 224 b —, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 136) ii. 902, 915 —, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 236) ii, 822 ——'y. 8. (68 Ala. 40) i. 850 — v.§. (68 Ala. 476) i. 975 — v. §. (78 Ala. 430) i. 893 — v.S. (11 Tex. Ap. 84) i. 360, 1191, 1254 a — v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 476) ii, 10138, 1015, 1018 — v. §, (55 Wis. 261) ii. 658 ——, 8S. v. (2 Humph. 301) i. 287 —, S. v. (12 Iowa, 66; 79 Am. D. 519) i. 1275; ii. 968 —, S. v. (68 Iowa, 180) i. 1117; ii. oe 1 —, 8. v. (34 Me. 594) i, 12544 ——, 8. v. (27 Mo. 332) i, 278, 1853 —) S. v. (101 N. C. 770; 9 Am. St. 53) i. 816, 975, 1003; ii. 4258, 427, 460 —, 5S. v. (106 N. C. 650) i. 1834 —— v. Smith (1 Salk. 148) i. 1878 Crossfield, Rex v. (26 How. St. Tr. 1) i, 1217, 1245 Crossley, Reg. v. (10 A. & E. 182; 2 Per. & D. 319) ii. 835 —, Rex v. (7 T. R. 811) ii. 912 Crossmire, C. ». (156 Pa. 304) ii. 688. a Croswell v. Byrnes (9 Johns. 287) i. 1341 — v. Weed (25 Wend. 621) ii. 786, 787 Croteau, S. v. (23 Vt. 14; 54 Am. D. 90) i. 452, 461, 984 Crotty, ne v. (10 Allen, 403; 87 Am. D. 669) i. 679 —— v. Morrissey (40 Ill. 477) ii. 809 Crouch, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 94) i,1179 Crouse, Ex parte (4 Whart. 9) i, 1838 —— v. Holman (19 Ind. 30) li. 674 Crouther’s Case (Cro. Eliz. 654) — i, 206 Crow v. S. (18 Ala. 541) i. 59, 60; ii. 728 1834; ii. 144 —, P. v. (100 Cal. 478 ii. 147 —, P. r. (23 Hun, 412 ii, 290 —, P.v. (102 N. Y. 234) i. 1181, 1182 —— v. 8. (26 Tex. Ap. 578) i. 975c, 1079 ——, 8. v, (83 La. An. 782) i. 814 a, 1107, 1159 ——, S. v. (60 Me. 103) i, 264 a, 264¢ —_, 8. v. (10 Vroom, 264) ii. 173, 364 —, Sv. (41 Wis. ail; 22 Am. R 719) ii. ’217, 218, 9, 223 Crowninshield, C. v. (10 Pick. 497) i. 1110, 1248; ii. 229 Crowson, S. v. (98 N. C. 595) i. 989, 1220 Crowther, C. v. (117 Mass. 116) i, 873, 899; ii, 813, 816 —, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 316) i. 588, 1098 ; ii. 42 a, 489 Croxdale v. 8. (1 Head, 189) i. 558, 560; ii. 404 Croy v. 8. (82 Ind. 884) i. 118, 384, 949a@ Croydon, Reg. v. (2 Cox C. C. 67) i. 1288 Crozier v. Cundy (9 D. & R. 224) i. 208 , S. v. (12 Nev. 300) ii. 584 Cruce v. 8. (59 Ga. 83) i. 964, 1018, 1028 Cruger, P. v. (88 Hun, 500) i, 1264 Cruikshank v. Comyns (24 Ill. 602) i. 688 ——, 8. e. (6 Blackf. 62) ii. 920 — , U.S. v. (92 U.S. 542) i. 3826; ii. 222 Cruise, 8. v. (16 Mo. 391) i. 1269 Cruiser v. S. (3 Harrison, 206) i. 601, 1855; ii. 878 Crumb, S. v. (68 Mo. 206) ii. 911 Crumes r. § (28 Tex. Ap. 516; 19 Am. St. 858) i. 966 c; ii. 85 Crummey, S. v. (17 Minn. 72) i. 536, 587 Crump ». C. (84 Va. 927; 10 Am. St. 95) ii, 242 i. 314a, 1264 —, C.v. (1 Va. Cas. 172) i. at 1268 — v. P. (2 Colo. 316) 264n —, 8. v. (104 N. C. 768) i. i. 1006 — v. Starke (23 Ark. 131) i. 1082 Crumpler, 8S. v. (88 N. C. 647) ii. 1051 Crumpton, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 597) ii. ae v. 8. (6 Tex. 334) i. 795 | —— v. S. (48 Ala. 31) i, 229 —, S. v. (6 Eng. 642) i. 187 | —— v. U.S. (188 U.S. 861) i. 951, 975 8, —, 8S. v. (107 Mo. 841) i. 980, 1117 1368 Crow Dog, U.S. v. (8 Dak. 106) i. 1151 | Crupper, C. v. (3 Dana, 466) ii. 275, 488 Crowder v. S. (56 Ga. 44) i. 1244; ii. 946] Cruse, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 541; — v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 484) i. 2644 2 Moody, 68) i, 1100; ii. 63a 531 CUN INDEX TO THE Cruse, S. v. (74 N. C. 491) i, 1223 Crusen v. S. (10 Ohio St. 258) 1, 273 ii. 902, 932 Crutchfield v. 8, (1 Tex. Ap. 445) i. 8l4a — v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 65) __i. 1077, 1161 Crutchley, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 188) ii. 848 Cryer, S. v. (20 Ark. 64) ii. 79 Cubreth, Ex parte (49 Cal. 485) i. ee. Cucuel, S. v. (2 Vroom, 249) i. 999 Cudd v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 124) i. 400; ii. 541 Cuddihi, P. v. (54 Cal. 53) i. 416 Cuddy, 8. v. (40 Iowa, 419) i. 1264 Cuffee, C. v. (108 Mass. 285) i. 1224, 1238 Cuintano, P. v. (15 Cal. 327) i. 849 Culberson v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 324) ii. 718 Culbertson v. Kinevan (73 Cal. 68) ii. 364 —— v. Stanley (6 Blackf. 67) ii. 809 Culkin,'Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 121) ii. 3, 514, 522 Cullen, C. v. (111 Mass. 485) i. 1239 —, C. v. (13 Philad. 442) i. 966 Culler, S. v. (82 Mo. 623) i, 909 Cullins, C. v. (1 Mass. 116) ii. 726 Culp v. C. (109 Pa. 363) ii. 829 Culpepper, Rex v. (Holt, 293) ii. 482 a Culver, C. v. (126 Mass. 464) i. 1220 Cumberland v. Rex (3 B. & P. 354) i. 1877 —,, Rex v. (6 T. R. 194) i. 70; ii, 1048 Cumming’s Case (Shaw Crim. Cas. 17 i. 1100 i. 720 Cummings’s Case (3 Greenl. 51) ii. 751 Cummings v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 128) , C. v. (8 Cush. 212; 50 Am. D. 782) i. 1265 , C. v. (6 Gray, 487) i. 878, 380 —.,C. v. (121 Mass. 63) i, 931, 966 c ——, P. v. (57 Cal. 88) i. 488 — , P. »v. (3 Par. Cr. 343) i. 9495 —— v. §. (4 Kan. 225) i 1264 — v.5. (31 Tex. Cr. 406) i. 1264 Cummins »v. C. (81 Ky. 465) ii. 239 —, C. v. (18 B. Monr. 26) i. 229 —— v. P. (42 Mich. 142) i. 1250 —, P. v. (47 Mich. 834) — i. 975, 980, 1181 Cundick, Rex v. (D. & R., N. P. 13) ii. 1009 Cunningham uv. C. (9 Bush, 149) i, 1248, 1244 —, Cv. ie Grat. 695) i. 851 —., C. v. (5 Litt, 292) i. 693 —, C. v. (104 Mass. 545) i. 1278 —, P. v. (66 Cal. 668) ii. 750 —, P. v. (1 Denio, 524; 43 Am. D. 709) — , P. v. (3 Par. Cr. 520) —, P. v. (8 Par. Cr. 531) 49 Missis. 685) ii. 92, 420, 421 56 Missis. 269; 31 Am. R. i, 978 i, 255 i, 263 —". —_ S. ( 8. ( 360) i, 1050 —— v. §. (14 Mo. 402) i. 264, 314a ——»v.S. (74 Tex, 511) i. 951 — vu. S. (17 Tex. Ap. 89) i. 975¢ 582 CASES CITED. ~ Cunningham v. 8. (20 Tex. Ap. 162) i. 966 b, 966d CUR — v. §. (26 Tex. Ap. 88) i. 1325 v. S. (27 Tex. Ap. 479) i. 975c¢ — v.S. (5 W. Va. 508) i. 589 —, S. v. (25 Conn. 195) i. 1090 —, 8. v. (66 Iowa, 94) ii, 921 —, S. v. (81 Me. 355) i. 1169 ——, S. v. (51 Mo. 479) i. 761, 1264, 1363 —, S. v. (100 Mo. 382) i, 909 —, S. v. (94 N. C. 824) i. 738 —, S. v. (2 Speers, 246) ii. 806 Cupp »v. C. (87 Ky. 385) ii. 655 Cuppledick’s Case (2 Hale P. C. 185) ii. 515 Cure, S. v. (7 Iowa, 479) i. 1264; ii. 491 Curiel v. S. (20 Tex. Ap. 180) i, 1357 Curlee, P. v. (63 Cal. 604) i. 1159 Curley v. C. (84 Pa, 151) i. 931 —, P.v. (99 Mich. 238) ii. 184, 140, 147 —, S. v. (33 Iowa, 359) i. 400 Curlin v. S. (4 Yerg. 143) ii, 28 Curling, P. v. (1 Johns. 320) i. 1015; ii. 424 Curran’s Case (7 Grat. 619) i. 1005, 1018 Curran, C. v. (119 Mass. 206) i. 1090 v. Percival (21 Neb. 454) i. 1056 —, Rex v. (3 Car. & P. 397) i. 162, 170 —, S. v. (51 Iowa, 112) i. 1118 —, S. v. (18 Mo. 820) Currey v. 8. (7 Bax. 154) i. 1898 Currier v. Boston, &c. Rid. (34 N. H. 498) ii. 625 Curry v. Kurtz (83 Missis. 24) ii. 230 —— v. Munford (5 Heisk. 61) i. 1350 — v.§. (4 Neb. 545) i. 909, 1101 v. 8. iy Neb. 412) i. 909; ii. 631 v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 574) ii. 976 -— v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 91) i. 1005a, 1012 — »v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 267) i 1249 —— v. Stephens (84 Mo. 442) i. 1152 Curtis’s Case (Foster, 135) i, 196 Curtis, Ex parte (92 Cal. 188) i, 264. —, Ex parte (3 Minn. 274) i. 71 —, C. v. (97 Mass. 574) i. 1228, 1282 —, C. v. (11 Pick. 184) i. 817; ii. 778 — v. C. (87 Va. 589) i. 7304 —— vv. Chicago, &. Ry. (18 Wis. ii 312 . 677 —- v. Curtis (10 Bing. 477; 4 Moore & 8. 337) ii, 794 —— v. Hubbard (1 Hill, N.Y. 336) i. 204 — v. P. (Breese, 197) i. 1015; ii. 657 —, P. ». (50 Cal. 95) ii. 934 —, P. v. (76 Cal. 57) i. 975¢ —, P. v. (52 Mich. 616) — i. 1110, 1276 — P. v. (95 Mich. 212) i. 618.4, 686 ——, P. v. (60 N. Y. 821; 10'Am. R. 483) i. 224 — 0.8. (78 Ala. 12) i. 1126 — v.S. (26 Ark. 439) i. 10054 — v. S. (6 Coldw. 9) i. 293, 9508, 1277; ii. 740, 745 — v.S. (14 Lea, 602) i. 1212 DAL INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. DAN Curtis, S. v. (1 Hayw. 471) i. 189, 191 | Dalgleish v. Grandy (Conference, —, d. v. (6 Ire, 247) 1.1016; 22 i, 892 —, S. v. (12 Ire. 270) ii. 935 | Dallas, S. v. (35 La. An. 899) i. 998 a —, BS. v. (380 La. An. 814) i. 584 | Dallinger, C. v. (118 Mass. 439) ii, 418 —, 8. v. (84 La. An. 1218) i, 1264} Dalton, Ex parte (49 Cal. 463) i. 1827 —, 8. v. (89 Minn. 357) i. 1181 | ——, P. v. (58 Cal. 226) ii. 1010 —, §. v. (77 Mo. 267) ii. 967 | ——, Rex v. (2 Stra. 911) i, 256 —, U.S. v. (4 Mason, 232) i. 959a | ——, S. v. (27 Mo. 13) i. 1118; ii. 59 Curvan, Rex v. (1 Moody, 182) i, 162 | ——, S. v. (2 Murph. 379 ii. 473 Curwood, Rex v. (5 Nev. & M. 369; —, 8. v. (101 N. C. 680 i. 1015 1 Har. & W. 310) i, 873 | Daly, 8. o. (16 Or. 240) i. 975 Cushing, 8. v. (29 Mo. 215) i. 979, 981; | ——, S. v. (14 R. I. 510) i. 687 ii. 514 | Dame, S. v. (15 Mo. 263) i. 1278 — , S. v. (11 R. I. 3138) Custer, S. v. (65 N. C. 339) Cutbush, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 2 Q. B. 379; 10 Cox C. C. 489) i, 1810, 1827 Cutinola, Territory v. (4 New Mex. i. 713 16 Cutler v. 8. (42 Ind. 244) i. 951a Cutshall, S.v. (109 N. C. 764; 26 i. 402, 1268 i. 1006 Am. St. 599) i. 950a@ Cutter, S. v. (65 Mo. 503) i. 665 Cutts, Reg. v. (4 Cox C.C. 485) ii. 921 Czarnikow, S. v. (20 Ark. 160) i, 461 Dabney. C. v. (1 Rob. Va. 696; 40 Am. D. 717 i. 1163 Dacey, C. v. (107 Mass. 206) i. 400 — v. P. (116 Ill. 555) i. 951, 1050, 1276 v. §. (15 Ga. 286) i. 951 Dacre’s Case (Cro. Eliz. 148) i, 678 Dacy v. S. (17 Ga. 489) i. 899, 400, 951 a, 1277, 1281 Dadson, Reg. v. (2 Den. C.C. 35) i. 159 Daegling v. 8. (56 Wis. 586) i. 1179 Daggett, C. v. (16 Mass. 447) i. 2644 Dailey, C. v. (12 Cush. 80) i, 898 v, Gaines (1 Dana, 529) ii. 809 — v. Indianapolis (53 Ind. 483) i. 3144 — v. S. (4 Ohio St. 57) i. 893 —— v. S. (4 Tex. 417) i. 2644 Daily v. S. (10 Ind. 536) — i. 987; ii. 255 —, S..v. (6 Ind. 9) i, 1264, 1272 ——, S. v. (45 Mo. 153) i, 1817 Dains v. S. (2 Humph. 439) i. 1278 Dakin’s Case (2 Saund. 2906) i. 406, 666 Dakin, S. v. (52 Iowa, 395) i. 9514 Dalby, Rex v. (Peake, 12) ii, 93834 Dale, Reg. v. (6 Cox C. C. 14) ii, 645 —, Reg. v. (Dears. 37; 6 Cox C.C. 93; 14 Eng. L. & Eq. 552) ii. 822 ——, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 352) ii. 188 —, Rex v. (1 Moody, 5; 13 Price, 172; 9 Moore, 19) i. 511; ii. 514, 516 v. S. (10 Yerg. 551) i, 984 —, §. v. (89 Mo. 579) i. 95la —, S. ov. (8 Or. 229) i. 586, 931 ——, S. v. (8 Wis. 795) i. 184, 230 Daley, C. v. (4 Gray, 209) i. 816 —, 8S. v. (41 Vt. 564) ii. 63 a, 67 —,S8. v. (538 Vt. 442; 38 Am. R. 694) : i, 1086, 1116; ii. 740 —, 8. uv. (11 N. H. 271; 35 Am. D. 5) ii. 659 —, S. v. (60 N. H. 479; 49 Am. R. 331) ii. 278, 275 Damery, S. v. (48 Me. 827) i. 1265 Damewood v. 8. (1 How. Missis. 262) ii. 698, 731 Dammaree, Reg. v. (15 How. St. Tr. 521 i. 1114, 1116 Damon’s Case (6 Greenl. 148) i. 49 Damon, P. v. (18 Wend. 851) i. 918, 947 Dana, In re (7 Ben. 1) i. 891 —, C. v. (14 Mass. 65) i, 264A —, C. v. (2 Met. 829) i. 241, 242, 245, 1049, 1050, 1077 — v. Conant (30 Vt. 246) li. 753 v. §. (2 Ohio St. 91) i. 559, 560; ii. 403, 405 ——, S. v. (59 Vt. 614) i. 1169, 1170 Danby’s Case (1 Hale P. C. 652) i. 54 — Case (Skin. 56) i. 256 Dancy, S. v. (78 N. C. 437) ii. 974 Dandy, S. v. (1 Brev. 395) i. 404 Dane, P. v. (59 Mich, 550) — i. 293, 975 a —, P. v. (81 Mich. 36) i. 1298 ——’v. Smith (13 Wis. 585; 80 Am. D. 754) i. 805 Danforth v. S. (75 Ga. 614; 58 Am. R. 480) i. 869 a, 984, 9864; ii. 669, 671 Daniel v. Frost (62 Ga. 697) i. 981 — v. Johnson (29 Ga. 207) i. 978 —, Reg. v. ( Holt, 346) i. 508, 555 v. S. (56 Ga. 653) i. 999 — 2, S. (63 Ga. 339) i, 1244 — v. 8. (65 Ga. 199) i, 1248 —— v. 8. (8 Heisk. 257) i. 624; ii. 898 —, S. v. (8 Hawks, 617) i, 8l4a —, S. v. (8 Ire. 21) i, 258, 1264 —, S. v. (81 La. An. 91) i. 1212 —, S. v. (87 N.C. 507) ii. 965 —— v. Toney (2 Met. Ky. 528) ii. 432¢ Daniell, P. v. (50 N. Y. 274) i, 314a —, Reg. v. (6 Mod. 99) i. 57 Daniels v. C. (7 Pa. 371) i, 1837, 1373 —, C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 402) i, 611; ii. 294 — v. Hamilton (52 Ala. 105) i. 849 v. Mosher (2 Mich. 188) ii. 676 — v.P. (6 Mich. 381) i, 264.a, 264) —, P. v. (1 Cal. 106) i. 8144 — v. §. (60 Ala. 56) i. 791 — v. §. (88 Ala. 220) i, 947 533 DAV Daniels v. S. (78 Ga. 98; 6 Am. St. 238) i. 814, 1220, 1242 v. S. (24 Tex. 389) i. 978 —— v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 353) i. 715 —— v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 429) i, 975 ¢ —, S. v. (32 Mo. 558) i. 541; ii. 7183 —, S. v. (66 Mo. 192) i, 68, 73, 8144 —, 8. v. (44 N. H. 383) i. 338 Danina, S. v. (61 Mo. 477) i. 1015a Dann, Rex v. (1 Moody, 424) _ i. 60, 666, 814; ii. 988 Danner v. S. (54 Ala. 127; 25 Am. R. 662) ii. 136 Danovan v. Jones (86 N. H. 246) i. oo 83 Dansey v. S. (23 Fla. 316) i. 388, 402 Dantz ». S. (87 Ind. 398) i, 454, 1254.4 Danville Bank v. Waddill (31 Grat. 469) i. 1248 Darby, Reg. v. (1 Salk. 78) i, 1284 —— v.58. (79 Ga. 63) i. 975 c, 978, ve ele Darcey, C. v. (12 Allen, 539) i, 123 Dark, S. v. (8 Blackf. 526) i. 618 Darling, C. v. (129 Mass. 112) i. 467 —— v. Gurney (2 Dowl. P.C.101) i. 1298 —— v. Hubbell (9 Conn. 350) i. 264, 264 Darlow v. Wharton (1 Barnes, 8rd ed. 258 i, 1843 Darnal, S. v. (1 Humph. 290) i. 1859 Darnell v, S. (48 Tex. 147) ii. 746 v, S. (15 Tex. Ap. 70) i. 1269 — , S. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 321) i. 1222 Darr v. S. (82 Ind. 11) i. 1264 —, S. v. (63 N. C. 516) i. 691 Darrel, Rex v. (10 Mod. 321) i. 1160 Darrington, S. v. (47 Iowa, 518) _i. 1181 Darst v. P. (51 Ill. 286; 2 Am. R. 301) i. 893 Dart, Reg. v. (14 Cox C.C. 148) _ ii. 685 , 8. v. (29 Conn. 158; 76 Am. D. 596) i. 1046, 1078, 1080, 1082; ii. 625 Dartmore, P. v. (48 Hun, 321) ii. 94 Datson v. S. (51 Ark. 119) ii. 329 Daubert, S. v. (42 Mo. 242) i. 128, 449, 459, 1393; ii. 750, 981 Daubner, U.S. v. (17 Fed. Rep. 798) i. 981, 1278 Daubney v. Cooper (10 B. & C. 287) i. 726 Daugherty v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 480) i. 68, 72 —,S. v. (106 Mo. 182) i. 384, 764, 975 c, 980 — , S. v. (80 Tex. 360) i. 354, 357 Dave v. S. (22 Ala. 23) i. 966, 980, 1277 Davenport v. C. (1 Leigh, 588) i. 980; ii. 695 —, C. uv. (2 Allen, 299) i. 454; ii. 275, 280 —— v. §. (88 Ga, 184) i. 488 — , S. v. (83 La. An. 231) i. 278, 1358 ——) 8. v. (38 S. C. 348) ii. 751 — U.8.v. (Deady, 264) i. 421, 10154 Davenport, &c. Ry., 8. v. (47 Iowa, 507) if. 1044 534 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. DAV David v. 8. (40 Ala. 69) i. 1012, 1265 —. Sv. (1458. C. 428) i. 276, 1268 Davidson, C. v. (1 Bush, 133) i, 264A —, C. v. (1 Cush. 83) i. 488; ii. 184, 613 — v. Davidson (Deane & S. 132) i. 1149 — v. New Orleans (96 U. 8S. 97) i. 99, 100a —— v. P. (4 Colo. 145) ii. 618, 622 —, P. v. (6 Cal. 133) ii. 4 — v.§. (33 Ala. 350) i. 1159 —— v. S. (185 Ind. 254) ii. 584, 608, 633 v. §. (20 Tex. 649) i, 2644 .v. (40 Conn. 281) i. 3144 —, Ss ——.S. cv. (20 Mo. 212; 61 Am. D. 608 i. 262 —,, 8. v. (73 Mo. 428) i. 1264 —$. v. (44 Mo. Ap. 513) i. 181 —, 8. v. (77 N. C. 622) i. 1158 —, 8. v, (12 Vt. 300) i. 488 a, 699 — S. v. (80 Vt. 877; 78 Am. D. 312) i. 1057, 1082, 1111; ii. 626 —, 8.v. (36 Tex. 325) i. 403, 708 Davie, 8. v. (62 Wis. 305) i. 718 Davies, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 427) . ——, Reg. v. (5 Cox C. C. 328) i. 452, 458 ——, Reg. v. (6 Cox C. C. 826; 3 Car. & K. 328) ii, 668 —, Reg. v. (8 Cox C. C. 486) i. 187 —, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F.69) ii. 50 —— v. §. (39 Ark. 448) i, 966d Davis’s Case (122 Mass. 324) i.222, 223 a Davis v. Beason (1383 U. 8.333) i. 1410 —— v. Burgess (54 Mich. 514) i, 188 — »v. C. (30 Pa. 421) ii, 843 i. 627; ii. 173 i. 838; ii. 463, —, C. v. (9 Cush. 288) —, C. v. (11 Gray, 4) 464, 466 —, C. v. (121 Mass. 352) i. 641 —, C. v. (11 Pick. 482) i. 101, 643; ii. 100 i ——v. Capper (10 B. & C. 28; 5 Man. & R. 58; 4 Car. & P. 134) i. 2344 —— v.Clements (2 N. H. 390) i, 227 — v. Davis (1 Nott & McC. 290) ii. 786 —— v. Elliott (15 Gray, 90) ii. 751 — v. Fish (1 Iowa, 406; 48 Am. D. 387) i. 1001 —— v. Hardy (6 B. & C. 225) i. 691 —— v. Hunter (7 Ala. 185) i, 905 v. P. (19 Ill. 74) i. 926, 999 — », P. (114 Il. 86) i. 1093 — v. P. (1 Par. Cr. 447) ii. 746, 747 —, P. v. (61 Cal. 536) ii. 928 — , P.v. (64 Cal. 440) i. 1094 —, P. v. (73 Cal. 855) ii. 621 —, P. v. (52 Mich. 569) i. 645 —, P. »v. (56 N. Y. 95) i. 63, 761, 768, 1207 —, P.v. (4 Par. Cr.61) i. 1011; ii. 80 —, P. v. (15 Wend. 602) i. 959d —, P. v. (21 Wend. 309) i. 1170; ii. 469 —, Reg. ». (2 Den. C. C. 281; 5 Cox C. C. 237) i. 688 ——, Reg. v. (3 Fost. & F. 19) i. 457 ——, Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 64) i, 187 ——,, Respublica v. (3 Yeates, 128) ii. 800 DAV Davis, Rex v. (1 Bur. 688) i. 297, 1869 ——, Rex v. (1 Car. & P.470) i. 661, 666 —, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 177) i, 1258, 1256 ; ii. 990 —,, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 319) i. 338 — , Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 785) i. 158, 969 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 498) i. 618 —, Rex v. (Say. 163) i. 180, 1005 a —, Rex »v. (1 Show. 3836; 12 Mod. 9 i, 1272 v. Russell (2 Moore & P. 590; 5 Bing. 354) z i, 168, 181, 182 ——v. §. (17 Ala. 354) i. 1195, 1196, 1197 v.$. (17 Ala. 415) i, 1260, 1265; ii. 726 v. S. (46 Ala. 80) i. 860, 882, 889 v. S. (52 Ala. 357) ii. 87, 48 a — uv. 8. (54 Ala. 88) ii. 187 —— vr. S. (68 Ala. 58; 44 Am. R. 128) i. 981 v. 8. (79 Ala. 20) ii. 909 — v. 8. (46 Ark. 464) ii. 655 v. 8. (5 Bax. 612) i. 975 c, 980 uv. S. (6 Bax. 429) i. 959 a v. 8. (5 Blackf. 374) i, 2644 v. 8. (8 Coldw. 77) i. 489; ii. 183, 138 4 v. S, (22 Fla. 633) i, 1054 ; ii. 147 v. S. (10 Ga. 101) i. 980, 1095, ne 115 —— v. S. (20 Ga. 674) i. 801 — v. §. (33 Ga. 98) i. 975, 975 b v. S. (40 Ga. 229) i. 541 — v. S. (57 Ga. 66) i, 424, 447 v. S. (76 Ga. 16) ii. 152, 740 —— v. S. (82 Ga. 205) i. 360, 1265 v. S. (8 Har. & J. 154) i. 597, 600 — v. S. (6 How. Missis. 399) i. 258 v. S. (14 Ind. 358) i. 1001 — i. S. (85 Ind. 496; 9 Am. R. 760) i. 999; ii, 687 — v. S, (52 Ind. 488) ii. 282 v. S. (69 Ind. 180) i. 718 ——v. S. (100 Ind. 154) i. 436 v. S. (7 Md. 151; 61 Am. D. 331) i. 314a — v. 8. (88.Md.15) 1.1179; ii. 15, 631 —— v. 8. (89 Md. 355) i. 68, 74; ii. 569, 572, 579, 584, 586 v. §. (50 Missis. 86) ii. 740, 745 v. 8. (7 Ohio, Ist pt. 204) ii. 493 v. 8. (15 Ohio, 72; 45 Am. D. 559) i. 992, 996 —— v. §. (19 Ohio St. 217) i. 1248 — v. §. (19 Ohio St. 270) i. 429 — v. S. (25 Ohio St. 369) ii. 603 v. S. (88 Ohio St. 505) ii, 189 — v. S. (85 Tenn. 522) i. 451, 951, 951 a, 966 b, 1015 a v. 8. (80 Tex. 352) i. 264 a — uv. §. (87 Tex. 227) i. 1082 v. S. (40 Tex. 134) i, 541; ii. 713 v. S. (42 Tex. 226) —i. 835; fi. 953, 954, 978 — v. §. (42 Tex. 494) i, 812 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. DAV Davis v. S. (43 Tex. 189) i. 1052 —— v.58. (44 Tex. 523) i. 314 ——v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 184) i. 713 — v.8. (2 Tex. Ap. 588) i. 1170 — v.58. (8 Tex. Ap. 91) i. 9984, 1247; ii. 651, 633 ——v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 196) i. 1269 — v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 510) i. 1248 — v.S. (9 Tex. Ap. 863) i. 966 a, 1197 — v.58. (9 Tex. Ap. 634) i, 931 v. 8. (10 Tex. Ap. 31) i. 975, 978, 1274 v. &. (14 Tex. Ap. 645) 1. 975 c, 980, ‘1266 —— v.§. (15 Tex. Ap. 475) i. 975¢; ii. 661 — v. §. (15 Tex. Ap. 594) i. 1060 — v.§. (19 Tex. Ap. 201, 225) i. 68, 934, 1238 —— v. 8. (20 Tex. Ap. 302) ii. 64 — v. §, (28 Tex. Ap. 542) 1.975¢ — 2. §. (32 Tex. Cr. 377) ii. 751 v. S. (388 Wis. 487) i. 733 —, S. v. (19 Ala. 13) i. 1121 —, S. v. (6 Bax. 605) i, 387 —,S. v. (3 Brev. 3; 56 Am. D. 529) ii. 69 —,S. v. (4 Dev. 612) i. 981 ——,, S. v. (41 Iowa, 311) i, 416, 874, 881 —, S. vu. (56 Iowa, 202) i. 966 b ——, S. v. (2 Ire. 153) i. 854 ——, S. v. (14 La. An.678) i, 875, 1100 —, S. v. (20 La. An. 354) i. 1005 ——, S. v. (31 La. An. 249) i. 1334 ——,S. v. (84 La, An. 351) i. 1218 —_, 8. v. (22 Minn. 423) i. 849 —, S. v. (29 Mo. 391) i. 457, 535, 909 ; ii. 3, 855 —, S. v. (66 Mo. 684; 27 Am. R. 387) i. 121, 898 —,8. v. (73 Mo. 129) ii. 130 ——, S. v. (27 Mo. Ap. 624) ii. 1054 ——, S. v. (63 N. C. 578) i. 1220 ——, S. v. (69 N.C. 495) ii. 921 —, 8. «. (77 N. C. 483) ii. 633 —, S. v. (77 N.C. 490) ii. 188 ——,S. v. (80 N. C. 412) i. 946 -—, 8S. v. (82 N. C.610) i. 1817 = a ii. 922 —, 8. v. (92 N.C. ae i. 1181, 1182 —, S. v. (14 Nev. 407) i. 1261 —,S. v. (12 R. 1. 492; 34 Am. R. 704) i. 850, 883 —, 5S. v. (14 R. I. 281) i. 613 —, S. v. (12 S. C. 528) i. 1264 —, S. v. (27 8. C. 609) i, 975 c, 979, 980 ; ii. 674 —, S. v. (2 Sneed, 273) i. 466 —,S8.v v. (9 Vroom, 176; 20 Am. R. 367) ii. 754 —, S. v. (52 Vt. 376) i. 983 ——, S. v. (31 W. Va. 390) i. 947, 1003 —— v. Sherman (7 Gray, 291) ii. 751 — v. Texas (139 U.S. 651) i. 100 a —, U.S. v. (6 Blatch. 464) i. 272, 961 535 DEB INDEX TO THE i. 821 i. 1264 ii, 584 Davis, U. 8. v. (5 Mason, 356) —, U.S. v. (131 U.S. 36) — »v. Utah (151 U.S. 262) Davison v. P. (90 Ill. 221) i. 851, 853, 934, 984, 987 —, Reg. v. (8 Cox C. C. 860; 2 Fost. & F. 250) i. 82 ——, Rex v. (381 How. St. Tr. 99) i,1117; ii, 822 Davitt, Reg. v. (11 Cox C. C. 676) ii. 1031, 1036 Dawber, Rex v. (3 Stark. 34) i. 1169 Dawes, 8. v. (75 Me. 51) ii. 700 Dawkins v. 8. (42 Missis. 631) i. 1264 —, S. v. (82 8. C.17) i. 975c, 981, 1003, 1268, 1827; ii. 131 Dawson v. P. (25 N. Y. 399) i. 440, 665, 869 a —, Rex v. (18 How. St. Tr. 451) i. 1001 i. 521 i, 1007; ii. 426 i. 126, 959 a; 2 —, Rex ». (3 Stark. 62) —, Rex v. (1 Stra. 19) ——'v. §. (29 Ark. 116) ii. 974 v. 8. (59 Ga. 333) i. 1218 — v.58. (65 Ind. 442) i. 1287 ; ii. 145 — v.58. (33 Tex. 491) i. 854, 488 —— v. S. (382 Tex. Cr. 585; 40 Am. St. 791) ii. 152 -—, 8. v. (90 Mo. 149) i. 951 —"S. v. (6 Ohio, 251) i. 251 —— v. Sayre (80 Ala. 444) i. 1317 —, U.S. v. (15 How. U.S. 467) i. 49 Day v. C. (2 Grat. 562) i. 884 —— v. C. (3 Grat. 629) i, 921 — , C. uv. (188 Mass. 186) i. 1125; ii. 151 —— v. Crawford (13 Ga. 508) i, 1149, 1150 — »v. Day (4 Md. 262) i. 228 — v. P. (76 III. 380) i. 1005, 1010 — v. Robinson (1 A. & E. 554; 4 Nev. & M. 884) ii. 794 v. 8. (63 Ga. 667) i. 962 v. §. (18 Mo, 422) i. 1843 v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 26) ii. 1054 ——,, 8. v. (52 Ind. 483 ii. 1052 —,, S. v. (58 Iowa, 678) i. 224 b — , S. e. (60 Iowa, 100) i, 966d —, S. v. (37 La. An. 785) i. 1005 —, S. v. (74 Me. 220) ——,, S. v. (79 Me. 120) —, S. v. (100 Mo. 242} 1185, 1265 —, S.v. (55 Vt. 510) i. 1220, 1223 —— v. Townsend (70 Iowa, 588) i. 2244 Dayley, S.v. (2 Nott & McC. 121) i, 951 Dayrell v. Bridge (2 Stra. 1264) i. 1899 Dayton, S. v. (1 Southard, 57) 4. 1S7F —,,S8. uv. (3 Zab. 49; 58 Am. D. 270) i. 408, 605, 761, 872, 882 D’Argencour, P. v. (95 N. Y. 624) ii, 420 De Arman v. 8. (77 Ala. 10) i. 752, 931, 951, 975¢ De Bardelaben ». S, (50 Ala. 179) i. 1270 De Bare, U.S. v. (6 Bis. 368) ii. 983 536 i. 407 i. 1110 i. 951 a, 1181, CASES CITED. DEA De Berenger, Reg. v. (3 M. & S. 67; 2 Towns. St. ‘Tr. 1, 95) i. 1038 De Bernie v. S. (19 Ala. 23) ii. 919 DeBerry, S. v. (92 N. C. 800) i, 1247 DeCleer, P. v. (60 Cal, 382) i. 1005a DeCoursey, P. v. (61 Cal. 134) i, 442 D’Eon, Rex v. (3 Bur. 1518; 1 W. BI. 510) i. 951 a De Faria, Rex v. (Peake, 104) ii. 9383 a De Fore, P. v. (64 Mich. 693; 8 Am. St. 863) i. 975, 978, 1368 De Gaultie v. S. (31 Tex. 82) ii. 780 De Giacomo, In re (12 Blatch. 391) i. 224 DeGraff, S. v. (113 N.C. 688) ii. 632 De Graffenreid v. Mitchell (8 Mc- Cord, 506; 15 Am. D. 648) i. 204 De La Cour Soto, P. v. (63 Cal. 165) ii. 584 De la Guerra, P. v. (31 Cal. 416) i, 484 —, P. v. (31 Cal. 459) i. 433; ii. 321 De Laney, S. v. (28 La. An. 434) ii. 63 De Lay, S. v. (80 Mo. Ap. 357) i. 612 De Olles v. S. (20 Tex. Ap. 145) i. 97, 686 De Rance, S. v. (84 La. An. 186; 44 Am. R. 426) i. 909; ii. 674 De Serrant, S. v. (83 La. An. 979) i. 308, 869 a. De Silvera, P. v. (59 Cal. 592) — i. 975, 980 a De Veaux, Rex v. (2 Leach, 585) ii. 759 De Voe, C. v. (159 Mass. 101) ii. 818, 817 DeWalt, U. 8. v. (128 U.S. 893) i. 145 De Witt v. Barly (17 N. Y. 340) ii. 676, 678, 681 De Wolf, S. v. (8 Conn. 93; 20 Am. D. 90) i. 1148; ii. 963, 964 De Zulueta, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 215) © 1, 953 Deacon, C. v. (88. & R.47) i. 168, eee 21 —, CO. v. (8S. & R. 72) i. 1410 —,C.v. (10S. & R. 125) i, 224 ——, Rex v. (Ryan & Moody, N. P. 27 i. 759 Deakin, Rex v. (2 East P. C.658) ii. 721 ——, Rex v. (2 Leach, 862) ii, 722 Deal, S. v. (92 N. C. 802). ii, 843 Dealy v. U. S. (152 U. S. 589) ii. 223 Dean v. C. (1 Bush, 20) i. 264, 2644 v. C. (4 Grat. 541) i. 1250 — v. C. (32 Grat. 912) i. 1074 — +. C. (88. & R. 418) ii. 882 —, ©. v. (9 Gray, 283) © 4,228 —,C. v. (109 Mass, 349) — i. 825, 1391 —, C. v. (110 Mass. 64) i, 825 —, C. v. (21 Pick. 334) i, 624 —— v. Gridley (10 Wend. 254) i. 1130 —,, P. ». (6 Cow. 27) ii. 429 —, Reg. v. (6 Cox C. C. 28) ii. 986, 967 ——, Rex v. (1 Leach, 476) i. 789 v. 8. (63 Ala. 158) i, 1877 — ». 8. (89 Ala. 46) ii. 70 —— v. S. (37 Ark. 57) ii. 841 i, 452, 1005a v. 8. ie Ga. 218) v. S. (Mart. & Yerg. 127) i. 370, 665 DEL INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. DEN Dean v. S. (2 Sm. & M. 200) i, 264 a, | Delany. P. v. (49 Cal. 894) i, 753 ; 264 d | —— v. 8. (41 Tex. 601) i. 1269 —, S. »v. (18 Tre. 63) ii. 230 | Delaplaine v. Cook (7 Wis. 44) i, 1690 —, S. uv. (3 Jones, N. C. 393) i. 188 | Delaware, P. v. (45 N. Y. 196) i. 278 —, S. v. (24 Kan. 53) i. 1317] Delaware, &c. Canal v. C. (60 Pa. —_, 8. v. (71 Wis. 678) i. 975c,1071| 367; 100 Am. D. 570) ii. 871 Dean of St. Asaph, Rex v. (21 How. Delehan, C. v. (148 Mass. 254) i. 1003; St. Tr. 847) ii, 787 ii. 63a —, Rex v. (8 T. R. 428) ii. 799 | Delesdenier, S. v. (7 Tex. 76) i, 280 Dearborn, C. v. (109 Mass. 368) i. 1247] Dellwood, 8. v. (83 La. An, 1229) ii..754 — , S. v. (54 Me, 442) i, 483 Deloohery v, 8. (27 Ind. 621) i. 1181 —, S. v. (59 N. H. 348) i. 1107 | Delozier v. S. (1 Head, 45) i, 1020 Dearing’s Case (Cro. Eliz, 193) ii, 542] Delphino v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 80) ii. 685 Dearing, S. v. (65 Mo. 530) i, 975c, 1179 | Delue, S. v. (1 Chand. 166) i, 652, 665 Deas, S. v. (88 La. An. 581) i. 998 a | Deman, Reg. v. (2 Ld. Raym. 1221) i.1284 Deason, S. v. (6 Bax. 511) i. 884] Demarchi, U.S. v. (5 Blatch. 84) 1.518; Deathridge v. S. (1 Sneed, 75) i, 1227, ii. 638 1239, 1242, 1253 | Deming v. Ferry (8 Ind. 418) i. 951 Deaton, In re (105 N. C. 59) i, 802, 1307 , U. 8. uv. (4 McLean, 3) ii, 909, 910 — v. §..(44 Tex. 446) i, 817 | Demint, P. v. (8 Cal. 423) i, 976 , 5. v. (92 N. C. 788) i. 470 | Dempsey v. P. (47 Ill. 323) i. 9662; ii. 4 Deaver v. Buncombe (80 N.C. 116) i. "1316 — v. P. (5 Par. Cr. 85) . i, 254 , 8. v. (77 N. C. 655) i. 315 | —— v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 429; 30 Am. Debbs ». 8. (48 Tex. 650) ii. 754} BR. 148) i. 1179 Decatur v. Maxwell (26 Iowa, 398) Demuth, C. vo. (12S. & R. 389) i. 812 i. 68, 72 | Denehy, C. v. (108 Mass. 424, note) Deck v. S. (47 Ind. 245) i. 384 i. 1161, 1164 Deckard v. 8. (88 Md. 186) li, 8325 | Denham ». S. (22 Fla. 664) i.975c, 1012; Decker, S. v. (86 Kan. 717) ii. 86, 187 ii, 585 v. Somerset Mutual Fire Ins. Denis, S. v. (19 La. An. 119) i, 1144 Co. (66 Me. 406) i. 1097 | Denison v. Richardson (14 East, 291) Dedham, C. v. (16 Mass. 141) i. 128, 677, 68: Dedieu v. P. (22 N. Y. 178) ii. 48.4 Dedman v. Smith (2 A. K. Mar, 260) ii. 383 Deeds, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 238) Deegan, C. v. (188 Mass. 182) ii. 740 —, P. v. (88 Cal. 602) i. 966 b, 999 Deeley, Reg. v. (11 Cox C. C. 607) i. 1020, 1033 Deer, Reg. v. (Leigh & C.240; iCal C.C. 225) ii. 981, 989 ii, 822 Deering, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 165) i. 905, 96 Deffenbacher, S. v. (51 Mo. 26) i. 585 Defoe v. P. (22 Mich. 224) i. 962 Degant v. Michael (2 Ind. 396) i. 290, 223 Degey, P. v. (2 Wheeler Crim. Cas. 135) ii. 285, 286 Deguen, P. v. (54 Barb. 105; 6 Abb. Pr. n. s. 87 i. 1809, 1310 Degonia, S. v. (69 Mo. 485) i. 981 Deitz v. S. (123 Ind. 85) ° i. 700, 762 Dejardin, C. v. (126 Mass. 46; 30 Am. R. 652) ii, 7945 Dejarnette v. C. (75 Va. 867) i. 909, 975c, 980 ; ii. 675 Delahoussaye, S. v. (87 La. An. 551) i. 798 Delamater v. P. (5 Lans. 332) i, 1185 Delamere, Rex v. (Comb. 6 i, 256 —, Rex v. (11 How. Str. Tr. 509) i. 780, 794 Delaney v. S. (22 Vroom, 387) ii, 280 Delano v. S. (29 Ind. 211) ii, 850 i. 408 2 | — v. Wertz (7.8. & R. 372) i. 792 Denkins, S. v. (24 La. An. 29) i, 502 Denman v. S. (15 Neb. 138) i. 433 Denmark v. 8. (58 Ark. 576) ii. 754 Dennard v. 8. (2 Kelly, 187) i. 2647 Dennee, U. S. v. (8 Woods, 39) __ ii. 1020 Dennett, S. v. (19 La. An. 395) ii. 482 3 Dennie, Respublica v. (4 Yeates, 267) i. 909, 934 Denning v. S. (22 Ark. 131) i, 853 Dennis, Ex parte (48 Ala. 304) i. 68 —— v.P. (1 Par. Cr. 469) ii, 456 —, P. v. (89 Cal. 625) i. 1109; ii. 630 —, P. vu. (4 Mich. 609; 69 Am. D. 338) i. 264 a, 264 b, 264 c, 264% v. S. (17 Fla. 389) ii. 924 v. §. (91 Ind. 291) ii, 877 v. S. (108 Ind. 142) 4.1170; ii. 515 v. 8. (5 Pike, 280) i. 708, 711 —, S. r. (80 Mo. 589) li. 197 —, U.S. v. (1 Bond, 103) i. 264 a, 2646 —— v. Weekes (51 Ga. 24) ii. 678 Dennison’s Case (4 Greenl. 541) — i. 1264 Denny v. 8. (6 Ga. 491) i. 951 f —, S. v. (67 Ind. 148) i. 286 Denoon, S. v. (84 W. Va. 189) i. 898, 966 b Denslow, Reg. v. (2 Cox C. C. 280) i. 1019 Densmore, C. v. (12 Allen, 535) i. 1082 1086, 1212; ii. 623 v. S. (67 Ind. 306; 33 Am. R. 96) i. 975 c, 1094 Dent v. P. (1 Thomp. & C. 655) — i. 1269 537 DEV INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. DIC Dent, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 249) i. 481;] Devine, P. v. (44 Cal. 452) i, 1202 ii. 174 | ——, P. v. (46 Cal. 45) i. 931, 1195 —, Reg. v. (2 Cox C. C. 354) =i. 488, | —— v. S. (4 Iowa, 448): i. 239 689 b | —— v. S. (5 Sneed, 623) i, 2647 —— v. S. (42 Ala. 514) i. 286, 1317 | Devlin wv. P. (104 Ill. 504) i. 975c, 978 —, 8. v. (3 Gill & J. 8) ii. 77|——, P. v. (7 Daly, 47) i. 264m —, S. v. (41 La. An. 1082) i. 72, 909 | —, S. v. (25 Mo. 174) i. 1048 —, 8. v. (6 S. C. 383) i. 884 | ——, U.S. ». (6 Blatch. 71) i. 452, 931, 940, —— uv. West Virginia (129 U. S. 943 114) i, ae 100 a | Devoe v. C. (3 Met. 316) ii. 136 Denton, Reg. v. rae 3; 18Q.B Devon, Rex v. (4 B. & C. 770) ii. 1043 761; 14 Eng. L. & Eq. 124) i. 1285 ; Devoto v. C. (3 Met. Ky. 417) ii. 990 ii. 1043 Dew, S. v. (Taylor, 142) i, 257 v. 8. (1 Swan, Tenn. 279) i. 1111; | Dewey, P. v. (35 Hun, 308) ii. 4184 ii. 623, 625, 626 | —— v. S. (91 Ind. 178) i. 721 , S. v. (14 Ark. 343) i. 694 | ——, S. v. (65 Vt. 550) i. 478 —, 5S. v. (6 Coldw. 539) i. 50, 1355 Dewhurst, Rex v. (2 Nev. & M. 2538; , 5. v. (1 Eng. 259) i. 1265, 1272] 5 B. & Ad. 405) i. 691 Deon v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 435) i. 314. | Dewick, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 230) i. 905 Depardo, Rex v. (1 Taunt. 26 ; Russ. Dewitt, C. v. (10 Mass. 154) i. 60; ii. 727 & Ry. 134) ii. 688 | ——, S. v. (2 Hill, 8. C. 282; 27 Am. Depass, S. v. (31 La. An. 487) i439] D. 371) i, 816 ——,, S. v. (45 La. An. 1151) ii. 627 | ——, S. v. (82 Mo. 571) ii. 749 Depue v. Place (7 Pa. 428) ii, 432 b | Dewsnap, Rex v. (16 East, 194) i. 691 Depuke, Reg. v. (11 Mod. 273) ii. 383 | Dexter v. Spear (4 Mason, 115) i. 1100; Derby’s Case (12 Co. 114) i. 314 ii. 801 Derby, P. v. (1 Par. Cr. 892) i. 264 f| Dias v. S. (7 Blackf. 20; 89 Am. D. —, Reg. v. (Fort. 140) © i, 216 448) i. 1856; ii. 516, 520, 525, 549, 641 Derecourt v. Corbishley (5 Ellis & Diaz, P. v. (6 Cal. 248) i. 951 a, 1195 B. 188; 82 Eng. L. & Eq. 186) i. 170 | Dibben v. Cooke (2 Stra. 1005) i. 1813 Deriener v. Fenna (7 M. @ W. 439) i. 824 | Dibble v. P. (4 Par. Cr. 199) ii. 428 Derosier, S. v. (14 La, An. 736) i. .264.7 | ——, P. v. (8 Abb. Ap. 518) i. 1128; ii. 428 Derossett, S. v. (19 Mo. 383) ii. 841 | Dibley, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 818) ii. 746 Derrington, Rex v. (2 Car. & P. Dibrell v. S. (3 Tex. Ap. 456) ii. 979 418) - : i, 1226 | Dick, P. v. (32 Cal. 218) i. 980, 1077 Desbrow v. Farrow (3 Rich. 382) ii. 482 6 | —, P. v. (87 Cal. 277) i. 571, 7066 Deschamps, S. v. (41 La. An. 1051) i. 951 a —, 5.x. (42 La. An. 567; 21 Am. St. 392) i. 1049, 1125, 1274 ; ii. 599, 601, 604 Deshazo v. 8. (4 Humph. 275) i, 869 Deshon v. Merchant’s Bank (8 Bosw. 461) ii, 678 Desmarteau, C. v. (16 Gray, 1) i. 681, 686, 1015 a; ii. 515 Desmond, C. v. (5 Gray, 80) i. 12544 C. v. (141 Mass. 200) ——, Reg. v. (11 Cox C. C. 146) —, 8. v. (5 La. An. 398) i. 1270 Desmouchet, S. v. (82 La. An, 1241) 1.931 Despard, Rex v. (2 Man. & R. 406) i. 923, » 1040 Detro v. 8. (4 Ind. 200) i, 951 Detroit v. Whittemore (27 Mich. 281) i, 286 Detroit, &e. Rid. v. Van Steinburg (17 Mich. 99) i. 1178; ii. 677 Deupree v. Deupree (45 Ga. 414) i. 814 Devaux, Rex v. (2 East P, C. 789) ii. 759 Deveny v. 8. (47 Ind. 208) i. 717, 720 Dever, C. v. (10 Leigh, 685) i. 692 Devers, S. v. (84 Ark. 188) i. 315 Devett, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 639) Devine v. P. (100 Ill. 290) 538 i. 470 i, 1265 — v.S. (87 Ala. 61) i. 1076, 1091, 1094, 1181 — v.58. (30 Missis. 593) i. 980, 1160, 1238 —— v. S. (80 Missis. 631) i. 478, 485, 1226 —— v. §. (53 Missis. 384) ii. 40 —— v. S. (8 Ohio St. 89) ii. 595 Dickenson v. Brown (Peake, 234) i. 206 —, Rex v. (1 Saund. 135, note) i, 596 —— v. S. (20 Neb. 72) i. 251 Dickerson, Ex parte (80 Tex. ap 448) 1410 —— v. C. (2 Bush, 1) i, 1009; ii. 84 v. S. (48 Wis. 288) i. 975 , 1236 ——, S. v. (24 Mo. 365) ii, 888, 890 Dickey, U.S. v. (Morris, 412) i, 612 Dickinson v. Barber (9 Mass. 225; 6 Am. D. 58) ii. 674, 683 — v. Heeb Brewing Co. (73 Iowa, 705) i. 1415 —— v. Kingsbury (2 Day, 1) i, 251 v. Potter (4 Day, 340) i. 727 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 401) i. 873 — v.8. (70 Ind, 247) i, 438 —,S. v. (41 Wis. 299) i, 1208 ——, U.S. v. (Hemp. 1) i. 478, 479 — U.S. ». (2 Merers, 825) i. 457 Dicks v. Hatch (10 Towa, 380) i. 123 Dickson, Ex parte (20 Tex. Ap. 332) i. 261 — »v. Evans (6 T. R. 57) i. 1056 DIN INDEX TO THE Dickson v. S. (20 Fla. 800) v. 8. (62 Ga. 583) —— v.§, (39 Ohio St. 73) ii. 625 , 5. v. (6 Kan, 209) i, 999 —, 8. v. (78 Mo. 4388) ii, 602 —, S. v. (88 N. C. 648) ii, 163 Didieu v. P. (4 Par. Cr. 598) i. 102; ii. 32, 48 a Dieckhoff, S. v. (1 Mo. Ap. 83) i, 1275 Dierberger, S. v. (96 Mo. 666; 9 Am. St. 380) i. 169, 160, 183, 1049 Dietrichs v. Schaw (48 Ind. 175) i. 185 Dietz v. Langfitt (63 Pa. 284) ii. 6038 S. v. (67 Iowa, 220) i. 1170 Digby v. P. (113 Ill. 123; 55 Am. R. 402) i. 1212 Diggs, Ex parte (50 Ala. 78) i. 278, 280 v. S. (49 Ala. 811) i, 278, 685 — v.§. (77 Ala. 68) i, 1265 Dignam, Reg. v. (7 A. & E. 598) i. 1294 Dignowitty v. S. (17 Tex. 521; 67 Am. D. 670) ii. 721, 732 Dilcher v. 8. (89 Ohio St. 180) ii. 902 —— v. §. (42 Ohio St. 173) i. 1254 Dildy, S. v. (72 N. C. 825) i. 1287, 1238 Dill, C. v. (160 Mass. 536) ii. 1018 v. P. (19 Colo. 469; 41 Am. St. 254) ii. 69 — v.58. (25 Ala. 15) i. 159 — v.58. (1 Tex. Ap. 278) i. 422, 449, 453, 457, 1170 v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 118) i. 951; ii. 1005 —., S. v. (75 N. C. 257) i. 595; ii. 781 Dillane, C. v. (1 Gray, 483) i. 400, a 1 — , C. v. (11 Gray, 67) i. 1264 Dillard v. S. (8 Heisk. 260) ii. 976, 977 v. §. (58 Missis. 368) i. 783; ii. 631 — , §. «. (8 Blackf. 365) ii. 992, 993 —,S. v. (85 La. An. 1049) i. 850 Dille v. S. (84 Ohio St. 617; 32 Am. R. 895) i. 818 Dilley v. 8. (Riley, 302) i. 1274 Pe S. v. (18 Mo. 331) i. 6896 Dillin v. P. (8 Mich. 857) i. 966 a, 966 8, 1086, 1109, 1251; ii. 629 Dillingham v. 8. (6 Ohio St. 280) i. oe o> /——v. U.S. (2 Wash. C. C. 422) i. 264, 264 b, 264 f Dillon, C. v. (4 Dall. 116) i. 1244: v. O’Brien (16 Cox C. C. 245) i. 211 — vv. P. (4 Thomp. & C. 208; 1° Hun, 670) ii, 741 —, Reg. v. (14 Cox C. C. 4) ii. 934 —, Rex. v. (2 Chit. 314) ii, 883 —— »v.8. (9 Ind. 408) 1.339, 370, 374, 1287 —,S. v. (3 Hayw. 174) i. 1366 Dilloway, S. v. (2 Vroom, 42) i. 8144 Dills v. S. (59 Ind. 15) i. 1817, 1818 Dilworth’s Appeal (91 Pa. 247) =i. 1417 Dilworth v. C. (12 Grat. 689; 65 Am. D. 264) i. 911 Dinah v. S. (39 Ala. 859) i. 1228, 1284, ‘1288, 123 9 — 5S. v. (80 La, An. 1194) CASES CITED. DOA Dinckerlocker v. Marsh (75 Ind. 548) i. 1407 i, 556, 1049, 1094 Dingler, Rex v. (1 Leach, 504, note; 1 East P. C. 356) i, 1212 —, Rex v. (2 Leach, 561) i. 1195, 1199 Dingley, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 687) i. 1259 Dineen, S. v. (10 Minn. 407) —, Rex v. (cited 2 Leach, 841) _ ii. 147 Dingman, Reg. v. (22 U. C. Q. B. 288 ii. 57 Dinkens v. 8, (42 Tex. 250) i. 951 Dishman, S. v. (74 N. C. 217) i. 977 Dishongh v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 158) i. 718 Diskin, S. v. (384 La. An. 919; 44 Am. R. 448) i. 947, 1254 ——., 8. v. (85 La. An. 46) i. 909 Dismukes v. S. (88 Ala. 287) i. 966 a, 1086 Disque v. 8. (20 Vroom, 249) 4.1181 Distillery, U.S. v. (4 Bis. 26) i. 635 District of Columbia v. Armes (107 U,. S. 519) i, 1141 v. Herlihy (1 McAr. 466) i. 713, 714 District Medical Society, S. v. (6 Vroom, 200) i. 1878 Ditto v. C. (2 Bibb, 17) i, 1281 —— v. S. (30 Missis. 126) i. 264 m Ditton, S. v. (48 Lowa, 677) ii. 750 Divine, P. v. (Edm. Sel. Cas. 594) ii. 674 v. 8. (4 Ind. 240) i. 614 —,, 8. v. (69 N. C. 390) i. 1264 —,S v. (98 N. C. 778) i. 1006 Divoll, 8, v. (44 N. H. 140) i. 511; ii. 912 Dixon’s Case (2 Lewin, 178) ii. 424 Dixon v. Holden (Law Rep. 7 Eq. 488) i. 1416 —, P. uv. (94 Cal. 255) i. 966 b —, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 651) i, 255, 257, 1108 ——, Reg. v. (8 Cox C. C. 289) ii. 489 — , Rex v. (3 M. & S. 11) i. 1100 —, Rex v. (10 Mod. 335) i. 388; ii. 275 —— v. Richards (2 How. Missis. 771) i. 897 —— v. §. (81 Ala. 61) ii, 415 — v.§. (22 Ark. 213) i, 1278 —— v. S. (29 Ark. 165) i. 886 — v.§. (4 Blackf. 312) ii. 828 — v. 8. (18 Fla. 631) i. 738, 976, 1212; ii. 600, 625 —v. S. (4 Greene, Iowa, 381) i. 698, 983 — v.58. ( Iowa, 416) i, 883 — v.S. (2 Tex, 481) i. 1304 — v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 530) ii. 754 — v.§. (15 Tex. Ap. 480) i. 59 — , S. v. (97 Ind. 125) i, 869.4 —, S. v. (75 N. C. 275) i. 981 —,S. v. (78 N. C. 558) i. 1018 —,S. v. (104 N.C. 704) i. 975 c, 1079 Do, Territory v. (1 Ariz. 507) i. 1005 Doan », S. (26 Ind. 495) ii, 137, 189 Doane v. Garretson (24 Iowa, 351) ii. 751 264 f 539 DOL Dobbs, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 518) ii. 147 Dobson, Ex parte (31 Cal. 497) i. 1887 —, Reg. v. (9 Q. B. 3802) i. 691 —, Rex v. (7 East, 218) ii. 188, 191 ——v. 5S. (5 Lea, 271) i, 1126 —,S. v. (3 Harring Del. 663) — ii. 751 Dock v. C. eC Grat. 909) ii, 612 Dockham, C. v. (‘Thacher Crim. Cas. 238) i. 798 Dockstader, S. v. (42 Iowa, 486) i. 1119 Dodd, Rex v. a Leach, 155) i. 1160; ii, 429 uv. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 58) i, 683 v. §. (10 Tex. Ap. 370) ii. 718 Dodge v. P. (4 Neb. 220) _ i. 47, 278, 926, 931, 1265, 1298, 1353 — v.8. (4 Zab. 455) 1. 1269 ; ii, 912, 916, 919, 934 i, 689 b, 1081 i, 975 c, 9804 1236; ii. 152 —, U.S. v. (Deady, 186) Dodson v. S. (86 Ala. 60) —, S. v. (72 Mo. 283) i. 314, 1277 —, S. v. (4 Or. 64) ii. 610, 618, 621 —, §. v. (148. C. 628) i. 1003, 1018 — , S. v. (16 S. C. 453) i. 689, 906, 9754 Doe, P. v. (1 Mich. 451) i. 908, 905, 906 ; ii, 584 —, S. v. (50 Iowa, 541) i. 714 Doebler v. C. (8 S. & R. 287) i. 897 — v. 8. (1 Swan, Tenn. 4738) i. 869 —.,, U.S. ». (Bald. 519) ii, 428, 483 Doepke, S. v. (68 Mo. 208; 30 Am. R. 785) ii. 725, 751 Doering v. S. (49 Ind. 56; 19 Am. R. 669 Doggett, P. «. (62 Cal. 27) i. 168 i. 1116 Doherty v. C. (109 Mass. 359) i. 1359 —_, C. v. (10 Cush. 52) i, 408, 413 ; ii. 145, 149 —, C. v. (103 Mass. 443) ii. 884, 885 —, C. v. (127 Mass. 20) ij. 829 — v. Munson (127 Mass. 495) — i. 1334 —, Reg. v. (138 Cox C. C. 23) i. 1239 —, S. v. (60 Me. 504) i. 849 — , §. ». (2 Tenn. 80) i, 1223 Dohme v. 8. (68 Ga. 339) i. 370 Dohring, P. v. (69 N. Y.374; 17 Am. INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. | —, S. v. (80 Mo. 585) DON Dollarhide v. U. S. (Morris, 283; 39 Am. J). 460) ii. 64 Dolling, S. v. (87 Wis. 396) i. 999 Dollner v. Williams (29 Ga. 743) i. 978 Dominges v. 8. (7 Sm. & M. 475; 45. Am. D. 315) i. 951 a, 1194 Dominick v. 3 (40 Ala. 680 ; 91 Am. D. 496) i, 752, 811, 812 Dominique, S. v. (39 ‘La. An. 323) i. 97, 269 i. 1082, 1086, 1111; ii. 625 (2 Yeates, Donagan, Respublica v. 4 i. 229 Donahoe z. 8. (12 Tex. Ap. 297) i. 966 —, S. v. (78 Iowa, 486) i. 975 c, 1049, 1076 ; ii. 599 —— v. Shed (8 Met. 326) i, 187 Donahue, Ex parte (65 Cal. 474) i. 8l4a —, C. v. (126 Mass. 51) i. 763 — , C. v. (148 Mass. 529) ii. 1005 — , P. wu. (45 Cal. 821) i, 1264, 1269, 1276 Donald, P. v. (48 Mich. 491) ii. 320 v. §, (81 Fla. 255) i. 854 Donaldson, Ex parte (44 Mo. 149) i. 1389, 1395 — v.C. (95 Pa. 21) i. 931, 966 c —, S. v. (8 Heisk. 48) i. 49 Donau, S. v. (11 Blatch. 168) ii. 217, 222, 245 Donelson v. Howard (23 Kan.70) i. 286 v. Taylor (8 Pick. 390) i, 1187 Donguli, P. v. (92 Cal. 607) i, 975¢ Doniphan v. S. (50 Missis. 54) i. 264A Donnavan, Rex v. (1 Leach, 69) ii. 39 Donnel v. U.S. (Morris, 141; 39 Am. D. 457) i. 688 Donnell, S. v. (11 Iowa, 452) i, 691, 1817 Donnelly, In re (80 Kan. 191,424) i, 235 ——, P.v. (21 How. Pr. 406) i. 1268 —, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 182) i. 1166 ——, Rex v. (1 Moody, 488) ii, 443 v. S. (78 Ala. 453) i, 688, 931 —v. §. (2 Dutcher, 463) i. 277, 303, 966 a, 1207, 1216, 1254, 1265, 1871, 1408; ii. 623, 642 R. 349) i. 314, 814.a, 1145 | ——v.S. (2 Dutcher, 601) i. 1094, 1207, Dolan’s Case (101 Mass. 219) i. 1310, 1884 1212, 1254 Dolan, C. v. (121 Mass. 374) i, 556 | Donniger v. S. (52 Ind. 326) i. 571 — v. P. (64 N. Y. 485) i. 827, 745, 793, | Donnison, Rex v. (4B. & Ad. 698) ii. 800 849 | Donnoly v. P. (88 Mich. 756) i, 1807 —, P. v. (9 Cal. 576) ii, 584 | Donohoo, S. v. (22 W. Va. 761) i. 975¢, ——? Pv. (51 Mich. 610) i. 946 1112 —— v. 8. (40 Ark. 454) i. 909, 999, 1197 | Donohue ». P. (56 N. Y. 208) i, 1181, v. 8. (122 Ind. 141) i. 612 1226, 1247, 1265, 1267 Dolby, Rex v. (2 B. & C. 104; 3 D. & BR. 311) i. 93 —— Rex v, (1 Car. & K. 288) 1.919, 931, 934 —, 8. v. (49 N. H. 483; 6 Am. R. 588) i. 717, 727 Dole, C. v. (2 Allen, 165) i, 488 —,S. v. (8 Blackf. 294) ii. 492 Doles v. 8. (97 Ind. 555) 540 i. 1086, 1274 — , P. v. (14 Hun, 133) i. 1407 1|——, P. v. (84 N. Y. 438) i, 222 Donolly, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 715) ii. 1005 Donovan, C. v. (18 Allen, 571) i. 688 —, C.v.(16 Gray, 18) | i. 872; ii. 106, 273 —, C. v. (99 Mass. 425; 96 Am. D. 765) i. 951° pou INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. DOW Donovan v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap.272) i. 951 a | Dougherty, S. v. (55 Mo. 69) i. 999 —, 8. v. (41 Iowa, 587) i. 1088, 1152 | —, S. v. (4 Or. 200) i, 325 —, S. v. (61 Iowa, 278) i. 1116 | Doughty, C. v. (189 Pa. 383) i. 975, — , 5S. c. (61 Towa, 369) ii. 674, 979 979, 1034, 1255, 1277 —, 8. v. (10 Nev. 36) i. 980 a | —— vw S. (33 Tex. 1) i. 168, 172, 2644 Donston v. 8. (6 Humph. 275) i. 998 a | —— v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 179; 51 Am. Dooley v. S. (28 Ind. 289) i. 998 a, 1012} R. 308) i. 1161 Doolittle v. S. (93 Ind. 272) i. 981; ii. 67 | Douglas v. Reg. (18 Q. B. 74) i. 1307, Dooly, C. v. (6 Gray, 360) i, 1006 1827 ; ii. 822, 825 —, 8. v. (64 Mo. 146) i. 273, 325, 480, | —, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 193) i. 689 8, 1015 953 Doon, S. v. (R. M. Charl. 1) i, 1270 | —, S. v». (17 Me. 193; 35 Am. D. Doonan v. Mitchell (26 Ga. 472) i.978] 248) i. 59 Doran, C. v. (14 Gray, 37) i. 346 | Douglass, C. v. (5 Met. 241) ii. 929 ——,, Rex. (1 Esp. 127) ii. 5G | —, P. v. (87 Cal. 281) i. 1264 ——, Rex v. (1 Leach, 538) i. 445 | ——, P. v. (4 Cow. 26; 15 Am. D. 332) i. 999 — v.58. (7 Tex. Ap. 385) ii. 595 | ——, Rex v. (1 Camp. 212) ii. 184, 187, Dore, Rex v. (Andr. 801) i, 1219 188 Dorman v. S. (56 Ind. 454) i. 8650 | —— v. S, (8 Tex. Ap. 520) i, 869, —, Territory v. (1 Ariz. 56) i. 975c 1050 ; ii. 603 Dormar v. S. (31 Ark. 49) ii. 1048 v. S. (26 Tex. Ap.109; 8 Am. Dormer’s Case (2 Leon. 5) 1.605] St. 459) 1. 488c; ii. 653 Dormer v.S. (2 Ind. 308) ii, 492 | —— v. 8. (26 Tex. Ap. 248) 1, 264 m Dornick v. Reichenback (10 8. & R. — v.§. (3 Wis. 820) i. 125, 733 84) i. 1001 | —— v. S. (6 Yerg. 525) i, 288 Dorny, Rex v. (Holt, 267; 1 Ld. ——, S. v. (7 Clarke, Iowa, 418) i. 1270, Raym. 610) ii. 387 1276 Dorr, S. v. (83 Me. 498) ii. 177 |] ——, S.v. (1 Greene, Iowa, 550) —si. 1013 —,, S. v. (82 Me. 212) i. 622 | ——, S. v. (69 Ind. 544) i. 264 a, 264 , S. v. (82 Me. 341) i. 607, 814 | —, S. v. (44 Kan. 618) i. 1112 Dorrance, C. v. (14 Philad. 671) ii. 805 | —, S. v. (28 La, An. 425) i. 1357 Dorsey, C.v. (103 Mass. 412) i. 940 | ——, S. v. (63 N. C. 500) i. 878, 981, — v. P. (37 Mich. 382) i. 1810 932 a — v.§. (1 Tex. Ap. 33) ii, 965, 966 | ——. U.S. v. (2 Blatch.207,) i. 931, 936, —,S. v. (40 La. An. 789) i. 999 938, 1019 a, 1076, 1077 Dorus, C. v. (108 Mass. 488) i. 1002 ;| —— v. Wickwire (19 Conn. 489) i. 816 ii. 1026 | —— v. Yallop (2 Bur. 722) i, 1899 Doss v. C, (1 Grat. 557) i. 964, 1049 | Dourdon, S. v. (2 Dev. 4438) i. 488 ; — , P. v. (39 Cal. 428) ii. 815 ii. 403 v. §. (28 Tex. Ap. 506) i. 878, 975c. | Dovalina v. S. (14 Tex. Ap.312) ii. 488 1060; ii. 721 | Dovaston v. Payne (2 H. Bl. 527) i. 324, Dosset, Reg. v. (2 Cox C.C. 243) ii. 848 328 TDossett, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K.806) ii. 848 | Dove, C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 29) i. 694 Dotson v. S. (62 Ala, 141; 34 Am. R. —— v. S. (87 Ark. 261) i. 1125 2)" i, 850 | —~—v. S. (3 Heisk. 348) i. 1095; ii. 673, — v.§. (88 Ala. 208) i. 1227 678 — v.S. (6 Coldw, 545) ii. 378 | ——, S. v. (10 Ire. 469) i, 909, 1269 Dottarer v. Bushey (16 Pa. 204) ii. 794 | Dover v.S. (75 Ala. 40) ii. 595 Doty, C. v. (2 Met. 18) i, 1264, 1266 | ——, S. v. (9 N. H. 468) i. 144 — v. 8. (6 Blackf. 529) i. 73; ii. 769 | ——, S. v, (10 N. H. 394) ii. 1045 — v.§8. (7 Blackf. 427) i. 73 | Dovey, Reg. v. (2 Eng. L. & Eq. 582; —, S. v. (5 Coldw. 83) ii. 290 15 Jur. 230; 2 Deni. C.C. 86; 4 —, S. v. (5 Or. 491) ii. 63a, 67) Cox C.C. 428) i. 470; ii. 988 Doud, S. v. (7 Conn. 3884) ii. 943 | Dow’s Case (18 Pa. 37) i, 224d Dougan v. S. (30 Ark. 41) i. 60, 68 | Dow, C. v. (11 Gray, 316) i. 982a Dougher, S. v. (49 Mo. 409) i. 314a | —, C. v. (5 Met. 329) i. 1265 Dougherty, In re (27 Vt. 325) i. 472, 892 | ——, P. v, (64 Mich. 717; 8 Am. St. — v.C. (69 Pa, 286) i. 272, 314 a, 73) ii, 153 : 1298, 1386, 1358 —, S. v. (74 Iowa, 141) i. 1264 —,C. v. (6 Gray, 349) ii. 845 | —— v. Spenny (29 Mo. 386) ii, 428, 436 —v.P. ae Ill. ay! i. 711} -——, U.S. v. (Taney, 84) i. 414, 480, 931 — , P. v. (7 Cal. 395, 398) i. 381 Dawa. on v. (44 Mich. 488) j. 280 — v.S. (5 Ind. 453) i, 1269 | ——, S. v. (19 Conn. 388) ii, 684 — v.S. (20 Ind. 442) i, 314 a| ——, S. v, (89 Kan. 412) i. 959 a, 966 c; —, 8. v. (70 Iowa, 439) i, 1298 ii. 783 541 DOY Dowd, S. v. (95 Mo. 163) i. 482; ii, 168 Dowda v. 8. (71 Ga. 481) i. 95 1 -— v. 8. (74 Ga. 12) i, 969 Dowdale’s Case (6 Co. 466) i. 49, 1005a Dowdican, C. v. (115 Mass. 183) i. 1291, 1395 Dowdigan, P. v. (67 Mich. 95) i. 1196, 1197 Dowdy v. C. (9 Grat. 727; 60 Am. D. 314) i. 449, 457, 921, ii. 185 — v.58. (9 Tex. Ap. 292) i. 951 Dowe, S. v. (27 Iowa, 278; 1 Am. R. 271) ii. 163 Dowell v. Boyd (3 Sm. & M. 592) i. 8l4a —, S. v. (3 Gill & J. 310) ii. 700 —,S. v. (106 N. C. 722; 19 Am. St. 568) ii. 957 Dower, C. v. (4 Allen, 297) i. 1265 Dowers, S. v. (45 N. H. 543) ii. 8744 Dowlin, Rex v. (Peake, 170) ii. 934, 985 —, Rex v. (6 T. R. 311) ii. 902, 906, 910, 911, 921 Dowling, P. v, (84 N. Y. 478) i. 68 —, Reg. v. (3 Cox C.C. 509) i. oe 96 —,v. 8. (6 Sm. & M. 664) i. 849, 854, 881, 920, 1112 —, S. v. (50 Mo. 134) i. 1378 Dowman’s Case (9 Co. 7d) i. 1006 Downer, S. v. (8 Vt. 424; 80 Am. D. 482) ii. 888, 889 —, 8. v. (21 Wis. 274) i. 980 Downes, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 997) ii. 472 Downey, C. y. (9 Mass. 520) i. 264a, 1264 — ,, Reg. v. (7 Q. B. 281) i. 235, 869 a Downing v. C. (4 T. B. Monr. 511) i. 264 m —, C. v. (4 Gray, 29) i. 11738, 1174 v. Herrick (47 Me. 462) i, 1821 v. Porter (8 Gray, 539) i, 242 — , Rex v. (1 Den. C. C. 52; 1 Cox C.C. 156; 2 Car. & K. 382) ii. 3 — v. 8. (66 Ga. 110) i. 1179 uv. S. (4 Misso. 572) i. 560 , 5S. v. (22 Mo. Ap. 504) i, 232 Downs, P. v. (123 N.Y, 558) i. 975 c, 1049 1098 ; ii. 599 —,, S. v. (8 Ind. 42) i. 187 —,S.v.(91Mo.19) i. 975 e; ii. 611, 613 —, S. ». (59 N. H. 320) ii. 34 Downshire, Rex v. (4 A. & E. 282; 5 Nev. & M. 662) ii. 1051 Dowse, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 492) i. 963 Doyal v. S. (70 Ga. 134) i. 998 a; fi. 613 — , S. v (12 La. An. 653) i. 250 Doyell, P. v. (48 Cal. 85) i. 980 a, 1270 Doyle’s Case (19 Abb. Pr. 269) i, 229 Doyle, C. v. (110 Mass. 103) i. 114, 128, 403 —, C. v. (182 Mass, 244) i, 1183 — vv. Falconer (Law Rep. 1 P.C. 328 — v.P. (4 Neb, 220) —, P. v. (21 Mich, 221) 542 i, 228 i, 1269 i, 1121 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. DRE Doyle, Rex v. (1 Esp. 125) i. 951a — , Rex v. (1 Leach, 67) i. 1311 — v. Russell (30 Barb. 800) i. 187, 189, 263 a, 1882 — v.S. (49 Ala. 28) ii. 825 v. 8. (77 Ga. 5138) i. 451, 962 — v.§. (17 Ohio, 222) i, 884 — v. §. (4 Tex. Ap. 253) ii. 714 —— v.S8. (5 Tex. Ap. 442) ii. 67, 979 — , S. v. (107 Mo. 36) i. 959 a, 975¢, 978, 1144, 1264; ii. 602 —, S. v. (11 RI. 574) i, 1286 —, S. v. (15 BR. 1. 627) ii. 865 ——, Territory v. (7 Mont. 245) ii. 740 v. U.S. (11 Bis. 100) i, 9984 ‘| Dozier v. 8. (26 Ga. 156) i. 966, 980 —, S. v. (38 La. An. 1362) i, 981 Drage, Reg. v. (14 Cox C.C. 85) ii. 991 Drake v. Brander (8 Tex. 351) i. 1357 — v. C. (10 B. Monr. 225) i, 1114, 1115, 1275 —, C. v. (15 Mass. 161) — i. 1228, 1225 v. Curtis (1 Cush. 3895) i. 978 v. Jordan (78 Iowa, 707) i, 1415 —— v. Kaiser (78 Iowa, 708) i. 1415 — »v. Kinsell (38 Mich. 252) i. 1898 v. Newton (3 Zab. 111) ii. 883 —., Reg. v. (Holt, 347; 2 Salk. 660; 3 Salk. 224; 11 Mod. 78) i. 562 — v. §. (51 Ala. 30) i. 931, 945 v. 8. (75 Ga. 413) i. 965; ii. 613 ——v. §. (14 Neb. 535) ii. 115 —v. 8. (19 Ohio St. 211) i. 325, 523; ii, 402, 418 a, 421 v. S. (5 Tex. Ap. 649) i, 9324, 951 — v.S. (29 Tex. Ap. 265) i. 975c, 981, 1086; ii. 661 D 757) i, 227 —, S. v. (64.N. C. 589) i. 399, 612; ii. 816 —, S. v. (82 N.C. 692) i. 1289 —S. v. (89 N. H. 21) i. 940 —, S. v. (11 Or. 396) i. 1274 —,S.v. (1 Vroom, 422) i. 628, 586 —, S. v. (Winst. i. 241) i. 1006 Draper, P. v. (28 Hun, 1) i. 479, 996 — v. 8. (4 Bax. 246) ii. 603 — v. §. (22 Tex. 400) i. 1019 a, 1276 ——, S. v. (65 Mo. 835) i. 1207; ii. 516, 524 Drawdy, S. v. (14 Rich. 87) i, 984, 1019 Drennan v. P. (10 Mich. 169) i, 191 Dresback v. 8. (88 Ohio St. 865) 1. 975¢ Dresch v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 175) i, 1854 Dressel, C. v. (110 Mass. 102) i. 1264 Dresser, S. v. (54 Me. 569) i. 681, 686 Drew v. C. (1 Whart. 279) i. 1297, 1878 i, 162, 998 a, —, C. v. (4 Mass. 391) 1100, 1270, 1276 —,, C. v, (153 Mass. 588) ii. 163 —, Reg. ». (8 Car. & P. 140) i. 1219, 1227, 1233 Dreyer v. 8. (11 Tex. Ap. 631) i. 906; ii. 725, 740 DUF INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. DUN Driggs v. Burton (44 Vt. 124) i. 1895 | Duffy, S. v. (39 La. An. 419) i. 951 Dring, Reg. v. (Dears. & B. 829) ii. 988 | ——, S. v. (6 Nev. 188) i. 981 Drinkard v. 8. (20 Ala. 9) i. 1895 | Dufour, S. v. (68 Ind. 567) i. 429 Drinkwater, Rex v. (1 Leach, 15; 2 —, S. v. (31 La. An. 804) i, 1250, East P.C. 770) ii. 980 ’ 1262 Dripps, Reg. v. (13 Cox C. C. 25) i. 951 | Dugan, In re (2 Low. 867) i, 224 Driscoll v. P. (47 Mich. 418) ii. 1007 a | —— v. C. (6 Bush, 805) i. 264 a —, 8. v. (44 lowa, 65) ii. 629 | Dugay, S. v. (85 La An. 327) i. 909 —,S8. vu. (72 Iowa, 583) i. 1086 | Dugdale v. Reg. (Dears. 64; 1 Ellis Driskill v. 8. (45 Ala. 21) i1.126| & B. 485; 16 Eng. L. & Eq. 880) v. §. (7 Ind. 338) i, 918 ii. 794 Drogmond, S. v. (55 Mo. 87) i. 128 | ——v. Reg. (Dears. 254; 2 Ellis & Droneberger v. §. (112 Ind. 105) ii. 866) 3B. 129; 20 Eng. L. & Eq. 86) i, 254, Druitt, S. v. (42 Kan. 469) A718 1371 Drum, C. v. (58 Pa. 9) i. 1094 | ——v. Reg, (24 Law J. wn. 8. M.C. Drummond v. Leslie (5 Blackf. 458) 55; 29 Eng. L. & Eq. 184) i, 254 i, 1270 | Duggan v. S. (9 Fla. 516) i. 1347 v. Republic (2 Tex. 156) a 874 | ——, S. v. (15 R. I. 412) i. 884 a —, Reg. v. (11 Mod. 200) i. 264 y, 264 7 | Dugger v. S. (27 Tex. Ap. 95) i. 546 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 337; 1 East Duggins v. S. (66 Ind. 350) i. 314 P. C. 3538, note) i. 1209 | Dugie v. S. (100 Ind. 259) ~— i. 909; ii. 84 v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 150) i. 711 | Duke’s Case (Holt, 399) i, 275, 1302 Drumright v. S. (29 Ga. 430) i. 1083, | Duke v. S. (20 Ohio St. 225) i. 865 1253 | Dukes v. S. (14 Fla. 499) i. 849; ii. 603 Drury v. Dennis (Yelv. 106) i, 1015 a |] —— v. S. (11 Ind. 657; 71 Am. D, — v. S. (25 Tex. 45) i. 261) 370) i. 97, 280, 314, 482, 764, 1086; —_, 8. v. (18 R. I. 540) i. 791 ii. 505, 514, 564, 616 Drye v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 185) ii. 514 | Dula v. S. (8 Yerg. 511) i. 50; ii. 638 Du Bois v. 8. (50 Ala. 189) i. 488 b,| ——, 8. v. (100 N. C. 4238) i. 721 541, 978; ii. 705, 764 Dubois v. Baker (80 N. Y. 355) ii. 482 a —, 8. v: (24 La. An. 809) i. 951 ¢ v. Thomas (14 8. C. 80) i. 1899 Dubose v. 8. (10 Tex. Ap. 230) —_i. 1050, 1060 Ducher v. S. (18 Ohio, 308) ii. 188 Duck, S. v. (35 La. An. 764) i. 975 b Duckett, Ex parte (15 S. C. 210; 40 Am. R. 694) i. 1810 -—— v. S. (65 Ga. 369) ii. 740 Duckworth, Reg. v. (1892, 2 Q. B. 83; 17 Cox C. C. 495) —,S. v. (68 Mo. 156) Dudley, C. v. (6 Leigh, 6138) —, 8. v. (83 N. C. 660) i814 a —,S8.v. (7 Wis. 664) i. 683 Dudman, Rex v. (7D. & R. 824; 4 B.& C. 850) i. 488 c; ii. 911, 912, 921 ii. 96 i. 1265 i, 608 Dudney v. S. (22 Ark. 251) i. 485, 1276 Due, S. v. (7 Fost. N. H. 256) i, 1242 Duestoe, 8. v. (1 Bay, 377) i. 677, 909 Duff, P. v. (65 How. Pr, 365) i, 882 Duffield, Territory v. (1 Ariz. 58) i. 975 c Duffin v. P. (107 Ill. 113; 47 Am. R. 431) i. 664; ii. 484 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 368) i, 621 Duffy, C. v. (11 Cush, 145) ii, 714 — v.P. (1 Hill, N. Y. 356) i, 892 —v.P. (26N, ¥. 588) i. 984 —, P. ». (5 Barb. 205) i. 1298 —, Reg. v. (4 Cox C. C. 24) i, 782 —, Reg. v. (4 Cox C. C. 172) i. 749, j 780, 793 —, S. v. (67 Conn. 525) i. 966 8, 975 c, 979, 1145 —, 58. v. (Phillips, N. C. 211) ii. 628, 625 Dulany, C. v. (1 Cranch C. C. 82) i. 1888 v. 8. (45 Md. 99) i, 1265 Duling v. Johnson (82 Ind. 155) i. 1207 Dull v. C. (25 Grat. 965) ii. 732 — v. P. (4 Denio, 91) i. 945 Dumas v. Hunter (80 Ala. 188) i. 18438 — v. 8. (62 Ga. 58) i. 884, 919, 1212 —— v. S. (63 Ga. 600) i. 1223, 1255, 1270, 1277 ; ii. 504 — v. §. (65 Ga. 471) i. 1207 Dumbauld, C. v. (97 Pa. 293) i.8l4a Dumphey, S. v. (4 Minn. 438) i. 905, 934; ii. 533, 541, 584, 611, 618 Dunbar, C. v. (15 Gray, 209) i. 264 —— v. Parks (2 Tyler, 217) i. 1146 Duncan, Ex parte (53 Cal. 410) i. 261 —, Ex parte (54 Cal. 75) i. 264 a —, In re (189 U. S. 449) i. 1411 — v. C. (6 Dana, 295) i. 314 a, 816, 817 —— v. P. (1 Scam. 456) i. 665 — v. S. (88 Ala. 31) i. 1107, 1269, 1310 —— v. S. (7 Bax. 887) i, 982 a —— v.§. (84 Ind. 204) i. 68, 73 —, S. v. (6 Ire. 98) i. 932, 951; ii, 12, 13 —— 8. v. (6 Ire, 236) i, 602, 1081, 1248; ii, 12, 613, 627 —, 8. v. (2 McCord, 129) i. 1008 — , 8. uv, (64 Mo. 262) i. 1248 — 5. v. (107 N. C. 818) i. 1264 ——, 8. v. (9 Port. 260) i, 611, 629 —,S. v. (7 Yerg. 271) i, 851, 884 ——, Territory v. (6 Mont. 478) ii. 142 543 DUN INDEX TO THE Duncan v. Thwaites (3 B. & C. 556) i. 726 Duncomb, Rex v. (12 Mod. 224) i. 981 Dunham’s Appeal (27 Conn. 192) ii. 678 Dunham, C. v. (22 Pick. 11) i, 1264 — v.S. (8 Tex. Ap. 465) i, 1279 — v.S. (9 Tex. Ap, 380) i. 1391 —, S. v. (9 Ala. 76) i, 13889 Dunkley, Rex v. (1 Moody, 90) _ ii. 1027 —, 8S. v. (8 Ire. 116) i. 51; ii. 534, 638 Dunlap v. Bartlett (10 Gray, 282; 69 Am. D. 320) i. 256, 260 v8. (9 Tex. Ap. 179; 85 Am. R. 738) i. 1001, 1199 ——, S. v. (24 Me. 77) ii. 171 —,, S. v. (65 N. C. 491; 6 Am. R. 746) i. 8144 Dunleay, C. v. (153 Mass. 330) ii, 175 —, C. v. (157 Mass. 386) ii. 415 Dunlop, S. v. (65 N. C, 288) i. 978, 980 Dunn v. C. (6 Pa. 384) i. 265, 1853 —, C. v, (111 Mass. 426) i. 895 —— v. Moody (41 Me. 239) i. 980 v, P. (40 Ill. 465) i. 965 v. P. (109 Ill. 635) i. 951, 1094 — v. P. (29 N. Y.523; 86 Am. D. 319) i. 1159, 1169 —, P. «. (1 Idaho, 75) i. 981, 980 —, P. v. (90 N. Y. 104) i. 1015a v, Reg. (12 Q. B. 1031) i. 1301, 13812 —, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K.730) i. 9508, 1888; ii. 933d —, Reg. v. (2 Moody, 297) ii. 910 -—, Reg. v. (12 Q. B. 1026) i. 1870 —, Rex v. (Bayley Bills, 5th ed. 551) ii, 407 —, Rex v. (5 Bur. 2640) i, 260 —, Rex v. (Car. Crim. Law, 3d. ed. 82) i. 460 ——., Rex v. (4 Car. & P, 643) i. 12384 —, Rex v. (1D. & R. 10 ii, 924 —, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 976) i. 488 ——, Rex »v. (1 Moody,146) i. 1128; ii. 990 —, Rex v. (8 T. R. 217) i. 264d — v. 8. (60 Ala. 85) i. 68, 73 v. §. (29 Ind. 259) i. 1265 — v.58. (2 Pike, 229; 85 Am. D. 54) i, 314.a, 1128, 1212, 1264, 1871; ii. 18, 628, 629 ——v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 600) i. 68, 920 —v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 660) i. 1169 —, 8. v. (1 Dutcher, 214) ii, 945 25) S. v. (Minor, 46; 12 Am, D. i. 1408 8. v. (18 Mo. 419) i. 981, 1043 8. v. (80 Mo. 681) i. 975c, 1131 S. v. (95 N.C, 697) i, 1314, 1317 —, S. v. (109 N. C. 839) ii. 888 Dunnavant, S. v. (8 Brev. 9; 5 Am. 1). 630) i Dunne, P. v. (80 Cal. 34) . Dunnel, Rex v. (1 East P. C. 442) ii. 961 Dunnett’s Case (2 East P. C. 985; 2 Leach, 581) ii. 418, 489 544 CASES CITED. DYE Dunning, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C. 290; 11 Cox C. C. 651) ii. 905, 907, 9104, 911 —, §. v. (83 Me, 178) i. 854 Dupont v. Downing (6 Iowa, 172) i. 1268 ——, S. v. (2 McCord, 334) ii. 308 Dupree v. 8, (83 Ala. 380; 73 Am. D. 422) i, 1112, 1113, 1117, 1195; ii. 615, 621 — v.§8. (2 Tex. Ap. 613) i. 68, 71, 72 —— v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 591) i. 975e Durand v. P. (47 Mich. 832) i. 535 Durant v. P. (18 Mich. 351) ii. 989 Durbin, Ex parte (102 Mo. 100) i. 1827 —, S. v. (20 La. An. 408) i. 711 Durein, 8. v. (29 Kan. 688) i. 1028 Durell, P. v. (1 Idaho, 30) i. 316 Duren v. S. (15 Tex. Ap. 624) ii. 721 Durfee, C. v. (100 Mass. 146) i. 1002 — , P. v. (62 Mich. 487) Durham, v. P. (4 Scam. 172; 89 Am. D. 407 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 478) i, 1169 —'v. 8. (9 Ga. 306) i. 951/, 1394 — »v.§. (70 Ga. 264) i. 998 Durham Fertilizer Co. S. v. (111 i. 190, 959, 66 i. 488 N. C. 658) i. 850, 875 Durkin’s Case (2 Lewin, 163) i. 1314 Durley v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 172) i, 860 Durling, U.S. ». (4 Bis. 509) i, 287 Durr ». Howard (1 Eng. 461) i, 187 — v. 8, (53 Missis, 425) i. 282, 283, 770, 861, 882, 883 —, S. v. (39 La, An. 751) i. 982a Durrah v. S. (44 Missis. 789) i. 875, 878, 931 Durst, S. v. (7 Tex. 74) i, 652 Dusenberry, S. v. (112 Mo. 277) ii. 968 Dustin, U.S. v. (2 Bond, 332) i, 229; ii, 245 Dutell v. S. (4 Greene, Iowa, 125) i. 698, 699 Duttenhofer v. S. (84 Ohio St. 91; 82 Am. R. 362) i. 1181 Dutton v. S. (5 Ind. 533) i. 951a — v. Tracy (4 Conn. 79) ii. 883 Du Val v. Hot Springs (84 Ark. 560) i. 1264 Duval, U. S. v. (Gilpin, 356) i, 1276 Duvall v. S. (63 Ala. 12) i, 550, 553; ii, 751 —, 8. v. (26 Wis. 415) i. 102 Dwerryhouse, Reg. x. (2 Cox C. C. 446) i. 950a; ii. 666 Dwinnels v. Boynton (3 Allen, 310) i. 242, 245 Dwire, S. v. (25 Mo. 658) i, 1149 Dwyer v. 8. (12 Tex. Ap. 535) ii, 641 Dwyre, S, v. (2 Hill, S. C. 287) ii. 718 Dyches v. S. (24 Tex. 266) i, 2644 Dye v. C. (7 Grat, 662) i, 821; ii. 894 Dyer v. C. (23 Pick. 402) ii, 981 —, C. v, (128 Mass. 70) ii. 1027 —'v. P. (84 Ill, 624) i, 1310 ——, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 118) i, 962 EAS Dyer, Reg. v. (6 Mod. 96) ii. 871, 380 —— tv. S. (88 Ala. 225) i. 966 — v.58. (85 Ind. 525) i, 713 —— v.§. (11 Lea, 609) i. 128 — v.S. (2d Yerg. 395) i, 286, 1317 —,S v. (41 Tex. 520) ii. 165 Dyke, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 261) =i. 1170 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. EDD East Mark, Reg. v. (11 Q. B. 877) ii. 1054 East Tennessee, &e. Rid. v. Maloy, (77 Ga. 237) i. 1207 Eastall, Rex v. (2 Russ. 153) ii, 721 Easter, S. v. (80 Ohio S, 542; 27 Am. R. 478) i. 851, 852, 881 Easterby, Rex ae (2 Leach, 947; Dykes, Ex parte (83 Ala. 114) i,261/ Russ. & Ry. 3 i. 58 Dyle, P. v. (21 N.Y. 578) i. 1169 | Easterling v. S. (80 Ala. 46) i. 979, 989 a Dyott v. C. (6 Whart. 67) i, 931 | —— v. S. (85 Missis. 210) i. 685, 1296 Dyson, Ex parte (25 Missis. 356) i. 253 | Eastern Rid., C.v. (5 Gray, 473) i. 542 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 3805) ii. 666 | Eastman »v. ‘Amoskeag Manuf. Co. v. S. (26 Missis. 862) 1. 1181, 1293,} (44.N. H. 148; 82 Am. D.201) _ ii. 677 $|—«, C. (4 Gray, 416) ii, 699, 731, 732, v, S. (13 Tex. Ap. 402) i. 1093 736 | v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 454) i. 162 —, 8. v. (39 Mo. Ap. 297) i. 612 Dytche, Reg. v. (17 Cox C. C. 89) i. 1070 Eads, Ex parte (17 Neb. 145) ii. 843 — v.8. (26 Tex. Ap. 69) ii. 740 Eagan, Ex parte (18 Fla, 194) i. 229 —, C. wv. (4 Gray, 18) i. 907, 919 — v. S. (53 Ind. 162) i. 479 — v. Stevens (39 Hun, 311) i. 264 —, U.S. v. (80 Fed. Rep. 608) i. oS 52 Eagleton v. Kingston (8 Ves. 488) ii. 482a ——, Reg. v. (Dears. 376) ii, 158 Eakin v. Burger (1 Sneed, 417) i. 705, 706 v. Vance (10 Sm. & M. 549; 48 Am. 1.770) i. 1399 Eames, S. v. (89 La, An. 986) i, 612; ii, 829 Eanes v. S. (6 Humph. 53; 44 Am. —, C. v. (1 Cush. 189; 48 Am. D. 596 ) i. 761, 768, 784, 966, 1021; ii. 213, 218, 4325 —, C. v. (2 Gray, 76) ii. 712 —v. Cooper (15 Pick. 276; 26 Am. D. 600) i, 1346 —— v. §. (54 Ind. 441) i. 1012, 1294 — , 8. v. (109 N. C. 785) ii, 1051 —— v. White (3 Chand. 196) ii. 883 Eastrington, Rex v. (5 A. & E. 765; 1 Nev. & P. 193) ii. 1049 Eastwood v. P. (3 Par. Cr. 25) i. 997, oe ii. 677 Eaton, In re (27 Mich. 1) i. 1410 — v.C. (6 Binn. 447) i. 1859 —, C. v. (15 Pick. 278) i. 436, 556 ——, P.». (41 Cal. 657) i, 264 —, P. v. (59 Mich. 569) —i.: 1110, 1288, 1262 ; ii. 36 —, Rex v. (22 How. St. Tr. 758) i. 1004 —, Rex v. (23 How. St. Tr. 1013) D. 289) i. 181, 182 1, 9824 Earbery, Rex v. (Fort. 37) i, 1862 | —_, Rex v. (2 T. R. 89) i. 1380 Earhart v. C. (9 Leigh, 671) i. 1247, 1355, ; —— v. S. (15 Lea, 200) i. 1317, 1821 1856 | ——, S. v. (8 Harring. Del. 554) i. 1259 Earle, C. v. (1 Whart. 525) ii. 593 | ——, S. v. (75 Mo. 586) ii, 512, 581 —, S. v. (24 La. An. 88; 13 Am. R. Eaves, S. v. (106 N. C. 752) i. 1285 109 i. 940 | Ebenhack, In re (17 Kan. 618) i. 691 ) Earll v, P. (73 Ill. 829) i. 1009, 1094, 1169 Early v. C. (86 Va. 921) i. 747 Eberhart v. S. (47 Ga. 598) i. 981 a, 949a, 1244 — v.5. (1 Tex. Ap. 248; 28 Am. — v. §. (184 Ind. 651) ij. 969 R. 409) i. 68, 733, 999 | Eberle, In re (44 Kan. 472) i. 1407 v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 476) i. 814, 951 | —-, C. v. (8S. & R. 9) i. 1082, 1248 Earnest, P. v. (45 Cal. 29) i. 849, 878 | Ebertin v. Mobile (30 Ala. 548) i. 547 —, S. v. (98 N. C. 740) i, 611] Eberly v. Moore (24 How. U. 8.147) Earp v. Lee (71 Il. 193) ii. 871 i, 123 — v. S. (55 Ga. 186) i, 1223, 1231, 1244 | Ehos v. S. (84 Ark. 520) ii. 631 KEasland, C. r. (1 Mass. 15) i. 1019} Eccles, Rex v. (8 Doug. 337) ii, 242 Fasley v. Moss (9 Ala. 266) ii. 809 | ——, Rex v. (1 Leach, 274) i, 516 Eason v. 8. (6 Bax. 481) i. 1012 | Eckert, P. v. (16 Cal. 110) i. 814, 1170 —v.5S. (6 Bax. 466) i, 909 | ——, P. v. (19 Cal. 603) * 4. 1095 —, e ut (70 N. C. 88) i. 839, 519 | Eckford, P. v. ut Cow. 535) i. 768; ii. 216 —, S. v. (86 N. C. 674) ii. 163| Eckhardt v. P. (83 N. Y. 462; 38 East Boeton Ferry, C. v. (18 Allen, Am. R. 462) 612 589) i. 687 | Eckhart ». S. (6 W. Va. 515) i, 314 a East India Co. v. Atkins (1 Stra. Eckman, P. v. (72 Cal. 582) i. 1079, 1286 168) ij, 362 | Eddings, S. v. (71 Mo. 545; 36 Am. — v. Atkyns (Comyns, 347) ii. 362| R. 496) i, 1181 East Lidford, Rex v. (Say. 80]) ii. 1062' Eddowes v. Hopkins (1 Doug. 876) i. 1014 VOL, I1.—— 35 545 EDW Fads, C. vu. (14 Gray, 406) Eddy, C. v. (7 Gray, 583) — , S. v. (2 Del. Ch. 269) Edelen v. Gough (8 Gill, 87) Eden’s Case (Cro. Eliz. 697) Eden, Rex v. (1 Esp. 97) i. 488, 1138; ti. 429, 933.4 Edens, S. v. (85 N. C. 522) i. 851; ii, 1050 Edgar, Rex v. (3 Russ. Crimes, 5th i. 458, 641 ii. 673, 687 a i. 1417 ii, 432 a 1. 608 Eng. ed. 441, note) i, 1244 v. S (48 Ala. 45) ii. 611, 621 ——». §. (43 Ala. 312) i. 981; ii. 695 Edge v. C. (7 Pa. 275) ii, 823 Edgerley v. Swain (32 N. H. 478) _ ii. 809 Kdgerly, C. v. (10 Allen, 184) i. 9824, 1108, 1247; ii. 428 Edgerton v, C. (5 Allen, 514) i, 1011 — v.C. (7 Bush, 142) i. 1020 —— r.S. (67 Ind. 588; 33 Am. R. 110) ii, 818 —, S. v. (12 R. I. 104) i. 264. a, 264c¢ Edgeworth, Rex v. (4 T. R. 218) i. 1814 Edmonds, P. v. (15 Barb. 529) 1.314 —, Rex v. (4 B. & Ald. 471) i. 931, 982 a, 934, 944, 949, 949d —— v. §. (84 Ark. 720) i, 850, 1116 Edmondson v. Machell (2 T.R. 4) i. 1276 — v.S. (41 Tex. 496) 1,354, 857, 1212 —,S. v. (48 Tex. 162) i. 438 v. Wallace (20 Ga. 660) i. 911, 913 Edmonson »v. 8. (51 Ark. 115) i. 1170 ——, Territory v. (4 Mont. 141) i. 1095 Edmund, S. v. (4 Dev. 340) i, 1005 Edmundson v. §.(17 Ala. 179; 52 Am. D. 169) i. 683, 688 — , S. v. (64 Mo. 398) i. 516.a, 7066; ii. 524, 525 Edney, S. v. (4 Dev. & Bat. 878) i. 2644 — , S. v. (80 .N. C. 360) i. 1264 Edrington v. Kiger (4 Tex. 89) i, 999 Edsall, Rex v. (1 East, 180) ii. 416 Eduljee Byramjee, Reg. v. (6 Moore P. C. 276) i, 1264 Edwards, Ex parte (11 Fla, 174) i. 1410 —, In re (35 Kan. 99) i. 951 f , In re (14 Vroom, 555 ; 38 Am, R. 653, note) i. 1310 — v. Bonneau (1 Sandf. 610) ii. 753 — ». Buchanan (3 B. & Ad. 788) ii, 4274 i, 412; ii. 467 i, 639, 1285 i. 660, 665, 668, —— v. C. (19 Pick. 124) — _, C.v. (12 Cush. 187) —,C. v. (4 Gray, 1) 959 a — v. Evans (3 East, 451) i. 1276 —— v. P. (89 Mich. 760) i, 795 —, P.-v. (41 Cal. 640) i, 909; ii. 616 — , P. v. (59 Cal. 859) ii, 136 ——, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 611) ij. 558 ——,, Reg. v. (3 Cox C. C. 82) i. 959 a, 966 ¢ ——, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 230; 4 Eng. Rep. 518) ii. 625 ——, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 401) ii, 614, 525 ——, Rex v. (1 East, 278) i. 574 546 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. EIT Edwards, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 224; 2 Leach, 621, note; 8 Camp. 207 ; 4 Taunt. 309) i. 948 — , Rex.»v. (Russ. & Ry. 497) i. 60; ii. 708, 729 — , Rex »v. (1 Salk. 193) i. 1813 — , Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 108) ii. 158 —— v. S. (49 Ala. 334) i, 488 e, 1357; ii. 178, 187 — v.S. (25 Ark. 444) i, 68, 72, 535; ii, 542 — v. §, (27 Ark. 493) ii. 515 —— v. 8. (7 Eng. 122) i. 1817 v. 8. (68 Ga. 428) i. 931 a, 9493, 975c, 984, 987 — v. S. (80 Ga. 127) ii. 981 — v.58. ye Missis. 581) i, 282, 976, 1269, 1293, 1857, 1358 — v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 525) i. 1264; ii. 825, 826 — v. §. (16 Vroom, 419) i, 893 —, S. v. (4 Humph. 226) i. 251, 264a, 2647 t —,S. v. (35 Kan 105) i. 951 f — , S. v. (84 La. An. 1012) i. 1249 —, S. v. (86 La. An. 868) i. 269 —, S. v. (19 Mo. 674) i, 857, 1166 —, S. v. (836 Mo. 394) ii. 983 ——,S. v. (60 Mo. 490) i, 467 —, S. v. (70 Mo. 480) i, 854 — , 8. v. (71 Mo. 312) i. 980 ——, 8. v. (79 N.C. 648) i. 989, 1144. ——, S. v. (86 N. C. 666) ii. 721 —_ S. v. (90 N. C. 710) i. 537 —,S. v. (2 Nott & McC. 15; 10 Am. D. 587) i. 961 —, S. v. (18 S. C. 30) i. 1254 —— v, Vandemack (18 Ill. 683) i. 1264 Fells v. P. (4 Scam. 498) ii, 732 Effinger v. S. (47 Ind. 235) i. 399 Efler, S. v. (85 N. C. 585) i. 909, 1181, 1185 Egan, Reg. v. (9 Car.& P.485n) i. 953 —, S. v. (87 La. An. 368) i. 951a ——, Territory v. (8 Dak. 119) i. 68, 71, 1236; ii. 631 Eggler v. P. (56 N. Y. 642) i. 9804; ii. 617 Egglesht, S. v. (41 Iowa, 574; 20 Am. R. 612) i. 814; ii, 482 Eggleston v. 8. (6 Blackf. 436) i. 799 Ehlert v. S. (93 Ind. 76) i. 686 Ehrig, S. v. (21 Minn. 462) i. 1264 Ehring, P. v. (65 Cal, 185) i. 1086 Eichelberger, C. v. (119 Pa. 254; 4 Am. St. 642) i. 1008 Eichenlaub ». 8. (86 Ohio St. 140) i. 718 Eighmy v. P. (78 N. Y. 330) i. 1371 — v. P. (79 N. Y. 546) i, 951 Eiland v. S, (52 Ala. 822) i. 980, 1241; ii, 599, 600, 610, 613 Eilenbecker v. Plymouth Dist. Ct. (1384 U. S. 81) i. 100, 891, 1415 Eisenman v. S. (49 Ind. 620) i, 1264 Eitel v. S. (38 Ind. 201) ii, 815, 818 ELL Elam v. Johnson (48 Ga. 348) — v. S. (25 Ala. 58) v. S. (26 Ala. 48) i, 461 v. 8. (16 Tex. Ap. 34) — i. 975 c, 980 —, S. v. (21 Mo. Ap: 290) i. 639 Elborn, S. v. (27 Md. 483) li. 63a Elden, S. v. (41 Me. 165) i. 815 Elder v. Ogletree (36 Ga. 64) ii. 681 —— v. 8. (52 Ga. 581) ii, 9354 — v.§S. (96 Ind. 162) i. 712 —, S. v. (21 La. An. 157) i. 711 Elderton’s Case (6 Mod. 73) i, 239 Eldred, In re (46 Wis. 5380) i, 1410 — , S. v. (31 Ala. 393) i. 264 Eldredge v. S. (87 Ohio St.191) i. 10154, 1327 Eldridge, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 440) i. 1244 v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 208) i. 951 —,,S. v. (7 Eng. 608) i. 528, 535 Eliason, U.S. v. (16 Pet. 291) i. 1864 Elick v. Territory (1 Wash. 156) —i. 788 Elijah v. S. (1 Humph. 102) i, 1188 —— v. S. (2 Humph. 455) ii. 83 Eliot, Rex v. (Bayley Bills 5th ed. 557) ii. 407 Elisha, C. v. (8 Gray, 460) ii. 980 Elizabeth v. S. (27 Tex. 329) i. 1242 Elkin v. P. (5 Colo. 508) i. 998 4 — v. P. (28 N. Y. 177) ii, 222, 240 Elkins v. §. (18 Ga. 435) i, 636 ——, 5. v. (Meigs, 109) i. 699 —, 8. uv. (63 Mo. 159) — i. 269; ii. oe Ellars v. 8, (25 Ohio St. 385) i. 611; ii. 179 Ellege v. S. (24 Tex. 78) i, 1166 Ellenwood v. C. (10 Met. 222) i. 725 Eller, S. v. (104 N. C. 858) __i, 966 b, 977 Ellick v. S. (1 Swan, Tenn. 825) i. 72, 73 Ellington, S. v. (7 Ire. 61) i. 909 Ellins, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 188) i. 1130 Elliot, C. v. (110 Mass. 104) i. 1159 — v. Cronk (13 Wend. 35) i. 1848 — , Reg. v. (Leigh &C. 108) _—ii. 852 —, S. v. (84 Tex. 148) i. 890 Elliott v. Dudley (8 Mich. 62) i. 251 — v. P, (13 Mich. 365) i. 1810, 1578 —, P. v. (80 Cal. 296) i. 72, 1049, 1281, ii. 599 — »v. 8. (26 Ala. 78) i. 472 — v.8. (73 Ind. 10) i. 916 — »v. §. (36 Ohio St. 318) ii. 1027 —, S. v. (7 Blackf. 280) —, S. v. (45 Iowa, 486) i. 502; ii. 57 i. 1209, 1212; ; ii, 627 —, S. v. (90 Mo. 350) i. 1195 —, S. v. (14 Tex. 428) i. 478, 1400 —,, S. v. (41 Tex. 224) i. 147 Ellis, Ex parte (54 Cal. 204) i. 1301 ——, In re (Hemp. 10) i. 869 — , C. v. (11 Mass. 465) i. 1378 —— v, Jackson (88 Iowa, 175) i, 286 v. Kimball (16 Pick. 132) ii. 785 —— ». Murray (28 Missis. 129) ii. 883 — v. P. (21 How. Pr. 356) ii, 482 6 ——,, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 564) i, 1287 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. EMA Ellis, Rex v. (6 B. & C. 895; 8D. & R. 178) i. 1873 —, Rex v. (6B. & C. 145; 9D. & R. 174) i. 1125 —, Rex v. (1 MacN. Ev. 55) i. 1161 Rex v. (Ryan & Moody, N. P. 432) i. 1261 v. S. (76 Ala. 90) ii. 726 — v. §. (25 Fla. 702) i. 982 a, 934; ii. 961, 963 — v.§. (8 Iowa, 217) i. 814 — v. S. (65 Missis. 44; 7 Am. St. 634) i. 989, 1220 —— v. 8, (10 Tex. Ap. 324) i. 251 —— v. §. (10 Tex. Ap. 540) i. 1277 v. 8. (27 Tex. Ap. 190) i. 1004 v. §. (30 Tex. Ap. 601) i. 951, 1002 —, S. v. (2 Dutcher, 219) i. 1838 —, 8. ov. (12 La. An. 390) i. 1264 —,S. vu. (4 Misso. 474) i. 590, 612; ii. 488 —, S. v. (74 Mo. 207) i. 975¢ —, S. v. (119 Mo. 437) ii. 718 —’ S. v. (97 N. C. 447) i. 1181 v, , 8. v. (101 N.C. 765; 9 Am. St. 4 i. 975 ¢, 1248 Ellison v. 8. (12 Tex. Ap. 557) i. 948, 975 c, 983 ——,S. v. (8 Ala. 278) i, 264 a, 264d —, S. v. (8 Blackf. 225) ii. 912, 914 —, 8. «. (14 Ind. 380) i. 718 , 8. v. (58 N. H. 325) ii. 1388 Elliston v. 8. (10 Tex. Ap. 361) i. 978 Ellsworth, P. v. (92 Cal. 594) i, 934 Ellwood, S. v. (17 R. I. 763) ii. 151 Ellzey v. S. (57 Missis, 827) ii, 227 Elmore v.S. (45 Ark. 243) i, 2248 — v.8. (3 Tex. Ap. 73) i. 1264 —, S. v. (44 Tex. 102) i. 548 — v., Scurry (1S. C. 139) i. 1275 Elnor’s Case (Cro. Eliz. 184) i. 879 Eloi, 8. v. (84 La. An. 1195) i, 925 Elschlep v. 8. (11 Tex. Ap. 801) ii. 953, 955 Else, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 142) ii. 264 Elsee v, Smith (1D. & R. 97; 1 Chit. 304). i. 280, 242 Elsey v. S. (47 Ark. 572) ii. 204 Elsham, S. v. (70 Iowa, 581) i. 451 Elswick v. C. (18 Bush, 155) ii. 754 Elsworth, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 986) i. 612; ij. 426 Flsworthy’s Case (1 Lewin, 117) . ii, 982 Elvins, S. v. (101 Mo. 248) i. 975 Elwell, C. v. (1 Gray, 463) i, 402 Elwood, S. v. (73 N. C. 189, 635) i. 977 Elworthy, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C. 103 ; 10 Cox C. C. 579) ii, 934 Ely v. Niagara (86 N. Y. 297) ii. 111, 871 —, Reg. v. (4 Cox C.C. 281) ii. 1049 —, S. v. (48 Ala. 568) i, 663 —,S. v. (11 Ind. 313) i, 1264 —, S. v. (14 Ind. 291) i. 1265, 1269 —,S. v. (35 La. An. 895) ii, 148 Emanuel v. S. (86 Missis. 627) i, 1410 547 ENT Emden, Rex v. (9 East, 437) ii. 912, 933¢ Emerich, 8. v. (87 Mo. 110) ii. 512 Emerick v. Harris (1 Binn. 416) i, 893 Emerson v. Lowell Gas Light Co. (6 Allen, 146; 83 Am. D. 621) ii. 632, 687 —, 8. v. (48 Iowa, 172) ii. 740 —, S. v. (90 Mo. 236) i. 951 —,, S. v. (53 N. H. 619) ii, 34 —, U. S. v. (6 McLean, 406) ii. 754 Emery, C. v. (2 Binn. 431) i, 264, 264 a, 264 b —— v. Chesley (18 N. H. 198) i, 157 ». Hoyt (46 Ill. 258) ii. 674, 680 v. Prescott (54 Me. 389) ii, 793 —, S. v. (Brayt. 151) ii. 735 ——, S. v. (65 Vt. 464) ii. 882 Emily, S. v. (24 Iowa, 24) i. 263 a, 264 Emmett, S. v. (28 Wis. 632) i. 661 Emmons, C. v. (98 Mass. 6) i. 1264 ——, 8. v. (72 Iowa, 265) ii. 138 Emory v. S. (6 Blackf. 106) ii. 859 —, S. v. (79 Mo. 461) i. 951 Emporia v. Volmer (12 Kan. 622) _ i. 68, 71,400, 892, 893 Empson v. P. (78 Ill. 248) i, 849 En, S. v. (10 Nev. 277) ii. 726, 745 Endaily v. S. (89 Ark. 278) i. 1124 Enders v. P. (20 Mich. 233) ii. 175 England, Rex v. (Cas. temp. Hardw. 158) i. 2641 —, Rex v. (2 Leach, 767; Car. Crim. Law, 3d ed. 282) i. 1200; ii. 308 — , 8. v. (19 Mo. 386) i. 665 —, 8. v. (78 N. C. 552) ii. 44, 53 Engle v. Chipman (51 Mich. 524) i. 281 —, S. v. (18 Ohio, 490) i. 1002 ——,, S. v. (1 Zab. 347) i, 1276 Engleman v. 8. (2 Ind. 91; 52 Am. D. 494) i. 846, 455, 457, 1117; ii. 698, 745 English, C. v. (6 Bush, 431) i. 869.4 —, P. v. (30 Cal. 214) ii. 63 a, 77 —, P. v. (52 Cal. 211) i. 1265 —, P. v. (52 Cal. 212) i. 1248 — v. S. (85 Ala. 428) i. 1159 —— ». §. (31 Fla. 340) i. 854, 909 — v.58. (4 Tex. 125 i. 661, 662 v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 500) i. 892, 994 — v. §. (29 Tex. Ap. 174) i. 10154, 1124; ii. 764 — v. 8. (30 Tex. Ap. 470) i. 685, 6895 — , S. v. (84 Kan. 629) i. 1264 —, S. v. (67 Mo. 186) i. 6895 ——, S. v. (1 Murph. 435) i. 693 Enger S. (11 Neb. 589) i. 540 ; ii. 985 Eno, S. v. (8 Minn. 220) i. 416, 1014 Enoch, P. v. (18 Wend. 159; 27 Am. D. 197) ii. 584 ——, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 539) i. 1233 —, S. v. (26 W. Va. 253) i, 869.0 Enochs, S. v. (69 Ind. 314) i. 1172 Ensign, S. v. (11 Neb. 629) i. 1264 Enslow, S. v. (10 Iowa, 115) ii. 846 Entick v. Carrington (19 How. St. Tr. 1029) i, 240, 242 548 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. ETH Entick v. Carrington (2 Wils. 275) i. 208 Entwhistle v. Feighner (60 Mo. 214) ii. 625 Enwright v. 8. (68 Ind. 567) i, 1015 | Epes’s Case (5 Grat. 676) i. 909 Epperson v. 8. (5 Lea, 291) i. 1277, 1400 v. 8. (42 Tex. 79) ii. 175 , 8. v. (4 Misso. 90) i. 1264 Eppes v. 8. (10 Tex. 474) i. 702, 704 Epps v. 8. (19 Ga. 102) v. 8. (102 Ind. 539) i. 909, 922, 984, 949 b, 999, 1116 i. 269, 9756, 1180; ii. 514 — ,8. ». (27 La. An. 227) i, 783 —,S. v. (76 N. C. 55) i. 265, 272 Eppstein v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 480) ii. 172 Erb, S. v. (74 Mo. 199) i. 975. c; ii. 679 Erbury, Rex v. (8 Mod. 177) i. 1371 Eriswell, Rex v. (3 T. R. 707) i. 1195, 1200 Erle’s Case (2 Lewin, 183) i, 629 Errickson v. S. (10 Neb. 585) i. 1317 Errington’s Case (2 Lewin, 142) i. 1212 Erskine v. Davis (26 Ill. 251) i. 683 v. 8. (1 Tex. Ap. 405) i. 1052 ; ii, 752 —, S. v. (66 Me. 358) i, 241, 242 Ervin, C. uv, (2 Va. Cas. 837) i. 711; ii. 460 v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 536) ii. 175 Ervine’s Appeal (16 Pa. 256 ; 55 Am. D. 499) i. 891 Ervine, C. v. (8 Dana, 30) i. 747 Erwen v. S. (13 Mo. 306) i. 387 ue Ex parte (7 Tex. Ap. 288) i. 264 a uv. (4 Denio, 129) *ii.119 —. rg. (10 Tex. "Ap. 700) i. 980 ——, 8. v. (44 Iowa, 637) i. 1821 Escareno v. 8. (16 Tex. Ap.85) i. 975c¢ Esdaile, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F.218) i. 648 Esher v. S. (13 Tex. Ap. 607) i. 1265 eee v. 8. (25 Ala. 30) i. 1229 ——, 8. v. (1 Swan, Tenn. 413) i. 399 iar In re (42 Fed. Rep. 827) i. 13827 —_—; In re (5 Mackey, 64) i. 8144 v. P. (18 Bradw. 114) i. 12544 Esser’s Case (2 Fast P. C. 1125) i. 53 Essex, Reg. v. (Dears. & B. 369; 7 Cox C.C C. 384) ii. 829 Estell v. 8. (22 Vroom, 182) i. 1086 Esten, In re (9 RL 191) i. 1320 Estep v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 366) i. 975 ——, S. v. (44 Kan. 572) i, 975 c, 978 —— v. Waterous (45 Ind. 140) i, 921 Esterling v.. (35 Missis.210) i. 697, 698 Estes v. Martin (34 Ark. 410) i. 315 v. 8. (55 Ga. 131) i, 458, 1015 a, 1331 Estis, S.v. (70 Mo. 427) ii, 888 Estonp, S. v. (89 La. An. 219) ii, 625, 626 ——, 8. v. (89 La, An. 906) i. 1264, 1276 Estrada, P. v. (53 Cal, 600) ii, 82 Estrado, P.v. (49 Cal.171) i. 980, ee Etheridge v. Hall (7 Port. 47) i, 1403 —— v. Hobbs (77 Ga, 531) i, 1192 — v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 188) i. 925 EVA INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. FAI Etherington, Rex v. (2 Leach, 671; Evarts v. S. (48 Ind. 422) i. 370, 383 2 East P. C. 635) ii, 778 | Everage, S. v. (83 La. An. 120) i. 940 Ethington . 8. (35 Tex. 125) i, 1268] Everett, Rex v. (8 B. & C. 114) ii. 884 Etting v. Bank of U.S. (11 Wheat. —— v. 8. (33 Fla. 661) ii. 1 59) i, 792 | —— v. S. (62 Ga. 65) i, 1086 ; ii. 631 Ettinger v. C. (98 Pa. 338) i. 1170, 1244; | —— wv. S, (6 Ind, 495) i. 1020 ii. 629 | —— v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 159, 307) i. 733, Etress v. S. (88 Ala. 191) i. 460 783 a, 1857 Eubank »v. P. (50 IIL. 496) i, 264 f) ——, S. v. (Dudley, S. C. 295) i. 228, 251 Eubanks v. S. (17 Ala. 181) i. 611 | —, S. v. (14 Minn. 489) i. 893, 894 Euzebe, S. v. (42 La. An. 727) i. 1086 | Evers v. 8. (81 Tex. Cr. 318; 837 Am. Evans, Ex parte (8 T. R. 172) i. 1838] St. 811) ii. 613 Evans v. C. (3 Met. 483) ii. 136 | Ewell v. Greenwood (26 Iowa, 377) i. 1417 — _, C. v. (10 Gray, 463) i, 1815 | —— v. 8. (6 Yerg. 364; 27 Am. D. —, C. v. (101 Mass. 25) ii. 685] 480) i, 884 — v. Evans (1 Hag. Con. 35) i. 1056 | Ewer, Reg. v. (Holt, 612) i. 2644 v, Foster (1 N. H. 374) i, 236 | Ewers, C. v. (4 Gray, 21) i. 1817, 1318 —— v. Hettich (7 Wheat. 453) i. 1141 | Ewing, C. v. (7 Bush, 105) i. 611 — v. King (Willes, 554) i. 828, 681 v. 8. (1 Tex. Ap. 362) i, 854, 357 — v. P. (12 Mich. 28) i. 146, 571, v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 417) i. 975 c¢ 1175; ii. 548 | —— v. Sanford (19 Ala. 605) i. 230 —,, P. v. (40 Hun, 492) i. 1212 | Exall, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 922) ii. 740 —, P. v. (72 Mich. 367) i. 984, 975 a; | Exeter, Rex v. (6 Man. & R. 167) i. 691 ii. 967 | Exum v. Canty (34 Missis. 583) ii. 674 —,P.v. (40 N.Y.1) i. 1160; ii, 1022 |] —— v. S. (90 Tenn. 301; 25 Am. St. —, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 765) 1.686} 700 ii. 935 —, Reg. v. (2 Cox C. C. 270) ii. 742, | Eyler v. S. (71 Ind. 49) ii, 969 746 | Eyre, C. v. (1 8.& R. 347) . Ll —, Reg. v. (7 Cox C.C. 151) i. 1014, | Ezell v. 8. (54 Ala. 165) i. 959.4 1015, 1015 a | ——, S. wz. (41 Tex. 35) i. 931, 939 ——, Rex». (3 Stark.35) i. 521; ii. 801 —— v. Rogers (1 Kelly, 463) i. 1013 v. S. (62 Ala. 6) i. 681, 975 c | Fabre, 8. v. (138 La. An. 279) i, 1264 — v.S. (63 Ala. 195) i. 251} Faderman, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. ©. — v.§. (17 Fla. 192) i. 860] 665; 3 Car.& K. 853; 4 Cox C. C. — v.S. (7 Ind. 271) 1,996] 359; Temp. & M. 286) i. 780, 782 — v. 8. (56 Ind. 459) i. 314] Fagan, C. v. (15 Gray, 194) i. 338 v. 8. (24 Ohio St. 208) i. 481; ii. 45 a | ——, C. v. (108 Mass. 471) ii. 1007 a —v.§. (12 Tex. Ap. 370) i, 1197 | ——, P. v. (66 Cal. 534) ii. 740 v. §. (18 Tex. Ap. 225) i. 234 b, | —— v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 400 i, 1280 975 c| Fagent, Rex v. (7 Car. & P.288) i. 1212, — v. S. (25 Tex. Supp. 303) i. 711; 1213 ii. 56) Fager v. S. (22 Neb. 332) i. 966 a; ii. 967 —,,8..(7 Gill & J. 290) i. 597; | Fagg, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 566) i. 234 b ii. 703 | —— v. S. (50 Ark. 506) i. 1009; ii. 596 —,S. v. (8 Humph. 110) i, 703] Fahay v. S. (25 Conn. 205) i. 959 e —, S. v. (5 Jones, N. C. 250) i. 1049! Fahey v. Crotty (63 Mich. 383; 6 —,S. v. (36 Kan. 497) i.975c| Am. St. 305) ; i. 1114 — , S. v. (21 La. An. 321) i. 995, 999 | ——, P. v. (64 Cal. 342) i. 3l4a —,S. v. (28 La. An. 525) i. 1012, 1264 v. 8. (27 Tex. Ap. 146; 11 Am. —, 8. v. (40 La. An. 216) i. 1391] St. 182) i. 12544 —. 5. v. (55 Mo. 460) i. 1094] ——, S. v. (85 La. An. 9) i. 269 — , 8. v. (65 Mo. 574) i. 1086, 1087 ; | Fahnestock v. S. (23 Ind. 231) i. 522, 909, ii. 600 918; ii. 618, 616, 618, 669 —, 5S. v. (74 N. C. 324) i, 830 | —— v. 8. (102 Ind. 156) — i. 486; iii. 105 — 8. v. (15 Rich. 31) ii. 703 | Fail v. McArthur (31 Ala. 26) ii. 625 —,, S. v. (18S. C. 137) ii. 135 | Fain, 8. v. (106 N.C. 760) i. 480; ii. 318 —_, 8. v. (23 8. C. 209) ii. 769 | Fair, P. v. (43 Cal. 187) i, 905, 1112, —, S. v. (83 W. Va. 417) i. 799 1118, 1117 —— v. Thomas (2 Stra. 833) i, 1899 | Fairbanks, C. v. (2 Allen, 511) ii. 682 — v. U.S. (158 U.S. 584) ii. 323 | Fairburn, Reg. v. (Russ. Crimes, 5th —, U.S. e. (2 Flip. 605) i,264a,| Ting. ed. 88) ii. 910 a 264 m| Fairchild v. Bascomb (35 Vt. 398) Evansville, &c. Rid., 8. v. (107 Ind. ii, 685, 687 581) i, 12641 ——, P. v. (48 Mich. 31) ii. 86, 38 549 FAR Fairchild v. S. (23 Tex. 176) i, 1264 Faire v. S. (58 Ala. 74) — i. 1212; ii. 607, 623, 625 Fairfield v. Gallatin (9 Cent. L. J. 467; U.S. Sup. Ct.) ii, 587 Fairgrieve, S. v. (29 Mo. Ap. 641) i. 585 Fairlie, Reg. v. (8 Ellis & B. 486) _ ii. 876 Fairlee v. P. (11 Ill. 1) i. 668; ii. 92 Falconer, S. v. (70 Iowa, 416) i. 951 —, 8. ». (59 N. H. 535) i, 611 Falk v. P. (42 Ill. 831) i. 980, 982, 986 a, 1265, 1278, 1278 Falkinburge, S. v. (3 Green, N. J. 820) 1.815 Falkner, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 481) i. 1058 Fallin v. S. (83 Ala. 5) i. 1047; ii. 604 v, S. (86 Ala. 18) i. 68 Fallon v. P. (2 Abb. Ap. 83) i. 1005 ; ii. 769, 780 —, P. v. (6 Par. Cr. 256) ii. 780 ——,, Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 217; 9 Cox ©. C. 242) ii. 9, 10 Falvey, C. v. (108 Mass. 304) i. 488 ¢; : ii. 840, 846, 849 Fancher, P. v. (4 Thomp. & C. 467) iy i. 869 —, S. v. (71 Mo. 460) _ i. 105, 484, 586 Fanning v. C. (120 Mass. 388) i, 1291 —— v. P. (10 Bradw. 70) i. 3144, 931 ——, P. v. (181 N. Y. 659) i, 1222 v. S. (47 Ark. 442) i. 286, 1317 v. S. (66 Ga. 167) ii. 780 v. S. (12 Lea, 651) ii, 780 v, S. (14 Mo. 386) i, 951 f, 1120, 1250; ii. 944 Fanny v. S. (6 Misso. 122) i. 68 Fanshaw’s Case (Skin. 327) ii. 927, 933 4 Fanshaw, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 199) i. 1296 Fant v. Gibbs (54 Missis. 396) i. 279 —, S. v. (2 Brev. 487) i. 449 Farewell v. Chaffey (1 Bur. 54) i. 1276 Farez, In re (7 Blatch. 845; 2 Abb. U. S. 846; 40 How. Pr. 107) i. 224, 224 a Farington’s Case (T. Jones, 222) i. 256, 931 Faris v. C. (3 B. Monr. 79) i. 1801 -—, C. v. (5 Rand. 691) ii, 862, 864 v. 8. (3 Ohio St. 159) ii. 889 Farish, 8. v. (23 Missis. 488) i. 1265, 1269 Fariss v. S. (85 Ala. 1) ; i. 931 Farkas v. S. (60 Missis. 847) i, 1181 Farler, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 106) i. 1170 Farley, Ex parte (40 Fed. Rep. 66) i. 1410, 1411 — vv. Flanagan (1 E. D. Smith, 13) i. 1151 — v. P. (3 Colo. 65) i, 1264 —, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 197; 2 Car. & K. 313; 2 Cox C. C. 82) ii, 428, 438 — », S. (57 Ind, 381) i. 1181, 1185 — v.§. (127 Ind. 419) i, 1108 —, §. v. (14 Ind. 28) ii, 59, 63 550 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. FAR ii. 794 Farley, S. v. (4 McCord, 817) i. 691 Farmer v. Darling (4 Bur. 1971) —— v, Lewis (92 Ind. 444; 47 Am. R. 153) i. 1407 — , P. v. (77 Cal. 1) i. 1214 -v. §. (45 Ark. 95) i. 611 ——, S. v. (4 Ire. 224) ii. 949, 952, 954 —, S. v. (84 Me. 486) i, 1181, 1185 Farmers’ Bank v. Gilson (6 Pa. 51) . i. 1398 Farnham, Ex parte (3 Colo. 545) i. 1410 Farnsworth v. Montana (129 U. S. 104) i. 1405 ——, S. v. (10 Yerg. 261) ii. 398 ——., Territory v. (5 Mont. 303) i. 145 Farnum ». U.S. (1 Colo. 309) i. 661; ii. 821, 776 a Farr v. East (Cro. Eliz. 186) i, 608 ——, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 336) ii, 162 — , S. v. (33 Iowa, 553) 1. 95la - —, S. uv. (12 Rich. 24) i, 84, 688, 756, 790, 793, 951 Farrall v. S. (82 Ala. 557) i. 360, 1019 Farrand, S. v. (3 Halst. 333) ii. 416 Farrar v. 8. (29 Tex. Ap. 250) i. 1265 —, S. v. (103 N. C. 411) i. 1264 —, S. v. (104 N. C. 702) i, 1348 —,S. vo. (41 N. H. 53) i. 702, 704; ii, 695 Farre, Rex v. (J. Kel. 48) ii, 138 Farrel, Pennsylvania v. (Addison, li, 429 ——, Rex v. (1 W. BI. 459) i. 61 Farrell v. Brennan (32 Mo. 328) __ ii. 678 —, C. v. (8 Gray, 463) i. 230 —, C. v. (187 Mass. 579) i. 975 ¢€ i. 1181, 1186 i, 1128, 1159, v. P. (188 Ill. 244) — , P. v. (30 Cal. 316) 1169; ii. 268 —, P. v. (81 Cal. 576) ii, 666 ——, Reg. v. (Law Rep.2 C. C. 116; 12 Cox C. C. 505; 9 Eng. Rep. 499) i, 1200 v. S. (45 Ind. 371) i. 890 —— v. S. (85 Ind. 221) i, 1264 ——, Territory v. (6 Mont. 12) i, 1244 Farrelly v. Cross (5 Eng. 197) i. 706, 1345 Farrer v. S, (2 Ohio St. 54) i. 1124 v. 8. (42 Tex. 265) ii. 603 Farrier, S. v. (1 Hawks, 487) _ ii. 804, 305 Farring, U.S. z. (4 Cranch C. C. 465) i. 1894 Farrington, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 207) j. 5621, 1100; ii. 50 —— v. §. (10 Ohio, 354) ii, 436 Farris v. C. (14 Bush, 362) i, 1265; il, 602 —— v. P. (129 Ill. 521; 16 Am. St. 283) i, 1120, 1121 — v. S. (385 Ga. 241) i. 978, 980 v. 8. (1 Ohio St. 188) i. 1362 v. S. (26 Tex. Ap. 105) i, 966 Farrish v. S. (63 Ala. 164) i. 975 ¢, 1092 Farrow v. 8. (48 Ga. 80) i, 962, 964 FEN INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. FIE Farrow, S. v. (74 Mo. 531) i. 909 | Fenlason, S. v. (78 Me. 495) i. 1061, 1110 — , 8. v. (10 Rich. 165) ii. 910, 912, | ——, S. v. (79 Me. 117) i. 414 924 | Fenly, S. v. (18 Mo. 445) ii. 414 Farwell, P. v. (4 Mich. 556) i. 1264 | Fennell, Reg. v. (7 Q. B. D. 147; 14 Fasket, S. v. (6 Rich. 255) i951 f| Cox 6.0. 607) i, 1227 Fasset, S. v. (16 Conn. 457) i, 858, 861, | Fennessy, Ex parte (54Cal.101) i. 951 868 | Fenno, C. v, (125 Mass 387) ii. 68 Fassinow v. S. (89 Ind. 235) i. 814, 975 c, | Fenton, Reg. v. (Yelv. 27) i. 848 982 | Fentress v. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 79) i. 2644 Fatheree, S. v. (28 Tex. 202) i. 1264 | Fenwick, P. v. (45 Cal. 287) i. 1115, 1119 Faubion v. §. (21 Tex. Ap. 494) i. 264m | —, Reg. uv. (2 Car. & K.915; 4 Cox Faucett, S. v. (15 Tex. 584) ii. 843; C.C. 189) i. 403 Faulk v. S. (52 Ala. 415) i. 811, 812, 814, | —— v. S. (63 Md. 239) i. 1181, 1184 815, 1079 —, S. v. (30 La. An, 831) i. 1002 Faulkner’s Case (1 Saund. 249) i. 661 Faulkner v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 115) ii. 740 Faulks v. P. (89 Mich. 200; 33 Am. R. 874) i. 3144 Faust v. 8. (45 Wis. 273) i, 229 Favor v. 8. (54 Ga. 249) i. 1005 Favors'v. 8. (20 Tex. Ap. 155) ii. 965 Fawcett v. 8. (71 Ind. 590) i. 68, 73 —, S. v. (16 Mo. 380) i. 1814, 1317 Fawle, Rex v. (2 Ld. Raym. 1452) i. 72a Fay v. C. {28 Grat. 912) ii. 185, 187 —, S. vu. (48 Iowa, 651) i. 1245, 1265 —, S. v. (65 Mo. 490) ii. 406 v, Swan (44 Mich, 544) ii. 973 —— v. Wenzell (8 Cush. 315) i, 1844 Fayette, S. v. (17 Mo. Ap. 587) i. 1264 Fearnley, Rex v. (1 T. R. 316; 1 Leach, 425) i. 666, 741, 777 Fears, U.S.». (3 Woods, 510) ii. 883 Fearshire, Rex v. (1 Leach, 202) 1.1199 Featherston, S. v. (7 La. ‘An, 109) i. 1264 Featherstonehaugh, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 109) i. 9500 Fee, S. v. (19 Wis. 562) i, 856 a, 1101; ii. 634, 77 Feeley’s Case (12 Cush. 598) i. 1264, 1410 Feely, U. S. v. (1 Brock. 255) i. 264 9 Feeny, S. v. (13 R. I. 628) i. 6890 Feigel v. S. (85 Ind. 580) i. 314, 478 Feister v. P. (125 Ill. 348) ii, 184 Felch, C. v. (182 Mass. 22) ii. 633 —, 8. v. (58 N. H. 1) i. 585 Feldman, C. v. (181 Mass. 588) i, 1133 Felix, P. v. (45 Cal. 163) i. 1291 v. S. “18 Ala. 720) i. 1115; ii. 506, 511 Felker, P. v. (61 Mich. 110) i. 1291 . v. (61 Mich. 114) i. 931 Fell, ae vo, (1 Ld. Raym. 424; 1 Salk. 272) i, 235 ; ii. 941 Fellowes, Reg. v. (1Car.&K.115) ii. 910 Felps, S. v. (16 Mo..384) i, 1269 Felter, S. v. (25 Iowa, 67) 995 ; i. 878, 887, 889, ii. 675, 683, 687 —,, S. v. (82 Iowa, 49) i. 964, 1050 ; ii. 670, 671 Feltes, S. v. (51 Iowa, 495) i. 1229 Felton, P. v. (56 Barb. 429) i. 264.4, 264 £ v. S. (56 Ga. 84) i. 1274 Fenalty v. S. (7 Eng, 630) i. 887 Fenderson, S. v. (28 La. An. 82) i. 1410 Fergus, Petitioner (30 Fed. Rep. 607) 1.224 — v.58. (6 Yerg. 345) u. 455, 463 Ferguson’s Case (8 Grat. 594; 46 Am. D. 196) i. 951 — Case (1 Lewin, 181) ii. 538 Ferguson v. Landram (5 Bush, 230 ; 96 Am. D. 350) i118 —v. Mahon (11 A. & E. 179) i. i014 — ». P. (73 ILL. 559) i. 718 — v. P. (90 Ill. 510) i.814a@ ——, P. v. (34 Cal. 309) i. 1265 —, P. v. (48 Mich. 41) 1.795 ——, Reg. v. (Dears. 427 ; 6 Cox C. C. 454) 1,424, 447 —, Rex »v. (2 Stark. 489) ii, 242 —v. S. (49 Ind. 33) i. 975, 975 a, 9755 v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 156) ii. 65 — v.§. (81 Tex. Cr. 93) i. 1181 —_, an (2 Hill, S. C. 619; 27 Am. D. 412) i. 1218 Feriter v. §. (33 Ind. 288) i, 976 Ferkel v. P. (16 Bradw. 310) ii. 864 Fernandez v. S. (7 Ala. 511) i, 125, 733 v. §. (4 Tex. Ap. 419) ii. 633 Fero, U. S. v. (18 Fed. Rep. 901) ii. 1027 Ferray, S. v. (22 La. An. 423) i. 981 Ferrell v. S. (2 Lea, 25) i. 1891 — v.8. (2 Tex. Ap. 399) i. 1265 Ferrelle, In re (28 Fed. Rep. 878) i, 224 Ferrers, Rex v. (Foster, 188) i. 1810 Ferrier v. Deutcbman (111 Ind. 330) 1, 1817 Ferrigan, C. v. (44 Pa. 386) i. 1126, 1362; ii. 609 Ferrill v. S. (29 Tex. 489) i. 264.4 Ferris, In re (85 N. Y. 262) i. 1810 v. P. (48 Barb. 17) i. 799 v. P. (85 N. Y, 126) i. 931, 949 b ——., P. v. (56 Cal. 442) i. 683 Ferriss, S. v. (8 Lea, 700) ii, 822 Ferry, P. v. (84 Cal. 81) i.975¢ Fesperman, S. v. (108 N. C.770) i. 314a Fetter, In re (3 Zab. 311; 57 Am. D. 882 i, 220, 222, 223 Fick, P. v, (89 Cal. 144) ii. 694 Fidler v. Hall (2 Met. Ky. 461) i. 123 Fidment, S. v. (85 Iowa, 541) i. 442, 989, 1220 Field, C. v. (11 Allen, 488) i. 261 —., C. v. (138 Mass. 321) i. 186, 191 —— v. Ireland (21 Ala. 240) i, 230 v. §. (50 Ind. 15) ii. 67, 600 551 FIN Field v. 8. (57 Missis. 474; 84 Am. R. 476 i. 1111 — v. S. (34 Tex. 39) i. 860 —, S.v. (14 Me. 244; 31 Am. D. ii. 615 52) —— v. U.S. (9 Pet. 182) i. 1265 —, U.S. v. (21 Blatch. 330) i. 145 —— v. Walker (17 Ala. 80) i, 892 Fielden v. Illinois (143 U. 8. 452) i. 100a, 269, 275 Fielder, Rex v. (2 D. & R. 46) i, 269, 276 Fieldhouse, Rex v. (Cowp. 320) i, 701 Fielding, Rex v. (2 Bur. 654) i. 718 , S. v. (82 Me. 585) i. 609 Fields, C. v. (33 Grat. 291) i, 1817 nis (119 Mass. 105) i, 1264 —, P. uv. (1 Lans. 222) ii. 877 v. S. (47 Ala. 603; 11 Am. R. 771) i. 1094; ii. 615 — v. 5S. (52 Ala. 348) i. 931, 9322, 975¢ — ». S. (43 Tex. 214) i. 1275 v.§.(5 Tex. Ap. 616) i. 931, 951 v. 8. (31 Tex. Cr. 42) i, 1265 —, S. ». (Mart. &. Yerg. 187) i. 514 —, 8. v. (Peck, 140) i. 665, 1245 — v. Territory (1 Wy. Ter. 78) i. 459 Fierline, S. v. (19 Mo. 380) i. 1124 Fife v. C. (29 Pa. 429) i. 980 a, 1005 a, 1034, 1036, 1063, 1066, 1220, 1224, 1239, 1265 Fifield, S. v. (18 N.H. 34). ii. 883, 888, 889, gon Fifth District Judge, S. v. (82 La. An. 815) i. 251 Fight v. S. (7 Ohio, pt. 1, 180; 28 Am. D. 626) i, 265, 269; ii. 259 Filburn, C. v. (119 Mass. 297) ii, 945 Files, S. v. (3 Brev. 304; 1 Tread. 234) i. 95la Filewood, Rex v. (2 T. R. 145) i. 691 Filkins v. P. (69 N.Y. 101; 25 Am. R. 143) i. 1100 ——, P. v. (Sheldon, 504) i. 975e¢ Finch v. C. (14 Grat. 643) i. 1317 ——,, Rex ». (1 Moody, 418) ii. 733 —— v.S. (81 Ala. 41) i. 1142 —v. 8. (6 Blackf. 533) i. 345 —v.S8. (15 Fla. 633) i, 251 — v. §. (53 Missis. 363) i, 272 —v.S. (64 Missis. 461) i. 322, 325 —, S. uv. (70 Iowa, 316; 59 Am. R. 443) ii. 751 Fincher v. 8. (58 Ala. 215) i. 1151 Finchim v. C. (83 Va. 689) i. 1278 Findlay v. Pruitt (9 Port. 195) i. 168 Findley ». Erwin (2 Marph, 244) i. 68 — v. P. (1 Mich. 2384) i. 751, 798, 858 — v.S. (5 Blackf. 576 ; 36 Am.D. 557) i, 68, 72 —, 8. v. (77 Mo. 338) i. 890 —,S.v.(101 Mo. 217) 1.1180; ii. 3284, 329 Findon, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 182) i. 1068 Fine, P. v. (77 Cal. 147) i. 1250 Fink v. Milwaukee (17 Wis. 26) i. 107, 717, 720 552 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. FIS Finley, P. v. (88 Mich. 482) i. 1094 —— v. §. (61 Ala. 201) i, 1274 Finn v. C. (5 Rand. 701) — i, 1126, 1195, 1241 —,, C. v. (108 Mass. 466) ii, 983 —, S. v. (81 La. An. 408) i. 711 —,, S. v. (48 La. An. 895) i. 126 Finnegan, C. v. (109 Mass. 363) i. 127 —,P.v a Par. Cr. 147) i. 984, 1265 —v. 5. (aT Ga. 427) i. 849, 860 Finney, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 774) i. 1847 Firby v. 8. (3 Bax. 358) i, 665. Fire Department vo. Harrison (2, Hilton, 455) i. 892 Firestone v. Rice (71 Mich. 877; 1b Am. St. 266) i, 185, 193, 214 First, S. v. (82 Ind. 81) i. 713 First Judge of Columbia, P. ». (2 Hill, N. Y. 398) i. 1881 First National Bank of Omaha ». Lierman (5 Neb. 247) ii, 482 a Firth, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C. 172; 11 Cox C. C. 234) i, 897 Fischblatt, C. v. (4 Met. 354) ii 975 Fish v. Brocket (1 Plow. 265; 2 Dy. 181 ne i, 1001 i. 1097, 1107, 1264, 1268; ii. 631 —, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 206) ii, 158, 159 —, S. v. (3 Dutcher, 323) ii. 36, 387 — , S. v. (4 Ire. 219) i. 49 ——, U.S. uv. (24 Fed. Rep. 585) _ ii. 829 Fishburn v. Chicago, &c. Ry. (187 U.S. 60) i. 1265 Fisher, Ex parte (6 Neb. 309) i. 1410 —,, C. v. (2 Duv. 876) i. 2640 ——, C. v. (7 Gray, 492) i. 665, 666, 668 —, C. », (15 Philad. 386) i. 1068 i. 982, 984, 987, 999, 1000; ii. 630, 672, 673 — v. P. (103 Ill. 101) i. 1279 ——, P. v. (20 Barb. 652; 2 Par. Cr. 402) i. 814a, 892, 897 —, P. v. (6 Cal. 154) i. 72 P, (23 Ill. 283) —., P. v. (51 Cal. 319) ii. 87 ——, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 612) ii. 1051 —, Reg. v. (3 Cox C. C. 1) i. 1030 ——, Reg. v. (8 Cox C. C.68) i. 1018; ii. 9 —v. 8. (46 Ala. 717) ii. 740 — v.§. (3 Ire. 111) ii. 286 v. S. (10 Lea, 151) ii. 584 — v.S (33 Tex. 792) i. 897, 449 — v.58. (30 Tex. Ap. 502) ii. 671 v. §. (11 Vroom, 169) i. 682 (6 Jones, N.C. 478) i. 1233, 1239 —, 8.x. —, 8. v. (8 Kan. 208) i. 612 — , S. v. (83 La. An. 1844) ii. 627 —, S. v. (68 Mo. 256) ii, 419 — , S. vo. (65 Mo. 437) ii. 418 a — 8. v. (2 Nott & McC. 261) i. 9814 932 a, 949 a, 1278 —,, U.S. v,. (56 McLean, 23) i, 84 Fishmongers’ Co. v. Robertson (3 C. B. 970) i, 1348 Fisk v. S. (9 Neb. 62) i. 879 FLA Fisler, U.S. v. (4 Bis. 59) 1. 553; ii. 403 Fitch, C. v. (4 Dall. 212) ii. 387 — v. Rempublicam (3 Yeates, 49) i. 480 — v. §. (2 Nott & McC. 658) i. 229, 2647 Fitchburg Rld., C. v. (10 Allen, 189) i. 689 —, C. v. (120 Mass. 3872) i, 453, 492, 1391 —, C. v. (126 Mass. 472) i. 762 Fitton, In re (45 Fed. Rep. 471) i. 228.4 Fitzcox v. S. (52 Missis. 923) i. 869 a, 1169 Fitzenrider v. S. (30 Ind. 288) i. 1265 Fitzgerald v. C, (185 Mass. 266) i, 1327 —, C. v. (123 Mass. 408) ii, 979 v. P. (49 Barb. 122) i. 1005 a; ii. 574 v. P. (1 Colo. 56) i. 905 —, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 201) i. 966d ——, Reg. v. (1 Salk. 401) i, 1298 ——, Rex v. (1 Ld. Raym. 706) i. 961 —— v. 8. (12 Ga. 218) i. 981 v. 8. (14 Mo, 418) i. 1021 —— v. 8. (11 Neb. 577) i, 1212 v. 8. (20 Tex. Ap. 281) ii. 972 —— v. 8. (4 Wis. 895) i. 664, 665, 1374 —, 8. v. (63 Iowa, 268) i. 1196 —, S. v. (75 Mo. 571) i, 62 ——, 8. v. (20 Mo. Ap. 408) ii. 799 Fitzgerrold v. P. (87 N.Y. 418) i. 980; ii. 584 Fitzharris, Rex v. (8 How. St. Tr. 248) i. 730 a, 747, 749 Fitzhugh v. §. (138 Lea, 258) i. 983 —, 8. v. (2 Or. 227) i. 1215, 1248 Fitzpatrick’s Case (1 Salk. 108) i, 258 Fitzpatrick v. C. (81 Ky. 357) i. 975¢ v. P. (98 Ill. 259) i. 1354 v, P. (98 Ill. 269 i, 1355 — , P. v. (80 Cal. 538) i. 1249 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 512) i. 488e; E ii. 948 — v. §. (87 Ark. 373) i. 400 —, S. v. (9 Houst. 385) ii. 718 —,8.o. (8 W. Va. 707) — i. 699, 1855, 1363 — v. Turner (14 Fla. 382) i, 1264 Fitzporter, S. v. (93 Mo. 390) i, 975¢ —, S. v. (17 Mo. Ap. 271) i. 1180 Fitzsimmons; S. v. (30 Mo. 236) i, 586, 1188, 1192 Fitz-Williams’s Case (Cro. Eliz. 915) ii. 877 Fizell v. S. (25 Wis. 364) i. 665; ii. 960 Flack, P. v. (125 N. Y. 324) i. 975¢, 980a, 1101; ii. 204, 227 Flagg v. P. (40 Mich. 706) i. 1238 —, S. v. (25 Ind. 369) ii, 911 —, S.v. (50 N. H. 321) ii, 886, 888 Flahave, P. v. (58 Cal. 249) i. 1050 Flaherty xv. Longley (62 Me.420) i. 209 Flanagan, C. v. (7 Watts & 8. 68) i. 814 a —,,C. v. (7 Watts & S. 415) i. 909, 932 ; ii. 569, 572, 579, 580, 584, 588 i. 455, 1395 _v. 8. (19 Ala. 646) S. v. ( i, 1059 v. (26 W. Va, 116) INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. FLI Flanagin v. S, (25 Ark. 32): i. 1154, 1169, 1254 Flanakin, U. S. v. (Hemp. 80) i. 691 Flanders, S. v. (88 N. H. 824) i. 1189, 1269 Flanegan v. S. (64 Ga. 52). i, 1086 Flanigan, C.v. (8 Philad. 480) ii. 615 Fianigin, S. v. (5 Ala. 477) ii. 595 Flannagan, Reg. v. (15 Cox C. C, 403) i. 966 d; ii, 628 Flannery, Reg. v. (Jebb, 243) ii, 1025 Flannigan, S.v. (6 Md. 167) i. 417 Fleener v. S. (58 Ark. 98) ii. 321, se a, 29 Fleenor v, S. (58 Ind. 166) i. 2647 Fleetwood v. C. (80 Ky. 1) i. 162 —, 8. v. (16 Mo. 448) _ i. 479; ii. 1050 —v. Taylor (6 Dowl. P. C. 796) i, 1276 Fleming, Ex parte (60 Missis. 910) 1, 1299 — v, Clark (12 Allen, 191) i. 1411 v. P. (27 N. Y.329) i. 688 i. 72, 909, 919, 951 a, 1279; ii. 52 —— v. S. (60 Missis. 434) i. 875, Bs ¢, 80 — rv. §. (28 Tex. Ap. 234) i. 402, 1254 a —, 8. v. (7 Humph. 152; 46 Am. D. 78) i, 1888, 1895 — .,S8 v. (18 Iowa, 443) i. 1264 — v. S. (11 Ind. 234) — , S. v. (107 N. C. 905) i. 975, 980 —-, 8. v. (2 Strob. 464) ii. 689 Flemister v. 8. (48 Ga. 170) ii. 935 a Flemming, Rex v. (2 Leach, 854) i. 1199; ‘ ii. 960 —, S. v. (66 Me. 142; 22 Am. R. 552 i. 745, 751, 850 Flemons, S. v. (6 Ind. 279) i. 1265 Fletcher v. Conly (2 Greene, Iowa, 88) i. 688 — v. P. (52 Ill. 395) i. 465, 1872 v. P, (81 Ill. 116) i. 1827 v. P. (117 Ill. 184) i, 1279 ——,, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 215) ii —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 58) i, 1298 — «. 8. (7 Eng. 169) i. 795; ii. 294 — v.S. (90 Ga. 389) ii. 53 v. 8. (6 Humph. 249) =i. 919, 998. a — v.8. (49 Ind. 124; 19 Am. R. 678) i. 1101, 1119 — ». 8. (54 Ind. 462) i. 733 v. 8. (10 Lea, 338) ii. 135 —— v. S. (60 Missis. 675) i. 951, 1276 i. 583 —v.8. (16 Tex. Ap. 635) — , 8. v. (18 Mo. 425) fi. 494 — , S.v. (13 R. 1. 622) i, 478 Flinn, S. v, (51 Iowa, 133) i. 1264 Flint v. C. (81 Ky. 186) i, 975 — v.P. (385 Mich. 491) ii, 902 ——, Reg. v. (8 Cox C. C. 66) i. 947 —, Rex v. (Cas. temp. Hardw. 370) i. 619, 585 —, S. v. (62 Mo, 393) i. 491, 587; ii. 829 Flint River Steamboat ». Foster (5 Ga. 194; 48 Am. D. 248) i, 892, 894 553 FOG INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. FOR Flippin, Ex parte (94 U. 8.348) i. 1403) Fogg v. S. (9 Yerg. 392) fi. 414, 416 Flora v. S, (4 Port. 111) i. 581 | Foggy, C. v. (6 Leigh, 638) i. 784 Florenza, S. v. (28 La. An. 945) ii. 589 | Folden v. S. (13 Neb. 828) i, 1853 Flores, P. v. (64 Cal. 426) i, 854 | Foley, Ex parte (62 Cal. 508) ii, 123 ——, S. v. (33 Tex. 444) i. 700 | —, C. v. (99 Mass. 497) i. 404; ii. 200 — 1. S. (13 Tex. Ap. 665) ii. 740 | ——, C. v. (99 Mass. 499) i. 888 Florey v. Florey (24 Ala. 241) i. 966 a: | —— v. P. (Breese, 31) i, 256, 261 ii. 678, 679 | —— v. P. (22 Mich. 227) i, 1269 Florez v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 102) ii. 127 | —— v.8. (9 Ind. 863) i. 314 a; ii. 63, v. 8. (26 Tex. Ap. 477) ii. 740 , , 660 Florida v. Mullin (3 N. Y. Leg. Obs. —, S. v. (65 Iowa, 51) ii, 68, 71 210) i, 256 | ——,S. ve. (12 Mo. Ap. 481) i. 975 4 Flournoy v. 8. (16 Tex. 31) ii. 638 a | ——, S. v. (45 N. H. 466) ii. 115, 279 Flower, Rex v. (8 Car. & P. 413) i. 449, | Folkes, Rex v. (1 Moody, 354) li. 957 457 | Folmsbee, P. v. (60 Barb. 480) i. 254 ——, Rex v. (5B &C. 736; 8 D. & Foltz v. S. (83 Ind. 215) ii. 813 R. 512) ii. 8321 | Folwell, S. v. (14 Kan. 105) i, 1121; ——, S.v. (Walk. Missis. 318) i. 934 li. 676, 677, 754 Flowers, S. v. (109 N.C. 841) ii. 909, 910 | Fong Ah Sing, P. v. (64 Cal. 253) i. 1062, Flowery, U. S. v. (1 Sprague, 109) i. 966 a, 1248, 1269, 1270 Floyd, Ex parte (60 Missis, 913) i. 256 v. Abney (1 S.C. 114) i. 1275 v, Barker (12 Co. 23) i. 870 b —— v. Eatonton (14 Ga. 354) i, 892 v. Ricks (6 Eng. 451) ii. 877 v. §. (80 Ala. 511) i, 887, 888, 1264, 1265, 1269 v. §. (55 Ala. 61) i. 931 v. 8. (82 Ark. 200) i, 1803 v. S. (7 Eng. 43; 54 Am. D. 250) i, 228; ii. 368 — v. 8, (29 Tex. Ap, 341) i. 975 —,S.v. (6 Jones, N. C. 392) i, 980; ii. 615 ——, 8. v. (15 Mo. 349) i. 78, 980 a, 1269, 1276 ; ii. 742 i, 457, 687, 1049 ; Flye, S. v. (26 Me. 312) ii. 407, 436, 442 Flynn, C. v. (3 Cush. 525) ii. 921 —,C. v. (3 Cush. 529) ii. 49 —, P.v. (73 Cal. 511) i. 975 c, 979, 1074, 1149 —, P. v. (96 Mich. 276) ii, 963, 967, 969, 972 v. S, (42 Ark. 315) i. 264 v. 8. (43 Ark. 289) i. 1087 —-v. S, (8 Tex. Ap. 368) ii. 63 v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 398) i. 1035 ——,S.v. (81 Ark. 35) i. 68 —, 5S. v. (42 Iowa, 164) i. 706 b, 859, 966 —,S. v. Ca Mo. 480) ii. 750 —, S. v. (36 N. H. 64) i, 246 —, 8. v. (85 Tex. 354) ii, 273 —— ve. Stoughton (5 Barb. 115) i, 123 Foard v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 556) i, 2644, 264 db Fockler, S. ». (22 Kan. 542) il, 187 Fogarty, Reg. v. (5 Cox C. C.161) i. 304 v. S. (80 Ga. 450) i. 909, 934, 949 b, 951, 951 a, 975 c, 982, 1279 Fogerson, S. v. (29 Mo. 416) i. 557 Fogerty, C. v. (8 Gray, 489; 69 Am. D. 264) ii. 956, 957, 959 554 1207, 1214 —, P. v. (70 Cal. 8) i. 1207, 1279 Fong Yue Ting v. U. S. (149 U.S. 698) ~ i 100a Fontenette, 8. v. (88 La. An. 61) i, Hi 711 Fooks, S. v. (65 Iowa, 452) i, 1205 —, 8. v. (29 Kan. 425) ii. 585 Foot, Rex v. (2 Show. 455) i. 479 —, S. v. (2 Mill, 123) i. 264 Foote v. Gordon (87 Ga. 277) i, 264, 2645 Footner v. Figes (2 Sim. 319) i. 1268 Forbes, P. v. (22 Cal. 135) 1. 1827 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 224) ii, 428 ——, Rex v. (Holt N. P. 599) i, 1195 Forbriger, S. v, (84 Kan. 1) i, 1264 Ford v. C. (3 Dana, 46) i, 1264 v. C. (82 Va. 553) i. 898 —, C. v. (5 Gray, 475) ii, 62 —,C. v. (111 Mass. 394) i. 1095 —, Rex v. (4 Nev. & M. 451) i, 485, 1317 ——, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 329) i. 182 — v. S. (84 Ark. 649) i. 962, 975 b, 1247, 1248; ii. 592, 595 v. S. (4 Chand. 148) i. 720 v. S. (70 Ga. 722) i, 1170 —— v. S. (112 Ind. 878) i. 882; ii. 53 — v. 8. (12 Md. 614) i. 1008; ii. 584 8. v. (30 La. An. 11) i, 272 .v. (87 La. An, 443) i. 68, 71, 467, 931, 931a, 975c, 984, 987, 1028; il. 618 —, S. v. (88 La. An. 797) ii, 400 | —, S. v. (42 La. An. 255) i. 909, 966 ¢ ——, S. v. (2 Root, 93) ii. 483 ——, S. v. (1 Speers, 146) ii. 630 —, 8. v. (8 Strob. 517, note) i. 1107, 1110, 1112, 1170, 1276 ——, S. v. (21 Wis. 610) i. 1094; ii. 751 —,U.S8.v. (See Whiskey Cases.) —. U.S. ». (84 Fed. Rep. 26) i, 322, 625 Fore v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 251) i. 1120; ii. 721 Forehand v, 8. (51 Ark. 553) i, 982 a FOS INDEX TO THE Forester, Reg. v. (10 Cox C. C. 868; 4 Fost. & I. 857) i, 1207, 1212 Formosa, P. v. (131 N. Y. 478; 27 Am. St. 612) i. 682 Forner, S. v. (82 Kan. 281) i. 1264 Forney, P. v. (81 Cal. 118) ii, 62, 63 , 8. v. (24 La, An. 191) i. 999; ii. 657 Forno, S. v. (14 La. An. 450) i, 264 b Forrest v. S. (3 Tex. Ap. 232) ii. 64 —, S. v. (80 Tex. 503) ii. 1048 Forrist v. Leavitt (52 N. H. 481) i. 180, 185 Forsgate, Rex v. (1 Leach, 468) _ ii. 721 Forshner, S. v. (438 N. H. 89; 80 Am. D. 182) i. 926 ; ii. 965, 966 Forster, Reg. v. (Dears. 456; 6 Cox C. C. 521) i. 1126, 1128; ii. 261 Forsyth, Rex v. (2 Leach, 826) i, 884 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 274) i. 392, 641; ii. 714 —, S. v. (Taylor, 21) i. 691 — v. U.S. (9 How. U.S. 571) i. 8144, 316 Forsythe, P. v. (65 Cal. 101) i. 1250 v. 8. (6 Ohio, 19) i. 931, 982 a Fort v. Brown (46 Barb. 366) ii. 631 o. S. (52 Ark. 180; 20 Am. St. 163) i. 1170; ii. 158 —,58.v. (1 Car. Law Repos. 510) i, 1354 v. West (53 Ga. 584) i. 314 Fortenberry, Ex parte (53 Missis. 428) i. 261 ——v. 8. (55 Missis. 403) i. 918, 959.0 Fortier v. Ballance (5 Gilman, 41) ii. 383 Fortner, S. v. (43 Iowa, 494) i, 1223 Fortune, C. v. (105 Mass. 592) ii. 3, 89 —, 5. v. (10 Misso. 466) i. 761 Forward »v, Harris (30 Barb. 338) ii. 753 Forwood v. S. (49 Md. 581) — i. 984, 1264 Foss, C. v. (14 Gray, 50) i. 486 — v. Jones (43 Kan. 72) i. 1814 —, S. v. (54 Mo. 416) i. 286, 1820 Fossett v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 40) i, 3l4a Foster’s Case (5 Co. 59 a) i. 216 Foster, Ex parte (5 Tex. Ap. 625; 32 Am. R. 577) i. 261, 1407 — v. Brooks (6 Ga. 287) ii, 687 a — v. C. (8 Watts & S. 77) i. 124 —, C. v. (5 Grat. 695) i. 689 —,C.v. ? Mass. 488) i, 176, 188 —, C. v. (122 Mass. 317; 23 Am. R. 326) i. 1291 — vw. Clinton (51 Iowa, 541) i, 285 — v. Kirby (31 Mo. 496) i. 897 —— v. P. (49 How. Pr. 69) i. 1125 — v.P. (3 Hun, 6) ii. 151 — v. P. (18 Mich. 266) i. 1164, 1172; ii. 754 — v.P. (50 N. Y. 598) i. 280 —v. P. (63 N. ¥. 619) i. 1125; ii. 152 —, P. v, (104 Tl. 156) i. 1304 ——, Reg. v. (3 Car. & K. 201) i. 960d — , Reg. v. (29 Eng. L. & Eq. 548; 1 Jur. n. s. 407) i, 1126; ii. 261 CASES CITED. FOW Foster, Reg. v. (2 Q. B. D. 801) ii. 187, 188, 190, 191 —, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 825) i, 1086, 1111 ——, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 148) i, 1261 ——, Rex v. (1 Ld. Raym. 475) ii. 849 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 412) i. 688 ; ii. 722 — v. S. (89 Ala. 229) i. 752, 812, 814 — v. 8. (88 Ala, 182) i. 1005a, 1011 —— v.S. (45 Ark. 828) i. 1248 — v. 8. (59 Ind. 481) i. 1264 — v. 8. (106 Ind. 272) i. 546; ii. 988 uv, S. (6 Lea, 218) i, 822 — v.§. (31 Missis. 421) i. 1857 —-v. S. (52 Missis. 695) ii, 741 —— v. S. (19 Ohio St. 415) i. 885 — v.S8. (1 Tex. Ap. 363) ii. 740 v. 8. (1 Tex. Ap. 581) i, 780, 1285 — v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 246) i. 1087 ; ii. 746, 752 a — v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 248) i, 1086 — v. S. (19 Tex. Ap. 73) i. 1060 —, &. v. (3 Fost. N. H. 848) i. 1164 ——,, S. v. (9 Ind. 189) i. 1817 — 8. v. (2 Iowa, 559) ~— i. 264 f, 264 nm — , S. v. (11 Iowa, 291) ii, 828 —, 8. v. (79 Iowa, 726) i, 951 —, S. v. (80 Kan. 365) ii. 426 —,S. v. (82 La. An. 34) i. 981 —,S. v. (86 La. An. 857) i. 1005 —, S. v. (36 La, An. 877) i. 1060 ——, 5S. v. (4 Lea, 736) i. 286 — , S. v. (8 McCord, 442) i. 612, 1188; ii. 436° —, S. v. (2 Misso. 210) ii. 494 —, 8. v. (61 Mo. 549) i, 652, 975¢; ii. 588 —, 8. v. (1 Mo. Ap. 1) i. 1265 —, S. v. (9 Tex. 65) i. 882 v. Territory (1 Wash. 411) i. 612 Fotheringham v. Adams Exp. (34 Fed. Rep. 646) i, Foulke v. C. (90 Pa. 257) i, 264A Foulkes v. C. (2 Rob. Va. 836) ii. 481, 433 —,, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 2 C. C. 150) ii, 823 a Foulks, 8. «. (57 Mo. 461) ii. 902 Fountain r. Ward (85 Ind. 70) i. 805 Fourteen Packages, U.S. v. (Gilpin, 235) i. 981 Foust v. C. (88 Pa. 338), i. 8144, 931 Foute v. S. (8 Hayw. 98) i. 708 v. 8. (15 Lea, 712) i. 1126 Fouts v. S. (4 Greene, Iowa, 500) i. 611; ii. 685 — v. S. (7 Ohio St. 471) i. 909; ii. 229 —— v. §. (8 Ohio St. 98) i. 825, 940, 959 a, 1236, 1269; ii. 585 Fowler, In re (18 Blatch. 480) i, 224 —— v. Bishop (1 Root, 198) i. 1314, 1819 — v. Brooks (64 N. H. 423; 10 Am, St. 425) i. 814 —— v. C. (4 T. B. Monr. 128) i. 2644, 264 b, 1265, 1269 555 FRA Fowler, P. v. (9 Cal. 85) i. 814, 1264 —, P.v. (88 Cal. 136) i, 354 ——., Rex v. (4 B. & Ald. 278) i. 1848 — v. S. (8 Bax. 573) i. 943 — v. S. (3 Heisk. 154) ii. 59, 60 — vr. 8. (85 Ind. 588) i, 984, 986.4 — »v. S. (91 Ind. 507) i, 2644 —, 8. v. (8 Fost. N. H. 184) i, 264.4, 443, 449, 457 —, S. v. (52 Iowa, 103) Fox’. Cosby (2 Call, 1) i, 706 v. Davis (55 Ga. 298) ii. 728 — v. Gaunt (3 B. & Ad. 798) i. 167, 170 v. Lyon (27 Pa. 9) i. 1269 v. Ohio (5 How. U.S. 410) i. 64 v. P, (95 Ill. 71) 1.9750, 1250; ii. 428 i. 850, 1049 —, P. v. (25 Mich. 492) ii. 911, 921 —, P. v. (121 N. ¥. 449) — i. 1218, 1220 — v. S. (9 Ga, 373) i. 951, 9514 —— v. S. (34 Ohio St. 377) i. 1005a; ii. 975 — .,S.v. (1 Dutcher, 566) i. 909, 934, 966, 1265, 1276, 1277; ii. 514 —,, 5S. v. (1 Ga. Decis. 35) i, 999 —,S. v. (4 Halst. 244) i. 665 ——, 8. uv. (80 Iowa, 312; 20 Am. St. 425) ii. 189, 145 —,S. 4 (79 Mo. 109) i, 951, 998 a —, U.S. v. (8 Mont. 512) i. O51 f v. Vanderbeck (5 Cow. 518) _ ii. 809 v. Whitney (33 N. H. 516) i a 131 Foxby, Reg. v. (6 Mod. 11) i. 835 — , Reg. v. (6 Mod. 178) i. 277, 1871 ——,, Reg. v. (6 Mod. 239) ii. 200 Foxe’s Case (2 Dy. 164) i. 392 Foxley’s Case (5 Co. 109 a) i, 1863 Foxwell v. S. (63 Ind. 539) i, 1186 Foy, Rex v. (Vern. & S. 540) ii. 9 — , S. v. (82 N. C. 679) i, 596, 610; ii, 731 — , S. v. (98 N. C. 744) ii. 825 Foye v. Patch (182 Mass. 105) ii, 432 a —, U.S. v. (1 Curt. C. C. 864) i. 486 Foynes, C. v. (126 Mass. 267) i. 721 Frady v. S. (8 Bax. 349) i. 975.c, 982 Frahm, s. v. (73 Iowa, 355) ii. 184, 740 Frain v. 8. (40 Ga. 529) i. 951, 951¢, 1014, 1223, 1276, 1285, 1332 — , S. v. (82 Ind. 532) i, 712 Fralich v. P. (65 Barb. 48) i, 1268 Frame, 8. v. (4 Harring. Del. 569) ii. 723 Frampton, Reg. v. (8 Cox C.C.16) ii. 980 France, C. v. (2 Brews. 568) i. 585, 674 — , Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 207) i. 1199 —, S. v. (76 Mo. 681) i. 922 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. FRE Francis, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 2 C. C. 128; 12 Cox C.C. 612; ¥ Eng. Rep. 509) ii, 189 —, Rex v. (Cas. temp. Hardw. 113) i. 409 —, Rex v. (2 Stra. 1015) i. 1002, 1006 — v. 8. (21 Tex. 280) i. 612; ii. 945 —— v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 601) i, 3l4a Francisco e. S. (1 Ind. 179) i. 605 —— v. 8. (4 Zab. 80) i. 438 Francois v. 8. (20 Ala. 83) i, 547 Frank, P. ¢. (28 Cal. 607) ii. 428, 487 —, Pv. (1 Idaho, wn. s. 200) i, 488 — v. S. (27 Ala. 87) i. 1241 v. 8. (40 Ala. 9) i. 1265 —— v.§. (89 Missis. 705) i. 921, 9490; ii, 152 —, 5S. v. (5 Jones, N. C. 884) i. 1076, 127 —, S. v. (23 La. An. 218) i. 995, 999 —, S. v. (103 Mo. 120) ii. 94 Franklin, In re (77 Mich. 615) i. 1410 , C. v. (4 Dall. 316) i. 1380 —, C. v. (133 Mass. 569) ii. 1035 v. Conrad (36 Pa. 317) i, 1318 —, P. uv. (8 Johns. Cas. 299) ii. 407 —v. 8. (28 Ala. 9) i, 869, 1223, 1342 v. §. (29 Ala. 14) i, 1268; ii. 615, 617, 628 v. S. (52 Ala. 414) i. 685 — v. 8. (85 Ga. 570) i. 1394 — v.S8. (108 Ind. 47) i, 613 —— v.§. (12 Md. 286) i. 984, 986 —— v. 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 8) i. 911 —, S. ve. (36 Tex. 155) ii. 63a Franklyn’ s Case (1 Mod. 68) i, 226 Franks, Rex v. (2 Leach, 644) ii. 260, 460 —— v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 481) i. 1005 a ——, S. v. (64 Iowa, 39) i, 965; ii, 139 Franz v. S, (12 Wis. 536) i. 1296 Fraser, Rex v. (1 Moody, 407) i. 381 ——v.S. (55 Ga. 325) i. 1107, 1247; ii. 629 —, S. v. (2 Bay, 96) i. 951 Frasier v. 8. (5 Misso. 5386) i. 3899, 1005 a, 1015a —, S. v. (6 Bax. 539) i. 1289 Frates, C. v. (16 Gray, 236) i, 394 Fraunburg, 8. v. (40 Iowa, 555) —i.: 978, Frazer v. Frazer (2 Del. Ch. 260) ii. 674 — v. P. (54 Barb. 36) i. 611, 1015, 1173 —— v.§S. (2 Swan, Tenn. 535) i. 691 —, §. v. (14 Nev. 210) i, 975¢ Frazier v, Brown (12 Ohio St. 294) i, 1101 —, C. v. (2 Brews. 490) i. 940 —, S. v. (1 Tenn. 434) i. 273 | —— ». Felton (1. Hawks, 231) i. 431 Frances, Reg. v. (4 Cox C. C. 57) ii. 685 | —— v. S. (42 Ark. 70) i, 1241 —, Rex v. (2 Comyns, 478) i. 409, 412, | —— v. 8. (135 Ind. 38) ii, 153 . 1286 | —— v. S. (23 Ohio St. 551) i. 909 — v.S. (6 Fla. 306) i. 994, 1359 ) ——, S. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 176) i. 1086, 1212 v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 501) ii, 432 c | ——, S. v. (68 Kan, 87; 42 Am. St. —, S. v. (36 La. An. 336) i.1005a| 274 ) ii, 92 Francis, P. v. (38 Cal. 183) ii. 674 | Freany v. Territory (1 Wash. 84) i. 1287 —, P. ». (52 Mich. 578) 556 i. 1274 Frederic, S. v. (69 Me. 400) i, 1199, 1260 . FRE Frederick v. C. (4 B. Monr. 7) ii. 276, 281 , Rex v. (2 Stra. 1095) i. 1019 Fredericks, C. v. (119 Mass. 199) i. at 76. —, S. v. (85 Mo. 145) i. 1226, 1248 Fredrick v. S. (8 W. Va. 695) i, 1242; ii, 732 Free v. §. (13 Ind. 324) ii, 752 Freel v. S. (21 Ark. 212) i. 1010 Freeland v, P. (16 Ill. 380) ii. 1000 —, P. v. (6 Cal. 96) i. 314; ii. 606 — S. v. (16 Kan. 9) i, 1264 Freelon, P. v. (8 Cal. 517) i, 1264 Freelove, C. v. (150 Mass. 66) i. 607 Freeman v. P. (4 Denio, 9; 47 Am. D. 216) i. 905, 945, 949, 1265; ii. 666, 668, 674 — _, P. v. (92 Cal. 359) i. 1279 —,P. uv. (Hall’s Trial of Free- man) ii. 666 , P. v. (1 Idaho, x. s. 822) ii. 703 —, P. v. (20 Mich. 413) i. 2344 v, Prive (1 Y. & J. 402) i, 1276 , Rex v. (1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 681) ii. 600 —,, Rex ». (2 Stra. 1226) ii, 945 v. S. (19 Fla. 552) ii. 927 v. 8. (119 Ind. 501) ii. 105 v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 462) i. 783, 733 a, 140 — »v. S. (20 Tex. Ap. 558) ii, 163 —., S. v. (6 Blackf. 248) i. 523, 524, 884 —.,S. v. (12 Ind. 100) i. 1287, 1243 —_ S. v. (8 Iowa, 428; 74 Am. D. 317) i. 191, 235, 406, 480; ii. 882, 893 ——, S. v. (27 Iowa, 333) i. 395 —, 8. v. (4 Jones, N. C.5) ii. 53, 428 . (21 Mo. 481) i. 408, 662, 665 S. v. (72 N. C. 521) ii. 754 v v —, S. v. (86 N. C. 683) i. 183 —, 8. uv. (89 N. C. 469) ii, 732 —,, S. v. (938 N. C. 558) i. 1264 —, 8. v. (100 N. C. 429) i. 981, 1066 ; ii. 965 —, S. v. (18 N. H. 488) i. 700 —, 8. v. (1 Speers, 57) — i. 1212, 1225; ; ii. 516 —, S. v. (15 Vt. 728) 1. 665 —, S. v. (59 Vt. 661) i, 718, 721 — , Territory v. (McCahon, 56) i. 360 —, U.S. v. (4 Mason, 505) i. 1136 Freer, P. v. (1 Caines, 485) i. 277 Freleigh v. S. (8 Misso. 606) 1. 951 a, ie 119 French v. Barre (58 Vt. 567) i. 378 —v. P. (77 Ill. 581) i. 1264 1265, 1267 —v. P. (8 Par. Cr. 114) i, 239 a4 ——, P. uv. (69 Cal. 169) i. 975¢ ——) Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 491) ii, 138, 726 — r.S8. (12 Ind. 670; 74 Am. D. 229) i, 338, 1066 — °.S. (85 Wis. 400; 39 Am. St. 855) ii. 666 — «. Sale (63 Missis. 386) i. 1190 Freshour, P. v. (55 Cal. 375) i, 1164 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. 2| Fry, In re (8 Mackey, 135) Fur Frey, C. v. (50 Pa. 245) i. 1287, 1440; ii. 165 Friar v. S. (8 How. Missis. 422) i. 698, 9314, 959 a, 1002, 1015, 1269, 1279 Fricke v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 6) i. 1264 Fricker, S. v. (45 La. An. 646) ii. 318 Friday, S. v. (4 Rich. 291) i, 1264 Fridlington, In re (9 Price, 658) i. 264g Frieberg, S. x. (49 Ohio St. 685) ii. 865, 867 Friedberg v. P. (102 Ill. 160) i. 1279; ii. 740 Friederich v. P. (147 Ill. 310) ii. 661 Friedline v. S. (93 Ind. 366) i. 264 m Friedman r. Rid. (7 Philad. 208) i. 1207 Friend, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 20) i 15 — , 8. v. (47 Minn. 449) ii. 700 Friery v. P, (2 Abb. Ap. 215) i. 949 —— v. P. (54 Barb. 319) i, 905 Fries, S. v. (53 Ind. 489) ii. 401 —, U. S. v. (8 Dall. 515) i. 931 Frink, U.S. v. (4 Day, 471) i. 966 d Frishie v. Butler (Kirby, 213) i. 244, 720 — , P. v. (26 Cal. 135) i. 1264 v. S. (1 Or. 248) i. 1052 Frisby, S. v. (19 La. An. 148) i. 1000 —,, S. v. (90 Mo. 530 ii. 934 Frishe v. C. (6 Dana, 318) i. 2644 Fritchler, 8. v. (54 Mo. 424) ii. 754 Frith, Rex x. (1 Leach, 10) i. 760, 761, 762 —, Rex v. (22 How. St. Tr. 307) ii. 666, 668 0 | Fritterer, S. v. (65 Mo. 422) i. 1265, 1269 Fritz, S. v. (23 La. An. 55) ii. 482 b , S.v. (27 La, An. 360) i. 425, 1298, 1358 Frizzell v. 8. (30 Tex. Ap. 42) i, 951 Froehlich, 8. v. (20 Vroom, 836) i. 1264 Froelick, 8. v. (70 Iowa, 213) i. 975c¢ Froiseth, S. v. (16 Minn. 296) i, 865, 872 —, S. v. (16 Minn. 318 i, 849, 856 a Frolich v, S. (11 Ind. 218) ii. 640 Frosh v. 8. (11 Tex. Ap. 280) i. 1356 Frost v. C. (9 B. Monr. 362) i. 892 — , Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 129) i. 210, 931 a, 945, 959 a, 968, 966; ii. 227, 228, 1086, 1038, 1041 —, Reg. v. (Dears. 474; 29 Eng. L. & Eq. 546) i. 689d , Reg. v. (2 Moody, 140; 9 Car. & P. 152) i. 126, 959.a, 1266 —,S.v. Brev. 885) i. 1889 —, 8. v. (4 Lea, 735) i, 286 —, 8. v. (58 N. H. 344) i. 1817 —— v. Thomas (24 Wend. 418) i, 191 Frowen, Reg. v. (4 Cox C. C. 266) ii. 185 Fruge, S. v, (28 La. An, 657) i, 994 i, 145, 1827 — vr. C, (82 Va. 334) i. 1004; ii. 947, 965 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 482) ii. 704 —, S. v. (67 Iowa, 475) i, 1066; ii. 67 —— v. Tippett (16 Lea, 516) , i. 718 Fryber, S. v. (29 Tex. 181) i. 1264 Frye, C. v. (1 Va. Cas. 19) i, 1012 —— v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 94) i, 951, 975 Fugate, S. v. (27 Mo. 535) i. 1093 Fugler v. 8. (58 Missis. 829) i. 266 Fuidge, Reg. v (Leigh & C. 390; 9 Cox C. C. 430) i. 764 557 FUR INDEX TO THE Fulcher v. S, (38 Tex. 505) i, 1264 — v.58. (41 Tex. 233) i. 980 — v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 465) i. 1181, 1186, 1212, 1249 Fulford v. 8. (50 Ga. 591) _ ii. 56, 63.4, 77 , 8. v. (Phillips, N. C. 563) ii. 703 Fulkerson v. 8. (14 Mo. 49) i. 706 —, S. v. (Phillips, N. C. 283) i, 982 Fulkner v. S. (8 Heisk. 83) i. 810, 812 Fuller’s Case (2 East P. C. 887) ii. 165 Fuller, C. ». (182 Mass. 563) ii. 214 —, C. v. (8 Met. 313; 41 Am. D. 509) ii. 266 —— v. Fuller (4 Vt. 123) i, 597 ——v. P. (92 Tl. 182) ii, 790 —, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 16) i. 931, 933, 951 ——, P. v. (17 Wend. 211) i, 216 —, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 35) i. 950d, 951 —, Reg. v. (14 How. St. Tr. 517) i. 977 —, Rex v. (1 B. & P. 180 ; 2 Leach, 790; 1 East P. C. 92) i. 485, 437, 621; ii. 76, 91, 93, 168 ——, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 269) i. 2840 —-~, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 308) ii, 268 —— v. S. (48 Ala. 273) i. 1059; ii. 152 v. S. (1 Blackf. 63) i, 699, 931 v. S. (14 Ga. 268) i. 1265 —— v.58. (73 Ga. 408) ii. 329 —— v.S. (12 Ohio St. 483) i. 1049, 1093 — v. S, (19 Tex. Ap. 380) i. 1264 — v. S. (30 Tex. Ap. 559) ‘ii, 621 —, 5S. v. (1 Bay, 245; 1 Am. D. 610) i, 1100; ii. 486 —, S. v. (14 La. An. 667) i. 126 — , S. v, (14 La. An. 726) Li, 2644 —— , 8. v. (1 McCord, 178) i. 1884 —, S. v. (83 N. H. 259) i. 826. 638 —, S. v. (89 Vt. 74) i. 934, 959 a, 1084, 1276 Fullerton v. Mack (2 Aikens, 415) i. 194 —,, U.S. v. (6 Blatch. 275) i. 951 c —, U.S. v. (7 Blatch. 177) i, 977 Fulmer v. C. (97 Pa. 508) i, 8144, 975 }, 1107 Fulton v. Hood (34 Pa. 365; 75 Am. D. 664 ii. 432 ¢ v, 8. (68 Ga. 224) ii. 53 v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 82) i. 264 ——., S. v. (66 N. C, 632) i. 949 Fults v. S. (2 Sneed, 232) i. 1299 Tulwood’s Case (1 Hale P. C. 660; Cro. Car. 488) i. 54, 296, 349 Fundy v. 8. (30 Ga. 400) ii. 676 Funk v. Ely (45 Pa. 444) i. 901 Funkhouser v. Pogue (18 Ark. 295) i. 1275 Fuqua, P. v. (61 Cal. 377) i. 811, 812 Furbeck, 8S. v. (29 Kan. 5382) i. 68, 71 Furley, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 76) i. 1219 Furlong v. Bray (2 Saund. 182) —i. 1837 —, S.v. (19 Me. 225) ii. 720, 752 —, S. v. (26 Me. 69) i.8l4a Furneaux, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 385) ii, 321 Furney, S. v. (41 Kan, 116; 13 Am. St. 262) i, 478, 1076, 1207, 1212 Furser, Rex v. (Say. 90) i. 1272 558 CASES CITED. GAL Fursey, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 81) i. 1125 Fury v. S. (8 ‘Lex. Ap. 471) i. 975, 1093 Fusse’s Case (Cro. Eliz. 588) i. 681; ii. 181 Fussell, Reg. v. (8 Cox C. C. 201) i. a —, S. v. (45 Ark. 65) _ i 641 Futch v. S. (90 Ga. 472) ii. 688 a G. S., S. v. (1 Tyler, 295) ii. 181 Gabe v. S. (1 Eng. 519) i, 523, 681 ——v. §. (1 Eng. 640) i. 484a, 684, 691; ii, 259 Gablick v. P. (40 Mich. 292) ii. 740, ue Gabriel v. S. (40 Ala. 857) ii. 752 Gabrielsky v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 428) ii. tee Gaby, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 178) ii. 725 Gachenheimer v. S. (28 Ind. 91) i. 264m — , 8. v. (80 Ind. 63) i, 234, 668 Gadbury, Reg. v. (8 Car, & P. 676) i. 1117 Gaddis v. Durashy (1 Green, N. J. 324 ) i, 231 Gady v. S. (88 Ala. 51) ii, 821 Gaffery, S. v. (12 La. An. 265) ii. 726 Gaffney, P. v. (14 Abb. Pr. n. 8.36) i. 999 —. S. v. (56 Vt. 451) i, 9484 Gaffrey, S. v. (4 Chand. 163) ii. 41 Gage, P. v. (62 Mich. 271; 4 Am. St. 854) i. 909; ii, 961, 963 v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 259) i, 272, 458 v. Shelton (8 Rich. 242) ii. 794 Gager, S. v. (28 Conn. 232) ii, 291 Gagle, C. v. (147 Mass. 576) i. 997 Gagnet v. Reese (20 Fla. 438) i. 1868 Gahagan, Rex v. (1 Leach, 42) ii. 1037 Gahan ». P. (58 Ill. 160) ii, 62 Gaige, P. v. (23 Mich. 93) i. 1889 —, P. v. (26 Mich, 30) ii. 911 Galles, S. v. (71 N.C. 88;.17 Am. R. ii. 86 Gainer, S. v. (2 Hayw. 140) i, 948 Gaines v, Buford (1 Dana, 481) i. 1276 —— v. New Orleans (6 Wal. 642) ii. 687 —, P. v. (52 Cal. 479) i. 738, 1854 —'r. S. (39 Tex. 606) i3l4a v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 330) ii, 721 Gainey v. P. (97 Ill. 270; 87 Am. R. 109) i. 975 ¢, 998.4 i. 214 ii. 658 i. 1354 —— v. Parkman (100 Mass. 316) Gainus, S. v. (86 N. C. 632) Gaiocchio v, 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 387) Gaiter v. S. (45 Missis. 441) i, 1347 Gakes, Rex v. (1 Keb. 101) i. 502 Galacar, U. S. v. (1 Sprague, 545) i. 1049 Galavan, C. v. (9 Allen, 271) i, 522 ; ii. 77, 644, 645, 648 Gale v. Lincoln (11 Vt. 152) i. 981 — ». P. (26 Mich. 157) i. 1188 , P. v. (50 Mich. 237) ii, 482¢ v, §. (18 Lea, 489) ii, 153 —, U.S. v. (109 U.S. 65) i. 884.4, 887 Gales v. S. (64 Missis. 105) i. 273 Galindo v. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 819) i. 264 m GAN INDEX TO THE ii. 8694 ii. 703 i. 488 0, 550, 563 Gallagher, C. v. (1 Allen, 592) , C. uv. (16 Gray, 240) —, Gah (126 Mass. 54) v. P, (88 Ill. 835) — v. P. (91 Ill. 590) v. P. (120 Il. 179) —,, P. o. (55 Cal. 463) —, P. vu. (75 Mich. 512) i. 961 f i, 2640 i. 713 i. 86 i. 1164, 1169, — , Reg. v. (18 Cox C. C. 61; 18 Eng. Rep. 416) i. 1020, 1025, 1166 255 | Gannon, In re (69 Cal. 541) oo —, Reg. v. (15 Cox C. C. 291) i. 1169; ii, 1031 — v. §. (3 Minn. 270) i, 989 —— v. 8. (26 Wis. 428) i, 821, 325, 388 —, 8. v. (16 La. An. 388) i. 1269 —, U.S. v. (2 Paine, 447) i. 635 Gallaher v.§. (17 Fla. 870) i. 869 a, 966 b, 1276 v. §. (101 Ind. 411) ii. 1000 v. 8. (28 Tex. Ap. 247) i. 1066, 1076, 1247 Gallant, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F.517) i. 68 Gallears, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 501) ii. 709 Galles v. Wilcox (68 Iowa, ek, i, 1801 Galliard v. Laxton (2 B. & S. 368; 9 Cox C. C. 127) i. 190 Galligan, C. v. (118 Mass. 202) i. 888, 1245 —, C. v. (118 Mass. 203) i. 1287, 1288 Gallimore, S. v, (2 Ire. 872) —_ ii. 908, 909 —, S. v. (7 Ire, 147) ii. 697 Gallo, 8. v. (18 Or. 423) i. 1269 Galloway, Rex v. (1 Moody, 284) i. 338, 449, 453, 464, 461; ii. 981 — v. S. (25 Ga. 596) =i. 905, 951, 1044 — v. S. (29 Ind. 442) i. 68, 1067 — v. 8. (41 Tex. 289) i, 1278 Galpin v. Wilson (40 Iowa, 90) =i. 9802 Galveston, &. Ry. o. Matula (79 Tex. 577) i. 1095 Galvin, P. v. (9 Cal. 115) i, 269 ».'S. (56 Ind. 51) i, 1265 — v.§. (93 Ind. 550) ii, 740 malay Justices, Reg. v. (14 Cox C. C. 386) Gamble v. Johnson (9 Misso. 605) i. 147 ——,, Reg. v. (16 M. & W. 384) ii. 713 i, Ss (21 Ohio St, 183) i, 264 m — v. §. (6 Tex. Ap. 421) i. 1274 , U.S. v, (10 Misco. 457) i. 1347 Gamblin v. 8. (45 Missis, 658) i. 711 Gaming Implements, C. v. (119 Mass. 882) i. 240, 241 Gamlingay, Rex v. (1 Leach, 528; 3 T. R. 618) ii. 1045 Gammon v. Knudson (46 Iowa, ae CASES CITED. GAR Gandy v. S. (27 Neb. 707) i. 68, 74, 959 a, 966 ¢ Ganea v. Southern Pac. Rid. (51 Cal. 140) i. Gangwere’s Estate, In re (14 Pa. 417; 63 Am. D. 554) i. 1140 Gann, 8S. v. (72 Mo. 874) i. 975, 980, 1094 0) Gannett, C.v. (1 Allen, 7; 79 ‘Am. D. 693) ij. 2, 112, 116 i. 850 —— v. Adams (8 Gray, 895) i. 1806 — v.P. (127 Il. 607; 11 Am. St. 147) i. 709, 814, 870, 975 c, 1074, 1079, 1094, 1254, 1264, 1268, 1298 —, S. v. (56 Vt. 58) i. 1817 Gano v. Hall (42 N. Y. 67) i, 227, 235 Garber v. S. (4 Coldw. 161) i. 1086 — v.§. (94 Ind. 219) ii. 718 Garbett, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 236; 2 Car. & K.474; 2 Cox C. C. 448) 1, 1256 Garbutt, P. v. (17 Mich. 9; 97 Am. D. 162) i. 1116; ii. 614, 621, 628, 675 Garcia, P. v. (25 Cal. 631) i. 69; ii. ee —, P. v. (58 Cal. 102) i. 423 —, P. v. (68 Cal. 19) i. 1212 — 15, (26 Tex, 209; 82 Am. D. 605) ii. 789 — v.8. (5 Tex. Ap. 837) i. 920 v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 120} i. 951 — v.8. (19 Tex. Ap. 389) ii. 655 —, 8. v. (88 Tex. 543) i. 141 Gardener, Rex v. (1 Moody, 890) i. 179 Gardenhire v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 147) i. 981 — v.§. (18 Tex. Ap. 565) i. 975 c, 980 Gardiner v. Gardiner (84 N. Y. 155) ii. 678 —— v. P. (6 Par. Cr. 155) i. 934 —, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 787) i. 1067, 1079; ii. 921, 924, 982 —, Reg. v. (2 Moody, 95) ii. 911 —— v. §. (14 Mo. 97) i. 1098 —— v.S. (83 Tex. 692) ii, 764 —, S. v. (1 Ire. 27) ii. 414, 418, 419 —— v. Thibodeau (14 La. An. 782) i. 159 Gardner, C. v. (7 Gray, 494) i. 888, ae —, C. v. (11 Gray, 488) i. 102; ii. 570, 575, 686, 590 — v. Field (1 Gray, 151) ii. 751 —— v. Gardner (2 Gray, 434) i. 1279 — v. Kellogg (28 Minn. 463) ii. 963 —v. P. (20 Ill. 430) i, 1865 —— v. P. (106 Ill. 76) i. 795; ii. 604 — v.P. (62 N. Y. 299 1.3144 v. P, (8 Scam. 83) i. 68, 74, 700, 969 a, . 13898 966 c, 1110, 1248, 1286 ; ii, 229, 625 Ganaway v. S. (22 Ala. 772) i 1400 —, Reg. v (1 Car. & K. 628) i 964 Gandolfo v. S. (11 Ohio St. 114) i, 278, | ——, Reg. v. (9 Cox C. C. 382) i, 969 1000, 1113, 1117, 1286 ——, Rex v. (2 Burr. 1117) i, 713 Gandy v. 8. (81 Ala. 68) i. 721 | —'». 8. (48 Ala. 268) i, 1867 — v. 8. (28 Neb, 436) i, Hey 978 ;| ——v. 8. (90 Ga. 310; 85 Am. St. i. 984 202) ii. 618 —— v.58, (24 Neb. 716) i, 298, $08 a —v.§. (4Ind, 632) i, 678 559 GAR Gardner v. S. (25 Md. 146) i. 1355; ii. 715 v. 8, (11 Tex. Ap. 265) i 975c¢ v. 8. (26 Vroom, 17) i. 931 —, 8. v. (45 Ala. 46) i. 1266 —,, S. v. (13 Lea, 1584; 49 Am. R. 660) i. 1400 — , S. v. (28 Mo. 90) ii. 851, 354 —} S. v. (84 N. C. 732) i, 284 —, S. v. (94 N.C. 953) i, 975 , U.S. e. (10 Pet. 618) i, 1006 Garesche v. Deane (40 Mo, 168) — i. : 1276 Garfield v. S.(74 Ind. 60) i. 975 ce, 1094 Garhart, S. v. (35 Iowa, 315) i, 849 Garibaldi, S. v. (6 Lea, 632) i. 1264, 1272 Garig, S. v. (43 La. An. 865) — i, 946, 1032 Garing, S. v. (75 Me. 591) ii, 115 Garland ». Burton (Andr. 174) - i. 769 —,, C.v. (3 Met. Ky. 478) i. 417, 485, 488 b, 579 i, 1278 i. 266 i, 975 ec, 1092 — v.S. (2Swan, Tenn. 18) —, 5S. r. (67 Me, 423) Garlick v. 8S. (79 Ala. 265) Garlitz v. S. (71 Md. 293) i, 909 Garman v. S. (66 Missis. 196) i. 1190 Garmire v. 8. (104 Ind. 444) ii. 472 Garner v. Collins (Walk. Missis. 518) eet ae Gordon (41 Ind. 92) i. Val Reg. v. (Den. C. C. 329; 2 ~ Car. & K. 920; 3 Cox C. C. 175) i, 1220, 1283, 1244 rv, 8. (28 Fla. 113; 29 Am. St. 282) i, 951 a, 1857 ; ii. 618, 627 v. §. (42 Ga. 203) i, 1285 — v.S. (28 Tex. Ap. 561) i, 9668 — v. 8. (5 Yerg. 160) i, 945, 948 —, S. v. (8 Port. 447) i. 540; ii. 840 —, 5S. v. (14 Rich. 148) i. 316 Garnet v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 605; 28 Am. R. 425) ii. 646 Garnett v. Ferrand (6B. & C. 611) i. 726 ——, P. v. (29 Cal. 622) i. 424, 439, 1170, 1188 Garns, P. v. (2 Utah, 260) i. 951 Garrand, S. v. (5 Or. 156) i, 1117 —_,S. v. (6 Or. 216) i. 1086, 1212 ; ii, 588 Garrard v. §. (25 Missis. 469) i, 1269 —— v. §. (50 Missis. 147) — i. 12238, 1242, 1244, 1248, 1276 Garrells v, Alexander (4 Esp. 37) ii. 482a Garret v. 8. (6 Misso. 1) i. 1166, 1175 wv, S. (9 Yerg. 389) i. 138 Garrett v. Dandy (1 Show, 14) i. 722 v. Gonter (42 Pa. 143) ii, 485 —, P. v. (6 Cal. 203) i, 11096 ——, Reg. v. (Dears. 232; 22 Eng. L. & Eq. 607; 6 Cox C. C. 526) ii. 197 — vu. §,. (41 Tex. 530) ii, 637 —-, S. v. (80 Iowa, 589) ii. 894 —, v. (29 La. An. 637) i. 279 —, 34 Tex. 674) ii. 700 —, s. i (Winst. i. 144; 84 Am. D. 369) i. 160, 191 — v. Trabue (82 Ala. 227) i, 1101 560 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. GAT Garrison v. Atlanta (68 Ga. 64) =i. 1412 v. P, (21 Ill. 638) i. 264 7 —— v. P, (87 Ill. 96) i. 405 — v. P. (6 Neb. 274) i. 1848; ii. 974, 979 — v. S. (14 Ind. 287) ii. 281, 869 a, 869 2, v. §. (21 Tex. Ap. 342) i, 264 m Garrity v. P. (70 Ill. 88) ii. 67, 94, 97 —— v. P. (107 Ill. 162) i. 1066; ii. 158 Garrold v. 8. (11 Tex. Ap. 219) i. 951 Garside’s Case (2 Lewin, 38) i. ree 1165 Garside, Rex v. (4 Nev. & M. 33; A. & B, 266) i. 848, 1164, 1298 1536 Garst, In re (10 Neb. 78) i. 68, 239 a —— v. §. (68 Ind. 101) i. 860 Garthwaite, S. 7. (3 Zab. 143) i. 951 f —— v. Tatum (21 Ark. 336; 76 Am. D. 402) i, 913 Gartman z. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 215) ii. 927 Gartrell, S. v. (14 Ind. 280) i. 713 Garvey’s Case (7 Colo. 384; 49 Am. R. 858) ii. 539 Garvey, In re (7 Colo. 502) i. 951f —, S. v. (42 Conn. 232) i. 1389, 1394 —, 8. v. (25 La. An. 191) i. 1256 —, S.v. (28 La. An. 925 ; 26 Am. R. 123) i, 1220, 1282 —, S. v. (11 Minn. 154) ii. 63 a Garvin v. S. (52 Missis. 207) i. 709, 711 965 Gary v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 527) i. 264 a — , S. v. (36 N, H. 359) i, 825, 661, 664; ii, 224 Garza v. S. (3 Tex. Ap. 286) i. 931, 975¢ —v.S. (11 Tex. Ap. 345) i. 975, 1100 —— v.S. (11 Tex. Ap. 410) i, 145 Gascoigne, Rex v. (7 How. St. Tr. 959) i. 729 Gascoine, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 772) i. 968 Gaskins, Se. (65 N. C. 820) i, 1310 Gassaway, P. vr. (23 Cal. 51) ii. 740 —,, P. x, (28 Cal. 404) ii. 10 Gassenheimer v. S. (52 Ala. 813) i. 1129, 1188; ii. 988 Gassert, 8. v. (65 Mo. 352) ii. 603 Gastner v. 8. (47 Ind. 144) i, 360 Gaston v. Babcock (6 Wis. 508) — i. 802 —— v. §. (11 Tex. Ap. 143) i, 961 Gastro, P. v. (75 Mich. 127) i. 975 c, 978; ii. 11 Gateley, C. v. (126 Mass. 52) ii. 829 Gates v. P. (14 IIl. 433) i. 917, 959 a, 966 c, 1242 — , P. uv. (18 Wend. 311) i, 326, 452, 1058, 1247 ; ii. 187 — ».8. (3 Ohio St. 293) i. 814.4 — , S. v. (9 La. An. 94) i. 1857 —, S. v. (20 Mo. 400) i. 71, 1071 —, 8. v. (107 N. C. 882) i. 1814 Gatewood, P. v. (20 Cal. 146) i, 854, 1264 — v.58. (4 Ohio, 386) ii, 734 Gathercole, Reg. v. (2 Lewin, ate a 11 GEN Gatlin o. 8. (5 Tex. Ap. 531) i. oo 3 Gatling v. Newell (9 Ind. 572) ii. 751 Gaulden v. 8. (11 Ga. 47) i, 302 Gault v. Wallace (53 Ga, 675) i. 691 Gauthreaux, S. v. (88 La. An. 608) i. 1269 Gavigan, S. v. (86 Kan, 322) ii. 425 b S. (55 Missis. 588) i. 946, 965, 127 Gavin, C. v. (121 Mass. 54; 23 Am. ——="Us. R. 255) ii. 708 —~, Reg. v. (15 Cox C. C. 656) i. 1238 Gavner, S. v. (20 Mo. 44) i, 965, 1310 Gay, C. v. (5 Pick. 44) i. 602 v. General Sessions (12 Wend. 272) i. 8140 —, P. ce. (10 Wend. 509) i. 8144 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 230) i. 1218 — v.S. (7 Kan. 394) i. 264 a —— v. S. (90 Tenn. 645) i. 975 — v. S. (20 Tex. 504) i. 264. a, 264 d —— v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 127) i. 1245 — v. 8. (3 Tex. Ap. 168) i, 471; ii. 1027 —, S. v. (10 Misso. 440) i, 467, 469, 1035 ——, Territory v. (2 Dak. 125) i, 269, 975 c, 979 —., U. S. v. (2 Gallis. 359) i. 162 Gaylord, S. v. (85 N. C. 551 i. 1264 Gayner, S. v. (Conference, 305) i. 948 Gazard, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 595) i. 1145; ii. 983. a Gazley v. S. (17 Tex. Ap. 267) ii. 961, 967 Gazzolo, C. v. (123 Mass. 220; 25 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. 4|—»v. S. (6 Ga. 503) GIB General Sessions, P v. (1 Wend. 296) i. 1285 —, P. v, (6 Wend. 110) i. 1291 Genet, P. v. (59 N. Y.80; 17 Am. R. 315) i, 265, 269, 950 b, 1265,°1871, 1402 Genner a Sparks (6 Mod. 178; A. Salk. i, 157, 196, 208 Gentry : MeMinnis (8 Dana, 382) i, 1097, 1246; ii. 677 ii. 259 ——, 8. v. (2 Jones, N. C. 406) i. 980 Genung, P. v. (11 Wend. 18; 25 Am. 1D. 594) ii, 191 George, Ex parte (T. U.P. Charl. 80) i. 1878 zv. Radford (3 Car. & P. 464; Moody & M. 244) 4. 187 —, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 111) i. 1020 — , Reg. v. (6 Mod. 57) i. 1052 — v. S. (39 Missis. 570) i. 9496 ——v. 8. (11 Tex. Ap. 94) i. 801 v. §. (17 Tex. Ap. 518) i. 1191 —, S. v. (7 Ire, 821) ii, 229 —, 8S. v. (6 Jones, N.C. 288) =i. 1224, 1237 —, S. v. (87 La. An. 786) i. 909 — U.S. v. (8 Dil. 481) i, 2644 Georgetown v. Alexandria Canal (12 Pet. 91) i. 1417 Gerade, C. vc, (145 Pa. 289; 27 Am. St. 689) i. 1049, 1093 ; ii. 671, 678 Geraghty v. S. (110 Ind. 108) i. 687 Gerald cv. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 208) i, 1264 Gerard v, 8. (10 Tex. Ap. 690) _i. 486; ii. 820, 821, 718 Gerdine v. 8. (64 Missis. 798) i. 975 e, 980 German, S. v. (54 Mo. 526) i. 1058 Am. R. 79) ii. 991 Gerrans, Reg. v. (18 Cox C. C. 158) i. 1203 Geach, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 499) i. 902,| Gerrish v. Pike (36 N. H. 510) ii. 751 938, 945, 1100 —, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 219) ii. 264 Geary, Rex v. (2 Salk. 680) i, 1293 | —— v. S. (63 Ala. 476) i. 685 Gebbie v. Mooney (22 Ill. Ap. 369) ‘ —, 8. v. (78 Me. 20) i. 1005 a; ii. 751, i 2 982 i. Gebhart v. Shindle (15 S. & R. 235) Gertrude, Territory v. (1 Ariz. 74) i. 976¢ 1. 1142} Gessert, S. v. (21 Minn, 869) i. 60, 51, 52 Geddis, S. v. (42 Iowa, 264) i. 951, a| Geston v. P. (4 Lans. 487) ii, 921 Gedicke, S. v. (14 Vroom, 86) i, 1111] Geter v. Commissioners (1 Bay, 354; Gedney v. C. (14 Grat. 818) i. 264a| 1 Am. D. 621) i. 722 Gee, C. v. (6 Cush. 174) i. 662, 909) Getty, P. v. (49 Cal. 581) ii, 740, 744 — v. Pritchard (2 Swanst. 402) i. 1415 | —— v. Shearer (20 Pa. 12) ii. 409 —,S8.v. (79 Mo. 313 i. 1265 | Geyger v. Stoy (1 Dall. ee) i, 286, ae ——, S. v. (85 Mo. 647) i. 1091 | Gholston wz. S. (83 Tex. 342) i. —,S. v. (92 N. C. 756) i, 1248, 1274 | Giacamella, P. v. (71 Cal. 48) ii. oo Gehr, P. v. (8 Cal. 859) i. 909 | Giancoli, P. v. (74 Cal, 642) i, 1260 Gehrke ». S. (13 Tex. 668) ii. 684, 595 | Giardina v. Greenville (70 Missis. Geiger, P. v. (49 Cal. 643) i, 1248] 896) ii. — v. 8. (25 Ga. 667) i. 951 f| Gibbons v. P, (23 Ill. 518) i, 998, 1278 — v. §. (6 Iowa, 484) i. 678 |-——, P. v. (48 Cal. 557) i. 2345 — .S. (6 Neb. 546) ii. 761, 752)}-——,, Rex v. (1 Car. & P. 97) i. 1284 —, S. v. (65 Mo. 306) i. 279 | ——, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 442) ii. 188, —, S. v. (45 Mo. Ap. 111) i. 738 138 a Gelabert, P. v. (89 Cal. 663) i, 1241}-——, S. v. (1 Southard, 40) i, 1377 General Sessions, P, v. (8 Barb. 144) Gibbs, P. v. (93 N, Y. 470) i, 1124 i, 814a|—, Rex v, (1 Stra. 497; 8 Mod. —, P. v, (138 Hun, 395) ii 175| 68) i, 608, 5380, 643, 577; ii. 159 — P. v, (20 Johns, 210) i, 849, 931!—— uv. S. (3 Heisk. 72) —_— i. 893, 899, 922 VOL. 11, — 36 561 GIL i. 488, 1005 Gibbs v. S. (34 Tex. 134) ii. 829 —».8. (41 Tex. 491) —v.§.(1 Tex. Ap. 12) i. 976, 979, 1066, 1279 v. S.- (16 Vroom, 379; 46 Am. R. 782) i. '878, 883, 1310 — 5S. v. (6 Bax. 238) ‘, 387 —, 8. v. (39 Lowa, 318) i. 874 —,5S. v. (1 Root, 171) i, 405 Gibert, U.S. v. (2 Sumner, 19) i. 605, 606, 733 b, 954, 980 b, 1020, 1244, 1265, 1279 Giblin, P.v. (115 N.Y. 196) ii, 584, 588 Gibney, C. v. (2 Allen, 150) ii. 992, 995 , Rex v. (Jebb, 15) i. 1225 Gibson’s Case (2 Broun, 366) i. 1100 Gibson, Ix parte (31 Cal. 619; 91 Am. D. 546) i, 1310, 1337 v. C. (87 Pa. 253) i. 1152 v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 111) —_i. 556, 981, 1207, 1341, 1342 ; ii. 516 — , C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 70) ‘i. 1001, 1003; ii. 544, 547 v. Gibson (9 Yerg. 329) ii. 682 —— v. Hatchett (24 Ala. 201) i. 1175 —, P. v. (17 Cal. 283) ii. 603; 618 —, P. v. (53 Cal. 601) i. 1161, 1169 —, P. v. (58 Mich. 368) ii. 140 —, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 672) i. 857 —, Rex v. (2 Barn. 412; 2 Stra. 968 ; 7 Mod. 205) —, Rex »v. (8 East, 107) i. 749, 154, 755, 782, 788 —, Rex». (Russ. a 348, note) ii. 436 —, Rex »v. (2 Stra. 968) i. 265 — v.§. (39 Ala. 603) i. 275 v. S. (44 Ala. 17) ii. 918 — v. §, (89 Ala. 121; 18 Am. St. 96) i. 931, 975 c, 978, 980 a, 989 a, 1032, 1049, 1117; ii. 228, 599, 601 — v.S. (16 Fla. 291) i. 931 — v. 8. (9 Ind. 264) i. 951, 1269, 1278 —— v. 8. (64 Md, 447) i. 1015; ii. 83, 34 v, §. (59 Missis, 341) i, 951 — v.S. (3 Tex. Ap. 437) — v.S. (17 Tex. ape 574) ii. 949, 953 —, S. v. (29 Iowa, 295) i. 68, 73 —,S. v. (23 La. An. 698) i. 264a, 2646 — v. Tong (29 Mo. 183) i. 978 Giddings, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 634) i. 437 Giebel v. 8. (28 Tex. Ap. 151) i. 906; ii. 544 Gifford v. Ford (5 Vt. 532) ii. 482d — v. P. (87 Ill. 210) i. 1181, 1182 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. i, 276° GIL Gilbert, 8. v. (13 Vt. 647) i. 846, 347, 590, 662, 665; ii. 710 —, S. v. (36 Vt. 145) i. 1058 — v. Steadman (1 Root, 408) i. 1188; ii. 763, 764 Gilbie, Rex v. (5 M. & S. 520) i. 691 Gilbraith v. S. (41 Tex. 567) i. 1124, 1126; ii. 750 Gilbreath v. S. (26 Tex. Ap. 815) i. 1196 Gilchrist, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 224) i. 588 , Rex v. (2 Leach, 657) i. 489, 490; ii. 414, 416 Gildersleeve v. P. (10 Barb. 85) i. 2644, 264 m Gile v. P. (1 Colo. 60) i, 537, 976 Giles v. Brown (1 Mill, 280) i, 229 —, C. v. (1 Gray, 466) i. 648, 645 —, Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 502) ii. 163 ——, Rex v. (7 How. St. Tr. 1129) i, 502 — ». §. (52 Ala. 29) ; i. 1310 —— v. S. (6 Ga. 276) i. 1094, 1269, 1274, 1278, 1279 —— v. S. (28 Ga. 462) i. 1817; ii. 655 v. S. (83 Ga. 867) i. 975¢, 977, 978 ; ii. 978 Gilham, Rex v.:(Car. Crim. Law, 3d ed. 51; 1 Moody, 186) i, 1225, 1283 ——, Rex v. (1 Esp. 285) i. 406 Gilkie, S. 0. (385 La. An. 58) i, 452 276 Gilkinson, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 26) i395, 1015 Gill, C. v. (14 B. Monr. 20) i, 1276 —— v. P. (5 Thomp. & C. 308) i. 391 —, P. v. (6 Cal. 637) i. 51 —, P. v. (45 Cal. 285) ii, o —, Rex v. (2 B. & Ald. 204) 1. 516; 205, 207, 208 ——,, Rex »v. (Russ. & Ry. 481) i, 388 ——v. S. (48 Ala. 38) i, 1269 —— v. S. (61 Ala. 169) i, 314 —,S. v. (33 Ark. 129) i. 405 —, S. v. (14 8. C. 410) i. 946, 975c, 1012 Gilleland v. 8. (44 Tex. 356) i. 1270 Gillespie, Ex parte (8 Yerg. 325) i. 288 —, C.v. (7 8.& R. 469; 10 Am. D. 475) i. 57, 61, 688 v. Gillespie (2 Bibb, 89) i. 1276 —- v. S. (6 Humph. 164) i, 487 — v. 8. (9 Ind. 880) i. 1268, 1269 ; ii. 68 uv. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 415) i. 975¢ — v. 8. (16 Tex. Ap. 641) i. 1898 ——v. 8. (8 Yerg. 507; 29 Am. D. Gilbert v. Gilbert (22 Ala. 629; 58 187) i. 911 Am. D, 268 ii. 625 | ——, S. v. (80 N. C. 396) ii, 177 —, P. v. (57 Cal. 96) i, 1002 | —— v. Shuliberrier (5 Jones, N. C. —, P. ». (60 Cal. 108) i.1005a] 157) ii. 675 —, Rex v. (1 East, 583) ii. 849 | —— v, Wood (4 Humph. 487) i. 1403 v. S. (65 Ga. 449) i, 425 | Gillham, Rex r. (6 T. R. 265) i. 406, 680; — v. S. (90 Ga. 691) ii. a ii, 861 v, S. (81 Ind. 665) 899 | Gilliam v. C. (4 Leigh, 688) i. 1175 — ,8.c. (21 Ind. 474) ii. 881, 886, 887, | — ». 8. (50 Ala. 145) 3. 980, 1005 889 vy, §. (82 Ga. 111) i, 1817, 1318 , S. ». (24 Mo. 880) i, 635 | Gillian v.S. (3 Tex. Ap. 182) i, 1169, 1170; —, S. v. (73 Mo. 20) ii, 1051. ii. 944 562 GLA Gillick, 8. v. (7 Towa, 287) i. 852, 931, 980, 1087, 1212, 1254 ; ii. 600 —, S. v. (10 Iowa, 98) i. 881, 909, 959 a, 966 c; ii. 686 Gillis, Reg. v. (11 Cox C.C. 69) i. 1256 —, 8. v. (4 Dev. 606) i, 1252 Gillman, P. v. (125 N. ¥.872) i. 264, 264 b Gillmore v. 8. (36 Tex. 334) i. 980 Gillon, C. v. (2 Allen, 502) —i. 882, 1265 — v. Wilson (3 T. B. Monr. 216) i. 461 Gillooley v. 8. (58 Ind. 182) i. 932 Gillson, P. v. (109 N. Y, 889; 4 Am. St.-465) i. 1004 Gilly v, $. (15 Tex. Ap. 287) i. 975¢ Gilman v. 8. (1 Humph. 69) i. 700, 1847 —, 8. ». (51 Me. 206) i. 1255 —,S.v. (69 Me. 163; 31 Am. R. 257) ii. 601 —, 8. v. (70 Me. 829) i. 1268 Gilmanton v. Ham (88 N. H. 108) i. 965 —, 8. v. (14 N. H. 467) ii, 1054 Gilmer v. Blackwell (Dudley, Ga. 6) i. 2 m —,S.v. (97 N.C. 429) i. 975 ¢, 1181 Gilmore, Ex parte (71 Cal. 624) i. 1298 — v. Holt (4 Pick. 258) ii, 824 — , S. v. (26 La. An. 599) i. 976 —, S. v. (28 Mo. Ap. 561) i. 1264 —, 5S. uv. (9 W. Va. 641) i. 1348 Gilson, In re (84 Kan. 641) / i. 281 —, C. «. (128 Mass. 425) i. 975 c, 978 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 188) ii. 50 Gimson v. Woodfull (2 Car. & P. 41) ii. 755, 758 Gindrat v. S. (3 Tex. Ap. 578) i. 12544 Giorgetti, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 546) i. 929 Giozza v. Tiernan (148 U. S. 657) i. 1004a Gipson v. S. (88 Missis. 295) i. 1010 Girardin, P. v. (1 Mich. 90) i. 496; ii. 790 Girdwood, Rex v. (1 Leach, 142; 2 East P. C. 1120) i. 63, 57 Girous v. S. (29 Ind. 93) i. 688 Giroux v. 8. (40 Tex. 97) i. 159 —, S. v. (26 La. An. 582) i. 1189 Girr, P. v. (53 Cal. 629) ~ ii. 976 i. 1010, 1011 Girts v. C. (22 Pa. 351) i1.975c; ii. 586 Giskie v. 8. (71 Wis. 612) Gist, Ex parte (26 Ala. 156) i, 226, 237 Gitchell v. P. (146 Ill. 175) i. 874 Givens v. 8. (6 Tex. 343) 1. 932, 932 a — v.S. (6 Tex. 344) i. 1268 —, S.v. (6 Ala. 747) i. 127, 1276; ii. 482 b Glackan v. C. (3 Met. Ky. 232) ii. 165 Gladden v. S. (12 Fla. 562) i, 278, 853, 854, 862, 951 2, 978, 1265; ii. 6384 — v.§. (18 Fla. 623) i. 884, 951 a; ii. 600 —v. 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 508) i, 1012 Glascow, S. v. (59 Md. 209) i. 981 Glasgow, S. v. (Conference, 88; 2 Am. D. 629) i. 370, 665 Glass v. S. (45 Ark. 173) i. 611 i. 264 m — v. S. (39 Ind. 205) INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. GOD Glass, S. v. (9 Towa, 325) i. 1264 ——, 8. v. (42 Iowa, 56) ii. 1054 —, 8. v. (5 Or. 73) 1.978; ii. 617 —, 8. v. (60 Wis. 218; 36 Am. R. 845) i. 966, 1002, 1181 Glassenby, Rex v.(2Stra.1069) 1.1813 Glassinger v. S. (24 Ohio St. 206) i. 926 Glastonby, Rex v. (Cas. temp. llardw. 855) i. 1818 Glavecke, 8. v. (83 Tex. 53) i.264a Glaze, S. v. (9 Ala. 283) i. 1266 Gleason, C. v. (110 Mass. 66) i. 698 — v. MeVickar (7 Cow. 42) 1.406 —,P.v.(1 Nev.173) 1.980, 1116, 1265 —, 8. v. (68 Iowa, 618) i. 1279 —,S. v. (82 Kan. 245) i. 230 —, 8. v. (88 Mo. 582) i. 68, 73 —,, U.S. v. (Woolw. 75) i. 523 Glenn, In re (54 Md. 572) i.3l4a —, P.v. (10 Cal. 82) i. 1208, 1212, 1213, 1269; ii. 620 u. 8. (64 Missis. 724) i. 975, 981 — v.58. (1 Swan, Tenn. 19) i. 188 —,8. v. (40 Ark. 332) i, 264 Glennan, Rex vx. (26 How. St. Tr. 437 ii. 205 Glidden, S. v. (65 Conn. 46; 3 Am. St. 28) i, 242 Glidewell v. S. (15 Lea, 188) i. 998 a, 1269 Glines v. Smith (48 N. H. 259) i. 581 ; ii. 845 Glisson, S. v. (Phillips, N.C.195) ii. 718 Glodo, P. v. (12 Bradw. 348) i. 1863 Glory v. 8. (18 Ark. 286) 1.1248; ii, 228, 229 Gloster, Reg. v. (16 Cox C.C.471) 1.1212 Gloucester, C. v. (110 Mass. 491) i. 780, 784; ii. 1050 Glover’s Case (109 Mass. 340) i. 9651 f Glover, C. v. (111 Mass.3895) i. 660, 668, 1095 —— v. Millings (2 Stew. & P.28) ii.687a@ —, P.v. (71 Mich. 808) i. 1180; ii. 947, 973 ——, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 244) ii. 941 — v.S8. (109 Ind. 391) 1.461; ii. 126 — ,S8.v. (8 Greene, Iowa, 249) i. 1846, 1359 —— v. Woolsey (Dudley, Ga. 85) i.982a Glovery, 8. v.(10 Nev.24) i.1278; ii. 67, 1008 Glynden, S. v. (51 Iowa, 463) i.975¢ Goans, Ex parte (99 Mo. 198; 17 Am. 8t. 571) i, 256, 257, 261, 262 Goate, Rex wv. (1 Ld. Raym. 787) _ ii. ee 427 Goddard, C. v. (2 Allen, 148) ii. 193 —, C. v. (4 Allen, 312) ii. 175, 180 —,C.v. (18 Mass. 455) i. 124,811, 815, 816, 1342 —— v. Pratt (16 Pick. 412) i. 792 —, Reg. v. (2Ld. Raym. 920) ii. 418 a —, Reg. v. (8 Salk. 171) i. 554 ——., Rex v. (2 Leach, 545) ii. 7380 — v.58. (14 Tex. Ap. 566) i, 400 563 GOL Goddard v. Smith (6 Mod. 261; 1 Salk. 21) i. 760 ; ii. 100 Gouet, S. v. (7 Ire. 210) i, 488 b, 689 Godfrey’s Case (11 Co. 424,436) i. 1801 Godfrey, Ex parte (11 Tex. Ap. 34) i. 1306 —, Reg. v. (Dears. & B. 426 ; 7 Cox C. C. 392) ii. 173 —, S.v. (Brayt. 170) i. 909, 984, 995 —,S. v. (8 Fairf. 361) i, 49, 371 —,, S. v. (24 Me. 232; 41 Am. D. 382) _ 1, 3826, 636, 639 —, Territory v. (6 Dak. 46) i. 966 c¢ Godsey, 8. v. (13 Ire. 348) ii, 887 Godwin, S. v. (5 Ire. 401; 44 Am. D. 42) i. 1269 Goersen v. C. (99 Pa. 388; 106 Pa. 477; 51 Am. R. 534) i, 822, 998 a, 1125; ii. 515, 628 Goetz v. Koehler (20 Bradw. 233) i. 1398 v. §. (41 Ind. 162) i. 1050 Goff, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 179) Goffe, Rex v. (1 Lev. 189) i, 382 i. 714 Goggin, U. 8. v. (9 Bis. 269) i. 611 Goings, 8S. v. (4 Dev. & Bat. 152) ii. 960 — , S. v. (98 N. C. 766) i. 1334 —,, S. v. (100 N. C. 504) i. 1264 Goins v. S. (46 Ohio St. 457) i. 909 —— v. 8. (41 Tex. 384) i. 1189, 1192, 126 Golahar v. Gates (20 Mo. 236) ii. 1054 Gold Run Ditch, &. Co., P. v. (66 Cal. 138; 56 Am. R. 80) i, 1417 Goldberg, P. v. (39 Mich. 545) ii. 984 —, U.S. v. (7 Bis. 175) ii, 246 Golde, Rex v. (2 Moody & R. 425) ii. 340 Golden v. S. (19 Ark. 590) i. 951 c, 1086 — v. 8. (25 Ga. 527) | i. 980 a, 986 a, 987, 1250 — ». 8. (13 Mo. 417) i. 73 —v.§. (158. C. 292) i. 160 —, 8. v. (49 Iowa, 48) ii. 187, 740 Goldenson, P. v. (76 Cal. 828) i. 126, 732, 946, 1097 ; ii. 666 Golding, C. v. (14 Gray, 49) i. 755 Goldsborough, S. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 802) i. 1077 Goldsby »v, S. (18 Ind. 147) i. 68, 71 Goldshede, Reg v. (1 Car. & K. 657) i, 1255 Goldsmith, C. v. (12 Philad. 632) —, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 2 C. C. 74; 12 Cox C. C. 479) i. 706 a, 707 a, 762; ii. 198, 762, 981, 983 — v. 8. (63 Ga. 85) i. 975 c, 978 —— v. §. (30 Ohio St.208) i. 1265, 1317 — v.S. (32 Tex. Cr. 112) ii, 153 Goldstein v. Black (50 Cal. 462) i. 1179; ii. 432 ¢ —, C.v. (114 Mass. 272) ii. 45 a, 48 5 — v. Foss (9 D. & R. 197; 6B. & C. 154) ii, 798, 794 —— v, P. (82 N. Y. 281) ii, 740 —, P. v. (32 Cal. 482) i. 796, 815 —, Rex v. (3 Brod. & B. 201; Russ. & Ry. 478; 7 Moore, 1) i, 564 564 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. Goo Goldstein, U. S. v. (1 Dil. 413) i. 264. Goldthwaite v. Montgomery (50 Ala. 436) i, 1264 — v. S. (82 Tex. 599) 1. 264a Goley v. 8. (85 Ala. 333) i. 975 c, 9804 — v. 8. (87 Ala. 57) i. 950 b Golightly 7. Reynolds (Lofft, 88) ii. 758 Gomez v. S. (15 Tex. Ap. 64) i. 975c; ii. 740 — »v.8. (15 Tex. Ap. 327) i. 1074 Gompertz, Reg. v. (Y Jur. 401; 14 . 118 Law J. n.s. M.C i, 869 ——, Reg. v. (9 Q. B. 824) i. 233, 1038; * ii. 207, 208, 235, 237 Gonce, S. v. (87 Mo. 627) i. 949 6 Gonsoulin, S. v. (88 La. An. 459) . Gonzales v. 8. (81 Tex. 205) i. 264 a —— v. 8. (5 Tex. Ap. 584) i, 459 v, 8.(9 Tex. Ap. 374) i. 1170 —— v.8. (12 Tex. Ap. 657) i. 975 c, 978 — v. §. (18 Tex. Ap. 449) ii. 740 — v. 8. (28 Tex. Ap. 130) i. 1086 — v.8. (31 Tex. Cr. 508) i. 918 — v.§. (32 Tex. Cr. 611) i. 1265 —, 8. v. (26 Tex. 197) i, 280 Gonzalez, P. v. (35 N. Y. 49) ii. 631 —— v. 8. (80 Tex. Ap. 208) i, 951 Gooch v. 8. (3 Eng. 448) i, 314 a 9} —, 8. v. (94 N. C. 982) i, 1264 —, 8. v. (94 N. C.987) i. 966 ; ii. 613 Good »v. 8. (1 Lea, 298) i, 975 ¢ — v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 39) ii. 96 —, 8. v. (9 Lea, 240 i. 250 Goodall, Rex v. (1 Keny. 122) i, 228, 235 —, Rex »v. (Say. 129) i S. (22 Ohio St. 203) — vv. S. (1 Or. 333; 80 Am. D. _— UU. 396) ii. 606 Goode, Reg. v. (7 A. & E. 586) ii, 668 — v.58. (2 Tex. Ap. 520) i. 677, 713, 998 a, 1265 — v. §, (16 Tex. Ap, 411) i. 975 c —, S. v. (1 Hawks, 463) i. 960 b ——, S. v. (24 Mo. 361) i, 370, 374 Gooden », 8. (85 Ala, 480) i, 229 — v. §. (55 Ala. 178) ii. 427 Goodenough, C. v. (Thacher Crim. Cas. 182) i Goodere, Rex v. (17 How. St. Tr. 1003) i i, Goodfellow, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 569) ii, 921, 933 b —, Reg. v. (14 Cox C. C. 826) i. 1201 Goodhue v. P. (94 Ill. 87) i, 1120, 1124 Goodin v. 8. (16 Ohio St. 344) —— v. §. (14 Tex. Ap. 443) : Gooding, U. S. v. (12 Wheat. 460) i. 611, 612, 623, 1049, 1086 Goodman vr, S. (90 Ga. 137) i, 850 —— v. 8. (Meigs, 195) i, 96la — v.58. (4 Tex. Ap. 349) i. 951 a, 951¢ —, 8. v. (6 Rich. 887; 60 Am. D. 132 ii. 789 ii. 1050 ii, 786 1394 729 Goodnow, C. v. (117 Mass. 114) Goodrich v. Davis (11 Met. 478) GOR Goodrich v. P. (8 Par. Cr. 622) ii, 868 —, 8. o. (19 Vt. 116; 47 Am. D. 676) ii. 67 Goodrum »v. 8. (60 Ga. 509) i. 1153 Goodson v. 8. (29 Fla. 511; 80 Am. St. 135) i. 869 a; ii, 478 — v. S. (32 Tex. 121) i. 855 —, 8. v. (107 N. C. 798) i. 1278 Goodwill, S. v. (38 W. Va. 179; 25 Am. St. 863) i. 100a@ Goodwin’s Case (1 Lewin, 100) ii. 776 «, Goodwin v. Appleton (22 Me. 453) i. 378, 384, 1001 — , C. v. (14 Gray, 55) ii. 63 — _,C. v. (122 Mass. 19) ii. 1026 —— v. Governor (1 Stew. & P. 465) i. 264 b —— v. Harrison (1 Root, 80) ii, 625 —, P. v. (18 Johns. 187; 9 Am. D. 203) i. 8140 —, P. v. (5 Wend. 251) i, 893 —, ee v. (10 Cox C. C. 634) ii. 271 —v. Re Ind. 550) ii, 685 —, U.S. v. (7 Cranch, 108) i, 1264 —,U. S. v. (20 Fed. Rep. 237) i. 888 Goodwyn v. Goodwyn (20 Ga. con i. 677 — v. §. (4 Sm. & M. 520) i. 869 a ; ; ii. 517 Goold, S. v. (62 Me. 509) ii. 801 Gordon, Ex parte (1 Black, 503) _ i. 1365 — v.C. (92 Pa. 216; 87 Am. R. 672) i. 857, 858 —,, C. v. (15 Pick. 193) i. 264m —— v. Dearborn (52 Ind. 322) i. 805 v. Harper (7 T. R. 9) ii. 721 v. P. (33 N. Y. 501) i. 966 c, 1078 ——, P. v. (88 Cal. 422) i. 975c, 979 ——, P. v. (39 Mich. 508) i. 1265 —, P. v. (40 Mich. 716) ii. 152 -—— v. Price (10 Ire. 385) ii. 432 a —, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 410) i. 951; ii. 933 b —, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 259) i. 460; ii. 59 — ,, Reg. v. (23 Q. B. D, 354; 16 Cox C. C. 622) ii. 163 ——, Rex v. (2 Doug. 591) i. 981a, 9594 —, Rex v. (1 East P. C. 315) i. 192 —, Rex ». (21 How. St. Tr. 485) i. 1086 ; ii, 625 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, cae ii. 9, 891 eels Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 48 1. 62 — ue. S. (59 Ind. 75) i. 68 — v8. (3 Iowa, 410) v. §. (4 Misso. 375) i, 69, 72, 1124 i. 384; ii. 307 — v. S. (13 Tex. Ap. 196) i. 1291 — , S. v. (18 La. An. 528) i, 251 —, a v. (60 Mo, 383) i. 47, 315 —,S8.v. (1 R. I. 179) i. 1269 —)§S. v. (41 Tex. 510) i. 264.4 —, U.S. ». (5 Blatch. 18) i. 814 —, U.S. v, (22 Fed. Rep. 250) ii. ab Gore, C. v. (8 Dana, 474) i, 691, 692 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. GRA Gore v. 8. (58 Ala. 391) i. 1098 — v. §. (62 Ark. 285) i, 269, 1205 Goree v. S. (71 Ala. 7) ii. 123 Goreing v. Dearing (Trem. P. C. 15) i. 751 Gorham, P. v. (16 Hun, 98) i. 1248 ——, S. v. (67 Me. 247) i. 1183 —, 5S. v. (65 N. H. 162) ii. 1002 Gorley, S. v. (2 Iowa, 52) i. 264 f, 264m Gorman v. P. (17 Colo. 696; 31 Am. St. a i. 816 — v. S. (88 Tex. 112; 19 Am. R. 29) i. 264 a —— v. §. (6 Tex. Ap. ue i. 733.4 — v. Steed (1 W. Va. 1 ii. 382 Gormley v.S. (37 Ohio St. 120) i. 798, 801 Gosch, P. v. (82 Mich. 22) i. 9754, 9755 Gose v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 121) i. 1008 Gosha v. S. (56 Ga. 36) i. 384; ii. 954 Goshen, &c. Turnpike, P. v. (11. Wend. 597) i. 180 Goslen’s Case (Cro. Eliz. 137 pl. 10) i. 522 Gosling v. Morgan (82 Pa. 273) ii 793 Goss, Respublica v. (2 Yeates, 479) ii, 9335 — v.S. (40 Tex. 520) i. 989 a, 1000; ii, 960, 968 — , S. v. (69 Me. 22) li. 823 a, 824 —, 8. v. (74 Mo. 592) i. 691 Gossage, S. v. (2 Swan, Tenn. 263) i. 278, 691 Gosset, P. v. (938 Cal. 641) i. 436, 1077 Gossett, S. v. (9 Rich. 428) i. 1233, 1234, 1241; ii. 718 Goudy v. Duncombe (1 Exch. = 207 a Gouge, S. wv. (12 Lea, 182) i. 700 Gough, P. v. (2 Utah, 69) i, 1264 —, P. v. (2 Utah, 70) ii. 764 —, Rex v. (2 Doug. 791) i. 1268 —, Rex v. (1 Moody & R.71) i. ae 447 Gouglemann v. P. (8 Par. Cr. 15) i. 385; ii. 953 Gould, C. v. (12 Gray, 171) ii, 1265 — v. Jones (1 W. Bl. 384) ii. 482 —, P. v. (70 Mich. 240; 14 Am. St. 493) i, 12544 ——,, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 864) i. 1242 —, S8.v. be N. C. 658) i, 488 c, 999 Goulding, C. v. (135 Mass. 552) i. 515 Gourlay v. Hutton (10 Wend. 595) i. 998 a Govan, S. v. (48 Ark. 76) ii. 829 Gove, S. v. (34 N. H. 510) i. 528, 595, 601, 612, 618, 1285 Govers, Rex v. (Say. 206) ii. 158 Gowen, C. v. (7 Mass. 378) ii. 1050 Gowing, S. v. (27 Mo. Ap. 889) i, 1264 Goyette, S.v. (11 R. 1. 592) — i. 227, 756 Grable, 8. v. (46 Mo. 350) i. 884, 385 Grace, Ex parte (9 Tex. Ap. 381) i. 1410 —— v. Dempsey (75 Wis. 318) ii. 801 Gracey, S. v. (11 Nev. 228) i, 1402 Grady, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 650) i. 284d. 565 GRA Grady v. S. (11 Ga. 253) i. 987, 1242, 1293 —, S. v. (4 Iowa, 461) i, 1270 ——, S. v. (84 Mo. 220) i, 865 —'S. v, (12 Mo. Ap. 861) i. 763 —, S. v. (83 N. C. 648) i. 1276 Graeter v. S. (54 Ind. 159) i, 733 Graff v. P. (134 Ill. 380) i. 975 c, 978 —, S. v. (47 Iowa, 384) i. 1170 , S. v. (1 Murph. 270) i. 950d Graffmuller, S. v. (26 Minn. 6) i, 230 Grafton Bank v. Flanders (4 N. H. sia i. 239 pe Inve (138 U. S, 461) i. 1810, 1410 —, In re (74 Wis. 450; 17 Am. St. 174) i. 1310, 1410 v. C. (16 B. Monr. 587) __ ii. 672, 674 — v. P. (63 Barb. 468; 6 Lans. 149) i. 1358, 1371, 1372, 13879, 1380 v. P, (115 Ml. 566) i. 966 ——, P. v. (21 Cal. 261) i. 71, 1111 —, P. v. (1 Par. Cr. 141) i, 2644 — v. Parham (32 Ark. 676) i. 1298 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 87) i. 512 —'v. 8. (40 Ala. 659) i. 278, 275, 488 6, 685, 1358 ; ii. 36 — v. 8. (1 Pike, 171) i, 380 —— v. 5. (43 Tex. 550) i. 1400 v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 582) i. 9498, 1265 ; ii. 525 — v.S. (29 Tex. Ap. 31) i. 228, 679, 1118 — , S. v. (88 Ark. 519) ii. 825 — , S. v. (51 Iowa, 72) ii. 56 —, S. v. (61 Iowa, 608) ii. 613 — , S. v. (65 Iowa, 617) ii. 697 —, S. v. (46 Mo. 490) =i. 1108; ii. 848 —, 8. v. (68 N. C. 247) ii. 628 —, S. v. (74 N. C. 646; 21 Am. R. 493) i. 163, 211 — , S. v. (76 N. C. 195) i. 314a — , S. v. (15 Rich. 310) i. 1285; ii. 1051, 1052 —, S. v. (12 Vroom, 15; 32 Am. R. 174) i. 1161, 1164 Grahme, Reg. o. (12 How. St. Tr. 645 i. 729, 780 Grainger v. Hill (4 Bing. N. C. 212; 5 Scott, 561) ‘ i, 157 —, Rex v. (3 Bur. 1617) i. 757, 793 Grand Junction Ry., Reg. v. (3 Per. & D. 57n.; 11 A. & E.128n.) ii. 638 Grand Jury, In re (3 Crawf. & Dix C. C. 895) i. 700 — v. Public Press (4 Brews. 313) i. 861 Grand Rapids v. Powers (89 Mich. 94) i. 1417 v. Roberts (48 Mich. 198) i. 1265 Grand Trunk Ry., 8. v. (59 Me. 189) ii. 1050 —, S. v. (68 N. H. 198) i. 1314 Grandison v. 8. (2 Humph. 451) ii. 83 Granger v. 8. (11 Tex. Ap. 454) i. 975c¢ — v. Warrington (3 Gilman, 299) i. 857 Granice, Ex parte (61 Cal. 375) i, 236 —, P. v. (60 Cal. 447) i, 316 566 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. GRA Granite Bank v. Treat (18 Me. 340) i. 724 Grant v. C. (71 Pa. 495) i. 1862 —, C. e. (Thacher Crim. Cas. 438) i, 1169 — v. P. (4 Par. Cr. 527) _i. 824, 1368 —, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 658) i. 1242 —, Rex v. (3 Nev. & M. 106; 5 B. & Ad. 1081) ii. 799- — 0. S. (55 Ala. 201) i. 854, 1228; ii. 703, 751 — v. S. (62 Ala. 233) ii, 603 — v. §. (2 Coldw. 216) — v.58. (2 Tex. Ap. 163) — v.§. (3 Tex. Ap. 1) i, 1892, 1395 i. 951, 1310; ii. 700, 702 i. 125, 981a; ii. 721 — v. &. (8 Tex. Ap. 482) i, 2644 —,S.v. (22 Me. 171) ° i. 1223, 1236; ii. 718 — , 8. v. (76 Mo. 236) i, 184 —,S.v. (79 Mo. 113; 49 Am. R. 218) ii, 629 — , S. v. (104 N. C. 908) i. 602- —} S. v. (7 Or. 414) ii, 586 v. Schmidt (22 Minn. 1) i, 1342 —— v. Thompson (4 Conn. 203; 10 Am.D.119) | ii. 674, 678 Granville, S. v. (26 Kan. 158) i, 1317 —,, 8. v. (84 La. An. 1088) i. 1195 Grate, S. v. (68 Mo. 22) i. 869, 1275 Grattan, Rex v. (Car. Crim. Law, 3d ed. 66) i. 1151 Gravatt v. S. (25 Ohio St. 162) i. 458, 459, 460; ii. 328 a, 825 Gravely v. C. (86 Va. 396) ii. 152 Graves, Ex parte (61 Ala. 381) i, 229 v. P. (11 Til. 542) i, 2647 ——, P. v. (31 Hun, 382) i, 1299 ——, P. v. (5 Par. Cr, 134) ii. 1010 —— v. §. (9 Ala. 447) i, 485 —— ». §. (63 Ala. 134) ii, 187 — v. 8. (63 Ga. 740) i. 999 v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 559) i, 951 —— v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 113) ii. 612 —— v. 8. (16 Vroom, 203) i. 1049; ii. 580, 584 — v. 8. (16 Vroom, 347; 46 Am. R. 778) i. 1050 —— v. §, (12 Wis. 591) ii. 727, 740, 745 ——,, 8. v. (6 Bax. 488) i, 286 —, 8. v. (95 Mo. 510) i. 975a ——, S. v. (72 N. C. 482) ii. 741, 742 —— ». U.S. (150 U. S. 118) i, 1151 Gray’s Case (T. Raym. 478) i. 988 Gray, Ex parte (77 Mo. 160) i. 1869 v, C. (101 Pa. 880; 47 Am. R. 733) i. 1058, 1268 —, C. v. (2 Cush. 535) ii. 62 —— v. Davis (27 Conn. 447) i, 208 —— v. Ferreby (86 Iowa, 146) i. 13821 —— v. Goodrich (7 Johns. 95) i. 1207 —— v. Kernahan (2 Mill, 65) ii. 753 —— v. McLaughlin (26 Iowa, 279) ii. 626 —— v. P. (21 Hun, 140) i, 1287 —— v. P. (26 Ill. 844) i, 909 GRE INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. Gray, P: v. (61 Cal. 164; 44 Am. R. i. 999, 1212 —, “ v. (66 Cal. 271) ii. 327 —} P. v. (5 Wend, 289) i. 976 —, P. v. (25 Wend. 465) ii, 12 — »v. Reg, (11 Cl. & F. 427; 6 Ir, Law, 483) i. 942 —, Reg. v. (17 Cox C. C. 299) ii. 182 —, Reg. v. (38 Craw. & Dix C.C. 238) i. 942 —, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 1102) ii. 50, 53 ——, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 164) ii. 957 — v. 5. (43 Ala. 41) i, 251, 2647 — v. S. (55 Ala. 86) i, 931, 134 —v. S, (63 Ala. 66) i 1110 — v. §. (4 Bax. 331) ii. 603 — v. 8. (2 Harring. Del. 76) i. 892 v. S. (5 Pike, 265) i, 251 — v.§. (11 Tex. Ap. 411) i. 486 —, S. v. (85 Iowa, 503) i. 1821 —, S. v. (89 Me. 353) i. 400, 1275 — , S. v. (29 Minn. 142) i. 486, 493, 495 —, 8. vo. (21 Mo. 492) ii. 59 —, 8. v. (87 Mo. 463) — i. 1264; ii. 741, 745 —, S. v. (100 Mo. 528) i. 998 4 —, 8. v. (8 Vroom, 368) i. 1410 —— v. Stienes (69 lowa, 124) i. 1415 Graydon v. Barlow (15 Ind. 197) i. 316 Grayson v. C. (6 Grat. 712) i. 1273 — v.C. (7 Grat. 618) i. 1275 v. §. (87 Tex. 228) ii. 56 Grear, S. v. (28 Minn. 426; 41 Am. R. 296) i. 975 c, 1229 — ,S. v. (29 Minn. 221) i. 975c, 1243; ii. 68, 671 neat Broughton, Rex v. (6 Bur. 2700 i. 53 Great Canfield, Rex v. (6 Esp. ae) i. 486; ii. 1045 Great West Min. Co. v. Wiostnian, &e, Min. Co. (12 Colo. 46; 13 Am. St. 204) i. 100a Greathouse, U. S. v. (2 Abb. U. S. 364) ii. 1031 Grebe, S. v. (17 Kan. 458) i. 975, 1249, 1254; ii. 748 Green, In re (16 Il]. 234) i. 1001 —, In re (134 U. S. 377) i, 1410 — v. Boston, &e. Rid. (128 Mass. ~ 221 ii. 751 ) — v. C. (12 Allen, 155) i. 102; ii. 564, 570, 574, 578, oe 956 — vv. C. (11 Leigh, 677) 256 — v. C. (111 Mass. 417) i. r06q —— v. C. (83 Pa, 75) ii, 637 — ».C. (1 Rob. Va. 731) i. 961 —,,C. v. (1 Ashm. 289) i. 981 —, C. v. (12 Mass. 1) i. 264 m —, C. v. (17 Mass. 515) i. 1187, 1275 —.,C. v. (122 Mass. 333) i. 653; ii. 1002 —, C. v. (126 Pa, 5381; 12 Am. St. 894) i. 136, "140, 763, 863, 865 — v. Oakes (17 Ill. 249) i. 1417 — v. P. (8 Colo. 68) i, 271 Green, P. v. (15 Cal. 512) —, Pv. (53 Cal. 60) —, P. v. (1 Denio, 614) —, P.v. (1 Par. Cr. 11) —, P. wv. (1 Utah, 11) GRE ii. 16 a 965 i. 1153, “11 i. 1189, 1212, 1247, 1264° i, 854, 855 —, Reg. v. (8 Car. & K. 209) ii. 428 —, Reg. v. (Dears. & B. 118; 7 Cox C.C.1 6) i. 749, 751; ii. 721 —, Reg. v. (Gilb. Cas. 231) i. 1307 — , Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 312) i, 2346 —, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 655) i. 1223 —, Rex v. (7 How. St. Tr. 159) i. 729 —, Rex v. (1 Keny. 379) ii. 872 —, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 6) ii. 551 — v.§. (41 Ala. 419) i. 106, 360, 384 —-v. 8. (66 Ala. 40; 4] Am. R. 744) — »v. S. (68 Ala. 539) v. S. (69 Ala. 6) v. S. (73 Ala. 26) —».8. (19 Ark. 178) — ». §. (88 Ark, 304) v. S. (17 Fla. 669) i. 60, 51, 1208 ii. 740 i. 1095; ii. 625 ii. 856 a i. 78, 869 0, 1343, 1355 i, 1074 i. 981, 951 — v.58. (88 Ga. 516; 30 Am. St. 167) i. 1238, 1286 v. §. (659 Md. 128; 43 Am. R. 542) i. 926 — v. S. (28 Missis. 509) i. 480, 1275; ii. 976 — v. §. (28 Missis. 687) i. 884, 887; ii. 608 v. 8. (55 Missis. 454) i. 975 c, 1169; ii. 692 — v.8. (59 Missis. 501) i. 994 v. S. (13 Mo. 882) 1. 951, 1216, 1241 — v. S. (88 Tenn. 614) ii. 674 — v. 8. (88 Tenn. 634) ii, 664, 666 v. §. (12 Tex. Ap. 51) i. 1077 —— v,§. (12 Tex, Ap. 445). i. 975 —v. S. (27 Tex. Ap. 244) ii. 584 —, S. v. (24 Ark. 591) —, S.v. (85 Conn. 208) i. 868, 902, 911 i. 1107 ; ii. 629, 630 —, S. v. (3 Green, N. J. 88) i. 236 —,S. v. (2 Head, ’356) i. 691 —, S. v. (3 Heisk. 181) i, 325 —, S. v. (16 Iowa, 239) i. 811 —, S. v. (20 Iowa, 424) i. 931, 1043 — , S. v. (7 Ire. 39) ii, 525, 858 — S$! v. (Kirby, 87) i. 1275 —) 8.0. (27 La. An. 698) —_ ii. 703, 732 —, 8. v. (83 La. An. 1408) i. 1032 ——} 8. v. (36 La. An. 99) ii, 68 —, S. v. (37 La. An. 382) i, 444 —, 8. v. (66 Mo. 631) 1.191; ii. 6384 —,5S. v. (111 Mo. 585) ii. 520 —, S. », (24 Mo. Ap. 227) i, 432 —,S8.v. (92 N.C. 779) i. 1107; ii. 53 —,S8.v. ed N. C. 611) i. 909, 934 —, s. v. ne N. C. 419) ii. 933 6 —,S.v. re 0 N. C. 547) i. 488 c, 677, 685 —, 8. v. (5 S. C. 65) i. 979, 981 —} S. v. (7 Wis. 676) ii. 176 GRE Green v. Talbot (86 Iowa, 499) i. 8144 Greenacre, Rex v. (8 Car. & P. 35) ii. 603 Greene v. Briggs (1 Curt. C. C. 811) i. 894 —, C. v, (18 Allen, 251) 1, 264 a — ». Cole (2 Saund. 282) i, 1313 v. S. (59 Ga. 859) _ i, 1287 Greenfield v. P. (74 N. Y. 277) 1.909, 984 — ». P. (85 N. Y. 75; 39 Am. R. 636) i. 1086, 1248, 1249; ii. 681 —— 0.8. (7 Bax. 18) i. 708, 1291 Greenhalgh, S. v. (24 Mo. 378) ii, oO, BY) Greenland, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C. 65; 10 Cox C. C. 377) ii. 734 Greenlaw, C. v. (119 Mass. 208) — i. 1265 Greenlee v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 845) ii, 952 —,S. »v. (1 Dev. 523) ii. 419 Greenlees, 8. v. (41 Ark. 353) ii. 841 Greenley v. S. (60 Ind. 141) i. 918, ee ii. 539 Greenlow v. 8. (4 Humph. 25) i. 441, 448 Greenough, In re (31 Vt. 279) i. 220, 222, 223 a, 1410 Greensburgh v. Corwin (58 Ind, 518) ii. 105 Greenwade, S. v. (72 Mo. 298) ii. 1007 a Greenwall, P. v. (108 N. Y. 296; 2 Am. St. 415) i. 1112, 1126 —, P. v. (115 N. Y. 520) i. 9750 Greenwell, S. v. (4 Gill & J. 407) i. 1815 Greenwood, Reg. v. (2 Den. C. C. 453) ii. 264 —, Rex v. (2 Stra. 1138) i. 251, 256 v. 8. (84 Tex. 334) i. 911 rv. §. (35 Tex. 587) ii. 63, 655 — v.§. (9 Tex. Ap. 638) i. 951 —, S. v. (1 Mill, 420) ii. 835 —, S. v. (5 Port. 474) i. 73, 750, 884 Greepe, Rex v. (2 Salk. 518) ii. 793 Greer v. S. (3 Bax. 321) i. 584, 595 — v. S. (50 Ind. 267; 19 Am. R. 709 1, 480; ii. 954, 976 — v. §. (53 Ind. 420) i, 981 — ».S. (54 Missis. 378) i. 1018 — v.S. (31 Tex. 129) i. 1237 —— v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 179) i. 984 ——, S. v. (22 W. Va. 800) i. 68, 71, 265, 273, 949b Greeson v. S. (5 How. Missis. 88) i. 481, \ 700 Gregg v.8. (55 Ala. 116) ii. 713 v. §. (64 Ind. 223) ii. 697 —v. 8. (3 W. Va. 705) i. 1191; ii. 53 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. GRI Gregory v. Richards (8 Jones, N. C. 410 ii, 741, 742 v. S. (46 Ala. 151) i. 708 v. 8. (46 Ala, 212) i. 711 — »v. 8. (80 Ga. 269) i, 1178 v. 8. (11 Ohio St. 329) ii. 420, 421 ——, 8. v. (5 Jones, N. C. 315) i. 978, 1239 —, S. v. (83 La. An. 737) i. 1198; ii. 34 — , 5S. v. (388 Mo. 501) i. 780, 1264 v, Slaughter (19 Ind. 342) i. 1879 —— v, Walker (88 Ala. 26) ii. 676 Greig v. Bendeno (Ellis, B. & E. 133) ii. 116 Grenville v. College of Physicians (12 Mod. 886) ii. 368 Gresham v. 8. (48 Ala. 625) i, 2647, 264 m: v. 8. (1 Tex. Ap. 458) ' i, 269 Grey’s Case (Skin. 81) i. 988 Grey, C. v. (2 Gray, 501; 61 Am. D. 476) i. 588, 590 —, Rex »v. (3 Harg. St. Tr. 519; 9 How. St. Tr. 127) ii, 215 Griepe, Rex v. (1 Ld. Raym. 256; 12 Mod. 139) i. 378; ii. 798, 917 Grier v. S. (29 Tex. 95) i. 264 a Griffee v. S. (1 Lea, 41) i. 931 Griffen, P. v. (Edm. Sel. Cas. 126) ii. 6875 Griffice, S. v. (74 N. C. 316) i, 882 Griffin’s Case (Chase, 364) i. 314 Griffin v. C. (Litt. Sel. Cas. 81) i. 264 f —, C. v. (4 Allen, 310) i. 1078 ——, C. v. (3 Cush. 523) i. 389 —, C. v. (105 Mass. 175) i. 546 ——,C. v. (110 Mass. 181) i. 1155 ——, P. v. (2 Barb. 427) i. 53, 887 ——, P.v. (77 Mich. 585) ii. 147 —, Reg. v. (6 Cox C.C. 219) i. 1283 —,, Rex v. (7 Mod. 197) ii. 784 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 151) i. 1242 —— iv; S. (76 Ala. 29) ii, 963 . (90 Ala. 596) i. 966 d, 975, 975 —vS§ —— v. S. (87 Ark. 437) i. 273 v. 8. (15 Ga. 476) i. 283, 909 v. S. (26 Ga. 493) i. 58, 57, 951 a —— v. §. (48 Ind. 258) i, 2644 —— v. 8. (14 Ohio St. 55) ii. 407, 408 —— v. 8. (34 Ohio St. 299) i. 269 —— v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 390) ii. 829 —— v. 8. (5 Tex. Ap. 457) i, 1410 v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 423) ii, 68 —— v. 8. (26 Tex. Ap. 157; 8 Am. Gregor, S, v. (21 La. An. 478) ii. 611, 621,] St 460) i. 860, 975 ¢ _ 625) —— v. S. (18 Vt. 198) il, 258, 266 Gregory v. C. (2 Dana, 417) A a —, S. v. (3 Harring Del. 659) ii. 692, ii. 695 —_, C. v. (7 Gray, 498) i. 1285 | ——, S, v. (71 Towa, 872) i. 997; ii. 740 —, P. v. (30 Mich. 871) i. 360, 387, } —, S. v. (79 Iowa, 568) ii. 718 , 133.4) —.,, 8. v. (88 La. An. 502) i. 887 — ». Reg. (15 Q. B. 974) i, 1827 | —_, S. ». (87 Mo. 608) i, 279, 1250 ——, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 208) i. 9505] —, S. v. (71 N.C. 304) 3. 1880 — Reg. v. (1 Car. & K.228) i, 1294 | ——, S. v, (48 Tex. 538) li. 852, 854 —, Reg. v. (8 Q. B. 508) i. 488; ii. 787, | Griffis, S. v. (3 Ire. 504) ii. 67 799° Griffith v. Cox (1 Tenn. 210) ii. 409 568 GRO INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. GUI Griffith, Reg. v. (3 Salk. 169) ii. 883, 887) Gross, C. v. (1 Ashm. 281) i, 314 a, —, Rex »v. (1 Car. & P. 298) ii, 654 909, 951 a —, Rex v. (Vern. & S. 612) ii, 807 |] —— v. Rice (71 Me. 241) i. 1810 —— v. §. (90 Ala. 583) i. 1059 | —— »v. S. (2 Ind. 329) i. 852 — v. §. (12 Ind. 548) i. 72 | —— v. S. (62 Md.179) i. 1141; ii. 482 — v. S. (36 Ind. 406) i. 422, 449 | Grosse v. S, (11 Tex. Ap. 864) i. 975 a, — v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 372) i. 1054 1238 —— v. Williams (1 Cromp. & J. 47) Grossheim, S. v. (79 Iowa, 75) i, 898, ii, 482 6 1264 Griffiths, Ex parte (5 B. & Ald. 730) Grottkau v. S. (70 Wis. 462) i, 960 i, 1408 | —, S. v. (73 Wis. 589; 9 Am. St. —, C. v. (126 Mass. 252) ii. 1002] 816) i. 1299 — v. Lewis (8 Q. B. 841) ii. 793 | Grounsell, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 788) ii, 514 —, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 746) i. 1202 | Grove, Rex v. (5 Mod. 18) ii. 1L0 —, Respublica v. (2 Dall.112) i. 144 | ——, Rex v. (1 Moody, 447; 7 Car. —, Rex v. (3 Mod. 202) i. 3823] & P. 635) ii, 321, 337 Griffits v. Ivery (11 A. & E. 822) ii. 482 | ——w. S. (10 Misso. 282) i, 581 Grigg v. P. (81 Mich. 471) i. 733, 1854 | Groves v. S. (6 Blackf. 489) i. 488 Griggs’s Case (T. Raym. 1) i. 1151 | —— v.8. (9 Ind. 200) i, 1269 Griggs v. 8. (58 Ala, 425; 29 Am. ——, S. v. (Busbee, 191) i, 59, 60 R. 762) ii. 754 | ——, S. v. (Busbee, 402) i. 488; ii. 915 — v.&. (59 Ga. 738) i. 1261, 1278 | Grubb v. S. (117 Ind. 277) i. 975 c, 980, — , S. v. (84 W. Va. 78) i, 893 1179; ii. 674 Grigsby v. S. (4 Bax. 19) ii. 633 | —— v. S. (14 Wis. 434) i. 887 — v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 51) i, 1264| Grumon v, Raymond (1 Conn. 40; 6 v. S. (6 Yerg. 354) i, 264 a, 2646) Am. D. 200) i. 187, 244 — ,S. v. (8 Yerg. 280) i. 264 f| Grunzig, P. v. (1 Par. Cr. 299) i. 1212 Grimes, C. v. (10 Gray, 470; 71 Am. Grush, U.S. v. (6 Mason, 290) i. 877 D. 666) ii. 705 | Gruso, S. v. (28 La. An. 952) i. 1111; — v. 8. (77 Ga. 762; 4 Am. St. ii. 149, 1018 112) ii. 151 | Gryder, S. v. (44 La. An. 962; 32 Am. Grimley, In re (137 U. S. 147) 1.1410] St. 358) ii. 400 Grimme v. C. (5 B. Monr. 263) i. 873 | Guagando ». S. (41 Tex. 626) i, 95la; Grimshaw, P. v. (33 Hun, 505) ii. 909 ii. 666 Grimwood v. Barrit (6 T. R. 460) i. 406 Grindall, Rex v. (2 Car. & P. 563) i. 488c; ii. 916 Grinestaff v. S. (53 Ind. 238) i, 264 Grinnell v. Phillips (1 Mass. 580) i. 998, : 127 Gripe, Rex v. (Comyns, 43) ii. 917 Grisham v. S. (19 Tex. Ap. 504) i. 816 v. S. (2 Yerg. 589) i. 3144 Grissom v. S. (62 Missis. 167) i. ae 980 — v.S. (4 Tex. Ap. 374) i. 68, 909, 931, 934 — v.S. (8 Tex. Ap. 386) i. 68, 72, 948 a, 9514; ii. 611 Griswold, S. v. (63 Mo. 181) i, 62, 381 — v. Sedgwick (6 Cow. 456) i, 187 v. Sedgwick (1 Wend. 126) ii. 368 Groenvelt’s Case (1 Ld. Raym. 213) i. 1297 Groenvelt v. Burnell (Carth. 491) i. 1864 v. Burwell (1 Ld. Raym. 464; 1 Salk. 263; Comyns, 76) i. 1364, 1378 —— v. Burwell (1 Salk. 144) i, 1364 Groesbeck, U.S. v. (4 Utah, 487) i. 1827 Grogan v, 8. (44 Ala. 9) i. 1394 —— v. S. (63 Missis. 147) i, 546 Groome, S. v. (10 Iowa, 808) i. 778, 982 Grose, C. v. (99 Mass. 428) i, ae ii. 7 0} Guernsey v. Carver (8 Wend. 492 5 Guedel v. P. (48 Ill. 226) i. 488 ¢; ii. 514, 517 Guenther v. Day (6 Gray, 490) i, 242 v. P, (24.N. ¥. 100) i. 1010, 1011, 1013, 1015 24 Am. D. 60) i, 458 Guerrero, In re (69 Cal. 88) j. 814 Guess v. S, (1 Eng. 147) i. 755 Guest v. S. (19 Ark, 405) ii, 856, 859 —,S. v. (6 Ala. 778) i. 1406 —, S. v. (100 N. C. 410) i. 687 Guetig v. S. (63 Ind. 278) i. 975 c; 980; ii. 674 — v. 8. (66 Ind. 94; 32 Am. R. 99) i. 909 ; ii. 683 Guettler, S. v. (84 Kan. 582) i. 461 Guffy v. C. (2 Grant, Pa. 66) i. 691, 1314, 1817 Guice v. Stubbs (138 La. An. 442) i, 264h Guidice, P. v. (73 Cal. 226) i. 488 ¢ Guidici, P. v. (100 N. Y. 503) i, 1205 Guidry, S. v. (28 La. An. 6380) i. 925, 949 b Guild, S. v. (5 Halst. 163; 18 Am. D. 404) i. 1058, 1231, 1286, 1239, 1291 Guilford v. S. (24 Ga. 315) i, 1278 ——, S. v. (4 Jones, N. C. 83) i, 1856 Guinness, S. v. (15 R. 1.401) i. 266, 269 Guisenhause, S. v. (20 Iowa, 227) i. 1276 Guiteau, U. S. v. (1 Mackey, 498; 47 Am. R. 247) i. 50, 51; ii, 687a 569 Gwy INDEX TO THE Gulf, &. Ry. v. 8. (72 Tex. 404; 13. Am. St. 815) i. 378 Gulick v. New (14 Ind. 98; 77 Am. D. 49 i. 229 a . 49) Gulston, Reg. v. (2 Ld. Raym. 1210) ii, 995 Gumble, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 2 C.C. 1; 12 Cox C. C. 248) i. 706, 711 Gummell, S. v. (22 Minn. 51) i, eae ii, Gummer, S. v. (22 Wis. 441) i. 452, 13827 Gunn v. Boone (7 Heisk. 8) i, 1350 —— v. Pulaski (3 Pike, 427) i. 1403 , Reg. v. (11 Mod. 66) i. 379 Gunnell, U.S. v. (6 Mackey, 196) i. 1116 Gunter v. Dale (44 Ala. 639) i. 745 v. §, (83 Ala. 96) i. 975 ¢, 980; ii. 671 v. §. (1 Lea, 129) ii. 812 —, S. uv. (80 La. An, 586) i. 1247, 1264 —,S. v. (1 MeMul. 458) i. 1147 Gunther, U.S. v. (5 Dak. 234) ii. 856 Gunyon v. S. (68 Ind. 79) ii. 945 Gurlagh, S. v. (76 Iowa, 141) i. 850 Gurlock, S. v. (14 Iowa, 444) i. 517 Gurnee, S. v. (14 Kan. 111) i. 959 ¢ Gurney v. Langlands (5 B. & Ald. 330) ii. 432 ¢ —, Reg. v. (11 Cox C.C. 414) i. 278, 951 c, 962 —, S. v. (37 Me. 149) i. 639; ii. 816 —,S. v. (87 Me. 156; 58 Am D. 782) i. 894, 1264 v. Tufts (87 Me. 180; 58 Am. D. 777) i. 187, 239 Gustave, S. v. (27 La. An. 395) i. 1021 Gustin, S. v. (2 Southard, 744) i. 1880 ——, S. v. (2 Southard, 749) ii, 416 Guston v. P. (61 Barb. 35) ii. 921 Gut v. 8. (9 Wal. 35) i. 47, 76 — , §..v. (13 Minn. 341) i. 68, 71, 76 Gutekunst, S. v. (24 Kan. 252) i. 9756 Law Rep. 1 C. C. Guthrie, Reg. v. ( ii. 56, 63, 960 241; 11 Cox C. C. 622) v. S. (16 Neb. 667) ii. 126 Gutierrez, P. v. (74 Cal. 81) ii. 740 v. 8. (44 Tex. 587) i. 613 —, S. »v. (15 La. An. 190) i. 892 Guttridge, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 228) ii. 975 Guttridges, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 471) ii. 960, 962 Guy v. S. (1 Kan, 448) i. 885 i, 1259 — v.58. (9 Tex. Ap. 161) —, S. v. (69 Mo. 480) i. 68, 72, 1238, 1276; ii. 629 Guyer, S. v. (6 Iowa, 263) i. 1140, 1152 Guykowski v. P. (1 Seam. 476) i. 920, 928, 1269, 1285 Guyott, S. v. (26 Mo, 62) i. 547 Gwatkin v. C. (9 Leigh, 678; 33 Am. D. 264) i. 976, 981 Gwilt, Reg. v. (11 A. & E. 587; 8 Per. & 1). 176) i. 170 Gwinn, S v. (24S. C. 146) ii. 41 Gwynn v. 8, (64 Missis. 324) i, 868 570 CASES CITED. HAI 162) ii, 906, 915 ii. 1050 H. P., Rex v. (Trem. P. C. ——, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 196) Haase v. S, (24 Vroom, 34) i. 322 —, 8. v. (14 La. An. 79) i. 1268 Habel v. 8. (28 Tex. Ap. 588) i. 208, vet, 5 154 Habersham v. S. (56 Ga. 61) i. 163, 213, 214, 984, 987; ii. 946 Haberstro v. Bedford (118 N. Y. 187) i. 264.4 Hackett v. Boston, &c. Rid. (35 N. H. 390) ii. 677 —— v. C. (15 Pa. 98) i. 314.4, 537; ii. 183 ——, C. v. (2 Allen, 136) ii, 625 — v. P. (54 Barb. 870) i. 1207; ii. 683 —— v. P. (8 Colo. 390) i. 975 c, 1012 v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 406) i. 951, mes c, 78 —,S. v. (47 Minn. 425; 28 Am. St. 380) ii. 148, 698 a —, U.S. v. (29 Fed. Rep. 848) — i. 922 Hackey v. 8. (15 Ga. 400) i, 278 Hackney v. Welsh (107 Ind. 253; 57 Am. R, 101) i. 24a Hadcock, S. v. (2 Hayw. 162) i, 1264 Haderaft, C. v. (6 Bush, 91) i. 1287 Haddock, Rex v. (Andr. 137) i. 777; ii. 865, 1045, 1051 —, S. v. (2 Hawks, 461) i. 660, 664 Haden, S. v. (15 Mo. 447) i. 641 Hadfield, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1C. C. 253; 11 Cox.C. C. 574) ii. 1050 Hadley v. S. (55 Ala. 31) ii. 600 ——, 5. v. (54 N. H. 224) i. 488; ii. 233, 24 0 Hagan, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 167) i. 188 , Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 857; 4 ~ Eng. Rep 606) i, 1109; ii. 629 v. S. (B Bax. 615) ii. 675 v. S. (4 Kan. 89) i. 872 —— v. 8. (10 Ohio St. 459) i. 977; ii. 585 —, S. v. (22 Kan. 490) i. 951. —, S. v. (54 Mo. 192) i, 1288 Hagarman, C. v. (10 Allen, 401) i. 394, 431, 747, 1264 Hageman, S. v. (1 Green, N. J. 314) ii. 1048 Hagerman, S. v. (47 Iowa, 151) _ ii. 962, 968, 969 Haggard ». C. (79 Ky. 866) i. 768, 850, 882 Haggerty, C. v. (4 Brews, 826) i, 1384 v. P, (6 Lans. 382) i. 1884 v. P, (53 N. Y. 476) i. 1883, 1384 —, P. v. (5 Daly, 532) i. 264 f Haggett v. C. (3 Met. 457) i. 4884, 1371; ii. 138 ¢ Hague. 8. (84 Missis. 616) i. 1355; ii. 603 Haigh, Rex v. (81 How St. Tr. 1092) ii. 992 Haile v. S. (1 Swan, Tenn. 248) i. 9804; ii, 630 Hailey, Rex v. (1 Car. & P. 258) ii. 984 —_,S. v. (2 Strob. 73) ii. 884, 885, 888, Hailstock, C. ». (2 Grat. 564) 889, 895 i. 909 ——, 8. v. (2 Blackf. 257) i. 892; ii. 81 HAL Hainer, P. v. (1 Denio, 454) i. 264 e, 264 9, : 264 m Haines v. C. (99 Pa. 410) . i, 1265 — v. C. (100 Pa. 317) i. 938, 1265 —, C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 134) i. 264 m v. §. (9 Tex. Ap. 410) i, 1265 — , S. v. (80 Me. 65) ii. 488, 871 — ». Territory (3 Wy. 167) ii. 175 Hair v. 8. (14 Neb. 503) 1, 951 — v. 8. (16 Neb. 601) i. 278, 1204 Halbert v. S. (381 Tex. 357) i. 951 a; ii. 620 Halder v. S. (2 McCord, 377) ii, 259 Hale, C. v. (18 Philad. 452) i. 951 7 — v. P. (73 Ill. 203) i. 1402, 1403 —, S. v. (44 Iowa, 96) i, 762 —, S. v. (65 Iowa, 575) i. 68, 71 —, S. v. (12 Or. 352) ii. 740 Hales; Rex v. (2 Stra. 816) i. 847 Haley, P.v. (48 Mich.495) i. 183; ii, 883 v. 8. (49 Ark. 147) i. 975 ¢ Halford, S. v. (104 N.C. 874) i. 622, 1275 Halifax, S. v. (4 Dev, 345) i, 325 Hall’s Case (Cro. Jac. 95 pl. 23) ii, 522 — Case (8 Grat. 593) i. 698, 699; ii. 152 — Case (6 Leigh, 615) i. 998 a Hall, Ex parte (47 Ala. 675) i. 49, 123 — v. C. (80 Va. 555) i. 931 —,C. v. (4 Allen, 3805) i, 486, 1265 ; ii. 428 —, C. v. (9 Gray, 262; 69.Am. D. 285) i, 222, 223 —,, ©. v. (15 Mass.240) i. 825; ii. 1052 —)C.v. (97 Mass. 670) i. 101; ii. 412, 416 —, C. v, (3 Pick. 262) i, 683 —, C.v. (8 W. Va. 259) i. 1265 — vt. Clarke (1 Mod. 81) i. 1849 v. Doyle (85 Ark, 445) i, 286 v. Gaven (Cro. Eliz. 307) i. 608 v. Goodson (82 Ala. 277) i. 1178 — v. Howd (10 Conn. 514; 27 Am. D. 696) i. 187 — v. Jordan (15 Wal. 393) ii. 407 v. P. (89 Mich. 717) ii. 780 — v. P. (43 Mich. 417) ii, 131 ii. 967 i. 975 a, 975c, 1094; ii. 146 i. 58 —— v. P. (47 Mich. 686) , P. v, (94 Cal. 595) —, P. v. (57 How. Pr. 342) —, P. v. (48 Mich. 482; 42 Am. R. 477) i. 931, 959 a, 966 .c, 1059 ——, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 358) ii. 934 —, Reg. vo. (1 Cox C. C. 281) ii. 739 , Reg. r. (12 Cox C. C, 159; 2 Eng. Rep. 212) ii. 488 —-, Rex v. (Cowp. 60) i. 1320 —, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 895) ii, 443 — , Rex v. (1 Leach, 21) i, 1836 —, Rex v. (2 Leach, 559, note) i. 1234 ——, Rex »v. (3 Stark. 67; Russ. & Ry. 463) ii, 337 —, Rex v. (1 T. R. 820) i. 640, 1849 —— v. Roche (8 T. R. 187) i. 191 — v.S. (9 Ala. 827) i, 264, 264 a INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. HAL Hall v. §. (15 Ala. 481) i. 68, 264 a, 264 m — v. §. (40 Ala. 698) i. 269, 1078, 1079, 1085, 1086, 1868; ii. 595, 608, 628 — v.S. (51 Ala. 9) i. 49, 909, 931, 931 a, 9494 v. 8. (63 Ala. 634) ii. 697, 754 — v. 8. (88 Ala. 286; 16 Am. St. 61) i. 981 —v (3 Coldw. 125) i. 611 —— v. §. (31 Fla. 176) ii, 590, 595 v. S. (21 Ga. 148) i. 2647 — v. S. (48 Ga. 607) i, 1086 v. 8. (65 Ga. 36) i. 975 ¢ —-v (4 Greene, Iowa, 73) i. 1345 — v.8. (8 Ind. 489) i. 72, 1000, 1036, 1276 ; ii. 742, 745 i. 1264, 1859 i. 346, 416, 1001 (21 Ind, 268) 3 Kelly, 18) 8. 8. 8. Sh 8. 8. . 8. — v.58. 8. Ss. 8. _ 8. . 8. 8. 8. ( —v.§. (3 Lea, 652) i, 10154; ii, 34 z. S. (41 Tex. 287) ii. 698 —v “ Tex. Ap. 269) ii. 1054 — v.S. (15 Tex. Ap. 40) ii. 751 v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 146) i. 975 c, 1095 v. S. (48 Wis. 688) i. 130 — 8. v. (7 Blackf, 25) ii, 921 ° — S.v. (58 Ind, 512) i. 1264 —, S. v. (40 Kan. 338; 10 Am. St. 200) i, 221, 223, 2245 ——, S.v. (44 La. An. 976) i. 850, 875 —; S.v. (39 Me. 107) i. 978 —, S. v. (78 Me. 87) i. 245 —, S. v. (85 Mo. 669) ii. 782 — 8. v. (78 N.C. 134) i. 68 —, 8.c. (93 N. C. 571) ii, 47 —_S. v. (108 N. C. 776) i. 1015 —, 8. v. (5 8. C. 120) ii, 825 —, 8. v. (25 Vt. 247) i. 285 —,,S. v. (26 W. Va. 236) i. 479 —, 8. v. (81 W. Va. 505) i. 313 v. Smith (1 M. & S. 287) i. 580 — +.U.S. (150 U. S. 76) ii. 628 — , U.S. v. (44 Fed. Rep. 888) i. 943, 1032 —,, U.S. v. (98 U. S. 343) ii, 829 —— v. Washington (2 Greene, Iowa, 473) i. 805 Hallam, Reg. v. (24 Law T. 109; 29 Eng. L. & Eq. 200) . ii, 1054 Halleck v. 8. (11 Ohio, 400) ii. 914 — v. S. (65 Wis. 147) i. 1125; ii. 68 Hallenbeck, P. v. (2 Abb. N. Cas. 66) ii. 790 —, P. v. (52 How. P. R. 502) ii. 790 Hallett, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 748) i. 1202 ——, S. v. (63 Iowa, 259) ii. 740 Halley v. S. (43 Ind. 509) ii. 178 Halliday, P. v. (5 Utah, 467) ii. 584, 621 Hallinger v. Davis (146 U.S. 314) i. 100 a, 891 Hallock v. Franklin (2 Met. 558) i. 982 Halloway, C. v. (42 Pa. 446; 82 Am. D. 526) i, 1310 — , Rex v. (1 Car. & P. 127) i. 60; ii, 729 571 HAM INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. HAN Halloway, S. v. (5 Pike, 433) i. 2641} Hamilton, S. v. (106 N. C. 660) i, 1814 Hallowell, S. v. (91 Ind. 376) i, 1264 | —, S. v. (13 Nev. 386) ii, 1008 Halphrey, S. v. (14 Neb. 578) i. 1265 | —, S. x. (19 Ohio, 116) 1, 997 Halsell v. S. (29 Tex. Ap. 22) i, 68 | ——, S. v. (17 S.C. 462) i, 1275 Halsey v. S. (1 Southard, 324) i. 875 ; | ——, U.S. v. (8 Dall. 17) i. 256 ii. 858 | ——, U.S. v. (4 Mackey, 446) i. 975c Halstead, S. v. (73 Iowa, 376) i. 282) —, U.S. v. (109 U.S.68) i, 761 Halsted, S.v. (10 Vroom, 402) i. 611] Hamlett v. C. (8 Grat. 82) i. 251, 264 Halton, Rex v. (Ryan & Moody, N. —, S. v. (85 N.C. 520) di, 27 P. 78) i. 788 a | Hamlin v. 8. (48 Conn. 92) i, 882 Ham, C. v. (150 Mass. 122) i. 9665 |-—, S. v. (47 Conn. 95; 36 Am. R. — v.8. (17 Ala. 188) ii, 728 v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 645) i. 222, 224 b, 1094, 1127; ii. 416 — , S. v. (54 Me. 194) i. 1009 —, 8. v. (83 N. C. 590) i. 3l4a Hamberg, P. v. (84 Cal. 468) i. 9765 b, 1133; ii. 188 Hambleton, S. v. (22 Mo. 452) i. 619; ii. 842 Hamblett v. S. (18 N. H. 384) ii. 732 Hamblin, P. v. (68 Cal. 101) i, 1181 Hamby ». S. (36 Tex. 523) ii. 603 Hamer, S. v. (2 Ind. 371) i. 2644 Hamersley v. Blair (48 Conn. 58) i. 1264 Hamilton v. C. (16 Pa. 129; 55 Am. D. 485) j. 275, 12938, 13841, 1849 v. C. (3 Pa. (P. & W.) 142) __ ii. 692 ——, C. v. (15 Gray, 480) i. 612, 665, 667, 685; ii. 84, 39, 48 — »v. Carthage (24 Ill. 22) i. 314a — »v. P. (113 Ill. 34; 65 Am. R. 396) ii. 64 —— ». P. (29 Mich. 173) __ i. 284.4, 424, 425, 458, 980 a, 1164, 1169 — v. P. (29 Mich. 195) i. 1116, 1248 —, P. v. (46 Cal. 540) 1277 ——) P. v. (62 Cal. 877) i. 909; ii. 671 —)P. v. (76 Mich. 212) i. 975 — v. Reg. (9 Q. B. 271; 2 Cox C. C. 11) ii, 168, 178, 185 —, Reg. vu. (1 Cox C. C. 244) i. 1128; ii. 189 ——., Rex ». (7 Car. & P. 448) i. 644; ii. 209 —, Rex v. (Foster, 5) ii. 1031 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 348) ii. 751 v. Rice (15 Tex. 882) ii. 753 — v. S. (9 Bax. 355 i. 1817 —v. S. (16 Fla. 288) ii. 165 i. 814, 1223 v. S. ts Ind. 652) v. §. (60 Ind. 193; 28 Am. R. 653) ii. 705, 788, 751 — v. S. (35 Missis. 214) _ i. 1269 v. S. (34 Ohio St. 82) i. 1122; ii. 138 — v.S. (2 Tex. Ap. 494) i. 975¢ — v. S. (26 Tex. Ap. 206) i. 975, 1170; ii. 130 —, S. v. (2 Hayw. 288) ii, 429 ——, 8. c. (1 Houst. Crim. 281) ii. 838 ——, 8. v. (57 Iowa, 596) i. 1066 — , S. v. (85 La. An. 1048) i. 1020 —, S. v. (55 Mo. 520) i. 975 b ——., S. uv. (65 Mo. 667) i, 1868; ii. 912, 914 572 54) i. 424, 852, 861; ii, 584 Hammack v. S. (52 Ga. 397) i. 1169, 1170 Hammar v. Covington (8 Met. Ky. 494) ii. 1048 Hammersmith, Rex v. (1 Stark. 357) ii. 1049 Hammett v. S. (52 Ga. 122) i. 1012 Hammil v. S. (90 Ala. 577) i. 1207, 1212 Hammill, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 223) i, 1116 Hammock, Ex parte (78 Ala. 414) i, 257 Hammond's Case (2 Greenl. 33; 11 Am. D. 89) i. 1179; ii. 4820, 4826 Hammond v. Hopping (138 Wend. 505) ii. 753 ——,, Rex v. (2 Esp. 719) ii, 231 v, S. (28 Tex. Ap. 418) i. 951 — v. 8. (3 Wash. 171) i. 126 —, 8. v. (77 Mo. 157) ii, 952 — ,S. v. (5 Strob. 91) —— »v. Schiff (100 N.C. 161) — ., U.S. v. (2 Woods, 197) i. 327, 793, 851, 856 a, 872, 883, 884 Hammons »v. S. (59 Ala. 164; 31 Am. R. 18 i, 264, 264¢ — ». §. (8 Tex. 272) i, 1264 — v. §, (29 Tex. Ap. 445) i, 621; ii. 147 Hamond, Rex v. (1 Stra. 44) ii, 1051 Hampden, C. v. (2 Pick. 414) i, 1403 ——, Rex v. (9 How. St. Tr. 1053) i. 989, 1179 i. 7330 Hamper’s Appeal (51 Mich. 71) i. 931 — Case (2 Leon. 211) i. 618; ii, 922 Hampson v. Hampson (3 Ves. & B. 41) i. 1276 ——, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 191) ii, 871 Hampton v. Brown (32 Ga. 251) i. 2646 —, C. v. (3 Grat. 590) i, 612, 636 ——., Rex v. (1 Moody, 255) ii, 485 — v. S. (46 Ala. 82) ii. 603 v. S. (8 Humph. 69; 47 Am. D. 599) ‘ i. 449, 457 — v. 8. (8 Ind. 836) i. 345, 890; ii. 407 v. S. (42 Ohio St. 401) i, 262 —— v. 8. (45 Tex. 154) i, 1036, 1152 v. §. (1 Tex. Ap. 652) i. 1076, 1079 —— v.§. (5 Tex, Ap. 463) ii, 740 Hanauer v. Doane (12 Wal. 847) ii. 1084 Hance v. 8, (8 Fla. 56) i. 1114 Hanchett, S. v. (86 Conn. 35) j. 239 a, 434; ii. 106 Hancock v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 892) i. 118, 1159, 1205 — v. Somes (1 Ellis © E.795) =i, 717 HAN Hand ». Ballou (2 Kern. 541) i, 1089 i. 489, 680, 684, , S. v. (1 Eng. 165 Z } 689 a, 1265, 1272 —, S. v. (7 Iowa, 411; 71 Am. D. 453) ii, 112, 114, 118 ——, U.S. o. (6 McLean, 274) i, 226 Handcock v. Baker (2 B. & P. 260) i. 165, 170, 197, 707 a Bele Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 665) i, 445 S. (96 Ala. 48; 88 Am. 5S 81) a 602 —— U3 Handlin v. 8. (1 Harrison, 96) i, 1378 Handline v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 347) i. 314a, Handy i" Johnson (5 Md. 450) S. (63 Missis. 207; 56 Am. — v. R. 803) ii. 111 —, 5. : (20 Me. 81) i, 488 b, 662 Haney, C. v. (127 Mass. 455) i. 1212 — v. 8. (84 Ark. 268) ii. 514 — v.S. (2 Tex. Ap. 504) i. 1005 a —— v. 8. (5 Wis. 529) i, 1374 — .,S. uv. (1 Hawks, 460) —, S. v. (67 N.C. 467) i. 406 i. 892 Hangsleben v. P. (89 Ill. 164) i, 250, 264 f Hankins v. P. (106 Ill. 628) Hanks »v., S. (21 Tex. 526) i. 314.4, 806 i. 909, 949 b ——,, S. v. (89 La. An. 234) i. 97, 711 Hanley, C. v. (140 Mass. 457) i. 1181 —— v. Donoghue (116 U.S. 1) i. 815 — v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 375) i. 975c ——, S. v. (84 Minn. 430) i. 975¢; ii. 596, 673 —, S. v. (47 Vt. 290) i. 502 ; ii. 865, 867 Hanlon, C. v. (3 Brews. 461) i. 1226 Hann, Rex v. (3 Bur. 1786) i. 275 Hanna »v. P. (86 Ill. 248) i. 68, 78 ——, Territory v. (5 Mont. 246) . i. 1264 Hannaball v. Spalding (1 Root, 86) i. 1272 Hannah »v. S. (11 Lea, 201) i. 982 ¢, oH v. §. (1 Tex. Ap. 578) i. 700; ii. 740 —- v. Wells (4 Or. 249) i, 264 m, 287 Hannahan v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 664) i. 1170; ii. 718 Hannett, S. v. (54 Vt. 83) ii. 86, 53 Hanney v. C. (116 Pa. 322) i. 1116 Hannibal, S. v. (37 La, An. 619) i. 975c, 984, 987 Hannon, Reg. v. (6 Mod. 311) _ ii. 99, 160 — v.58. (5 Tex. Ap. 549) i. 1248 — v.S. (70 Wis. 448) i. 975 c; ii. er Hannum v. Belchertown (19 Pick. 811) i. 1270 — v. §. (90 Tenn. 647) i. 975c, 984, 1012, 1276 Hanoff v. 8. (87 Ohio St. 178; 41 Am. R. 496) i, 1181 Hanon v. 8. (63 Md. 128) i. 1153 Hanrahan >. P. (91 Ill. 142) i. 879, 1241 Hansard v. 8. (6 Humph. 115) i, 691 Hanselman, P. v. (76 Cal. 460; 9 Am. St. 238) ii, 718 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. HAR Hansford v. S. (54 Ga. 55) ii. 3 Hansill, Reg. v. (8 Cox C.C.597) ii, 13 Hansom v, McCue (48 Cal. 178) i. 9 ——, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 912; 4 Cox C. C. 138 i. 691 —, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 334) i. 1098; ii. 427 a ——, Reg. v. (2 Moody, 245) ii, 424 —, Rex v. (4 B. & Ald. 519) i, 1264 ——, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 148) ii. 908, 906, 915 —, S. v. (39 Me. 337) i. 387 ; ii. 908, 910, 911 ——, S. v. (28 Tex. 232) ii. 790 Hanson v. Lawson (19 Kan, 201) ii. 751 Hanway v. Boultbee (4 Car. & P. 350 ; 1 Moody & R. 15) i. 183 —., U.S. v. (2 Wal. Jr. 139) i, 281, 909 ; ii. 1036, 1039 Harberger v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 26; 30 Am. R. 167) i.314a Harbin v. S. (78 Iowa, 268) i, 264A Harbison, S. v. (94 N. C. 885) i, 1151; ii, 27 Hardebeck v. S. (10 Ind. 459) i, 890 Hardee, S. v. (83 N. C. 619) i. 1218 Hardeman ». S. (12 Tex. Ap. 350) i. 1278 Harden v. Hays (14 Pa. 91) ii, 674 , 5. v. (1 Bailey, 3) i. 1003 —,S8.»v. @ Brev. 47) i. 478 —, 8.» (2 Rich. 688) i. 889 —, U.S. v. (4 Hughes, 455) i, 226 Hardiman, C, v, (7 Allen, 588) i, 1264 —, C. v. (9 Gray, 136) i. 966 c Hardin. Hi Kretsinger (17 Johns. 293) ii. 753 —, P. v. (87 Cal. 258) i. 905 — v.§, (22 Ind. 347) i. 884 — v. 8. (26 Tex. 113) i. 685 —— v. §, (4 Tex. Ap. 855) i. 954; ij. 228, 532, 638 — v.S. (8 Tex. Ap. 653) i. 980 a — v.S. (12 Tex. Ap. 186) i. 1161 — v.§. (13 Tex. Ap. 192) i. 976 c, 978 —, Bi v. (46 Iowa, 623; 26 Am. 4 i. 981, 1066 Harding Case (1 Greenl. 22) ii. 378, 379 Harding v. P. (10 Colo. 387) ii 1001 , P. v. (63 Mich. 48; 51 Am. R. 95) i. 860 — v. S. (22 Ark. 210) i. 755, 854, 884 —, S. v. (2 Bay, 267) i. 1279 6)—, 8. ze. (39 Conn. 661) i. 1264, 1300 ——, Territory v. (6 Mont. 825) i. 281, 878, 91a —, U.S. v. (1 Wal. Jr. 127) i, 1277 Hardison, S. v, (75 N. C. 203) ii, 721 Hardt v, 8, (18 Tex. Ap. 426) i, 1264 Hardtke v. 8. (67 Wis, 662) ii. 967 Hardwick, S. v, (2 Misso, 226) i. 876, 887 Hardwicke, Rex v. (1 Sid. 282) ii. 99 Hardy, C. v. (1 Ashm. 410) i, 722, 724 — v.C. (17 Grat. 592) ii. 1002 —, C. v. (2 Mass. 803) i, 314 573 HAR Hardy v. Merrill (56 N. H. 227; 22 Am. R. 441) ii. 678 —— v. Murphy (1 Esp. 294) i. 183 ——, Rex v. (24 How. St. Tr. 199) 1.966 d, 982a v. S. (7 Misso. 607) i. 982.a, 984 v. 8. {To Ohio St. 579) i. 1002 — v. 8. (31 Tex. Cr. 289) i, 1265 —-, S. v. (95 Mo, 455) i. 975¢ Hardyman, U. §. v. (13 Pet. 176) ii. 710, Hare, P. v. (57 Mich. 505) —_ i. 280, 234 b, 978, 1062, 1076, 1169; ii. 539, 631 v. S. (4 How. Missis. 187) i, 992 — 0.8. (4 Ind. 241) i. 1287 —, §. v. (74 N. C. 591) i. 1112, 1117, 119 — , S. v. (95 N. C. 682) i. 688 Harfourd, Ex parte (16 Fla. 283) i. 264a@ Hargate, S. v. (Conference, 68) —i. 1817 Harger v. Washington (12 Pa. 251) i. 1317, 1320, 1821 Hargesheimer, C. v. (1 Ashm. 418) i. 691, 1138 Hargett, S. v. (65 N. C. 669) i. 980 ‘INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. HAR Harnion, S. v. (104 N. C. 792) ii. 721, Harne v. S. (39 Md. 552) i. 825; ii. 62 Harned, U.S. v. (48 Fed. Rep. 376) i. 977 Harney, C. v. (10 Met. 422) i. 483 Harp v. Osgood (2 Hill, N. ¥. 216) i. 250 ——, S. v. (31 Kan. 496) i. 390, 1277 Harpending v. Wylie (13 Bush, 158) i. 1298 Harper v. Elberton (23 Ga. 566) i. 892 , P. v. (83 Mich. 273) i. 975e, 1147 —— v, S. (25 Ark. 83) i, 983, 1857 —— v. S. (42 Ind. 405) i. 849 — v. S. (7 Ohio St. 73) i, 23894 — v. 8. (48 Tex. 431) i. 1001 —v. 8. (11 Tex. Ap.1) i. 1188, 1170 3 | ——, S. v. (8 La. An. 35) i, 128 ——, 5. v. (64 N. C. 129) ii, 724 —,S.v. (101 N.C. 761) i. 998, 1270 —, S. v. (6S. C. 164) i. 3l4a —, Territory v. (1 Ariz. 399) i. 1002 Harpster, S: v. (15 Kan. 322) i. 1264 Harpur, Rex v. (5 Mod. 96) i, 529 Harrall v. S. (26 Ala. 52) i. 68, 73, 702; ii. 566, 595 Hargrave, Rex v. (6Car. & P.170) i. 51, v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 427) i. 1087 1173; ii. 5| Harrell, S. v. (107 N. C. 944) ii. 27 —, S. v. (100 N. C. 484) i. 920, 943 Harres v. C. (35 Pa. 416) i, 264A —,, Territory v. (1 Ariz. 95) i, 1276] Harrie, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 105) i. 959d Hargraves v. Lewis (6 Ga. 207) i. 1370 | Harriet, S. v. (4 Jones, N. C. 264) i. 814a@ Hargrove, S. v. (13 Lea, 178) i. 975 c| Harrigan, 8. v. (9 Houst. 369) ii. 671 Harker v. S. (8 Blackf. 540) i. 49, 966] Harrill, U. S. v. (1 McA. 248) i. 1090 Harkins v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 452) ii. 368} Harriman v. S. (2 Greene, Iowa, —, 8. v. (6 Ala. 57) i, 1266| 270) , i, 24, 652, 699, 983 —. S. v. (100 Mo. 666) ‘i. 1169 | Harrington, C. v. (130 Mass. 85) i. 101, Harlan v. P. (1 Doug. Mich. 207) ii. 269, 519, 543 271 | ——, C. v. (152 Mass. 488) i. 1181 —, S. v. (5 Rich. 470) i. 581 | ——, C. v. (8 Pick. 26) ii, 120 Harland v. Territory (3 Wash. Ter. 181) i, 224 Harless v. U. S. (Morris, 169) i. 851 Harley, C. v. (7 Met. 506) i. 264, 1265; ii. 210, 233 —, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 369) ii. 645 Harlis, S. v, (83 La. An. 1172) ii. 901 Harlow v. C. (11 Bush, 610) , C.v, (110 Mass. 411) —, S. v. (21 Mo. 446) © Harman »v. C. (12 8. & R. 69) ii. 119, 121 i. 1181, 1186 i. 999 ii. 951, 952 —— v. Fry (1 Car. & P. 289; 9 Moore, 344) ii, 432 a —— v. P. (6 Barb. 607) ii. 1054 , Pv. (15 Abb. N. Cas. 161) i. 1310 ——, P. v, (42 Cal. 165; 10 Am. R. 296) i. 955 — v.8. (36 Ala. 236) i. 665, 1159, 1356 — v. S. (88 Ala. 9) i. 1287 — v.S. (54 Missis, 490) i. 613; ii. 420, 441 —, C. v. (4 Pa, 269) i. 1073, 109t, 1227, | —— ». S. (19 Ohio St. 264) i. 1114 1232, 1289, 1256 ; ii. 608 | —— v. S. (81 Tex. Cr. 577) ii, 728 — vr. §. (3 Head, 2438) ii. 616 | —— v. S. (50 Wis. 68) i, 1362 —— v. 8, (11 Ind, 311) i, 1854 | —-, S. v. (9 Nev. 91) i. 706a, 707 a, 966 ——, 8. v. (3 Harring. Del. 567) i. 1227 | —, S. ». (12 Nev. 125) i. 1181, 1182; —, 8. v (27 Mo. 120) i. 1895 ii, 621 Harmes v. S. (26 Tex. Ap. 190; 8 —,S. v. (2 Tyler, 44) i, 1315 Am. St, 470) ii. 276 | Harriot, P. v. (3 Par. Cr. 112) i. 882 Harmison, U. 8. vo. (3 Saw. 656) _i, 814, | Harris’s Case (Cro. Jac. 502) i. 801 1298, 1827 | Harris, Ex parte (26 Fla. 77; 28 Harmon, C. v. (2 Gray, 289) i. 1265;/ Am. St. 548) i. 814 ii. 791 | —-, Ex parte (73 N. C. 65) i. 1160 —, P. v. (49 Hun, 558) _ 1. 425 | —— ». Barnett (4 Blackf. 369) i, 1187 — v.8. (3 Tex. Ap. 61) i, 1218 ; | —— v. Beaven (11 Bush, 254) i, 286 ii. 746 | —— v. C. (28 Pick. 280) i. 1801 —,S. v. (106 Mo. 635) ii, 83181 -——, C. v. (8 Gray, 470) i, 235 574 HAR INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. HAR oa C. v. (101 Mass, 29) ii. 864, 874.5 | Harris ». S. (17 Tex. Ap. 559) i. 795 —, C. v. (181 Mass. 336) ii, 965 v. S. (20 Tex. Ap. 652) ii. 147 — 2. Veen (4 Esp. 162) i. 406 v. 8. (28 Tex Ap. 808; 19 Am. — v. P. (9 Barb. 664) ii. 422! St. 837) i. 1060 — ». P, (128 Ill. 585; 15 Am. St. —v.§. (31 Tex. Cr. 411) ii. 629 1) i, 893 | ——, S. v. (2 Halst. 361) i. 665 — Bae Ill. 457) i. 1291, 1853 | ——, S. v. (8 Harring. Del. 559) ii. 710 — v. P. (44 Mich. 805) ij. 145 | —, S. ev. (11 Iowa, 414) i. 436 — v. P. (59 N. Y. 599) i, 1873 | ——, S. v. (38 Iowa, 856) i. 9805 —— ». P, (64 N.Y. 148) i. 1010, 10154 ; | —, S. v. (88 Iowa, 242) ii. 217, 219 ii, 9384 | ——, S. v. (5 Ire. 287) ii. 482 a, 459a —— v. P. (6 Thomp. & C. 206) i, 452 | —, S. ov. (1 Jones, N. C. 190) i, 982 — , P. v. (9 Cal. 571) i. 1264] —, S. v. (8 Jones, N. C. 186; 78 —, P. v. (4 Denio, 150) i. 68, 69,71] Am. D. 272) ii. 666 —, P. v. (Edm. Sel. Cas. 458) i. 961 ——,, 8. v. (27 La, An. 572) ii. 546 —, P.e. (77 Mich. 568) i. 975¢; ii. 751 | —, S. v. (80 La. An. 90) i. 946 ——, P. uv, (95 Mich. 87) ii. 618, 638 a | —, S. v. (80 La, An. 1340) i. 1264 —, P. v. (186.N. Y. 423) ii. 629 | —, S. v. (84 La. An. 118) i, 276, 9824 — v. Panama Rid. (3 Bosw. 7) i. 1178 ; | —,, S. v. (89 La. An. 1105) i. 1004 ii, 677 —, S. v. (84 Mo. 347) i. 618; ii. 80 — v. Purdy (1 Stew. 281) i. 1015 , S. v. (59 Mo. 550) ii. 615, 621, 625 — ., Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 106) i. 1219 | —, 8. v. (63 N. C. 1) ii. 626, 681 — , Reg. v. (8 Cox C. C. 838) ij. 742 | —, 8. v. (64. N. C. 127) i. 488 d; —, Rex v. (3 Bur. 1830; 1 W. BL. ii. 700, 710 . 878) i, 69, 70, 73 | ——, S. v. (91 N. C. 656) i. 870 — , Rex »v. (5 Car. & P, 159) ii. 653 | ——, S. v. (106 N. C. 682) i. 408, 422, "440, —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 416) i. 564 480, 502, 649, 1264 ——,, Rex »v. (7 Car. & P. 429) ii. 428 | ——, S. v. (12 Nev. 414) i. 279, 281, 772, ——, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 581) i, 966¢ 998 a; ii. 540, 542 —, Rex v. (1D. & R. 578; 5B. & —, S. v. (2 Sneed, 224) i. 547 Ald. 926) ii. 918 | Harrison’s Case (2 Lewin, 118) ii. 261 —, Rex v. (7 How. St. Tr. 925) i. 1114 | Harrison v.C. (79 Va. 874; 52 Am. R. —, Rex v. (1 Ld. Raym. 267; 634) ii. 617 Comb. 447; Holt, 399; Skin. 684) — ,C.v. (11 Gray, 808) i. 899, 1121; i. 275 ; ii. 818 —, Rex v. (1 Ld. Raym. 482) i. 1811 | ——, Reg. cv. (9 Cox C. C. 503) ii. 983 8, —., Rex v. (1 Moody, 338) i. 1259 985 —, Rex ». (1 Salk. 47) i, 714 | ——, Rex v. (1 Chit. 571) i. 1880 v, Rupel (14 Ind. 209) i. 1279 | ——, Rex v, (4 Harg. St. Tr. 487; 12 — v. 8. (73 Ala. 495) i. 1195; ii. 740] How. St. Tr. 833) i. 1195 — v. S. (78 Ala. 482) i. 1181, 1182} ——, Rex v. (12 Mod. 156) i, 275 — v.S. (81 Ark. 196) i. 1003 | —— v. 8. (86 Ala. 248) ii. 401 — v.S. (34 Ark. 469) 1. 975c; ii. 627 ; —— v. S. (37 Ala. 154) i. 1112; ii. 288 —-— v.58. (53 Ga. 640) i. 1054; ii. 68, 633 v. 8. (65 Ala. 239) i. 665 — v.58. (58 Ga. 322) ii. 8306 | —— v. S. (2 Coldw. 232) ii. 77, 653, 655, — 1. 8. (59 Ga. 635) i. 975 c, 1012 656, 657 — v. S. (61 Ga. 359) i. 978, 1117 | —— v. S. (83 Ga. 129) i. 1066 v. §. (80 Ind. 181) i, 980a | —— v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 588) i, 68, 931 — v. 8. (54 Ind. 2) i. 264a | —— v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 42) i. 1076 — v. 8. (2 Kelly, 211) i. 1265, 1267 | —— v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 188) i. 975¢ — v.&. (3 Lea, 324) i, 622 | ——v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 407) i. 975c, 981 — v. 8. (7 Lea, 538) i. 984, 1159 | —— v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 98) i. 975 —v. 8. (61 Missis. 304) ii. 152) —— v. 8. (16 Tex. Ap. 325) i. 1265, 1277 — v8. (4 Neb. 803) i, 999 | —— v. S. (17 Tex. Ap. 442) i. 1169 —v.§. (1 Tex. Ap. 74) i, 981, 1244, | —— v. S. (20 Tex. AD. 887; 54 Am. 1245) RB. 629) i. 1086, 1238 — v.§. (2 Tex. Ap. 102) i. 408, 1857 | ——, S. v. (19 Ark. 565) i, 691 —v.S. (2 Tex. Ap. 134) i, 1264 |] ——, S. v. (6 Jones, N. C. 115) i, 979, — v.S. (6 Tex. Ap. 97) i, 981, 1222 980d; ii. 600 — v.S. (8 Tex. Ap. 90) i. 951a, 1012, | ——, S. v. (88 La, An. 501) i. 1193 1050 | —, S. c. (69 N.C. 143) i. 6890; ii. 424 — v.§, (18 Tex. Ap. 809) i, 978 | ——, S. v. (104 N. C. 728) i, 1285 — v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 676) i, 1850 | —— v. Thornborough (10 Mod. 196) —v.S. (15 Tex. Ap, 411) ii. 740 ; ii. 793 — v. S, (16 Tex. Ap. 629) i, 1170! Harrod, 8. v. (102 Mo. 590) ii. 621 575 HAR Harrold, S. v. (88 Mo. 496) ji. 151 Harrow, Rex v. (4 Bur. 2090) ii. 1045 —— 1.5, (1 Greene, Iowa, 439) i, 486 Harsh, 5S. v. (6 Blackf. 846) 11. 823, 827 Hart’s Case (Cro. Jac. 472) i, 502; ii. 948 Hart v. C. (85 Ky. 77; 7 Am. St. 576) i. 627 —,C. v. (11 Cush. 180; 1 Ben. & H. Lead. Cas. 250) i. 636, 638, 639 ——,C. v. (10 Gray, 465) i. 897; ii. 105 —, C. v. (6 J.J. Mar. 119) ii. 304, 809 — , C. v. (123 Mass, 416) i, 187 ——, C. v. (149 Mass. 7) i. 826, 828 —, C. v. (2 Rob. Va. 819) i. 1138; ii. 933.4 — v. Cleis (8 Johns. 41) i, 639 —— v. Lindsey (17 N. H. 285; 48 Am. ID. 597) i, 683 —, P. v. (44 Cal. 598) v. Powell (18 Ga. 635) ii. 625 ——, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 128 i, 878 ——, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 652 i. 461 —, Rex v. (10 East, 94) ii. 800 —, Rex v. (30 How. St. Tr. 1131; 12 Q. B. 1041, note) i. 1001, 1310, 1312, 1827, 1838 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 145; 2 Kast P. C. 978) i, 559, 562 ——, Rex v. (1 Moody, 486) i. 989 5 — vv. Robinett (5 Misso. 11) ii. 763 — v. 8. (40 Ala, 382; 88 Am. D. 752) i, 1169 v, 8. (57 Ind. 102) ii, 754 —— v. 5S. (14 Neb. 572) i, 318, 1356 —— v. S. (20 Ohio, 49) i, 486 —— v. §. (38 Tex, 882) 1.1005 a; ii. 62, 77 —v. 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 39) i. 264.4, 436, 686, 590 v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 655) i. 264 m v. S. tha Tex. Ap. 325) i. 1264 v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 657) i. 961 v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 202; 49 Am. TR. 188) ii. 638 —, S. v. (29 Towa, 268) i. 878; ii. a —, S.v. (67 Iowa, 142) i, — , S. v. (4 Ire. 246) i. 314a, rl —, 8S. v. (84 Me. 36) i. 759; ii. 868, 876 —, S. v. (66 Mo. 208) i, 1266 —, S. v. (47 Mo. Ap. 658) i, 713 —, Territory v. (7 Mont. 489) i. 998 a, 999 —— v. Vidal (6 Cal. 56) ii, 751 Hartall, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 475) i. 449; ii. 6, 9, 980, 981 Hartel, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 773) i. 969 Harten, S. v. (4 Harring. Del. 682) ii. 694, 695 Hartford v. Palmer (16 Johns. 148) i. 1142 — v. 8. (96 Ind. 461; 49 Am. R, 185) i, 976 c, 1181, 1182 Hartford Bank v. Hart (3 Day, 491; 3 Am. D, 274) ii, 428 Hartigan, S, v. (19 N. H. 248) i, 966¢ —». Territory (1 Wash. Ter.N. 8. 447) i, 083, 934, 998 576 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. HAS Hartleb, S. v. (85 La. An. 1180) fi. 981 Hartless v. S. (32 Tex. 88) i, 1269 Hartman, Ex parte (44 Cal. 82) i. 1410 — v. Aveline (68 Ind. 344; 830 Am. R. 217) i, 228 —-, P. v, (62 Cal. 562) . i. 1120, 1124 —, S. rv. (8 Bax. 384) i. 522 —, S. v. (5 Lea, 118) j. 1817 —, 8. uv, (41 Tex. 562) ii. 58 Hartmann ». C. (5 Pa. 60) i. 520; ii, 218 Hartnett v. S. (42 Ohio St. 568) i, 949 —, 8S. v. (75 Mo. 251) i, 1855; ii. 967 Hartranft’s Appeal (85 Pa. 433; 27. Am. R. 667) Hartshorn »v. 8. (29 Ohio St. 635) Hartung v. P. (22 N. Y. 95) — v. P, (26 N. Y. 154) . — v. P. (26 N. Y. 167; 28 N. Y. 400; 28 How. Pr. 314) i. 750, 824 —v.P. (4 Par. Cr. 319) i. 1238, 1265; ii. 631, 632@ —, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 256) i. 998 a, 1079, 1270; ii. 658, 681, 632, 637, 645 Hartwell, In re 4 Low, 536) i, 1338 —, C. v. (128 Mass. 415; 85 Am. i. 865 ii 2,9 i. 1368 i. 760 R. 391) ii. 687, 588 a —, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 32) i, 258 —, S. v. (85 Me. 12) i, 233, 1850 —, U.S. »v. (8 Clif. 221) i. 1248 ——, U.S. v. (6 Wal. 385) ii, 829 Hartzell v. C. (40 Pa. 462) i. 940 Harvell, S. v. (4 Jones, N. C. 65) ii. 911, 933 Harvey’s Case (Foster, 51) i, 297 Case (10 Mod. 334) i. 256, 259 Harvey v. C. (23 Grat. 941) i. 1012; ii. 764, 767 ——, C. v. (103 Mass. 451) — i. 730, 1354 —, Cv. (111 Mass. 420) i. 706 a ——, Reg. v. (8 Cox C. C. 99) i, 329, 1145; ii. 921, 933 a, 984 —, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C. 284; 11 Cox C. C. 662) ii, 270 —, Rex v. (8 D. & R. 464; 2 B.& C. 257) ii. 1100; ii. 427 a ——, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 658) i, 1242 —, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 197) ii, 1050 — v. 8. (68 Ark. 425; 22 Am. St. 229) ii, 142 — v. §. (67 Ga. 639) i. 951; ii. 87 — v, §. (40 Ind. 516) i, 1179 ——, S. v. (28 La. An. 105) i. 1197 —, S. v. (3 N. H. 65) ii, 877 Harwood, C. v. (4Gray, 41; 64 Am. D, 49 i. 1087; ii. 116 — v. P. (26 N. Y. 190; 84 Am. D. 175) ii, 112, 117, 118 ——, Rex v. (2 Stra. 1088) i, 275 —— v. 8. (16 Tex. Ap. 416) i, 1841 ——, 8. v. (Winst, i, 228) i, 1859 — ». Siphers (70 ag 464) i, 228, 679 Hascall, §, v, (6.N. H. 362) i, 932, 999, 1270; ii. 985 b, 988 e, 934 Hash, 8. v, (12 La, An. 895) i, 1239 HAU INDEX TO THE Hashaw, S. v. (2 Car. Law Repos. 251 ii. 1817, 1818 Haskell, Sy uv. (76 Me. 399) i, 436 —, U.S. v. (4 Wash. C.C. 402) i. 997 Haskett, ‘S. v. (Riley, 97; 38 Hill, 8. C. 95) i. 1895 Haskill v. C. (3 B. Monr. 342) i. 1049 Haskins, C. v. (128 Mass. 60) i. 1015 a — 9,1. (14 Bradw. 198) i, 68, 74 — v. P, (16 N. Y. 844) i. 60, 370, 1125, 1170; ii. 727 -—— v. Ralston (69 Mich. 63 ; 18 Am. St. 376) i, 187, 322; ii. 426 —, U.S. v. (8 Saw. 262) i. 223 b Haslam, Rex v. (1 Leach, 418 ; 2 East P. C. 782) i. 1160; ii. 988 a Haslip v. S. (10 Neb. 590) ii. 460 Hasselmeyer v. 8. (1 Tex. Ap. 690) i. 981, 9382 a, 949 a —v.S. (6 Tex. Ap. 21) i, 1279 Hasset, S. v. (Taylor, 55) i. 1188 Hastings v. Bolton (1 Allen, 529) = i, 123 —,, C. v. (9 Met. 259) i. 183, 189, 263 a, 1382; ii. 881 v. Lovering (2 Pick. 214; 18 Am. D. 420) i. 406 —. Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 152) i. 1169 —, 8. v. (638 N. H. 452) i. 486; ii. 424 Haswell, Rex v. (1 Doug. 887) i. 713 Hatch v. Fuller (131 Mass, 574) —_ i. 1086 v. S. (40 Ala. 718) i, 264 m v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 384) ii, 482 b — v.S. (8 Tex. Ap. 416; 34 Am. R. 751) i. 89, 975 a — v.§. (10 Tex. Ap. 515) ii. 822, 941 —, S. v. (59 Me. 410) i. 264 a —, S. uv. (91 Mo. 568) ii. 727 Hatcher, C. 7. (6 Grat. 667) i. 514 — v. 8. (18 Ga. 460) i. 665, 980; ii. 662 — v. S. (23 Ga. 307) i, 139 —, S. v. (11 Rich. 525) i. 1371 Hatfield, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 244) ii. 784 —, Rex v. (Cas. temp. Hardw. 315) ii, 1045 v. S. (76 Ga. 499) i. 682 — ,§. v. (3 Head, 231) i, 864 —, S. v. (72 Mo. 518) ii. 967 Hathaway ». East Tennessee, &c. Rid. (29 Fed, Rep. 489) i. 981 v. Scott (11 Paige, 173) i, 231 Hathcock, S. v. (7 Ire. 52) ii. 996 Hathorn v. King (8 Mass. 371; 5 Am. D. 106) ii, 682 Hattabough, S. v. (66 Ind. 223) i. 1264 Hatton, C. v. (15 B. Monr. 687) i. 686 —, Cv. (3 Grat. 628) i. 1016 Hatwood v. S. (18 Ind. 492) i. 405 Hauck »v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 357) i. 1279 Haught v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 8) _ i. 665, 694 Haughton, Reg. ». (1 Ellis & B. 501; 18 Eng. L. & Eq. 287) ii. 1044, 1054 —, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 659) ii. 849 Haun, P. v. (44 Cal. 96) i. 964, 1269 —— v. 8. (13 Tex, Ap. 883; 44 Am. R. 706) i, 660, 651; ii, 431 me u.— 387 CASES CITED. HAW Hausenfluck v. C. (85 Va. 702) Hauser v. S. (33 Wis. 678) i, ae 387 i. 814 a, 1881 Hauskins v. P. (82 Ill. 193) i, 1264 Havely, S. v. (21 Mo. 498) i. 792, 798 Haven, S. r. (43 Iowa, 181) i. 1269 —, S. v. (59 Vt. 399) i, 434 Haverly Invincible Mining Co. v. Howcutt (6 Colo. 574) Havey, S. v. (58 N. H. 877) Hawdon, Reg v. (11 A. & E. 143) —, Reg. v. (1 Q. B. 464; 1 Gale & D. 185) i, 264 b Hawes, C. v. (6 Cent. L. J. 850; 18 Bush, 697 ; 26 Am. R, 242) i. 224 6 —, P. v. (98 Cal. 648) ii, 633 v. S. (88 Ala. 37) i. 68, 72, 926, 1093 —,S. v. (65 N. C. 801) i, 235 —_S. v. (48 Ohio St. 16) i. 1265, 1402 Hawker v. P. (76 N. Y. 487) i. 423, 426 Hawkes, Reg. v. (2 Moody, oO ii. 472 Hawkeswood, Rex v.. (2 T. R. 606, note) ii. 407 Hawkins v. C. (14 B. Monr. 895; 61 Am. D. 147) i, 204, 205 —, C. v. (11 Bush, 603) ii. 63 a —, C. v. (3 Gray, 468) i. 764; ii. 603, 606, 617 v. Grimes (18 B. Monr. 257) ii. 482 ¢ v. House (65 N. C. 614) i. 980 ——v. Mills (2 Lev. 102) i. 344 —, P. v. (84 Cal. 181) ii. 980 —, Rex v. (Foster, 38) ii. 188 —, Rex v. (6 How. St. Tr. 921) i. 729 —,, Rex v. (Peake, 8 i. 488 ——,, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 167) ii. 915 v. S. (9 Ala. 187; 44 Am. D. 31) i. 1018, 1028, 1296 v. &. (18 Ga. 822; 68 Am. D. 17) i. 1023; ii. 26 v. §. (25 Ga. 207; 71 Am. D. 66) i. 1175; ii. 638 uv. §. (54 Ga. 653) i. 189; ii. 826 v, 8. (126 Ind. 294) i, 718 ——v. 8. (7 Misso. 190) i, 1226, 1227, 1854 — v.§. (17 Tex. Ap. 593; 50 Am. i. 449; R. 129) i.3l4a —— v.S. (27 Tex. Ap. 273) i. 1288 —, S. v. (5 Eng. 71) i, 854 ——,S. v. (77 N. C. 494) ii, 828 —, S. v, (115 N. C. 712) ii. 927 —,S. v, (18 Or. 476) i. 68, 951, 975 b, 975 ¢ uv, Watkins (34 Minn. 554) i, 286 Hawks »v. Patton (18 Ga. 211) ii, 799 Hawley v. C. (75 Va. 847) ii, 648, 651 , P. v. (8 Mich. 330) i, 989 b Haworth, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 264) i, 1255; ii. 433 — v.S. (Peck, 89) ii. 843 Haws. S. v. (98 Mo. 188) i. 68 Hawthorn v. 8. (55 Md. 530) i. 711 Hawthorne v. S. (68 Missis. 778) ii. 601 577 HAY INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. HEA Hawthorne v. S. (61 Missis. 749) ii. 621 | Haynes, S. v. (71 N. C. 79) i 966, 1248 — »v. 8. (28 Tex. Ap. 212) i. 975 c, | —, 8. v. (36 Vt. 667) i. 816, 1264 978, 1265 | ——, U. 8. v. (26 Fed. Rep. 857) i. 815 —, U.S. v. (1 Dil. 422) i. 1181 | —, U.S. v. (29 Fed. Rep. 691) i. 1265 Hay’ v. Ousterout (3 Ohio, 384) i. 1013 | Hayney v. S. (5 Pike, 72) : i. 683 Hayden v. C. (10 B. Monr. 125) i, 692, | Haynie v. S. (32 Missis. 400) i. 1050, 1265 943, 1264, 1364 | —— v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 168) i, 1243; —,C. v. (4 Gray, 18) i, 926 ii, 482 a, 10295 —, C. v. (150 Mass. 332) i. 81, 88; |} —— ». 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 223) i. 1264 ii. 31, 34 | Hays v. Borders (1 Gilman, 46) i. 980 —— v. Hayden (46 Cal. 332) i. 706 | —— v. Riddle (1 Sandf. 248) ii. Wee ——, S. v. (45 Iowa, 11) 1.951, 1094; ii. 143 | —— v. S. (77 Ind. 450) i, 56 —, S. v. (85 Minn. 288) i, 1407 | —— v. 8. (57 Missis. 783) i. 534; ii. 959 —, S. v. (88 Mo. 198) ii. 613 | —— v. 8. (18 Mo. 246) 551 —, S. v. (15 N. H. 855) i. 692; ii, 443, | —— v. S. (80 Tex. Ap. 472) i. "1335 455, 456 | ——, S. v. (21 Ind. 288) ii. 726 ——, S. v. (51 Vt. 296) i. 946; ii. 679, 683 | ——, 8. v. (22 La. An. 39) ii, 682, 6874 —, S. v. (32 Wis. 668) ii. 10538 | ——, S. v. (23 Mo. 287) i. 945, 1250 Haydon, Rex ». (3 Bur. 1387) i, 1291 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 445) ii. 776 | ——, S. v. (78 Mo. 600) i. 488e, 991, "309 Hayen »v, P. (3 Par. Cr. 175) i, 1265 ii, 321 Hayes, C. v. (138 Mass. 185) i. 1060 | ——, S. v. (41 Tex. 526) ii. 58 —— ». Mitchell (80 Ala. 183) i. 183 | Hayward’s Case (Cro. Eliz. 148) __ ii. 862 v. P. (5 Par. Cr. 325) i. 522 | Hayward »v. P. (96 lll. 492) i. 1181, 1182 v. Reg. (2 Cox C. C. 105) i, 934 | ——, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 234) ii. 483 ——, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 155) i. 470, | ——, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 157) i. 1212 1037, 1040; ii. 988 | ——, S. v. (83 Mo. 299) ii. 790 —, Rex v. (2Ld. Raym. 1518) i. 1011 ——,, S. v. (1 Nott & McC. 546) ii. 921, —, Rex v. (2 Stra. 843) i. 1006, 1013, ; 929, 980 1014, 1284 | Haywood v. Foster (16 Ohio, 88) i. 1175 v. S. (58 Ga. 35) i. 313, 314, 730a, 882 | — v. S. (47 Missis. 1) i. 97 v. S. (15 Lea, 64) ii. 64 | ——, S. v. (73 N. C. 487) i, 882 — v8. (14 Tex. Ap. 330) i. 975c | ——, S. v. (94 N.C. 847) i. 882, 884. ——, S. v. (67 Iowa, 27) i. 801 | ——, S. v. (Phillips, N. C. 876) i. 1050; ——,, S. v. (24 Mo. 358) i. 414 ii. 599 ——,, S. v. (78 Mo. 8 i. 991, 992, 1255 ; | Hayworth v. S. (14 Ind. 590) i. 1011; ii. 53 ii. 841 — , S. v. (81 Mo. 674) i. 68 Heer 8. v. (2 R. I. 474; 60 Am. —, S. v. (88 Mo. 344) i. 67,68} D.9 6) i. 426, 449, 458 ; ii. 982 —, S. v. (105 Mo. 76; 24 Am. rie Hazel, Rex v. (1 Leach, 368) i. 384, 1013 360) i, 153 | Hazell, Reg. v. (2 Cox Cc. C. 220) i. 1040 v. U. S. (82 Fed. Rep. 662): i. ‘O15, —, 8. v. (95 N. C. 628) i. 1006 : 982 | ——, S. v. (100 N. C. 471) i, 612 Hayman v. Rogers (1 Stra. 232) i. 406 Hazelton, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 2 C. C. Haynes v. C. (28 Grat. 942) i. 1084, 1085] 134) ii. 183 —, C. v. (2 Gray, 72; 61 Am. D. 437 ii, 851, 358, 864 ——, C. v. (107 Mass. 194) i. 717 —, P. v. (65 Barb. 450; 38 How. Pr, 369) i. 1169; ii. 34, 43 —, P. v. (11 Wend. 557) ii, 168 —, P.v. (14 Wend. 546; 28 Am. D. 530) ii, 171 —, Rex v. (12 Co. 113) ii, 721 ——, Rex v. (4M. & 8, 214) i. 182; ii. 6 v. 8. (17 Ga. 465) ii. 615, 630 —— v.8. (46 Ind. 424) i. 1277 v. 8. (40 Tex. 52) i. 978 v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 84) ii. 68 — v.58. (10 Tex. Ap. 480) i. 975¢ —, S. v. (6 Coldw. 550) ii. 407, 422 —, 8. v. (54 Iowa, 109) i, 851 — 8. v. (66 Me. 807; 22 Am. R. 569) ii. 37 —,S. v. (74 Me. 161) i. 1810 578 Hazen v. C. (237 Pa. 355) i. 1015; ii, 222 — v.S. (58 Ind. 197) i. 1280 —, S. v. (39 Iowa, 648) i, 1152 Hazle, S. v. (20 Ark. 156) ii, 851, 855 Hazy, Rex v. (2 Car. & P. 458) ii. ae vee v. 8. (42 Ind. 393) i, 703 — 2+. 8. (13 Tex. Ap. 97) i. 919, 1179 Head v. Hughes (1 A. K. Mar, 872; 10 Am. D. 742) —— v. 8. (44 Missis. 731) Heald v. Thing (45 Me. 392) Healey, Rex v. (1 Moody, 1) i, 832; ii. 721, 780 Heane, Reg. e. (9 Cox C. ©. 433; 10 Jur. n. s. 724) i. 762, 763, 772 Heanley v. 8. (74 Ind. 99) i. 718 Heanor, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R, 445, note) i. 1317 —, Reg. v. (6 Q. B. 745) i, 1817 i, 893 i. 875, 878 ii. 683, 687 HEI INDEX TO THE Heaps, Rex v. (2 Salk. 593) i. 464 Heard v. Faris (1 Litt. 245) ii. 307 —— v. Pierce (8 Cush. 338; 54 Am, D. 767 — v. 8. (70 Ga. 597) — v. 8. (59 Missis. 545) — v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 1) i. 868 i, 1094 i. 1249 i. 1127, a Hearing, U. S. v. (26 Fed. Rep. 744) ii. 923 Hearn, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 109) i. 1228, 1227, 1261; ii. 58 Hearsey, C. v. (1 Mass. 148) i. 488 Heas, 8. v. (10 La. An. 195) ii. 544, 548 Heath v. C. (1 Rob. Va. 735) i. 909, 1125 —,, C. v. (11 Gray, 303) ii. 670, 672 —, Reg. v. (18 How. St. Tr. 1) i. 966c — v. §. (34 Ala. 250) i. 1269 —v. S. (36 Ala. 273) li. 882, 891 — v. 8. (101 Ind. 512) i, 354 — v.58. (7 Tex. Ap. 464) i. 975c, 978, 1170, 1189 — v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 213) i. 264. m —, S. v. (70 Mo. 565) ii, 829 —, 8. v. (41 Tex. 426) ii. 840 Heatherly v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 21) i. 1264 —, S. v. (4 Misso. 478) i. 1264 Heathman, S. v. ( Wright, 690) i. 2340 Heaton, S. v. (77 N. C. 505) ii. 836 —, S. v. (81 N. C. 542) i. 639 —, S. v. (23 W. Va. 773) i. 700; ii. 740 Hebb, Rex v. (2 Russ. Crimes, Ist ed. 1244) ii. 387 Hebel, S. v. (72 Ind. 361) i. 127; ii. 815 Hebert, S. v. (39 La. An. 319) ii, 666 — , 8. v. (27 Vt. 595) i. 1265 Heck ». Martin (75 Tex. 469 ; 16 Am. St. 915) i. 236 Hector v. S. (2 Misso. 166; 22 Am. D. 454) i, 1237 Hedge, S. v. (6 Ind. 330) i. 854 Hedges v. Chapman (2 Bing. 523; 10° Moore, 148) i. 182 —— v. Madison (1 Gilman, 306) i. 1366 —-, Rex v. (3 Car. & P. 410) il. 260 —, Rex v. (28 How. St. Tr. 1815) ii. 245 Hedrick v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 570) = i. 264. m —, 8. v. (35 Tex. 485) ii. 941 Heed v. S. (25 Wis. 421) ii. 740 — , 8. v. (57 Mo. 252) —, 8. v. (62 ‘Mo. 559) Heenan, S. v. (8 Minn, 44) Heesom, Reg. v. (14 Cox C. C. 40; 20 Eng. Rep. 384) i, 1200 Heffren, Ex parte (27 Ind. 87) i. a ae v. C. (4 Met. Ky. 5) Heffron, C. v. (102 Mass. 148) i. S71. ‘g78, i. 1094; ii, 928 i, 264 m, 1264 i. 1268 ii. 866 —, P. v. (53 Mich. 527) i. 825 —— v.S. (8 Fla. 78) i. 964, 1265 Heflin v. S. (88 Ga. 151; 80 Am. St. 147) i, 814; ii. 933 —, S. v. (8 Humph. 84) ii. 19 Hefner v. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 573) Hegler v. Faulkner (127 U.S. 482) i. 316 Heiderer v. P. (2 Colo. 672) i. 1264, 1314 i, 890 | —— CASES CITED. HEN Heikes v, C. (26 Pa. 518) i. 871 Heilbonn, In re (1 Par. Cr. 429) i, 224 Heilbron v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 537) i: ie Hein, S. v. (50 Mo. 862) i, 825 Heine v. C. (91 Pa. 145) i. 1116, "1248 Heiser v. Loomis (47 Mich. 16) ii. 67 Helbing, P. v. (59 Cal. 567) i, 811, 812 —, P. v. (61 Cal. 620) li. 65 Heldt v. S. (20 Neb. 492 ; 57 Am. R. 835) i, 1181, 1226 ——, S. v. (41 Tex. 220) i, 872 Helfrick v. C. (29 Grat. 844) i. 612 Helgen, S. vs (1 Speers, 810) i. 571, 586; ii. 815 Hellems v. 8. (22 Ark. 207) i, 981 Heller, P. v. (2 Utah, 183) i, 125, 1854 — v. §. (28 Ohio St. 582) i. 1004 Helm v. 8. (67 Missis. 562) i. 906, 1145, 1400 — v. §. (20 Tex. Ap. 41) i. 1138 —, 8. «. (6 Misso. 263) i, 611 v. Slader (1 A. K. Mar. 320) ii. 378 Helsham, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 394) i, 381; i. 638 Helston, Reg. v. (10 Mod. 202) i. ‘277, 1281 Helton v. Miller (14 Ind. 577) i. 1839 Helvin, S. v. (65 Iowa, 289) i. 975 ¢, 980 Hemanus ve. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 872) i. 1264 Hemingway v. 8. (68 Missis. 371, 421) i. 461, 975c Hemmings, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 50) ii. 1007 Hemp, Rex v. (3 Car. & P. 468) i. 1070, 1117 ee v. 8. (71 Missis. 877) ii. 934 ——,, 8. uv. (4 Dev. & Bat. 109) ii. 895 eval Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 344) 1. 1037 Hemrick, S. v. (62 Iowa, 414) i. 1066 Henis, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 312) i, 183 Hench »v. S. (72 Ind. 297) i. 279 Hendee v. Taylor (29 Conn. 448) i. "264 j Henderson v. Hackney (16 Ga. 521) ii. 432 5 v. P. (117 Ill. 265) ii. 908 —, P. v. (28 Cal. 465) i. 314, 851, 872, Bre 1085, 1264; ii. 611, 621, 625 » (2 Moody, 192; Car. fi. 168, 172 Se (70 Ala, 23; 45 Am. R. 72 i. 1020; ii. 180, 740 — v. S. (70 Ala. 29) ii. 661 v. S. (12 Tex. 525) i. 1008, 1276 ; ii. 68 — 2. S. (14 Tex. 503) i, 884, 1052 ; ii, 427 a, 481, 4838, 484, 486, 451, 480 — v. §. (22 Tex. ’593) i. 951 a — v.§&. (1 Tex. Ap. 432) ii. 827 —— v.§. (2 Tex. Ap. 88) i. 440 —— v.§. (5 Tex, Ap. 184) i.975c, 10054 — v.58. (20 Tex. Ap. 804) i. 1264 , S.v, (74 Ind. 28) i. 712 —, 8. v. (13 La. An. 489) i, 1269 —, 8. v. (82 La. An. 779) i. 981 579 HEN INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. HER Henderson, S. v. (15 Mo. 486) ii. 888) Henry, S. v. (48 Iowa, 403) i. 1066 — , S. v. (68 N. C. 348) i. 685, 689 a | —, S. v. (59 Iowa, 391) ii, 481 ——, 8. v. (1 Rich. 179) ii. 785, 786, 788, | ——, S.v. (5 Jones, N. C. 65) i. 1114, 1115; 793 ii. 965 —, S. v. (29 W. Va. 147) i. 984, 947; | ——, S. v. (24 Kan. 457) ii, 732 ii. 412, 473 | —, U.S. v. (3 Ben. 29) i, 611 Hendric, U. S. v. (2 Saw. 476) i, 481] ——, U. S. v. (4 Wash. C. C. 428) i. 1020, Hendrick v. C. (6 Leigh, 707) i. 909, 921, 1167 1128 ; ii. 428) Hensche v. P. (16 Mich. 46) i. 747, 762 — v. 8. (6 Tex. 341) i. 733 | Hensey, Rex v. (1 Bur. 642) i. 738 Hendricks v. 8. (73 Ga. 577) i, 975c | Henshaw, P. v. (52 Mich. 564) i. 966¢, 1274 v. S. (26 Ind. 498) ii. 921, 982 — v.S. (26 Tex. Ap. 176; 8 Am. St. 463) ii, 415 v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 416) i. 966, 982 a —., S. v. (Conference, 369) i. 887 ——-, S. v. (82 Kan. 559) i. 1086 — ,S. v. (88 La. An. 682) i, 10054 Hendrickson v. C. (85 Ky. 281; 7 Am. St. 596) i. 1100; ii. 602 — v. P. (1 Par. Cr. 406) i. 1107, oe 125 ——v. P. (6 Seld. 13; 61 Am. D. 721) i. 1107, 1255; ii. 630 , P. v, (1 Par. Cr. 396) i. 1862 Hendrie, C. v. (2 Gray, 503) i. 651 Hendrix v. Money (1 Bush, 306) __ ii. 674 — v. 5S. (60 Ala, 148) i. 983; ii. 912 Hendryx v. Sharp (13 Ark. 806) i. 1275 Hendy, Reg. v. (4 Cox C. C. 243) i. 782; ii. 10294 Henley, C. v. (1 Va. Cas. 145) ii. 763 —,S. v. (30 Mo. 609) ii. 142, 148, 144 , S.v. (R. M. Charl. 505) i. 905, 1279 Henn, S. v. (39 Minn. 464) i. 442 Hennepin Sheriff, S. v. (24 Minn. 87) i. 1410 Hennessey, P. v. (15 Wend. 147) i. 1058 Hennessy v. Connolly (13 Hun, 173) i. 183 —, S. v. (55 Iowa, 299) i. 1170 Hennies v. P. (70 Ill. 100) i, 1264 Henning v. P. (40 Mich. 733) i. 795 — v.58. (106 Ind. 386; 55 Am. R. 756) i. 888, 998 Henrich, In re (5 Blatch. 414; 10 Cox C. C. 626) i, 224, 224 a Henrie v. S. (41 Tex. 573) —_ i. 909, 9495, 1269; ii. 544 Henries, P. v. (1 Par. Cr. 579) i. 314 a, 939 Henry v. C. (4 Bush, 427) i. 268, 264, 2 64 f) Herres, In re (33 Fed. Rep. 165) —, C. v. (2 Brews. 566) ii. 782 — , CO. v. (7 Cush. 512) i. 235 — v. §. (33 Ala. 389) i. 489, 752, 809, 814, 817 — v. S. (36 Ala. 268) i. 384 v. 8. (77 Ala. 75) i. 047 v. S. (4 Humph. 270) i 9494; ii. 88 — v. §. (11 Humph. 224) ii, 631 — rv. 8, (113 Ind. 304) ii. 815 v. S. (85 Ohio St. 128) ii. 478 v. S. (24 Tex. 861) i. 1264 — v. S. (45 Tex. 84) ii. 697, 728 —— »v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 388) ii. 62 —— v.58. (9 Tex. Ap. 358) i. 975 c, 978 580 ——, Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 444) ii. 166, 194 Hensley v. C. (1 Bush, 11; 89 Am. D. 604 i. 488 b, 6896 —, C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 149) ii. 449 — v. 8. (9 Humph. 243) ii. 53 v. 8. (107 Ind. 587) i, 815 , S. v. (7 Blackf. 324) i. 882 Henslie v. S. (3 Heisk. 202) i. 123, 1004, 1018 Hensly v. 8. (52 Ala. 10) 1.1125 5 | Henson, Reg. v. (Dears. 24; 18 Eng. L. & Eq. 107) ii. 861 — v. 8. (62 Md. 281; 50 Am. R. 204) ii. 118 —, S. v. (81 Mo. 384) i. 491; ii. 525 Henssler, P. v. (48 Mich. 49) i. 1126 Henwood v. C, (52 Pa. 424) i, 424, 446, 449 ——, Reg. v. (11 Cox C. C. 526) — i. 897 Hepler v. S. (43 Wis. 479) i, 725 Hepper, Rex v. (Ryan & Moody, N. P. 210; 1 Car. & P. 608) 1i. 916, 920 Herber v. S. (7 Tex. 69) i. 1279 Herbert’s Case (Latch, 12) i, 259 Herbert v. Easton (43 Ala. 547) — i. 1089 Herbster v. S. (80 Ind. 484) i, 314 Hereford, S. v. (13 Mo. 3) 1.611 Herford, Reg. v. (3. Ellis & Herges v. S. (30 Ala. 45) Herman v. P. (131 Ill. 594) —, P. v. (45 Hun, 175) E. 116) i. 1405 i. 979 i. 446, 10154 1.97 Hernandez ». 8. (4 ‘Tex. Ap. 425) 1. 258, 1407 — »v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 288) ii. 740 — v.S. (19 Tex. Ap. 408) i. 49 Herndon, S. v. (5 Blackf. 75) i. 851, 878 Heron v. 8. (22 Fla. 86) i. 975¢ Herrell, S. v. (97 Mo. 105; 10 Am. St. 289) i. 585, 975; ii 542 i, 224 Herrick v. Morrill (87 Minn. 250; 5 Am. St, 841) i. 378 —, P. v. (138 Wend. 87) i. 488 5, 1100; ii, 182, 192 —, 8. v. (12 Minn. 132) i, 1276 v, Smith (1 Gray, 1; 61 Am. D. 881 i. 1410 Herring v. S. (1 Iowa, 205) —_—i. 966, 1859 v, 8. (3 Tex. Ap. 108) ii. 866, 867 ——, §. v. (1 Brev. 159) ii, 768 Herrington v. S. (58 Ga, 552) i. 950 ¢ Herriott v. S. (1 MeMul. 126) _ ii. 27, 809 Herron v. S. (20 Tex. Ap. 296) i, 975¢ — , 8. v. (86 Tenn, 442) i, 1848 KIB INDEX TO THE Hersey, C. v. (2 Allen, 173) i. 1190; ii. 554, 589, 629 —, P. v. (53 Cal. 574) i. 975 Hert, S. v. (89 Mo. 590) i. 1274 Hertford, Rex v. (Holt, 320) i. 1808 Herty, C. v. (109 Mass. 348) _ ii. 586, 591 Hertzog, S. v. (41 La. An. 775) i. 407 Heseltine, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 404; 5 Eng. Rep. 483) Heselton, S. v. (67 Me. 598) i. 75Q Heskew v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 606) i. 1279 v. §. (17 Tex. Ap. 161) i. 945; ii. 740 Hess, P. v. (85 Mich. 128) i. 298, 1058, ae 1186 —— v. §. (73 Ind. 537) i. 553, 931 — v. S. (5 Ohio, 5; 22 Am. D. 767) i, 467, 488, 989 6, 1018, 1126; ii. 410, 431, 432 a, 460 Hessenkamp, S. v. (17 Iowa, 25) —i. 416 Hessian, S. v. (68 Iowa, 68) i, 488 6, 1265 ii. 50 Hessians, S. v. (50 Iowa, 135) ii. 740 Hessing, P. v. (28 Ill. 410) i. 8704 Hester v. C, (85 Pa. 189) i. 951//; ii. 629 —, P. v. (6 Cal. 679) i. 1878 — v, S. (17 Ga. 130) i. 611, 1276; ii. 47 — v.§. (15 Tex. Ap.418) i. 2644, 264 m — v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 567) i. 1277 —,S. v. (48 Ark. 40) i. 590 —, S. v. (2 Jones, N. C. 83) i. 999 Hevey, Rex v. (1 Leach, 232) ii. 436 Hevice, Respublica v.(2 Yeates, 114) ii. 244 Heward v. S. (18 Sm. & M. 261) i. 1285 Hewet, Rex v. (6 How. St. Tr. 883) i. 729 Hewett, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 584) i. 1227 —, §. v. (81 Me. 396) ii. 216, 218 Hewins, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 786) i. 711; ii. 910, 921 Hewit, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 20) Gi. 482.6 Hewitt v. Newburger (141 N. Y. 538) ii, 1025 — v. S. (121 Ind. 245) i. 689 —— v. S. (25 Tex. 722) i. 100 — v. §. (10 Tex. Ap. 501) i. 966 — v. §. (15 Tex. Ap. 80) ii. 82 Hewlett, Reg. v. (3 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 321, note) ii. 742 Hewson’s Case (2 Lewin, 277) i, 951 Hexter, Territory v. (3 Mont. 206) i. 998 a Hey v. C. (82 Grat. 946 ; 34 Am. R. 799) i. 1193 Heydon’s Case (4 Co. 41a) i. 411, 602; ii. 5, 6, 504, 518, 546, 547 Heydon, Rex v. (3 Bur. 1304) i. 1820 —, Rex »v. (1 W. BI. 404) i. 1291 Heygood v. S. (59 Ala. 49) ii. 722 Heyl v. S. (109 Ind. 589) i, 931, 975, 9754 Heymann v. Reg. (Law Rep. 8 Q. B. 102; 12 Cox C. C. 383 i. 707 4 Heyward, In re (1 Sandf. 701) i. oe 28.4 — 58. v. (2 Nott & McC. 312; 10 Am. D. 604) i, 1285 Heywood, Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 451) i. 449 Hibbert, Reg. v. (18 Cox C.C. 82; 13 Eng. Rep. 438) ii, 234 CASES CITED. HIG Hibbs, Ex parte (26 Fed. Rep. 421) i, 224, 2245 — v. S. (24 Ind. 140) i. 1018 Hibburd, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 461) i. 258 Hibdom, S. v. (23 Fed. Rep. 795) i. 3l4a@ Hibler v. S, (43 Tex. 197) i. 222, 223, 2234 Hickam, S. v. (95 Mo. 822; 6 Am. St. 54) i. 975c, 1049, 1094; ii. 599, 661 Hickerson, C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 60) i. 1265 — v. Mexico (58 Mo. 61) i. 816 Hickey, P. v. (6 Daly, 365) i. 264 f° v. 8. (53 Ala. 514) v. §. (23 Ind. 21) uv. S. (12 Neb. 490) Hickley v. Grosjean (6 Blackf. 351) ii, 273, 275 i. 488; ii. 732 i. 922 ii. 792 —, Rex v. (Trem. P,C. 171) ii. 1020 Hicklin, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 3 Q. B. 360 ii. 7944 — , 8. v. (5 Pike, 190) i. 78, 1264 Hickling, Reg. v. (7 Q. B. 880) ii. 1054 —, 8. v. (16 Vroom, 152) i. 1889 Hickman, C., v. (2 Va. Cas. 323) i. 488 —, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 151) ii. 517 v. 8. (388 Tex. 190) ii. 678 ——, S. v. (3 Halst. 299) i. 612, 765 —, 8. v. (75 Mo. 416) i. 951, 1248 Hicks v. C. (86 Va. 223 ; 19 Am. St. 891) ii. 71, 86, 91 —, C. v. (7 Allen, 573) ii. 1050, 1054 —}P. v. (15 Barb. 153) i. 230 —' P. v. (66 Cal. 103) ii, 1002 ii, 432 ¢ i. 546 i. 49 i. 975 ¢, 1012, 1278 ; ii. 602 v. Person (19 Ohio, 426) —, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 802) —, Rex v. (12 Mod. 30) —v. §. (25 Fla. 535) — v. S, (60 Ga. 464) ii. 290 — v. §&. (111 Ind. 402) i, 733 uv. S. (3 Pike, 313) i. 264, 264. a v. 8. (5 Tex. Ap. 488) i. 931 —, S. v. (27 Mo. 588) ii. 616 Hidden, P. v, (82 Cal. 445) i. 872, 878 Higbe v. Leonard (1 Denio, 186) _—_i. 814 Higbee v. Camden & Amboy Rid. (4 C. E. Green, 276) i. 1417 v, 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 407) i. 1355 Higbie, P. v. (66 Barb, 131) i. 641; ii. 168, 713 Higden v. Higden (2 A. K. Mar. 42) i. 1279 Higginbotham »v. S. (50 Ala. 188) ii. 63a — v. §. (19 Fla. 657) i. 962 — v.§. (3 Tex. Ap. 447) i, 1280 Higgins, C. v. (16 Gray, 19) ii. 869 a —— v. Grove (40 Ohio St. 621) ii. 1053 — v. Minaghan (78 Wis. 602 ; 23 Am. St. 428) i 916 — v. P. (1 Hun, 307) ii, 963 —— »v. P. (98 Ill. 619) i. 975 v. P, (7 Lans. 110) — i. 1062; ii. 751 —— v. P. (58 N. Y. 377) i. 978 —, P. », (16 Ill. 110) A 147 —, Rex v. (3 Car. & P. 6038) i. 1241 581 HIL Higgins, Rex v. (2 East, 5) ii. 74 —,, Rex v. (40.8., U. C. 83) i. 256 — v.58. (7 Ind. 549) i, 1125 —, S. v. (53 Vt. 191) i. 556 Higginson, Rex v. (2 Bur. 1282) ii. 105, 107, 273, 278 ey S. (26 Tex. Ap. 545 ; 8 Am. t, 488) i, 1059 High Treason Case (J. Kel. 7) i, 955, 1024, 1081; ii. 1087 Highland v. P. (1 Scam. 392) ii. 764, 765 Hight v. U.S. (Morris, 407; 43 Am. D. 111) i. 257 Hightower v. S. (58 Missis. 686) i. 1260 v. S. (22 Tex. 605) ii. 229 Higson, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 769) i. 126) Hilands v. C. (114 Pa. 372) i. 816 Hilderbrand v. S. (5 Misso. 548) i. 445 Hilditch, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 131; 2 Eng. Rep. 194) ii. 754 —, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 299) iii. ne Hildreth v. P. (82 Ill. 36) ii. 714, o 765 v. S. (5 Blackf. 80) 264 d — , S. v. (9 Ire. 429; 51 Am. D. 364) i. 980, 1100 ; ii. 607 —, S. o. (9 Ire. 440; 51 Am. D. 369) i. 1086, 1218 Hiler v. S. (4 Blackf. 552) i. 1093 Hill v. C. (2 Grat. 594) i. 1099, 1100, 1207, 1212, 1291; ii. 600, 603, 625 v. C. (88 Va, 683; 29 Am. St. 744) i, 966 —, C. v. (4 Allen, 591) i, 913 —, C. v. (11 Cush. 187) i. 551, 857, 858 —, C. v. (5 Grat. 682) i. 639 — C. v. (9 Leigh, 601) i. 691 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. HIN Hill v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 618) i. 926 —— v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 678) i. 1810 v. S, (11 Tex. Ap. 182) i, 1244 v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 379) i, 975¢ — v.8. (11 Tex. Ap. 456) i. 975¢, 980 v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 580) i. 264 a, 264 f —— 1.8, (17 Wis. 675; 86 Am. D. 736) i. 271, 1060 v, 8. (2 Yerg. 247) i. 1301, 1317, 1821 —— v.58. (2 Yerg. 248) i. 750 —,S. v. (8 Brev. 89; 1 Tread. 242) i. 251, 253, 256, 257, 258 —,S.v. i Coldw. 98) i, 1319 ——, 8. v. (2 Hill, S. C. 607; 27 Am. D. 406) i, 1195 —,S8.v (1 poe Crim. 421) i, 428 —, 8S. v. (3 Ire. 3! i, 251 —.,5S. v. (48 Me. oF i. 1268 —, 8. v. (55 Me. 365) ii. 45 —}S. v. (65 Mo. 84) ii, 700, 741, 745 —}S. v. (69 Mo. 451) i. 1049; ii. 599 ——, S. x. (72 Mo. 512) i. 1817 — S. v. (91 Mo. 423) i, 975¢ —, 8. v. (79 N.C. 656) ii, 842, 843, 845, 850 —,S.v. (13 R. I a i. 643, 645; ii. 873 — 2 U. (36 Tex. 348) i. 390 —, S.v. (80 Wis. 416) ii. 412 v. Taylor (50 Mich. 549) i. 157 v. U.S. (9 How. U. S. 886) i. 1414 —, U.S. v. (1 Brock. 156) i. 140 Hilliard, C. v. (2 Gray, 294) ii, 615 —v.8. (17 ‘Tex. Ap. 210) _ i, 478 Hills, C. v. (10 Cush. 630) i 425, en 265 Hilton, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 174) ii. 1020 —v. P. (1 Colo. 436) ii. 574, 577, 584, | —, Sivas (26 Mo. 199) ii. 887, 945 589 —, S. v. (82 N. H. 285) i. 289 a v. P. (16 Mich. 351) i. 898, 923 Hilts v. Colvin (14 Johns. 182) i. 1898 P. (26 Mich. 496) — i. 959 a, 966 c | Hinch v. S. (25 Ga. 699) i. 980, 1265 — v.P. (6 Seld. 463) i, 1264 | —— v. S. (2 Misso. 158) ti, 925 — , P. v. (65 Barb. 435) i. 1880 | Hinckley v. Penobscot (42 Me. 89) —, P. v. (8 Utah, 334) i. 784; ii. 323 a i. 518 a, 639 —, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 274) i, 1098 | ——, S. v. (88 Me. 21) ii, 827 —,, Reg. v. (5 Cox C. C. 259) i. 1141 | —, S. v. (4 Minn. 345) i. 558, 878, —, Rex v. (1 Car. & P. 667) i. 931 1015; ii. 697, 732 —, Rex »v. (Russ, & Ry. 190) ii. 171] Hind, Reg. v, (Bell, C. C. 253 ; "8 Cox v. Road District (10 Ohio St. C.C. 3 800) i, 1207 621) i. 706 | Hindle v, Birch (1 Moore, 455) — i, 1270 v. 8. (48 Ala. 835) i. 1276 | Hindmarsh, Goods of (Law Rep. 1 — v. 8. (387 Ark. 395) i,966d} P.&M. 307) ii. 482 ¢ — v.58. (41 Ga. 484) i. 980, 1207 ] ——, Rex v. (2 Leach, 569) i. 1057 — v. 8. (53 Ga. 125) ii. 94 Hinds, C. v, (101 Mass. 209) _ ii. 402, 418, —— v. S. (53 Ga. 472) i. 636 418 a — v. 8, (72 Ga. 131) i. 1310 | Hiner v. P. (34 Tll. 297) i, 1014 — v. §. (1 Head, 454) ii. 721 | Hines, C. v. (101 Mass. 88) i. 665 — v. S. (3 Heisk. 317) ii. 952, 954 | —— v. S. (26 Ga. 614) i. 312, 611, — v. §. (64 Missis. 481) i. 264a, 1181 628, 1050 — v. S. (34 Tex, 623) i, 1052|—— v. 8. (51 Ga. 301) i, 12765; ii. 584 —— v.58, (41 Tex. 157) ii. 778 | —— v. S. (8 Humph. 597) i. 926, 994,” — v.S. (41 Tex. 253) i. 485 999 ; ii. 567, 570, 584 — v.S. (43 Tex. 829) ii. 886 | —— v. S. (9 Humph. 720) i. 7944 — v.§. (4 Tex. Ap. 559) i. 975 c, 1264 | —— v, S. (8 Tex. Ap. 483) i, 1180; — v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 142) i, 975 ii, 656 582 HOB Hines v. S. (27 Tex. Ap. 104) i.975c¢, 1170 —, S. v. (68 Me. 202) i. 815 Hing, 8. v. (16 Nev. 307) i. 918; ii. fe 58 Hinkle, S. v. (6 Iowa, 380) i. 881, 883, 1107, 1247; ii. 629, 681, 632, 687 —, S. v. (27 Kan. 308) i. 360 Hinks, Reg. v. (1 Den. C, C. 84; 2 Car. & K. 462) Hinley, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 524) i. 459 Hinman v, P. (18 Hun, 266)! i, 314 —. U.S. v. (Bald. 292) i. 488, 1248, 1249; ii, 405, 474 Hinson v. 8. (66 Missis. 532) ii. 621 —, 8S. v. (4 Ala. 671) i, 264 m INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. HOD Hobbs, C. wv. (140 Mass. 448) ii. 645 —, Rex ». (Yelv. 25) i. 206 — v.58. (9 Misso. 855) i. 588; ii. 415, 440, 455 — v.S. (44 Tex. 353) i. 81, 424, 449; ii. 141 v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 117) i. 975 ¢ ——, 8. v. (33 La. An. 226) ii, 581 5| —-, S. v. (89 Me. 212) i, 280, 405 Hobby, Rex v. (Ryan & Moody, N. P. 241; 1 Car. & P 660) 1. 950 b Hoberg v. S. (3 Minn. 262) i. 1000, 1122 Hobs, Rex v. (Cro. Eliz. 913) i. 206 Hobson v. Humphries (2 Mill, 371) i. 1013 —, Reg. v. (Dears. 400; 6 Cox —, 5. v. (31 Ark. 638) ii. 285] C.C. 410; 33 Eng. L. & Eq. 525) —, S. v. (42 La. An. 941) i. 762 i, 1242; ii. 989 — , S. v. (82 N. C. 540) i. 1264} —_, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 56; 2 —, S. v. (103 N. C. 374) i. 989,1179] Leach, 975; 1 East P. C. Add. Hinton v. S. (24 Tex. 454) i. 1269| xxiv.) i, 61, 384; ii. 326 Hinxman, Rex v. (1 Leach, 310, note) Hoch wv. P. (8 Mich. 552) ii. 921 i, 1260 | Hock, Ex parte (68 Ind. 206) i, 256 Hinz, U. S. v. (85 Fed. Rep. 272) i. 1161, | Hockaday, S. v. (98 Mo. 590) i. 725 1162, 1164 | Hockenberry, S. v. (80 Iowa, 504) ii. 732 Hipple, C. v. (69 Pa. 9) i, 287 | Hocker v. Jamieson (2 Watts & S. Hirn v. S. (1 Ohio St. 15) i. 799] 488) ii. 409 Hirronemus, S. v. (50 Iowa, 545) i. 264m | Hockett, S. v. (70 Iowa, 442) ii. 674 Hirsch v. 8. (8 Bax. 89) i, 865 | Hocking, S. v. (40 Ohio St. 331) i, 286 —v.§.(1 Tex Ap. 393) li. 172 | Hodde v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 382) i, 1280 —, S. v. (45 Mo. 429) i, 1049 | Hodgdon, P. v. (55 Cal. 72; 36 Am. Hirschman v. P. (101 Il. 568) i. 1116,} BR. 30) i. 1212 1117 | Hodge’s Case (2 Lewin, 227) i. 1077 Hirshfield v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 207) Hodge v. 8. (97 Ala. 87; 38 Am. St. 11.163] 145) ii, 688 Hirth, S. v. (67 Wis. 368) i. 68 | ——v. S. (98 Ala. 10; 39 Am. St. Hies v. S. (24 Md. 556) ii. 822] 17) ii. 683 Hitchcock v, 8. (21 Ind. 279) i, 1264 v, §. (26 Fla. 11) i. 772; ii. 678 Hitchings, C. v. (5 Gray, 482) i. 261, | —— v. 8. (85 Ind. 561) - 4,712 403, 548 —, S. v. (60 N. H. 510) ii, 152, 599, Hite, C. v. (6 Leigh, 588; 29 Am D. 606, 740 226 i. 141 | Hodgeden, S. o. (3 Vt. 481) i, 343, 345 v. S. (9 Yerg. 198) i. 97, 276, 279, 346 1355 | Hodges, Ex parte (59 Ala. 305) i. 68 — v. 8. (9 Yerg. 357) i, 378, 817 | —— v. Lassiter (96 N. C. 351) i. 902 Hitesman v. S. (48 Ind. 473) i. 422 | ——, P. vr. (27 Cal. 340) _i. 58, 816, 1264 458, 529, 978; ii. 914 | ——, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 195) i. 866 Hitsman v. Garrard (1 Harrison, 124) v, §. (8 Ala. 55) i. 952 a i. 231 | —— v. 8. (5 Humph. 112) ii. 784 Hittner v. S. (19 Ind. 48) i. 992, 1250 | —— v. S. (20 Tex. 493) i, 2644 Hix v. Whittemore (4 Met. 645) iii. 674 v. §. (8 Tex. Ap. 470) ii, 688 @ Hixon v. pee T. R. 185) i, 328 | —— v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 554) i. 98 a Hizer v. S. (12 Ind. 330) i. 345 | ——, S. v. (Phillips, N. C. 231) ii, 967 Hoadley v. LP. (23 Til. Ap. 39) ii. 867 | Hodgkin, P. v. (94 Mich. 27) ii. 1018 vee P. u. (2 Par. Cr. 9) i. 400 | Hodgkins v. S. (89 Ga. 761) ii. 67 —, 8. v. (46 Iowa, 337) i, 1264 , S.v. (42 N. H. 474) i. 814 Hoaghnd v. 8. (17 Ind. 488) i. 1181 | Hodgman vr. P. (4 Denio, 235) i. 460, 479 Hoard v. S. (15 Lea, 318) i. 949 b, 975 ¢, | Hodgson’s Case (1 Lewin, 236) i. 687 979, 1141 Hodgson, Ex parte (2 Y. & J. 142) i.264e Hoare, Rex v. (6 M. & S. 266) ii. 383 Hoatson, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. ue 098 Hoback v. C, (28 Grat. 922) i. 1005 a Hobbs v. Branscomb (3 Camp. 420 i. 181, 182 —, Reg. v. (Dears. 14; 7 Exch. 915; 14 Eng. L. & Eq. 456) i. 264 b —, Rex v. (3 Car. & P. 422) i. 648, 645 ; ii. 334, 336 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 211) ii, 965, 966 583 HOL INDEX TO THE Hodson, S. v. (74 N. C. 151) i. 693 Hoerr v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 75) i, 390 Hoey, C. v. (3 Brews. 514) i.770 Hoffman, C. v. (121 Mass. 3869) 3. 816 v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 406) i. 384 —,5S. v. (67 Iowa, 281) i. 784 —, S. v. (53 Kan. 700) ii. 740 —, S. v. (18 Mo. 329) 1.1817 —, S. ». (78 Mo. 256) i. 265, 276 Hofler v. S. (16 Ark. 584) — i. 858; ii. 683 Hogan, C. v. (11 Gray, 315) i. 1264 , C. v. (113 Mass. 7) i. 1351 — , C. v. (121 Mass. 373) ii. 982 —, Reg. v. (2 Den. C. C. 277) — ii. 538.4 v. 8. (61 Ga. 43) ii. 599 — v. S. (76 Ga. 82) ii. 113 v. 8. (46 Missis. 274) i. 978; ii. 968 v. §. (18 Tex. Ap. 319) i. 1107 — v.§. (80 Wis. 428; 11 Am. R. 575) ii. 584, 585, 586, 595 v. 8. (86 Wis. 226) i, 1114, 1116, 1117, 1268; ii. 628 —, 8. v. (31 Mo. 840) ii. 1051 —, S. v. (381 Mo. 342) i, 698 —, 8. v. (R. M. Charl. 474) i. 449, 457 Hogard, S. v. (12 Minn. 293) i. 536, 1059, 1116, 1247; ii. 7387, 752 Hogarty, C. v. (141 Mass. 106) i, 461 Hoge, Ex parte (48 Cal. 3) i. 253 v. P. (117 Ill. 35) i. 541, 975, 1066, 1149 Hogg, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 380) ii. 509 S. (62 Ala. 2) i, 976, 980 v. Ss. (3 Blackf. 326) ii. 723 Hoggatt v. Bigley (6 Humph. 236) i. 179 Hogshead v. S. (6 Humpb. 59) i. 925 Hogue, 8. v. (6 Jones, N. C.381) ii. 609 Hoiles v. U. S. (3 MacAr. 870; 36 Am. R. 108) ii. 698 b —_z, Hoiss v. S. (79 Wis. 513) ii. 666 Hoit v. Hook (14 Mass. 210) i. 187 —, S. v. (3 Fost. N. H. 355) ii. 835 Hoitt v. Moulton (1 Fost. N. H. 586) ii. 432 a Hoke, 8. «. (84 Ind. 137) ii, 782 Holbrook v. Knight (67 Me. 244) i. 402 —, P. v. (18 Johns. 90) i. 1265 ; ii. 735, 753 Holcomb v. Cornish (8 Conn. 375) i. 151, 177, 179 —— v. Holeomb (28 Conn.177) i. 1141 ——, P. v. (3 Par. Cr. 656) i. 243, 245 — v.S. (81 Ark. 427) i. 869 a — v.58. (6 Lea, 668) i. 264 4 —— v.S. (8 Lea, 417) i. 1033 v, S. (41 ‘Tex. 125) ii. 678 — , S. v. (86 Mo. 371) ii. 891 Holcombe v. 8. (28 Ga. 66) i. 1278 Holden v. Minnesota (137 U.S. 483) i. 1810 — , Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 606) i. 9686, 966 ¢; ii. 682 —-, Rex v. (5 B. & Ad. 347; 2 Nev, & M. 167) i. 68, 70, 73 584 , CASES CITED. HOL Holden, Rex w. (Russ. & Ry. 154; 2 Leach, 1019; 2 Taunt. 384) ii. 422, 427 S. (1 Tex. Ap. 225) i. 652 a, 738, 978, 980 v. S: (18 Tex. Ap. 91) i. 440, 1254 —, S. v. (85 Kan. 81) i. 1264 —, 8. v. (42 Minn. 350) i, 1223 ——? S$. v. (48 Mo. 98) ii. 921 Holder v. S. (5 Ga. 441) i. 977 v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 601) i. 951, 95la Holderstaffe ». Saunders (6 Mod. 16) i, 1414 Holding, 8. v. (1 McCord, 31) ii. 75 Holeman v. S. (138 Ark. 105) i. 384, 1279, 132 4 Holford v. Bailey (18 Q B. 426) ii. 129 v. S. (2 Blackf. 108) ii. 984 Holland v. Crow (12 Ire. 275) i. 706 —, Reg. v. (10 Cox C.C. 478) ii. 960 —, Rex »v. (5 T. R. 607) i. 387, 398, 408, 463, 506, 507 ; ii. 822, 824, 833 —— v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 182) i. 1857 —, S. uv. (838 N.C. 624; 85 Am. R. 587) i, 1169 Holleman v. C. (2 Va. Cas.185) ii. 1054 Hollenbeck, S. v. (36 Iowa, 112) i. 56 Hollenscheit, S. v. (61 Mo. 302) i. 1015 a, 1241; ii. 8 no v. 8. (87 Ind. 67; 10 Am. R. ii. 618, 625, 627 Helles, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 294) i. 736 Holiey, C. ev. (3 Gray, 458) i. 97, 101, 71 — v. Mix (3 Wend. 350; 20 Am. D. 702) i, 168 — v.§, (75 Ala. 14) i. 975 ¢, 978 — vu. S. (15 Fla. 688) i, 251 — , 8. v. (1 Brev. 35) i. 588, 1288; ii. 439 Holliday v. P. (4 Gilman, 111) i. 1264, 1268, 1359 —, S. vo. (3 Halst. 205) i. 1408 — , S. ». (22 Iowa, 397) i, 691, 1817 —, U.S. v. (8 Wal. 407) i. 3l4a Holin, S.v. (12 La. An. 677) i, 892 Hollingberry, Rex v. (6D. & R. 845; 4B. & C. 829) i. 276, 966.4, 1038 ; ii, 489 nguacevent v. Duane (Wal. C. C. i, 891 v, Duane (Wal. C. C. 147) i, 923 v. 8. (8 Ind. 257) i. 1871 —, 8.7. (100 N. C. 585) i. 869 a Hollis, C, v. (140 Mass. 436) ii, 933d v. S. (77 Ga. 74) i. 1071 v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 648) i, 951 Hollister v. C. (60 Pa. 103) ii, 130, 133 a — _,C. «. (157 Pa. 18) ii. 1 Hollohan v. S. (82 Md. 399) _ ii. 63, 1008 Hollon v. Hopkins (21 Kan. 688) i. 1810 ——, S. v. (22 Kan. 580) ii. 941 Holloway’ 8 Case (3 Mod. 42) i. 1336 Holloway v. C. (11 Bush, 344) i, 1094; ii. 610, 618, 619 HOL Holloway, C. v. (5 Binn. 512) i, 236 Reg. (2 Den. C. C. 287; 17 Q. B. 317) i. 668, 1015, 1310, 1827 ; ii. 945 —, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 48)' - 865 — _, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 370; Car. & K. 942; 8 Cox C.C. 241) ; 1266 —, Reg. v. (5 Eng. L, & Iq. 310) 1.1015; ii. 945 — v. §. (58 Ind. 554) i. 881, 887, 909 Holly v. 8. (55 Missis. 424) ii. 620 —, 5S. v. (2 Bay, 262) i, 604 Holly way, S. vu. (41 Iowa, 200; 20 R. 586 ii. 1007 Holman v. Austin (84 Tex. 668) —_— iv. i. 1410 — , Reg. v. (Leigh & C.177; 9 Cox C. C. 201) i, 424, 461 —v.8. (79 Ga. 155) i. 850 —— v. S. (10 Tex. 558) i, 1264 —,S. v. (29 Ark. 58) ii. 1050 — v. Walden (1 Salk. 6) i. 828, 683 Holme, S. v. (54 Mo. 153) i. 948 ; ii. 608 Holmes’s Case (Cro. Car. 376) i. 502, 573 Holmes, Ex parte (21 Neb. 324) i. 1268 —, Ex parte (12 Vt. 631) i, 224 we! (25 Pa. 221) i. 814 a, 13538; ii. g —, C. v. (17 Mass. 336) j. 814, 496; ii. 790, 794a —, C. v. (119 Mass. 195) i 448, 1264 —, C. v, (127 Mass. 424; 84 Am. R. 391) i. 1170; ii. 58 — , C. v, (1387 Mass. 248) v. Jennison (14 Pet. 540) v. P. (5 Gilman, 478) INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. HOO Holmes, U. S. v. (1 Wal. Jr. 1) ii. 514 —, U.S. v. (5 Wheat. 412) i, 8144 Holroyd, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 339) i. 1100; ii. 1050 Holsclaw v. 8. (114 Ind. 506) i. 1264 Holsenbake wv. S. (45 Ga. 43) i. 1058, 1161, 1219, 1220, 1244 Holstine, C. 7. (182 Pa. 357 i. 802 Holt v. P. (18 Mich. 224) i. 909 —, Reg. v. (Bell, C. C. 280; 8 Cox C. C. 411) i. 1128; ii. 189 —, Rex v. (2 Leach, 598) i. 1052 598) i. 1284 v. S. (47 Ark. 196) i. 652 v. S. (62 Ga, 314) i. 975 ¢ —— v. §. (11 Ohio St. 691) i. 951 — v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 571) i. 926, 1248 v. 8. (20 Tex. Ap. 271) i. 264a, 264 m = 8. v. (90 N. C. 749; 47 Am. R. 644 i. 891, 893 Holten v. Lake (55 Ind. 194) ii. 677 Holtham, Reg. v. (3 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 601, note) i. 1164 Holton v. 8. (2 Fla. 476) i. 273. Holtz v. S. (80 Ohio St. 486) ii. 981 Holtzclaw v. S. (4 Ind. 597) i. 2644 — v.S. (26 Tex. 682) Holtzhauer, U. 8S. cv. (40 Fed. Rep. i. 872 76) i, Holyday v. Oxenbridge (Cro. Car. 234) Homberg v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 1) is "975 Home Ins. Co. v. Security Ins. Co. —, P. v. (3 Par. Cr. 567) 1.1371] (23 Wis. 171) i. 118 —, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 248) i. 1227 | Homer, C. v. (153 Mass. 343) i, 1207 —, Reg. v. (Dears. 207; 3 Car. & —, 8. v. (40 Me. 438) i. 677, 683 ; K. 860; 6 Cox C.C. 216; 20 Eng. ii. 107, 108 L. & Eq. ii. 864 | Hone, Rex v. (9 How. St. Tr. ey —, Reg. v. sae Rep.1C. C. — 7944 12 Coxe c.c 66 | Honesty v. C. (81 Va. 283) i. 931, 974 ¢ —, Reg. v. i %, B. D. 23; 18 Honeycutt v. S. (8 Bax. 371) i. 68, 71, Cox C. *C. 343) i. 197 975 c, 1238 ——, Rex v. (1 Mod. 78) Honeyman, P. v. (8 Denio, 121) i. 49, ii. 372, 373, 383 v, S, (88 Ala. 26; 16 Am. St. 17) i. 1117 ——v.S. (20 Ark. 168) o i. 49 — v. S. (17 Neb. 73) i, 2644 — v. S. (44 Tex. 631) i. 229a — v.§. (9 Tex. Ap. 313) i. 1094 —— v.§S. (11 Tex. Ap. 228) i. 975¢ — v5. {20 Tex. Ap. 509) i. ate — , S. v. (28 Conn. 280) i. 443, 717, 720, 1285 —, S. v. (56 Iowa, 688; 41 Am. R. 121 ii. 105 —, S. v. (63 N. C. 18) i. 905 —,S. v. (82 N. C. 607) ii. 163 —, S. v. (48 N. H. 377) i. 1883 — , 8. v. (3 Strob. 272) i, 951 — , S. v. (7 Vroom, 62) i. 1871 —, S. v. (Walk. Missis. 415) i. 8144 —, U.S. v. (1 Clif. 98) ii. 672, 674 906, 909; ii. 770 Hong Ab Duck, P. v. (61 Cal. 387) ii, 514, 599 Honig, S v. (78 Mo. 249) i. 964 — . (9 Mo. Ap. 298) ii. 988 Honthell, P.v. (10 Cal. 83) i. 1265 Hoober v. S. (81 Ala. 51) i, 1238 Hood v. Maxwell (1 W. Va. 219) ii. 751 —, P. v. (6 Cal. 236) i. 585 —, Rex v. (1 Moody, 281) i. ae, 235 — v. §. (44 Ala. 81) 1287 i. 454, 714, 764 i. 1315 i. 875, 1169 —,, S. v. (51 Me. 363). Hooe, U.S. v. (8 Cranch, aril Hooghkerk, P. v. (96 N. Y. 149) Hook, Eee v. (Dears. & B. 606; 8 Cox C C. 5) ii. ‘981, 932 —. Stovall (26 Ga. 704) ii. 687 Hooker v. C. (18 Grat. 768) i. a 585 v. C. (3 Met. 460) i. 488 a, 1370 ; ii. 133 a, 464 — v.C. (50 Pa. 9; 88 Am. D. 518) i. 700, 1108 v. Megquire (35 Me. 78) ii. 432 a —, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 591) i. 1057; ii, 637 v, 8, (10 Lea, 204) i. 68, 269 —,S.«. (1 Bay, 372) i. 909, 932 —,S.v. ty Blackf. 494) 1.379, 661, 662 — , S. v. (Dudley, 8. C. 101) i. 1404 ——,, 8. v. (65 Iowa, 240) ii. 740 —, S. v. (67 Iowa, 285) i, 1310 —, S. v. (30 Mo. 404) i. 2641 eae, 1G, oi, (6 Bi. BB) —, S. v. (50 Vt. 316) ii, 436, aan —, 5. v. (56 Vt. 250) i. 682; ii. 82 Simmons (1 Cranch C. C. 250) ii, 432 b Hopkinsville, C. v. (7 B. Monr. 38) i. 814.4, 1264 Hopkirk, S. v. (84 Mo. 278) i, 1220 Hoppe v. 8. (32 Tex. 389) i, 1264 — , S. v. (39 Iowa, 468) i, 653 Hopper v. C, (6 Grat. 684) i. 281, 965, 1081 v, S. (19 Ark. 143) i. 1049 —, S. v. (27 Mo. 599) ii. 296 —, 5S. vu. (71 Mo. 425) i. 68, 966 b, 975, 998 a, 999, 1277 Hopps v. P. (31 Ill. 885; 88 Am. D. 231) ii. 673 Hopson, P. v. (1 Denio, 574) —_i. 460, 461 586 — i, 1265, 1269 | HOP INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. HOR ’ Hooker v. S. (4 Ohio, 348) i. 945, 1265 | Hopt v. P. (104 U. S. 631) i, 975¢, 976 —, 8. ov. (17 Vt. 658) i. 449, 453, 1197; | —, P. v. (8 Utah, 396) _1, 934 ii. 884, 886, 887, 888 —, P.v. (3 Utah, 404) i. 1264 Hooper, In re (McClel. 578) i. 264 h | ——, P. v. (4 Utah, 247) i. 909, 948 a —, In re (52 Wis. 699) i, 222 v. Utah (110 U.S. 574) i. 265, 266, —, C. v. (104 Mass. 549) ii. 179 271, 975, 979 —, O. v. (Thacher Crim. Cas. al — v. Utah (114 U.S. 488) i. 975c, 976 309 | —— v. Utah (120 U. S. 430) ii, 631 ——, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 85) i 1057 Horan v. S. (24 Tex. 161) i. 543; ii. 498 —— v. 8S. (8 Humph. 93) ii, 404, 422 v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 183) ii. 883 ——». 8. (5 Yerg, 422) i. 948 | ——, S. v. (82 Minn. 394; 50 Am. R. — vr. S. (30 Tex. Ap. 412; 28 An. 83 ) i. 1086 St. 926) ii. 482¢, 481] —, 8. v. (Phillips, N.C. 571) i, 488; —, S. v. (2 Bailey, 37) ii. 431 ii, 982 —, 8. v. (82 N. C. 663) 1. 814a; ii. 63 | —, S. v. (25 Tex. Supp. 271) i, 100 Hoover v. 8. (5 Bax. 672) i. 998 a| Horbach v. 8. (48 Tex. 242) i. 981; v. S. (110 Ind. 349) i. 1287 ii. 610, 613 v. 8. (56 Md. 584) i. 399 | Hord, Rex v. (Say. 176) i. 1301 —v. S. (1 W. Va. 336) i, 884 | Hore, Reg. v. (3 Fost. & F. 315) i, 995 —, S. v. (81 Ark. 676) i, 887 | Horn, P. v. (70 Cal. 17) i. 1264 Hope, Ex parte (29 Tex. Ap. 189) i. 256 | —— v. S. (62 Ga. 362) i, 951 —, In re (10 N. Y. Supp. 28) i, 220 v. §. (80 Tex. Ap. 541) i, 1049 —'». C. (9 Met. 184) ii. 7138, 714 | ——, S. v. (19 Ark. 578). ii. 285, 295 —, C. v. (22 Pick. 1) i, 480, 1344; ) —, S. v. (34 La. An. 100) i. 1274 ii. 148, 144 | ——, S. v. (Meigs, 473) i, 251 — v. P. (83 N. Y. 418; 38 Am. R. ——, 8. v. (70 Mo. 466; 385 Am. R. 460) i, $65, 1015, 1121} 437) i, 2647 —, P. v. (62 Cal. 291) i, 1097 | ——, 8. v. (93 Mo. 190) ii. 173 — , S. v. (2 Brev. 463) i. 1138 | ——, U.S. v. (5 Blatch. 102) i, 1170 ——, S. v. (100 Mo. 347) i. 266, 269, 966 6 | Hornbeak, S. v. (15 Mo. 478) i. 514 Hopes, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 136) i. 1261} Hornberger v. S. (5 Ind. 800) i. 1269 Hopkins, Ex parte (17 Cox C. C. Horne, Rex v. (Cowp. 672; 4 Bro. 444) i.1407|} P. C. 368) i. 324, 506, 507, 529; ii. 783, 786, 798, 794 —— v. 8. (37 Ga. 80; 92 Am. D. 49) i, 652, 1018 — v. S. (1 Kan. 42; 81 Am. D. 99) i, 979, 980 a, 1103 —.,S. v. (9 Kan. 119) i, 1182 Horne Tooke’s Case (1 East P. C. 60; 25 How. St. Tr. 1) i. 958, 966d; ii. 1036 Horneman, S. v. (16 Kan. 452) i, 810, 817, 1264 Horner v. Battyn (Bull. N. P. 62) i. 157 —, Rex v. (Cald. 295; 1 Leach, 270) i, 257 v. S. (27 Ark. 113) i. “1984 v, 8. 49 Md. 277 ii. 861 —— v. S. (1 Or. 267) i. 1838 —, 8. ». (48 Mo. 520) i. 384 — U.S. (148 U. S. 207) i. 2236 — v. Wallis (11 Mass. 3809) ii. 432 6 Hornesey, Rex v. (12 Mod. 13) ii. 1049 Hornig v. Bailey (60 Conn. 40) i. 241, 242 Horning, S. v. (49 Towa, 158) i, 1116 Hornish v, P. (142 Ill. 620) ii, 669, 673 Hornsberger v. 8. (19 Tex. Ap. 335) i, 1170 Hornsby, 8. (82 La. An. 1268) i. 1001 Horr, P. v. (7 Barb. 9) ii. 850 Horregan, C. v. (127 Mass. 450) i. 814a@ Horseman »v. 8. (43 Tex. 353) i, 1310 Horsey v. 8. (8 Har. & J. 2) i, 1856 Horton, C. v. (9 Pick. 206) 1. 802 HOU INDEX TO THE Horton, C. v. (1 Va. Cas. 835) i, 892 —, Po. (4 Mich. 67) ii, 680 —, P. v. (4 Par. Cr, 222) i. 877, 951 — v.S. (47 Ala. 58) i, 878, 1357 —— v. 8. (53 Ala. 488) i. 589 — v. 8. (60 Ala. 72) i, 685 v. 8. (66 Ga. 690) i, 1248 — v. 8. (30 Tex. 191) i. 264.4 — v. §. (32 Tex. 79) ii. 407 —, 8. v. (38 La. An. 289) i. 951 — , S. v. (63 N. C, 595) i. 697, 763, 858, 859 — _, S. v. (89 N. C. 581) i, 1314 —, 5S. v. (100 N.C. 448; 6 Am. St. 613) i. 965, 975¢ Horton’s Sureties, U.S. v. (2 Dil. 94) i. 226, 2644 Hortsell v. 8. (45 Ark. 59) i, 264i Horvell, S. v. (4 Jones, N.C. 55) i. 488 ¢ Horwell, Rex v. (1 Moody, 405; 6 Car. & P. 148) ii. 471 Horwood v. Smith (2 T. R. 750) ii. 758, 762 Hosea v. 8. (47 Ind. 180) ii. 275 Hosie v. Gray (78 Pa. 502) i. 2644 Hoskey v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 202) i. 611 Hoskins v. P. (84 Ill. 87; 25 Am. R. 433) i. 125, 733, 185 —, Rex v. (12 Mod. 323) 40 —v.8. (11 Ga. 92) i. 449, 966, 1100; . ii. 442 — ». 8. (27 Ind. 470) i. 1012 —, 8. v. (77 N. C. 530) i. 815 Hosmer, 8. v. (85 Mo. 553) i. 984, 986 a, 185 Hostetter v. C. (12 B. Monr.1) i. 2644 Hotchkis v. Tuttle (1 Root, 488) ii. 841 Hotchkiss, 8. v. (80 Tex. 162) i, 264 a Hotz, P. v. (78 Cal. 241) i. 1264 Houck, S. v. (78 Ind. 37) ii. 862 Hough v. Marchant (Moody & M. 510) i, 182 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 120) i. 1127; ii. 420 Houghton v. Bachman (47 Barb. 888) i, 212 — , C. v. (8 Mass. 107) ii. 467 — v. Havens (6 Conn. 805) i. 727 Houillion v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 537) — i. 931, 981 a Houle, C. v. (147 Mass. 380) i, 975¢ Hounsell, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 292) i. 527 Hourigan, C. v. (89 Ky. 305) i. 1247 House, C. v. (13 Bush, 679) i. 2647 — v. Camp (32 Ala. 541) ii. 382 z. Lowell (45 Mo. 881) i, 1285 v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 567) i. 1094 —v.S, (15 Tex. Ap. 522) i. 1170 — v.§. (16 Tex. Ap. 25) i, 1159 v. S. (19 Tex. Ap. 227) | i. 975a — ,S. v. (55 Iowa, 466) i. 484; ii. 197 — v. Whitis (5 Bax. 690) i, 304 Houseal, S. v. (2 Brev. 219) i. 436 ; ii. 416, 418, 421 CASES CITED. HOW Houseman, Bere (8 Car. & P. 180) ii. 415 Houser v. S. (58 Ga. 78) i, 1094; ii. 134, 142, 152 —, 8. v. (Busbee, 410) iy - 688 —,S. v. (26 Mo. 43) 1195 —, S. v. (28 Mo. 233) i.314, 978, 1060, 061 Housh ». P. (75 Ill. 487) i. 230 Housin v. Barrow (6 T. R. 218) i. 2684 Houston v. S. (13 Ark. 66) ii. 751 v. §. (88 Ga. 165) ii. 138 v. 8. (4 Greene, Iowa, 487) i. 688 —— v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 595) 1.581 ——,, S. v. (1 Bailey, 300) i. 1126 ——., S. v. (50 Iowa, 512) i. 865, 887 —,S.v. (40 La. An. 393; 8 Am. St. 582) i. 8144 ——, 8. v. (19 Mo. 211) i. 6895 -—, 8. uv. (74 N. C. 174) i. 264° ——, S. v. (74 N. C. 549) i. 264 — v. U.S. (Morris, 174) i. 1817 Houston, &e. Rid. v. Shafer (54 Tex. 641) i, 1111 Houx, S. v. (109 Mo. 654; 82 aoe St. 686) ii. 947 Hover, S. v. (58 Vt. 496) i. 571 eo P. v. (29 Hun, 382) i. 1181 — , P. v. (80 Hun, 354) i. 1279 if ——, P. v. (92 N. Y. 554) i. 975 a, 1264 How v. Hall (14 East, 274) ii. 758 —, Rex v. (1 Stra. 699) i. 680 Howard, Ex parte (30 Ala. 48) ii. 593 ——, In re (26 Vt. 205) i. 1821 — ©. v. (81 Ky. 57) i. 1264 0 | ——, C. v. (13 Mass. 221) i. 1800 —— v. Moot (64 N. Y. 262) i. 1089 —, P. v. (73 Mich. 10) i. 1181, 1182 —— v. Reg. (10 Cox C. C. 54) i. 276 —— v. Reid (51 Ga. 828) i. 187 ——, Rex v. (1 Moody & R. 187) ii. 983 ¢ — v. S. (34 Ark. 483) i, 428, 976 , 981, 1015 —— v.S. (87 Ark. 265) i, 959.4 —— v. 8. (50 Ind. 190) i. 980 a, 1066 ; ii. 740, 741 —— v. S. (87 Ind. 68) ii. 290 — v. 8. (25 Ohio St. 399) i. 1009 v. §. (8 Tex. Ap. 53) i. 951 — 0.8. (8 Tex. a a i. 621 — ».8. is Tex. Ap. 612) i. 975c, 1857 — v. §. (18 Tex. Ap. 348) i, 975¢ —, S. v. (2 Brev. 165) i. 799 > S. v, (10 Iowa, 101) i. 849, 878, 931, 982, 982 a —, S. v. (19 Kan. 507 ii. 769 —, S. v, (34 La, An, 369) i, 1843 —, S. v. (4 McCord, 159) ii. 929 —, 58. v. (82 N.C. 623) i, 1247 — , S. v. (92 N.C.772) i. 501, 602, 1288 —, S. v. (17 N. H.171) i. 909, 984, 949 b —, S. v. (15 Rich, 274) i. 264 1, 772, 1895 —, S.v. (35 §.C.197) i. 1181, 71186, — 8. v. (31 Vt. 414) i, 69 587 HOY Howard, S. v. (82 Vt. 880) i. 1170, 1212; ii. 625 — , U.S. v. (8 Sumner, 12) i. 481, 485, 488 b, 688 — U.S. v. (8 Wash. C. C. 340) ii. 9 Howarth, Reg. v. (83 U. C. Q. B. 537) ° ii. 818 —, Rex v. (1 Moody, 207) i. 158, 170 —, Rex »v. (3 Stark. 26) ii. 168, 172 Howe, C. v. (9 Gray, 110) i. 1229, 1245 —, C. v. (13 Gray, 26) i. 1015; ii. 106 —, C. v. (182 Mass. 250) i. 1238 ; ii. 163, 187 —— v. Plainfield (41 N. H.185) i. 1111; ii. 626 —— »v. Plainfield (8 Vroom, 145) i. 3144 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 268) | i 1244 vu S. a Ind. 428) i. 636 Howel v. C. (5 Grat. 664) i, 612, 613; ii, 47 , Howell v. C. (26 Grat. 995) ii. 588 — v. Jackson (6 Car. & P. 723) i. 183 —v. P. (2 Hill, N.Y, 281) — i. 717, 720 —— v. P. (5 Hun, 620) i. 977 —, P. v. (4 Johns. 296) _—i. 1018, 1030, 1188; ii. 429 —, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 689; 1 Den. C. C.1; 1 Cox C.C. 151) i. 1212 — , Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 437) i. 951 —, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 190) ii. 135 ——v.S. (5 Ga. 48) i. 951; ii. 610, 621 v, 8. (1 Or. 241) i. 1878; ii. 764 ——v.§. (10 Tex. Ap. 298) i. 10054 —— v. 8. (16 Tex. Ap. 93) i. 975¢ ——, 8. v. (1 Ga. Decis. 158) ii. 657 —, S. v. (11 Misso. 613) i, 251 — , S. v. (100 Mo. 628) i, 1062, 1278 —,S. v. (84 Mo. Ap. 86) i. 698 —, 8. v. (R. M. Charl, 120) i. 223 — , S. v. (1 Rich. 260) i, 482, 443 —, S. v. (28 S. C. 250) i. 975c, 981 —, S. v. (4 Zab. 519) i. 1880 —, U.S. v. (11 Wal. 482) ii, 426 Howerton v. 8. (Meigs, 262) i. 909 —, S. v. (59 Mo. 91) ii. 1002, Howes, P. v. (81 Mich. 396) i. 959 a —, Rex v. (7 A. & E. 60, note; 3 Nev, & M. 462) i. 1871 —, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 404) i. 1261 —, 8. v. (26 W. Va. 110) ii. 63 Howie v. S. (1 Ala. 118) i. 264.4, 264 7 Howlett, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 274) i. 1100 Howley, S. v. (65 Me. 100) i, 241 —, 8. v. (73 Me. 552) i. 264, 2646 Howorth, S. v. (70 Iowa, 157) i, 1307 Howser v. C. (51 Pa. 332) — i. 1085, 1107, 1187, 1146, 1268, 1277; ii. 629 Howze v. S. (59 Missis. 230) i. 1181 Hoxey, C. v. (16 Mass. 385) i. 600; ii. 285, 299 Hoxsie, S. v. (15 R. 1.1; 2 Am. St. 838) i. 916, 919, 975, 980, 989, 1174, 1175 Hoy Yen, P. v. (34 Cal. 176) i. 1242 Hoye, C. v. (11 Gray, 462) i. 608 588 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. HUD Hoye v. S. (39 Ga. 718) i. 316 Hayle 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 239) i. 1169, 1170 , S.v. (6 Ire. 1) i. 600 Hoym, P. ve. (20 How. Pr. 76) ii. 818 Hoyt, Ex parte (13 Pet. 279) i. 1403 — v. §. (50 Ga. 313) ii. 829, 832 . (46 Conn. 880) i. 1110, 1810; ii. 670, 686 v. (47 Conn. 518; 86 Am. R. i. 313, 909, 940, 943.4, 1008, 1108, 1298 ; ii, 687 a i, 872, 879, 1120; ii. 628, 638 —— v. Stuart (3 Bosw. 447) ii, 4320 Hozier v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 501) i. 816, 1050, 1170 Hronek v. P, (184 Ill. 189; 23 Am. —, 8.0 —, S$. 89) —, 8. o. (18 Minn. 122) St. 652) i. 332, 1005 a, 1174; ii.1 —,, S. v. (95 Mo. 79) i. 1265 Huard, C. v. (121 Mass. 56) i. 1264 Hub Earp, S. v. (41 Tex. 487) i, 354 Hubbard, Ex parte (65 Ala. 478) i. 1410 —, C. v. (24 Pick. 98) ii. 883, 887 —— v. 8. (72 Ala. 164) i. 692, 747; ii. 631 — v. S. (7 Ind. 160) i. 72, 401 — »v.§, (11 Ind, 554) i, 614 —, S. v, (3 Ind. 520) i. 618 Hubbs, S. v. (58 Ind. 415) ii. 56 Hubby ». 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 597) i. 1050, 1107 Hube, Rex v. (5 T. R. 542) ii, 285 Huber v. P. (49 N. Y. 182) i, 3l4a v. 8. (25 Ind. 175) i. 404 — v. 8. (126 Ind. 185) ii. 972 —,, S. v. (8 Kan. 447) i, 433, 1296 Hubotter v. 8. (82 Tex. 479) i. 614, 947; ii. 700 Huckie, S. v. (22S. C. 298) i. 964 Hucks, Rex »v. (1 Stark. 521) i. 486, 1212 Huddleson v. Ruffin (6 Ohio ae 604) 1302 — v. 8. (7 Bax. 55) i. 975.6, 976 — v.§S. (14 Tex. Ap. 738) i. 733 Hudeburgh v. S. (88 Tex. 635) = i. 1801 Hudelson wv. S. (94 Ind. 426; 48 Am. R. 171) i. 984 Hudgens v. C. (2 Duv, 239) ii, 944 Hudgins v. S. (26 Ga. 350) ii, 745 ——v. S. (61 Ga. 182) 1.315, 1160; ii. 661 ——v.§. (2 Kelly, 173) i. 909; ii. 621 Hudkins, 8. v. (85 W. Va. 247) i. 760, 752, 897, 964 Hudley v. S. (86 Ark. 237) i. 68, 74 Hudson, C. v. (97 Mass. 565) i. 1107 ; ii. 50 — , Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 679; 10 Cox c.C. 66) ii. 933.3 — v.§. (34 Ala. 258) i. 1015 . S. (61 Ala. 333) ii, 58 . 8. (1 Blackf, 317) i. 608, 854, 877, 878, 934, 1331 . S. (3 Coldw. 855) i, 1058, 1207 8. (76 Ga. 727) —e —— vi Ss i, 1281 =v, —— v. 8. (107 Ind. 372) i. 1274 — v. S. (40 Tex. 12) i. 978, 980 v. 8. (6 Tex, Ap. 565; 82 Am. R. 598) ii. 618 HUG Hudson v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 215) i, 854 — v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 823) i. 975c, 1071 — v.S. (9 Yerg. 408) i. 1000, 1270 ; ii. 745 — , S. v. (50 Iowa, 157) i, 1248 —,S. v. (74 N. C. 246) — i. 1005, sae —, S. v. (3 Zab. 206) i. — v. Thorne (7 Paige, 261) i. 1412 Hudson Quarter Sessions, 8. «. (17. Vroom, 112) i. 802 Hudson River Rid. v. Loeb (7 Rob. N. Y. 418) i. 1417 Hudspeth v. S. (50 Ark. 534) i, 850, 1170 Huebner v. §. (3 Tex. Ap. 458) i. 951 a Huet, Rex v. (2 Leach, 820) ii, 486 Hoff v, C. (14 Grat. 648) i. 603 — , P. v. (72 Cal. 117) i. 965 — , S. v. (76 Iowa, 200) —i. 966.4, 1294 ——, 8. v. (11 Nev. 17) i. 1182; ii. 532, 533 Huffman v. C. (6 Rand. 685) i, 429 — »v. Click (77 N. C. 55) i. 1180 —— v. Greenwocd (25 Kan. 64) i. 286 v. §. (28 Ala. 48) i. 384 —— v. 8. (29 Ala. 40) i. 1148 uv. S. (89 Ala. 33) i. 1006 ——v.§. (28 Tex. Ap. 174) i. 1001, 1181, 1182, 1265, 1279 —, S. v. (16 Or. 15) i, 1054 —— v. Shumate (4 Bibb, 515) ii. 809 Hufford, S. v. (28 Iowa, 391) i. 223 Huffschmidt, S. v. (47 Mo. 78) i. 814.4 Hugel, S. v. (27 La. An. 875) i. 909, 1293, 1358 Huggins’s Case (17 How. St. Tr. 297) 1. 953 Huggins, Rex v. (1 Barn. 358) i. 1006 —, Rex v. (17 How. St. Tr. 309; 2 Ld. Raym. 1574) i. 1002, 1006 ; ii. 1040 — v.§. (41 Ala. 393) i. a 1249; i. 981 v. S, (2 Tex. Ap. 421) i. 384, "1855 (12 Rich. 402) ii. 552 Hughes, In re (Phillips, N.C. 57) i. 220, 1411 — v.C. (17 Grat. 565 ; 94 Am. D 498 ) ii, 726 —,C. v. (2 Allen, 518) i, 1265 —, C. v. (11 Philad. 430) i. 1018 —,C. v. (5 Rand. 655) i. 909 —v. P. (5 Colo. 436) i. 68, 71 — vu. P. (8 Colo. 536) i. 811 — v. P. (116 Ill. 830) i. 1275 —, P. v. (29 Cal. 257) i. 992, 1270, 1209, 1310 ; eh 45a —, P. v. (41 Cal. 234) i, 488 6, 689 b — ,, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 285) i. 984 —, Reg. », (1 Car, & K. 519) i. 857, 858, 93 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. HUM t Hughes, Rex v. (1 Har. & W.313) i. 1004 .v. (1 Swan, Tenn. 261) i. 683, 791 .v. (48 Tex. 518) Huguet, Ex parte (12 Cox C. C. 551; 8 Eng. Rep. 595) i. 224 Huiatt, S. v. (31 Mo. Ap. 302) i. 959a Hulbert, C. v. (12 Met. 446) ii. 168, 172 Hulbut, P. v. (4 Denio, 183; 47 Am. —— v. S. (12 Ala. 458) i. 1004 v. §. (35 Ala. 851) i. 49, 461 —— v, §. (75 Ala. 31) i. 1060; ii. 1, 4, 53 —— v. 8. (76 Ga. 39) i. 1287 — v. 8. (8 Humph. 75), ii. 742 —— v. S. (54 Ind. 95) i. 849 — v.§. (65 Ind. 39) i. 1005 a v, §. (103 Ind. 844) i. 588; ii. 850 — v.S, (4 Iowa, 554) i. 275 v. S. (58 Missis. 355) i. 1170 — v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 130) i, 951 —— v. §. (27 Tex. Ap. 127) i. 1265 —— v. 8. (28 Tex. Ap. 499) i. 250, 264 m — , S. v, (1 Ala. 655) i. 692, 733, 852, 881, 1318 —,S.v. (2 Ala. 102; 86 Am. D. 411) i, 278, 1271 ——, 8S. v. (2 Har. & MclIi. 479) i, 674 —, 8. c. (58 Iowa, 165) i. 763 —,, S. v. (35 Kan, 626; 57 Am. R. 195) i. 1298 —, S. v. (29 La. An. 514) i. 1241 —, S. v. (71 Mo. 633) i. 1071 — , S. v. (76 Mo. 323) ii. 87 — , S. v. (82 Mo. 86) i. 860, 400 —, S. e. (83 N. C. 665) i. 1814 , on ii. 127 D. 244 i. 858, 886 Huling v. S. (17 Ohio St. 583) i. 982 a; ii. 137 Hulings, C. v. (129 Pa. 317) i, 1264 Hull, C. v. (97 Mass. 570) i. 488 — uw. 8. (79 Ala. 32) i. 488 ¢ — v. 8. (120 Ind. 153) i. 478, 484, 485 ; ii, 287 — , S. vu. (26 Iowa, 292) i, 1202 — S. v. (21 Me. 84) ii, 866 U.S. v, (4 McCrary, 272; 14° ~ Fed. Rep. 324) i, 486 Hulme, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 8) i. 1138; ii, 933 a Hulse, P. v. (8 Hill, N. Y. 809) i 68; ii. 964 — v. 8. (85 Ohio St. 421) i. 931, 975e¢ Humason, S. v. (6 Wash. 499) ii. 740 Humbree v. S. (81 Ala. 67) i. 975c, 1094 Hume v. Commercial Bank, 10 Lea, 1; 48 Am. R, 290) i. 314 v. Oldacre (1 Stark. 361) 1] —, S. ». (12 Or. 183) ii. 1051 —, Reg. v. ne & M 6593) ii. 721} Hummel v. 8. (17 Ohio St. 628) ii. 782, 751 —, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 176) ii. 746 | Hummell’s Case (9 Watts, 416) —_i. 1878 — , Reg. v. (4 Cox C. 0, 445) i. 969 a | Humphrey ». P. (18 Hun, 393) i. 1182; — , Reg. v. (14 Cox OC. C, 228) ii. 740 ii. 329 —,, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 P. C. 81) i. 141 | —— v. S. (Minor, 64) i. 1264 —, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 373) i. 1355| Humphreys, Reg. v. (Car. & M. —, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 126) ii. 614, 652) 601 i. 870 —. Rex v. (2 East P. C, 1002; 1 —, Rex v. (1 Vent. 802) i, 470 Leach, 311, n.) ii, 481! -—— v. §. (17 Fla. 381) i. 612 589 HUN INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. HUR Humphreys v. S. (45 Ga. 190) i. 1050; | Hunter v. Mathis (40 Ind. 356) i. 8706 : ii. 670, 672 | —— v. P. (1 Scam. 453) i. 75 —, S. v. (1 Tenn. 306) i, 943 | ——, P. v. (10 Cal. 502) _ 41 2647 Humphries v. 8S. (33 Ark. 718) i. 264 a| ——, P. v. (54 Cal. 65) i, 850, 854 v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 302) i. 1066 | ——, Reg. v. (10 Cox C. C. 642) ii. 178 —, S. v, (35 La. An. 966) i. 612, 614 | —,, Rex v. (3 Car. & P. 591) i, 1817; Humphry’s Case (Cro. Eliz. 458) ii. 382 ii. 483, 434 Hundley, S.-v. (46 Mo. 414) i. 981, 1050; ii. 670, 671 Hundsdon, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 611) ii. 706, 707 Hung Hang, Ex parte (108 U. S. 552) i. 1411 Hung Sin, Ex parte (54 Cal. 102) i. 251 Hungerford, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 518) i. 1013; ii. 143, 764 Hunn, S. v. (34 Ark. 321) i. 379 Hunnel v. S. (86 Ind. 431) i, 68, 74 Hunnicutt v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 498; ' 61 Am. R. 330) i, 1212 v. 8. (28 Tex. Ap. 682) i. 966 ¢ Hunt, Ex parte (28 Tex. Ap. 861) i. 1827 v. Bennett (19 N. Y. 173) ii. 788 — v. C. (13 Grat. 757; 70 Am. D. 443) ii. 739 —, C. v. (4 Met. 111; 38 Am. D. 346 i, 213, 215, 242 — , C. v. (4 Pick. 252) i. 481 — v. Chicago, &c. Ry. (20 Bradw. 282) i. 1417 v. P. (76.N. Y. 89) i. 1368 v. P. (8 Par. Cr. 569) ii. 625, 626 —, P. v. (59 Cal. 480) i, 9984 ——,, Reg. v. (2 Cox C. C. 239) i. 1212, 1213 —, Reg. v. (2 Cox C. C. 261) i. 1323 —, Reg. v. (8 Cox C. C, 215) i, 442 —; Rex »v. (8 B. & Ald. 444; 2 Chit. 130) i. 68, 70, 73 —, Rex v. (8 B. & Ald. 566) i, 1128; ii. 235 —,, Rex v. (4 B. & Ald. 430) i, 932 —, Rex v. (2 Camp. 683) i. 127, 1052; ii, 784 — , Rex ». (1 Moody, 93) i. 165; ii. 654 v. S. (49 Ga. 255; 156 Am. R. 77) i. 301, 318 — v.58. (81 Ga. 140) i. 975 ¢, 977, 984, mee — v. 8. (10 Ind.-69) i. 1020 — v. 8. (61 Missis. 577) i. 897, 898 — v. §. (4 Tex. Ap. 53) i. 733.4 v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 212) i. 1077 v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 404) i. 713 — vt. i ‘Tex, Ap. 149; 19 815) Am. St. i. 1181, 1186 —, 8. ». (Coxe, 287) i, 950 b, 1380 —, 8. v. (45 Iowa, 673) ii, 754 — , 8. v. (91 Mo. 490) i. 68, 72 Hunter, Ex parte (16 Fla. 575) im 1310 v. C. (7 Grat. 641; 66 Am. D 121) ii, 230 —— v. C, (28. & R. 298) ii, 283 — v. C, (79 Pa, 608; 21 Am. R. 83) i, 426, 446 590 ——, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 128) ii. 433, 434 — , Rex ». (2 Leach, 624; 2 East P. C.-928) ii. 415 — , Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 511) ii. 415 —., Rex »v. (1 Wils. 163) i, 1342 v. 8. (55 Ark. 357) i. 975 », 8. (438 Ga. 483) i. 68, 71, 994, 1107; ii. 680 x. §. (29 Ind. 80) i. 814. a: ii, 142 v. 8. (101 Ind. 406) i. 1265 —- v, S. (62 eon 540) ii. 27 —— uv. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 75) i. 686, 9984 — v. S. (80 Tex. Ap. 314) i. 614; ii. 548 v. §, (11 Vroom, 495) i, 451, 1086 —, 8. v. (8 Blackf. 212) i. 605; ii, 883 —, 8. v. (6 Humph. 597) i. 859 —, S. v. (94 N. C. 829) i. 1050 —,, S. v. (Peck, 166) i. 665 —, S. v. (44 Tex. 94) ii. Ba Huntingdon v. C. (72 Pa. 80) i. 306 —,, C. v. (3 Rawle, 487) i. 1816 —, S. v. (1 Tread. 825; 3 Brev. 111) i. 8144 Huntley, Reg. v. (Bell, 238; 8 Cox C. C. 260 481, 449 Huntly, S. v. (3 Ire. 418; 40 Ara D. 416) i. 1083, 1086 Huntzinger v. C. (97 Pa. 336) ii. 198 Hurd, C, v. (128 Mass. 488) ii. 754 —— v. Moore (2 Or. 85) ii, 123 v. PB. (25 Mich. 406) i, 293 —— v. Stanly (2 Root, 186) ii. 1000 Haurds, S. v. (19 Neb. 316) i. 611 Hurell v. 8. (5 Humph. 68) ii. 986 Hurlbut, S. v. (1 Root, 90) i. 269 Hurley, Pv, (8 Cal. 390) i. 978, 980 —,, P. x. (60 Cal. 74; 44 Am. R. 55) ii. 740 ——, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 478) ii. 488 = 5:8; (29 Ark. 17) i. 931, 949a, ee 1206 ——v.8. (6 Ohio, 399) i. 1011, 1285 —— v. 8. (380 Tex. Ap. 333; 28 Am. St. 916) i. 1247, 1265 — , S. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 28) ii. 674 ——,, 8. v. (54 Me. 562) i. 761 —, 8. v. (71 Me. 354) i. 407 Harn, Ex parte (92 Ala. 102; ae Am. St, 28) 211 Hee Reg. v. (3 Fost. & F. 271) ii. "9336 Rex v. (Ryan & Moody, N. P. 296 ii. 730 Hurse, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 360) ii. 264 Hurst, P. v. (41 Mich, 828) i. 282, 814a — v. 8. (79 Ala. 55) ii. 946 v. 8. (86 Ala. 604; 11 Am. St. 9 ii, 945 i, 816; ——, 8. v. (11 W. Va. 64) ii. 172, 178 Hurt v. §. (55 Ala. 214) ii, 136 ICK Hurt v. B: (26 Ind. 106) i. 68, 73, 951; i et v. (7 Misso. 321) Hurtado v. California (110 U. 5." 516) i, 100a, ms ad Hussey, C. v. (13 Mass. 221) —,, C. v. (111 Mass, 432) ii. 315, 32t, 329 — vv Davis (68 N. H. 317) i, 243 — v. S. (87 Ala. 121) i, 861, 1081, 1113, 1212 —, S. v. (Busbee, 128) i, 1158 — , S. v. (7 Iowa, 409) ii, 952, 971 ——, S. v. (60 Me. 410; 11 Am. R. 209) ii. 845 Hust, P. v. (49 Cal. 653) ii. 327, 329 Huston v. P. (121 Ill. 497) 1.975 ¢; 11.975 Hutchason v. S. (67 Ind. 449) i. 1152 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. INT Idaho, The (12 Saw. 156; 29 Fed. Rep. 187 i. 64 Iglehart v. Jernegan (16 Ill. 513) ii. ‘676 Igo, S. v. (21 Mo. 459) i. 999 1| Ihinger v. S. (53 Ind. 251) i, 965 Thrig v. S. (40 Ind. 422) i. 127 Ike v. S. (28 Missis. 525) i. 821, 612 Tl, S. v. (74 Iowa, 441) i. 898 Illinois Cent. Rid. v. Sutton (42 Tl. 438; 92 Am. D. 81) i. 1111 Iinois, &e. Rid. v. Van Horn Me Til. 257) i. 677 Iisley v. Nichols (12 Pick. 270; 22 Am. D. 425) i, 2246 Imason v. Cope (5 Car. & P. 198) i. 188 Imbert, U.S. v. (4 Wash. C. C. 702) ii. 638 Hutchings, Ex parte (11 Tex. aD. Imsand, U.S. v. (1 Woods, 581) i. 636, 28) 261 1085 —— v. 8. (24 Tex. Ap. 242) i, 364 m | Incledon, Rex v. (18 East, 164) ii. 871 —, S. v. (24 8. C, 142) i. 458 | —, Rex v. (1M. & 8. 268) i. 1814 Hutchinson v. C. (4 Met. 359) i. 488 a; Independence v. Dunkin (40 ie ii, 133a@} 329) 3316 —, C. v. (1 Mass. 7) ii, 429, 483 | Ingalls v. S. (48 Wis. 647) i. OT5e, 1169; — , C. v. (10 Mass. 225) i. 1144 ii. 740 —, Rex v. (2 B. & C. 608, note) i. 1207 |, 8. v. (59 N. H. 88) i. 403 —-, Rex »v. (Russ. & Ry, 412) ii. 722 | Ingersoll, C. v. (145 Mass. 231) i. 1174 ——, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 164) ii, 915) ——, P. v. (14 Abb. Pr. n. 8. 28) i. 260 —— v. 8. (62 Ind. 556) ii. 727 | —, P. v. (68 N.Y. 1; 17 Am. R. — v. 8. (L9 Neb. 262) i919] 178) i, 287 — v.§. (6 Tex. Ap. 468) i. 1279 | ——, Territory v. (8 Mont. 454) «i. 876 —, S. v. (27 Iowa, 212) i. 68 | Ingle v. Bell (1 M. & W. 516) i. 170, 188 —, S. v. (7 Nev. 53) i. 9806, 1012 | —— v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 307) ii. 763 , 5. v. (26 Tex. 111) i. 857 yee rr, Rex v. (1 Wils. 189) i. 691 Hutchison, C. v. (114 Mass. 825) ii 187 | Ingold, S pe Me Jones, N.C, 216; o — v.S. (4 Tex. Ap. 435) i. 2640, 2645] Am. D. 2 1275 Huting, S. v. (21 Mo. 464) i. 951; ii. | Ingraham, e v. (7 Gray, 46) i. "1034 ; 671, 673 ii. 58 Hutson, S. v. (15 Mo. 512) i. 688 v. P. (94 Ill. 428) i. 31l4a Hutto v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 44) —, 8. v. (Cheves, 78) i. 926 i. 354, 975, 980 Hutton, C. v. (5 Gray, 89; 66 Am. D. 352) Hutzell, 8. v. (53 Ind. 160) Huxley, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 596) Hyatt v. Adams (16 Mich. 180) —— v. Wood (4 Johns. 150; 4 Am. D. 258) ii. 878 Hyde v. Harkness (1 Idaho, 536) i. 3l4a — v.58. (16 Tex. 445; 67 Am. D. 630) i, 918, 9514 i. 891 i. 478 ii. 84 ii. 626 —— v. Trewhitt (7 Coldw. 59) i, 279 —— v. Woolfolk (1 Iowa, 159) ii. 482 6 Hyland, S. v. (36 La. An. 87) i. 1269 Myler, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 566) i. 877 —,P.» (2 Par. Cr. 570) i. 256, 257, 865, 867 Hyman, Rex », (2 Leach, 925; 2 East P. C. 782) ii, 980 Hyndman, P. v. (99 Cal. 1) ii, 514 Hynes, 8. v. (89 Mo. Ap. 669) i. 521, 612 1. S.S., S.v. (1 Tyler, 178) i. 1394 Iams, P. 1, (57 Cal. 115) i. 981 Teknod, C. v, (38 Pa, 80) i. 8144 Ingram v. Foote (1 Ld. Raym. 708) i. 886 —— v. §. (27 Ala. 17) i. 224 a, 1886 — v. S§. (89 Ala. 247; 84 Am. D. 782) i. 779, 1120 v. §. (67 Ala. 67) = i. 1218 — v. §. (10 Kan. 680) i, 264.4, 264d, 264 v. 8. (7 Misso. 298) i. 1265, 1269 —, 8. v. (16 Kan. 14) _ i, 815, 817, 980 1052, 1223, 1288, 1396 ; ii. 740 Inman v. 8. (54 Ga. 219) ii. 779 — v. 8. (72 Ga. 269) i, 966 c, 1249 ——, S. v. (76 Mo. 548) i. 360 Innerarity v. Hitchcock (3 Stew. _ P. 9) F Innis v. S, (42 Ga. 478) i. 1079; ii. 968 Insall v. 8. - Tex. Ap. 145) i. 98a Inskeep v. S. (85 Ohio St. 482) i, 1364 —,S.v 49 Ohio St. 228) ii. 55 Insurance Co. v. Mosley (8 Wal. 397) i. 1086; ii, 625, 626 Intoxicating Liquors, C. v. (6 Allen, 596 i, 242 (See Certain Intoxicating Liquors.) —, C.v. (13 Allen, 62) i. 241, 242, 248 —,C. v. (18 Allen, 661) i. 106.4 591 IVE Intoxicating Liquors, C. v. (14 Gray, ) i. 13815 —., C. v. (97 Mass. 332) i. 245 —, C. v. (97 Mass. 334) i, 241, 245 ——. C. v. (103 Mass. 448) i. 241, 3l4a —, C. v. (105 Mass. 176, 178, 181, 468, 595) 4 241, 314 a, 1266 —,, C. v. (113 Mass. 18) i, 241 —, C. vu. (115 Mass. 142, 145) i. 241, 1093 , ©. v. (122 Mass. 14) i. 241 ——-, C. v. (185 Mass. 519) i. 1346 ——! Gv. (140 Mass. 287) i. 209 —, C. v.'(150 Mass. 164) i, 241, 245 —, 58. v. (40 Iowa, 95) ii, 1272 —, 5S. v. (64 Iowa, 300) i, 241 —, S. v. (83 Me. 158) i. 400 Inwood v. 8. (42 Ohio St. 186) i. 727 Irby v. 8. (25 Tex. Ap. 203) i, 1207 Ireland, Rex v. (7 How. St. Tr. 79) i.729 Irvin v. S. (19 Fla. 872) i. 68, 78, 1353 v. 8. (37 Tex. 412) ii. 697, 779 —v.S. (1 Tex. Ap. 301) i. 1159, 1169 v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 109) i. 888, 354, Irvine v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 499) ii. 740 v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 51) i. 1086 — v.S. (20 Tex. Ap. 12) i. 951, 975 c, 980 a Irving, P. v. (95 N. Y. 541) i. 1181 v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 46) i. 423 Irwin, Ex parte (88 Cal. 169) i. 1327 —, C. v. (1 Allen, 587) i. 205 —,C. v. (107 Mass. 401) i. 400 v. Dixion (9 How. U, 8. 10) i. 1416, 1417 v. Grey (Law Rep.2 H. L. 20) i. 1869 — v. 8. (54 Ga. 39) i. 1238 — v. S. (10 Neb. 325) i, 2644 —, 8. v. (1 Hayw. 112) i, 1259 ——, S. v. (80 Mo. 249) i. 1275 Isaac v. S. (2 Head, 458) i. 926 Isaacs v. Brand (2 Stark. 167) i, 182 —, Rex v. (1 Russ. Crimes, ae Eng. ed. 208 i. 254 — vu. 8. (28 Md. 410) i. 1310; ii, 762 Isbell, Ex parte (11 Nev. 295) i. 263 — v. S. (31 Tex, 138) ii, 595 Iseley v. S. (8 Blackf. 403) i, 484 Isham v. 8. (1 Sneed, 111) i. 704, 949, 1016 —, S. v. (3 Hawks, 185) i. 816 Ishmael v. 8. (41 Tex. 244) i. 264 a, 264d Isler v. Murphy (71 N. C. 486) i. 1347 Ismahl, C. v. (184 Mass. 201) ii, 277 Israel, C. +. (4 Leigh, 675) ii. 392, 394 —, Reg. v. (2 Cox C. C. 263) i. 788. — , Rex »v. (3 D. & R. 284) i. 488; ii. 910, 911 — v. §. (8 Ind. 467) i, 1315 Iverson v. S, (52 Ala. 170) i. 921, 922, 934, 949 Ives, S. v. (13 Ire. 338) ii. 988 Iveson v. Moore (1 Ld. Raym. 486) ii. 100 592 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. JAC Ivey, P. v. (49 Cal. 58) i. 989 v. S. (12 Ala. 276) ii. 306, 309 v. S. (28 Ga. 576) i. 139 =e et (43 Tex. 425) i. 1050; ii. 745 v. (11 Ala. 47) i. 1265, 1267 R S uv. (L00 N. C. 589) i. 870 Ivins, S. v. (7 Vroom, 283) ii. 963 Ivy, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 185) ii. 426 Izard, S. v. (14 Rich. 209) i. 1010 J. H., S. v. (1 Tyler, 444) i. 230 J. W.,S. v. (1 Tyler, 417) i. 1279 Jack v. P. (a9 Ill. 57 i, 264.4 — v. 8. (26 Tex. 1 i, 999, 1269 v. §. (8 Tex. Ap. 72) i. 860 — v5. {50 Tex. An 686) i. 975, 1277 v. Territory (2 Wash. Ter. 101) i. 982.4 Jackalow, U. S. w. (1 gt 484) i. 66, 67, 989 b; ii. 286 Jackman, P. v. (96 Mich. 269) ii, 783, 786 — v.S. (71 Ind. 149) i. 977 Jacks, P. v. (76 Mich. 218) ii. 752 a Jackson’s Case (1 Lewin, 270) ii. 931 Jackson, Ex parte (96 U. 8.727) i. 1801 — , In re (2 Flip. 183) i, 222 — , In re (3 MacAr. 24) i. 1827 —— v. Berwick (1 Mod. 36) i, 120 v. Boyd (53 Iowa, 536) i. 1801 v. C. (18 Grat. 795) , i. 316 —— v. C. (19 Grat. 656) i. 125, 271, 278, 728, 1212 —— v. C, (23 Grat. 919) i. 239, 909 —, C. v. (1 Grant, Pa. 262 ; 4 Went. Pl. 149) i. 128, 652 a, 674; ii. 378, 882 —, C. v. (182 Mass. 16; 44 Am. R. 299, note) i. 1127; ii. 189 —, C. v. (2 Va, Cas. 501) i. 777 —— ». Heath (1 Bailey, 355) i, 1151 v. P. (18 Ill. 269) i. 1336 ; ii, 585 v. P. (40 Tl. 405) i. 860, 1355 v. P. (126 Tl. 139) ii. 187 —— ». P. (8 Mich. 262) i. 1864 ——, P. v. (8 Barb. 637) ii. 702, 732, 785 — , P. v. (57 Cal. 316) i. 975 c, 976 —, P. v. (3 Denio, 101; 45 Am. D. 449) ii. 275 —, P. v. (8 Mich. 110) i. 1265 ——, P.v. (111 N. Y. 362) 1.926; ii. 627 ——, P. v. (8 Par. Cr, 391) ii. 966 —, ieee v. (1 Car. & K. 384) ii, 337 i (2 Russ. Crimes, 5th ) ii. 135 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 778) i. 967 —, Rex v. (26 How. St. Tr. = 738 b ~—, Rex v. (1 Leach, 267; 1 ae P.'C. 419) i. 687, 618; ii. 80 — , Rex v. (1 Lev. 124) i. 1272 ——, Rex v. (6 T. R. 145) i. 1377 — v.§. (52 Ala, 805) i, 1086; ii. 623, 626 — v. S. (54 Ala. 234) ii, 752 JAC INDEX TO THE Jackson v. S. (69 Ala. 249) ii. 714 — v. 8. (74 Ala. 26) i. 688, 926, 1015 a —— v. §. (77 Ala. 18) 1.909, 966 c; ii. 617 —— v. §. (83 Ala. 76) i, 1220 — v.58. (90 Ala. 590) i. 63; ii, 613 v. 8. (91 Ala. 55; 24 Am. St. 860) i, 738; ii. 91 — v. §, (29 Ark. 62) i. 314 — v. S. (6 Blackf. 461) i 897 — v. §. (54 Ga. 489) 1.1277; ii. 14 — v. S. (56 Ga. 285) i. 1212 v. S. (64 Ga. 344) 1.777 — v.§. (72 Ga. 28) i, 682 —v. S. (76 Ga. 651) i. 682, 850, 9824, 1116, 1364; ii. 825, 327 — v. §. (87 Ga. 432) ii. 287 @ — v. S. (88 Ga. 784) 1.611; ii. 688 @ v. S. (4 Ind. 560) i. 484 — v. 8. (14 Ind. 321) i. 1190; ii. 712 — v. §. (21 Ind. 79) i. 8694 —_ »v. a Ind. 7) i, 1264, 1859 —— v. 8. (4 Kan. 150) i. 703 —v. 55 Missis. 5380) i. 946 — v.S. (56 Missis. 311) i. 1255 . (66 Missis. 89; 14 Am. St. i. 159, 975 c, 981 . (89 Ohio St. 37) i, 484, 1181 . (Smith, Ind. 124; 1 Ind. Pree cate wo anh DH DADDDDDD DL "784) ii, 918 — v.§. (11 Tex. 261) i. 851, 884, 1843 —— v.8. (43 Tex. 421) ii. 127 — v S. (4 Tex. Ap. 292) i. 951, 975, 1170 — v.S. (9 Tex. Ap. 114) i. 1094 v. §. (15 Tex. Ap. 84) i. 975 —— v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 579) ii. 912 — v. 8. (16 Tex. Ap. 378) i. 1265 v. §. (18 Tex. Ap. 586) i. 966 d —— v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 108) i. 975¢ — v.8. (28 Tex. Ap. 148) ii, 1538 —— v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 3870; 19 Am. St. 839) i. 965, 1249; ii. 162 — v.§. (29 Tex. Ap. 458) i. 1058 — »v. §. (81 Tex. Cr. 342) ii. 751 — v.§. (25 Tex. Supp. 229) i, 9800 v. 8. (20 Vroom, 252) i, 272 v. S. (55 Wis. 589) i, 689 b — v.§. (81 Wis. 127) i. 975c, 1116 —,S.v. (46 Ark. 157) i. 13817 — , 8. v. (89 Conn. 229) i. 611, 627 ——, S.v. (1 Houst. Crim. 561) li. 752 —,S. v. (7 Ind. 270) ii. 841, 843 — , S. v. (68 Ind. 58) i. 286 — , S. v. (12 Ire. 829) ii, 842 ——, S. v. (27 Kan. 581; 41 Am. R. 424) i. 946 —., 5. v. (12 La. An. a i. 9814, 959 a, 1265 ; ii. 613 —. 8. cv, (21 La. An. 574) i, 145 —, S. v. (88 La. An. 1087) ii. 618 —, 8S. v. (35 La. An. 769) i, 924 —,S.v, er La. An. 96) i. 887 —,S.v. (87 La. An. 467) ii. 64 —, 5S. v. (37 La. An. 768) i, 909 —, S. v. (37 La, An. 896) ii. 618 VOL. 11,—- 38 4 CASES CITED. JAM Jackson, S. v. (387 La. An. 897) i911 —,, 8. ». (46 La. An. 547) ii. 951 i. 485 —,S8.v. ee Me. 29) , S. v. (89 Me. 291) i. 49, 378, 380 —, 8. v. (17 Mo. 544; 59 Am. D. 281) =i. 464, 457, 1112; ii. 65, 67, 620, 621, 625 —, 8. v. (86 Mo. 18) ii. 740 —, S. v. (89 Mo. 561) ii. 425 b —, S.v. (90 Mc. 156) i. 1015 a; ii. 472 —, S. v. (95 Mo. 628) i. 975 c, 1250 —, S. v. (96 Mo. 200) i. 975c —, S. v. (99 Mo. 60) ii. 595 — _, 8. v. (9 Mont. 508) i, 279 —, S. v, (9 Or. 457) i. 1144 ——} 8. v. (7 8. C. 288) i. 1898; ii. 225 —, S. rv. (82 S. C. 27) ii. 627 — , 8. v. (86 8. C. 487; 31 Am. St. 890) i. 975 c, 979, 1066 ; ii. 601 —, 8. v. (26 W. Va. 250) ii. 1002 v. Sharff (1 Or. 246) i.-1279 , U.S8.v. (8 Saw. 59) i. 625; ii, 364 Jacob, S. v. (2 Mo. Ap. 183) ii. 761 , 8. v, (80 S. C.181; 14 Am. St. 897) i. 948 v. U.S. (1 Brock. 520) i. 1180 Jacobowsky v. P. (6 Hun, 524) i. 1285 Jacobs v. C. (2 Leigh, 709) ii. 835 v. C. (6 S. & R. 815) i. 891 —, C.v. (152 Mass. 276) i. 447, 682 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 809) i, 1260 — v. S. (61 Ala. 448) i, 688; ii. 415 v. 8. (20 Ga. 839) i, 949 a, 1814 — v. 8. (4 Lea, 196) i. 815 v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 79) i. 184, 1265 —, S. v. (Bushee, 218) i. 1877 ——, 8. v. (6 Jones, N. C. 259) i. 965 — , S. v. (103 N. C. 897) ii. 287 a — ,S. v. (106 N. C. 695) i. 1028, 1249 —,S8.v. (107 N. C. 772; 22 Am. St. 912 i 269 —,S. «. (107 N. C. 878) i.989 a; ii. 683 ——, 8. v. (17 Ohio, 143) ii. 824 ——,, 8.’v. (28 8. C. 29) i, 966 —, S. v. (6 Tex. 99) i. 853 Jacobson, Reg. v. (14 Cox C.C. 522), ii. 1010 Jacoby, U.S. +. (12 Blatch. 491) i. 446 —— v. Waddell (61 Iowa, 247) i, 1264 Jacquemine v. S. (48 Missis. 280) i. 251 Jacques v. P, (66 Ill. 84) i, 1121 Jacquins v. C. (9 Cush. 279) i. 1878 Jaeger, S. c. (66 Mo. 178) i. 1248; ii. 976 Jager, S. v. (19 Wis. 235) i, 1265 Jagger, Rex v. (1 East P. C. 465) i, 1158 Jailer, C. v. (1 Grant, Pa. 218) i. 189, 228, 229 Jailer of Fayette, U.S. v. (2 Abb. U. 8. 266) i. 191 Jambor v. S. (75 Wis. 664) i 1978 James, C. v. (99 Mass. 438) i. 1019, 10194; ii. 629 593 JAR James, C. v, (1 Pick. 375) i. 665, 1078; ii. 701, 752 4 ——, P. v. (2 Caines, 57) i. 1884 —,, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 530) ii. 653 ——, Reg v. (4 Cox C.C. 9U) ii. 436 -—, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 127; 2 Eng. Rep. 192) ii. 179, 182 ——, Rex v. (3 Car. & P. 222) i. 951 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 553) i. 882; ii. 421, 425 b, 426, 427 4 ——, Rex v. (6 How. St. Tr. 67) i. 729 —, Rex »v. (1 Show. 397; Carth. 220 ) ii. 938 € : v. Rutlech (4 Co. 17) ii. 793. —— ».§. (41 Ark. 451) i. 1130 ——v.S. (45 Missis.572) i. 1077, 1298, 1358 —— v. §. (44 Tex. 314) i. 160 —, 8. v. (2 Bay, 215) i. 1286 —, S. v. (87 Conn. 355) i. 959 e —, S.v. (78 N. C. 455) ii. 368 —, S. v. (80 N.C. 370) i, 185, 187 —, 8. v. (90 N. C. 702). i. 1249 —, S. v. (58 N. H. 67) ii. 751 ——'r. Ward (2 Met. Ky.271) i. 1327 Jameson v. 8. (25 Neb. 185) i. 975, 1076 —,S. v. (13 Nev. 425) i. 1317 Jaminet v. Monroe Supervisors (77 Mich. 245) i. 1317 Jamison v., Gaernett (10 Bush, 221) i. 183 —— v. P. (145 Ill. 357) ii, 638, 673, 679, _. 87 a — v.S. (87 Ark. 445; 40 Am-R. 103) ii, 178 —,, S. v. (74 Towa, 613) ii. 189 Jane v. C.(2 Met. Ky.30) i. 1094, 1242 — v. C. (3 Met. Ky. 18) —— v.§. (3 Misso. 61) i. 145, 325, 535; ii. 532 i. 376, 379, 887, 414, 535 Janeway v.S.(1 Head, 130) i. 424, 1071 Jansen v. Ostrander (1 Cow. 670) i. 406 J’Anson v. Stuart (1 T. R. 748) i. 494; ; ii. 100 Janson, S. v. (80 Mo. 97) ‘ji. 163 January, P. v. (70 Cal. 84) i, 2644 —— ». Sacramento Super. Ct. (73 Cal. 537) i. 1265 Janvier, S. v. (87 La. An, 644) ii. 613 Jaques v. C. (10 Grat. 690) i. 901 Jaquith v. Royce (42 Iowa, 406) i. 814a, 315 Jarcke v. S. (Riley, 296) i. 581 Jarnagin v. S. (10 Yerg. 629) i. 283, 613, 999 Jarrald, Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 801) _ i. 526, 611; ii. 1804 Jarrell v. S. (58 Ind. 298) i. 976c, 1094; ii, 655, 660 Jarrott, S.v, (1 Ire. 76) 4.1100 Jarvis v. Hamilton (16 Wis. 574) ii. 880 —— v. Hamilton (19 Wis. 187) ii. 882 —, Reg. v. (Dears. 552; 7 Cox C. C. 63; 33 Eng. L. & Eq. 567) =i. 1126 594 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. JEN Jarvis, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C. 96; 10 Cox C. C. 574) i. 1227 —, Rex v. (1 Bur. 148) i. 682, 633 —, Rex »v. (1 East, 643, n.) i. 634 ——, Rex v. (1 East, 644) i. 632 —, Rex v. (1 Moody, 7) ii, 188 —, S. v. (63 N. C. 556) i. 314.4, 762 — , S. v. (18 Or. 360) i. 416, 442 Jasper, S. v. (4 Dev. 323) i. 388, 396 Jay, S. v. (67 Iowa, 164) ii. 975 —, 8. v. (5 Vroom, 368) i. 488, 562; ii. 802 Jayne v. Price (6 Taunt. 326; 1 Marshall, 68) ii. 884 Jaynes, S. v. (78 N. C. 504) i. 1067; ii. 37, 138, 850 Jeandell, S. v. (6 Harring. Del. 475 ii. 800, 801 Jefcoat, S. v. (20 8. C. 383) i. 265, 269, 276, 277, 1293 Jeff v. S. (89 Missis. 593) Jeffcoat, S. v. (268. C. 114) i. 1101 i. 850, 887 Jefferson, In re, v. Cowan (54 Mo. 234) i.3l4a —, C. v. (6 B. Monr. 313) i, 1364 v. P. (101 N. Y. 19) i. 639 v. 8. (52 Missis. 767) i. 911, 947 — , S. v. (3 Harring. Del. 571) i. 1100; ii. 67 —, 8. v. (6 Ire. 305) ii. 965, 966 —'S§. v. (43 La. An. 995) i. 975; ii. 618 —, 8. v. (77 Mo. 138) i. 1181 —, 8. v. (66 N. C. 309) i. 814, 826, 1264, 1362, 1379, Jeffors, S. v. (64 Mo. 376) i. 1343 Jeffreys, S. v. (Conference, 364) i. 660, 665 —, S. v. (8 Murph. 480) i, 1278 Jeffries v. C. (12 Allen, 145) i. 355, 660, 668, 1293, 1853, 1370 - —— v. C. (84 Ky. 237) i. 1020; ii. 514 —, C. v. (7 Allen, 548; 83 Am. D. 712) i, 488e, 1107; ii. 187, 190 —— +. 8. (39 Ala. 655) —— v.S. (9 Tex. Ap. 598) Jeffs, C. v. (182 Mass. 5) Jelks v. McRae (25 Ala. 440) : Jellias, Rex v. (1 East P. C, 180) ii. 10387 Jelly, Reg. v. (10 Cox C. C. 558) i, 1266 Jenifer v. Lord Proprietary (1 Har. i. & McH. 535) 1264 Jenkins, C. v. (10 Gray, 485) i. 1108; ii. 991 — , C. v. (Thacher Crim. Cas. 118) | i. 998 a, —— v. Davies (10 Q. B. 814) i. 989 —, P. uv. (66 Cal. 4) i. 1004 ——, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 536) i. 965, 1060 ——, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 177) i, 1170 ——, Rex r. (Russ. & Ry. 492) i, 1242 —— v. 8. (78 Ind. 1838) i. 3144, 816 — 1. 5S. (30 Missis. 408) i. 68, 1355 —— v. §. (41 Missis. 582) i, 1058 — v. 8. (80 Tex, 444) i, 951 — v. 8. (86 Tex. 638) i, 639, 980 oy a E Jenkins v. S. (41 Tex. 128) i, 999 — v.58. (1 Tex. Ap. 346) ii. 968, 969, 970 S. x. (120 Ind. 268) S. v. (6 Jones, N. C, 19) —, 8. v. (82 Kan. 477) i. 931 ——, %. v, (86 La. An. 865) i, 1264 —, S. v. (48 La. An. 917) i, 1002 — S. v. (24 Mo. Ap. 483) i. 251 —, S.u. (73 N. C. 478) ii, 722 —, 8. v. (84 N. C. 812; 87 Am. R. 643) i. 273 —, S. v. (14 Rich. 215; 94 Am. D. 132) ii. —, 8. v. (2 Tyler, 377) i. 1219 —,, S. v. (60 Wis. 599) i. 711 Jenkinson, Rex v. (1 T. R. 82) i. 1817 poi C. v. (1 Gray, 490) i. 13896 —, C. v. (188 Mass. 484) ii. 732 —v. en (Ware, 51) —, P. v, (24 Cal. 11) — , Rex v. (2 Leach, 774; 2 East P. C. 514) i, 621, 682; ii. 145, 147 — v.8. (39 Ind. 1) i. 951a v. S. (16 Wis. 332) i. 1866 —— v.58. (17 Wis. 665) i, 372; ii. 866 Jenness, P. v. (5 Mich. 3805) i. 460, 461, 1169 Jennett, S. v. (88 N. C. 665) ii. 740 Jennings v. C. (105 Mass. 586) i. 1010, 1891, 1396 — v.C. (17 Pick. 80) i. 1015 —, C. v. (3 Grat. 624) i. 3144 — , C. v, (121 Mass. 47; 23 Am. R. 249) i. 689 v. Hankyn (Carth. 11) i. 123 ii, 455, 456 —— v, P. (8 Mich. 81) — , Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 115) i. 436 — , Reg. v. (Dears. & B. 447 ; 7 Cox C. C. 897) i. 478, 484 a v. §. (59 Ga. 307) i, 1095 — v.§, (13 Kan. 80) i. 264a — v. 8. (9 Misso. 856) ii. 80 — vv. §. (1 Or. 290) i. 1845 — v. §. (7 Tex. Ap. 350) ii, 689 — v. 8. (80 Tex. Ap. 428) i. 231 —, S. v. (79 Iowa, 513) ii. 142 —, S. v. (24 Kan. 642) i. 1293 — , S. v. (18 Mo. 435) i. 1276 ——, S. v. (81 Mo. 185; 51 Am. R. 236) i, 951, 1066; ii. 740 —, S. v. (98 Mo. 493) i. 931 —,S. v. (85 Tex. 508) ii. 68, 655, 657 -—— v. Sherwood (8 Conn. 122) i. 792 Jenour, Rex v. (7 Mod. 400) i487 Jensen v. S. (60 Wis. 577) i. 686; ii, 816 Jenther, U. S. v. (18 Blateh. 835) i . 826; ii. 776 a Jericho, S. v. (40 Vt.121; 94. Am. D. 387) i. 847 Jernigan v. S. (81 Ala. 58) i, 13898 0). . (10 Tex. Ap. 546) i. 1170 ; ii. 740 Jerome, 8. v. (88 Conn. 265) i. 965, 1117; ii. 967 Jerry v. S. (1 Blackf. 895) — i. 665, 668; ii, 648 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. JOH Jerry-v. Townshend (9 Md. 145) ii.678, 679 Jervis, Rex v. (6 Car. & P, 156) ii, 982 Jesse v. S. (20 Ga. 156) i. 893, 925, $66 —— v. §. (28 Missis. 100) i. 966, 1868; ii. 44 —, 8. v. (2 Dev. & Bat. 297) 1, 585 Jessie, S. v. (80 La. An. 1170) i, 1005a Jessup, S. v. (42 Kan. 422) i, 759 Jeter v. 8. (1 McCord, 288) i, 314; ii. 824 Jetton v. S. (Meigs, 192) i, 863, 868 v. 8. at Tex. Ap. 311) i. 9514 Jewell v. C: (22 Pa. 4) i. 269, 276, 988, 938, 13859 —, Reg. v. (7 Ellis & B: 140) i. 1085 —, S. v. (83 Me. 583) i, 909, 918 ——,, S. v. (90 Mo. 467) i. 951 a Jewett, P. v. (8 Wend. 814) i. 852, 876, 881, 1877 Jillard v. C. (26 Pa. 169) i. 440, 882 Jilz, Ex parte (64 Mo. 205; 27 Am. R. 218) i. 1410 Jim v. §. (15 Ga. 635) —_ i. 909, 1228, 1276 —— v. §. (4 Humph. 289) i. 979, 998 a v. 8. (6 Humph. 145) i, 1078 — v.§8. (8 Humph. 603) ii. 182 v. §. (3 Misso. 147) i. 71 —,S. v. (1 Dev. 142) ii. 951 — , §. v. (1 Dev. 508) i. 1149 —, S. v. (8 Jones, N. C. 348) i. 1188 —, S. v. (8 Murph. 3) i. 605 v. Territory (1 Wash. 76) i. 1220 Jim Ti, P. v, (32 Cal. 60) i. 706.4, 707a, 1220, 1286, 1289; ii. 752 Jinks ». 8. (5 Tex. ‘Ap. 68) ii. 721 Joan v. C. (186 Mass. 162) i. 1868 doula 8. v. (48 Iowa, 181) ii. 165 —, S. v. (69 Me. 218) ii. 1020 Job, Ex parte (17 Nev. 184) i. 870 Jobe v. S. (28 Ga. 235) i. 1298 —— v.8. (1 Tex. Ap. 183) i. 1264, 1275 ene Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 625) ii. 188 Joe v. 8. (6 Fla. 691; 65 Am. D. 579) i. 1264; ii. 650 Joeckel, 8. v. (44 Mo. 234) i, O77 Joel v. 8. (28 Tex. 642) i. 403 eee U.S. v. (85 Fed. Rep. 411) i. 145 John, C. v. (6 Gray, 274) ji. 921 v. S. (1 Ala. 95) i. 1864, 1868, 13880 — v.58. (2 Ala. 290) i, 76, 1209 — v. S. (16 Fla. 554) i, 1265 — 1.58. (16 Ga, 200) i. 909 — v.5. (1 Head, 49) i. 951 — v. S. (8 Head, 127) i. 158, 181 — v.§. (24 Missis. 669) i. 488, 488 b ; 49 Am. D. 396) i, 1008 Johns, C. v. (6 Gray, 274) i. 480; ii. 934 .|— v. Johns (17 Fla. 806) i. 68, 72 — , Rex v. (1 Leach, 504, note; 1 East P. C, 357) i, 1212 — v. 8. (104 Ind. 557) ii. 1054 — v, S. (55 Md, 850) i. 11382 — , S. v. (82 La. An. 812) i. 482 —., U.S. v. (4 Dall. 412) ii. 847 —,U.S.». (1 Wash. C. C. 863) i. 948 595 JOH Johnson’s Case (Foster, 46) i. 1188 — Case (1 Greenl. 230) i. 894 Johnson, Ex parte (1 Wash. C. C. 47) i. 1318 —— v. Aylmer (Cro. Jac. 126) ii. 794 —— v. Barclay (1 Harrison, 1) i. 892; ii. 124 — v. Black (52 Ga. 396) i. 978 — v. C. (5 Bush, 430) ii. 829 v. C. (9 Bush, 224) i. 1053, 1269; ii. 629 — v. C. (29 Grat. 796) ii. 152 v. C. (80 Ky. 877) i. 1342 — v. C. (81 Ky. 325) i. 1057 v. C. (82 Ky. 116) i. 68, 72 v. C. (87 Ky. 189) ii, 137 — v. C. (24 Pa. 886) ii. 569, 574, 577, 593 —v. C. (115 Pa. 369) i. 966 b, 975¢ —, C. v. (3 Cush. 454) i. 2644 —, C. v. (78 Ky. 509) i. 930, 931 —, C. v. (187 Mass. 562) i. 9666 —, C. v. (150 Mass. 54) i. 1125; ii. 740 —,C. v. (4 Pa. Law Jour. Rep. 398) ii. 119 , C. v. (188 Pa, 298) i. 1126 — v. Davenport (3 J.J. Mar. 390) i. 1270 v. Daverne (19 Johns. 134; uw Am. D. 198) i. 482a v, Leigh (1 Marshall, 565; "6 Taunt. 246) i. 205 —— v. P. (4 Denio, 364) ii. 751 —— v. P. (22 Ili. 314) i. 1854; ii. 218, 220 — »v. P. (83 Ill. 431) i. 1810, 13827 v. P. (94 Ill. 505) ii, 922 — , P. v. (30 Cal. 98) i. 1264 — , P. v. (41 Cal. 452) i. 1262 — , P. v. (47 Cal. 122) i. 1070 —, P. »v. (57 Cal. 571) i. 1181 — , P. v. (61 Cal. 142) i. 975¢ —) P. v. (71 Cal. 384) — P. «. (88 Cal. 171) i. 1264; ii, 329 i. 1291, 1296, 1355 —, P. wv. (91 Cal. 265) i. 1060 —, P. v. (46 Hun, 667) — i. 965; ii, 944 —, P. v. (86 Mich. 175; 24 Am. St. 116) i. 183 — , P. v. (1389 N. Y. 358) ji. 628 —, P. v. (140 N. Y. 350) ii. 633 —, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 322) i. 260 —- v. Pirtle (1 Swan, Tenn. 262) i. 458 v, Randall (7 Mass. 840) i. 1408 —, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 354) i. 951, 1111, 1199; ii. 625, 626 —, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 894) i. 334 b, 1199 ——, Reg. v. (6 Cox C. C. 18) ii. 474 —, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 2 C.C. 16; 12 Cox C. C. 264; 4 Eng. Rep. 540) ii, 9330 ——, Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 489; 10 Cox C. 13) ii. 87 ——, Reg. v. (11 Mod. 62 i. 210 — Rex v. (7 East, 65; 3 Smith, 94) i. 57, 61; ii, 805 596 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. JOH Johnson, Rex v. (2 Leach, 1103) i. 1285 —, Rex ». (8 M. & S. 589; 2 Leach, 1103) i. 449; ii. 315, 316, 318, 821, 324, 732 —, Rex v. (4 M. & 8, 515) i, 691 ——, Rex v. (1 Moody, 173) i, 691 —, Rex »v. (2 Show. 1) i. 826, 519; ii. 205, 426 —,, Rex ». (2 Show. 488) ii. 791 —, Rex z. (1 Stra. 261) i. 123 —, Rex v. (2 Stra. 824) i, 297 —, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 119) ii. 357 ——,, Rex v. (Willes, 425, note) i. 1188 —, Rex »v. (1 Wils. 325) i. 767 ——0: .S. (17 Ala. 618) i. 1207, 1212; ii. 595, 608, 626, 629 . (29 Ala. 62; 65 Am. D. _—_—vU 883) i, 449, 4538, 454; ii. 231 — v. S, (32 Ala. 583) i. 586 — v. S. (35 Ala. 363) ii. 65 —— v. S. (35 Ala. 370) i. 384, 1126, 1175; ii. 481, 482 c, 440, 455, 479 — v. S. (46 Ala. 151) i. 711 — v. 8. (46 Ala. 212) - 4,708 —v. 47 Ala. 9) i, 988, 1212, 1357 —. (47 Ala. 62) i. 1078, 1357 — v.58. (50 Ala. 456) i. 589, 1207 v, S. (59 Ala. 37) ii. 718, 752 —v. 8. (73 Ala. 21) i. 187 — v. S. (73 Ala. 483) ii. 139 v. 8. (81 Ala. 54) i. 975, 9804 — ». S. (87 Ala. 39) i, 1274 — v. 8. (13 Ark. 684) i. 471, 472, 475, 476 —v. 8. (29 Ark. 31) i. 1270 — v. 8. (82 Ark. 181) ii. 700 v. 8. (32 Ark. 309) i, 966d — ve. 8. (86 Ark. 34) i, 526 — v. §. (43 Ark. 391) i. 126 — v8. 3 Dutcher, 318) i. 845, 1266, 1296; ii. 240, 241 (5 Dutcher, 453) 4. 1015, 1035 S ee a DN MN pence ip ARADDADADMAAR want an —— v. 8. (24 Fla. 162) i. 1810, 1343; ii, 629 — v. §. (27 Fla. 246) i. 1011 v. 8. (14 Ga. 55) i. 1071, 1078, ae ii. — v. §, (26 Ga. 611) i. 978 — v. 8. (30 Ga. 426) i, 9805 v. S. (46 Ga. 269) ii. 62, 65 — v. 8. (48 Ga. 116) ii. 53 v. 8. (48 Ga. 326) i. 1275 v. 8. (68 Ga. 897) i. B14a; ii. 971 —— v. §. (58 Ga. 491) i. 9238, 951 v. S. (59 Ga. 142) i, 1067 —— v. 8. (59 Ga. 189) i, 1276 v. S. (61 Ga, 35) i 1144 —_»v 61 Ga. 212) i. 449 —-v 61 Ga. 805) i, 1223 — 62 Ga. 299) i, 884; ii. 415 —— v. S. (63 Ga. 355) ii. 979 v. 8. (65 Ga, a i. 951, 1086 —v (72 Ga. 679 i, 976.c —— v. 8. (76 Ga. 76) i, 1144, 1284 ; ii, 961 v. S. (77 Ga. 68) ii, 740 JOH Jolinson v. 8. (83 Ga. 553) i, 951 — v. S, (85 Ga. 561) i, 966 — v.S. (90 Ga. 441) ii. 645 — v. 8. (4 Greene, Lowa, 65) i, 1169 — v.S. (2 Ind. 652) i. 1160, 1189 ; ii. 459 a — v.58. (11 Ind. 481) i, 73; ii. 176 — v. S. (14 Ind. 574) i. 1018 — v. S. (23 Ind. 32) i. 700 — v. 8. (65 Ind. 204) ii, 48 b v. S. (65 Ind. 269) i. 1169 — v. 8. (11 Lea, 47) i. 909 — v. §. (33 Missis. 368) i. 875 v. §. (47 Missis. 671) ii. 727 — v. 8. (54 Missis. 430) ii. 627 — v. 8. (63 Missis. 318) i. 1111, 1181, 1186 — v.S. (17 Ohio, 593) ii. 963 —— v. 8. (85 Tenn. 325) i. 1817 v. §. (17 Tex. 515) ii. 660 — v. 8. (26 Tex. 117) ii. 63 a — v.S. (27 Tex. 758) i. 949, 1194, 1208, 1270 v, §. (29 Tex. 492) ii. 713 — v.8. (1 Tex. Ap. 118) ii. 700 v. 8. (1 Tex. Ap. 130) i. 479 —— v. §. (1 Tex. Ap. 146) i. 523 —v.§. (1 Tex. Ap. 333) i. 1060, 1196 —— v.§. (1 Tex. Ap. 519) i, 1857 v. S. (3 Tex. Ap. 590) ii, 204 — v.58. (4 Tex. Ap. 268) i. 68, 931, 959 a v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 594) ii. 752 v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 598) 1.975 ¢ v. 8. (5 Tex. Ap. 43) i. 184 — v.&. (5 Tex. Ap. 423) i, 975 ¢, 1054 —-r. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 297) i. 951 — v.S. (9 Tex. Ap. 558) i. 975 c — v.§. (10 Tex. Ap. 571) ii. 671 — v. §. (12 Tex. Ap. 385) ii. 740 — v.§. (12 Tex. Ap. 414) i. 264 f v. 8. (13 Tex. Ap. 378) 1.975 ¢; ii. 754 — v.§. (14 Tex. Ap. 306) i. 1858 — v.§, (17 Tex. Ap. 230) i. 713 — v. S. (17 Tex. Ap. 565) i. 1113 — v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 385) i. 1077 — »v. S. (20 Tex. Ap. 178) ii, 6382 —v.S. (21 Tex. Ap. 368) i. 909, 925 — v.§. (26 Tex. Ap. 631) i. 1195 v. 8S. (27 Tex. cs 135) i, 1154 — v.S. (27 Tex. Ap. 163) i. 975 ¢ — v. 8. (28 Tex. Ap.17) i. 975, 1188 — v. S, (29 Tex. Ap. 150) i. 1074 — ».S. (80 Tex. Ap. 419; 28 Am. St. 930) ii, 595 v. §. (381 Tex. Cr. 464) i. 665 v. S. (82 Tex. Cr. 504) ii. 112, 118 —,S. v. (83 Ark. 174) i. 869 4 —,S. v. (88 Ark. 568) i. 59 —, 5S. v. (6 Bax. 198) i. 264 m —, S. v. (7 Blackf. 49) ii, 921 —., 8. v. (40 Conn. 136) i. 1278, me —, S. v. (1 D. Chip. 129) ii. 160 —, S. uv. (61 Ga. 640) i. 1863 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. JOH Johnson, S.». (3 Harring. Del. 561) ii. 259 —,8. v. (5 Harring. Del. 607) i. 1260 —,S. v. (8 Hill, S.C. 1) i. 448; ii. 712 , S. v. (6 Hamph. 426, n.) ii. 181 , S. v. (2 Towa, 549) i. 1272 , 8. v. (8 Iowa, 525; 74 Am. D. 21) i, 980, 980 b, 1216; ii. 585, 595 —— 8 a —,S.u Ke . (19 Iowa, 230) i. 1077 . (26 Iowa, 407 ; 96 Am. D. ii. 412, 426 —, 8. uv. (69 Iowa, 623) i. 400 v. (72 Iowa, 393) i. 975 c, 980, 1066, 1212; ii. 588 —,S. v. (1 Ire. 354; 35 Am. D. 742) ii. 607 —, 8. v. (2 Jones, N. C, 247; 64 Am. D. 582) ii. 6 —, S. v. (3 Jones, N. C. 266) i. 980; ii. 603 —,S. v. (5 Jones, 2 C. 221) i. 778, 1042 —, 8. v. (10 La. An. 456 i. 1270 —, S. v. (29 La. An. 399) i. 1365 — , S. v, (29 La. An. 717) i. 1285 — , 8. wv. (80 La. An. 305) ii. 697 —, S. v. (80 La. An. 881) i, 1223 — , S. v. (80 La, An. 904) i. 975, 984, 987 ; ii. 700 —, S. v. (80 La. An. 921) i. 1012; ii, 629 —, S. v. (31 La. An. 368) ii. 633 —, S. v. (381 La. An. 482) i. 1291 —, 8. v. (84 La. An. 48) i. 489 —, S. v. (85 La, An, 208). i. 1853 — , S. v. (35 La. An. 842) i. 1254 —, S. v. (85 La. An. 968) i. 1086 —, S. v. (86 La. An. 806) i. 1264 — , S. v. (386 La. An. 852) i. 951 @ —, S. v. (87 La. An. 421) i. 983 , S.v. (87 La, An, 621) i. 1264 —, S. v. (88 La. An. 686) ii. 149 —, 8. v. (41 La. An. 1076) i. 279 ——, S. v. (42 La. An. 559) i. 611 —, S. uv. (65 Me. 362) i. 614 —-, 8. v. (12 Minn. 476; 93 Am. D. 241) i. 414 ——, 8. v. (37 Minn. 493) i. 471, 975 c, 1094 —, S. v. (76 Mo. 121) i. 1212 —, S. v. (81 Mo. 60) i. 975¢ —, 8. v. (91 Mo. 439) — i. 975 cc; ii. 975 —, S. v. (93 Mo. 78, 317) i. 685; ii. 36 —, S. v. (67 N. C. 55) i. 686, 1293 ; ii. 959 —, S. v. (75 N. C. 123; 22 Am. R. 666) i. 449, 10154 ——, S. v. (9 Nev. 175) ii. 68 a, 655 —, S. v. (11 Nev. 148) i. 811 —, S. v. (11 Nev. 273) i. 899 ——, S. v. (12 Nev. 121) i, 1195, 1196 ——, S. v. (16 Nev. 36) i. 1181 —,S. v. (cited 11 Ohio, 286) ii. 889 —,, S. uv. (13 Ohio, 176) i. 264 m —, S. v. (268. C. 152) 1.1212 —, 8. v. (12 Tex. 231) i, 280 —, S. v. (21 Tex. 775) ii, 829 597 JON INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. JON Johnson, S. v. (32 Tex. 96) i. 860, 887 | Jones, C. v. (12 Philad. 550) i, 946 —, S. v. (28 Vt. 512) ii, 96 v. Finch (37 Missis. 461; 75 Am. —, S. v. (Walk. Missis. 392) i.126,408,) D. 78) ii, 432 a, 459 a 650, 909 | —— v. Fletcher (41 Me. 254) i. 209, 248, —, S. cv. (4 Wash. 593) ii, 188 _, 246 , S. v. (Winst. i, 238; 86 Am. D. — v. Hatchett (14 Ala. 743) ii, 676 484) ii. 746.0 v. Jones (5 M. & W. 528) ii. 910 v. Sherwin (8 Gray, 374) ii. 625 | —— v. Lewis (8 Ire. 70; 47 Am. D. —— »v. Tait (6 Binn. 121) ii. 809] 3838) i. 1843, 1845 — v. U.S. (8 McLean, 89) _ i. 400, 405 | —— v. Morgan (67 Cal. 308) i, 286 ——, U.S. v. (1 Cranch, C. C. 371) v. P. (2 Colo. 351) i. 909, 1277 : ii, 482a | —— v. P. (6 Colo. 452; 45 Am. R. — v. Whiteside (110 Ill. 22) i. 306} 526) i. 909, 999; ii. 612 —— v. Wilson (19 Kan. 485) i, 1316 | —— »v. P. (12 Ill. 259) ii. 745 Johnston v. C. (22 Pa. 102) ii. 817 | —— v. P. (6 Par. Cr. 126) i, 1144 — v. C. (85 Pa. 54; 27 Am. R. —, P. wv. (31 Cal. 565) i. 1058 622) i. 981, 1384; ii. 180 | ——, P. uv. (82 Cal. 80) i. 1120, 1224; v. Lewis (2 Mont. 159) i. 805, 306 ii. 97 — v. P. (81 Ill. 469) i, 264 a, 264c, | ——, P. v. (5 Lans. 340) i, 488; ii. 738 1001 | ——, P. v. (24 Mich. 215) i, 289a, 1134, 1194 —, P. v. (46 Cal. 78) i, 909 | ——, P. v. (62 Mich. 304) ii. 1028 —, P. v. (48 Cal. 549) i. 700 | ——, P. v. (99 N. ¥. 667) ii. 629 —— v. Riley (13 Ga. 97) i, 220, 222 | ——, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 181) ii. 843 — v.58. (7 Sm. & M. 58) i. 854| ——, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 165; 1 — v. S. (2 Yerg. 58) i189] Den. C.C. 101) i. 882 —, S. v. (6 Jones, N. C. 485) i. 483 | ——, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 524) i. 1347 —, 8. v. (76 N. C. 209) ii. 975 | —, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 288) ii. 837 —, S. v. (88 N. C. 623) i. 9756 | ——, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 776; 2 —, S. v. (93 N. C. 559) i. 1264| Moody, 94) i. 447 ——, S. v. (11 Tex. 22) it. 77 | ——, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 258) i. 1100; — v. Vanamringe (5 Blackf. 311) i. 222 ii. 652 Johnstone v. Sutton (1 T. R. 510) i. 691 | ——, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 761) ii. 259, Johnstons v. 8. (3 Pike, 524) j. 264 m 264, 271 Joice v. S. (53 Ga. 50) i. 610; ii, 976, 979 | ——, Reg. v. (1 Cox C.C. 105) i. 4886 Joiner, S. v. (19 Mo. 224) i. 692; ii. 737 | ——, Reg. v. (2 Cox C. C. 484; 1 Jolley v. Taylor (1 Camp. 148) ii. 753} Den. C. C. 218) ii. 1025 Jolliffe, C. v. (7 Watts, 589) i, 902] ——, Reg. v. (12 Cox C.C. 241; 4 —, Rex v. (4 T. R. 285) i145! Eng. Rep. 630) i. 1236 Jolly v, S. (18 Sm. & M. 228) _ ii, 618 | —, Reg. v. (14 Cox C.C. 3) ii. 750 —, S. v. (8 Dev. & Bat. 110; 32 ——, Reg. v. (14 Cox C.C. 528) ii. 762 Am. D. 656) i, 1035 | ——, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 166) ii. 438 —, S. v. (7 Iowa, 15) i, 698, 869 a |—_, Reg. v, (1 Den. C. C. 551; —, S. v. (98 Mo. 435) i, 1884| Temp. & M. 270; 1 Eng, L. & Eq. Jones’s Case (J. Kel. 37) i, 709 538) i. 58; ii. 197 Jones, Ex parte (61 Ala. 399) i, 1843 ; ——, Reg. v. (2 Moody, 171; 9 Car. —, Ex parte (20 Ark. 9) i. 236] & P. 401) i. 800, 1316 —, Ex parte (49 Ark. 110) i, 49 | ——, Rex v. (1 B. & Ald. 209) i, 256 ——,, Ex parte (55 Ind. 176) i, 261, 262 | ——, Rex v. (2 Camp. 181) i. 424, 452, ——, Ex parte (7 Tex. Ap. 365) i. 1264 458, 1169, 1327 —, In re (35 Neb. 499) i, 1810 | —, Rex »v. (2 Car. & P. 629) i, 1241 v, Axen (1 Ld. Raym. 119) i. 689/ ——, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 187) i. 49 v. C. (1 Bush, 35; 89 Am. D. —, Rex »v. (6 Car. & P. 348) i. 210, 212 605) i. 887 | —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 888) ii. 836 — v. C. (18 Bush, 356) ii. 703 | —~, Rex v. (Car. Crim. Law, 3d ed. — v. C. (17 Grat. 568) i. 4885; ii. 752] 18) i, 234, 1259 v. C. (19 Grat. 478) i. 870 a, 951 f] ——, Rex v. (8 East, 31) i. 95la — v. C. (20 Grat. 848) i. 1012 | —, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 576) i. 599 — v. C. (31 Grat. 830) i. 1005 a | ——, Rex v. (2 East P.C. 991) iii. 4274 v. C. (79 Va. 218) i. 998 a | —, Rex v. (2 Har. & W. 293) i. 71 — v. C. (2 Va. Cas, 224) i, 1862 | —-, Rex v. (1 Leach, 204; 2 East ——, C. v. (2 Grat. 555) ; i. 138] P.C. 883; 1 Doug. 300) ii. 418 —,C. v. (1 Leigh, 598) i, 932 a, 946, ——, Rex v. (1 Leach, 537) ii, 188 947, 1269 | —, Rex v. (8 Mod. 201) i, 1272 —, C. v: (121 Mass. 57) ii. 1029 b | ——, Rex v, (Peake, 87) i. 488 ¢; ii. 933d, —, C. v. (186 Mass. 173) i, 1247 934 598 JON Jones, Rex v. (Russ. & By. 152) i. 1223,1242 —, Rex v. (1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 5) i. 56 —, Rex v. (1 Stra. 704) i. 718 — v. Robbins (8 Gray, 329) i. 3144, 893, 894 — v. Root (6 Gray, 435) i. 184 — v.S. (13 Ala. 158) ii. 666, 674, 721, 7638, 766 —— v.§. (50 Ala. 161) ii, 412 — v. S. (76 Ala. 8) i. 1110 — v. §. (77 Ala. 98) i. 68 — v. S. (81 Ala. 79) i. 763, 865 —— v. S. (90 Ala. 628; 24 Am. St. 850) i. 975 c, 977 ; ii. 979 —— v. §. (52 Ark. 345) i. 975 — v. 8. (58 Ark, 390) ii. 585 —— v. §. (2 Blackf. 475) i, 852, 880, 993 ——v.&. (3 Blackf. 37) i, 931 ——v. §. (18 Fla. 889) —i. 850; ii, 142 v. §. (22 Fla. 682) ii. 163 — v. 8. (29 Ga. 594) ii. 621, 638 a —— v. S. (37 Ga. 51) i, 424 —— v.§. (48 Ga. 168) i. 1279 — v. §. (55 Ga. 625) i, 403, 828, 1394 v. S. (63 Ga. 141) ii, 181 — v. 8. (63 Ga. 395) i. 1097 — t.8. (65 Ga. 147) i. 686, 975¢, 978 LDLD DNPDNNNDDDE DODD = — v. §. (65 Ga. 506) i. 975 c, 978 — v. 8. (65 Ga. 621) i. 975¢ — v. 8. (67 Ga. 240) i. 1898 — v. 8. (75 Ga, 825) ii. 188 — v.S. (87 Ga. 525) i. 1279 — v.S. (3 Heisk. 445) i. 536 — rv. 8. (6 Humph. 485) i. 764 — v. S. (11 Ind. 857) i. 78, 678, 9514; ii. 432 ¢, 456, 459.u, 463 —— v.§. (35 Ind. 122) ii. 524 — v.58. (49 Ind. 549) i. 980; ii. 740 —— v.§. (50 Ind. 473) ii. 175, 180 — v. §. (53 Ind. 235) ii, 727 as (60 Ind: 241) ii. 482 b —— v. S. (64 Ind, 473) i. 1020 v. S. (71 Ind. 66) i, 1178 —— v. 8, (74 Ind. 249) i. 712, 718 v. §, (89 Ind. 82) i. 982 a — ». §, (118 Ind. 39) i. 966 5 — v.58. (1 Kelly, 610) i. 940, 1018, 1166, 1268 — v. S. (10 Lea, 585) i. 951 — v.S. (26 Missis. 247) ii, 745 .v. §. (80 Missis. 658; 64 Am. ii. 745 D. 175) — v.S. (51 Missis. 718) i. 612, 616, 1298 ; ii. 699, 701 — v. S. (57 Missis. 684) i. 917; ii. 629 — v. S. (58 Missis. 349) i, 1234. —— vv. S. (66 Missis. 380; 14 Am. St. 570) i. 816 v. 8. (67 Missis. 111) i. 425 —— v. 8. (14 Mo. 409) i. 170 — v. 8. (18 Neb. 401) i, 146 —— v. §. (26 Ohio St. 208) i. 278 —v. §. (11 Sm. & M. 815) i. 229, 520; ii. 17 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. JON Jones v. S. (5 Sneed, 346) ii, 456 —— v.58. (2 Swan, Tenn. 3899) i. 1006, 1008 — v. 8. (18 Tex. 168; 62 Am. D. 550) i. 978, 999, 1021 — v. §. (40 Tex. 188) 1. 951 — v. §. (8 Tex. Ap. 575) i. 931, 1170; ii. 754 — v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 529) i. 1170 — v. 8. (5 Tex. Ap. 86) i. 1274 —v. 8. (5 Tex. Ap. 397) i. 975¢ — v.58. (7 Tex. Ap. 103) i: 1012 —— v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 838) i. 975, 978 — v.8. (7 Tex. ap 457) i. 1094, 1170; ii. 4826 — v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 365) i. 264a —— v. 8. (10 Tex. Ap. 552) i. 700, 9804; ii. 975 —— v, §. (11 Tex. Ap. 412) i. 264 f v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 156) i. 1278 —— v.§. (12 Tex. Ap. 424) i. 612 — v.S. (18 Tex. rea 1) i. 1049; ii. 94 — v. 8, (14 Tex. Ap. 85) i. 1825 v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 82) i. 2644 — v.§. (17 Tex. Ap. 602) i. 1276 — v.8. (18 Tex. an 485) ii. 979 . 8. (25 Tex. Ap. 621; 8 Am. St. 449) — v.8. (26 Tex. Ap.1; 8 Am. St. 4 i. 854 i. 162 v. 8. (29 Tex. Ap. 20; 25 Am. St. 715) i. 1241 v. 8. (29 Tex. Ap. 338) i. 975c —— v. 8. (80 Tex. Ap. 345) i. 1066 S. v. (5 Ala. 666) i. 456, 761, 983, 984, 1265, 1267; ii. 595 S. v. (29 Ark. 127) i. 68 8. v. (8 Dev. & Bat. 122) ii. 742, “146 S. v. (8 Halst. 307; 4 Halst. : . 357; 17 Am. D. 483) i. 49, 665 —, §. v. (4 Halst. 2) i. 1879 —,S. v. (6 Halst. 289) i. 23, 229, 1877 —,8. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 317) i. 1262 , 8. v. (10 Humph. 41) ii. 829 , 8. v, (10 Iowa, 206) ii, 87, 142, 145 —, 8. v. (13 Iowa, 269) ii. 216 —-, 8. v. (83 Iowa, 9) i, 1223 ——,, S. v. (52 Iowa, 150) i. 975 c, 980 ——, S. v. (64 Iowa, 849) ii. 687 a —, = v, (70 Iowa, 505) i, 268, 1074 —, S. v. (9 Ire. 38) ii, 124 —, S v, (41 Kan, 309) ii, 632 —,, 8. v. (88 La. An, 792) i. 50, 56 —, 8. v. (45 La. An. 1454) ii, 544 —, 8. v. (1 McMul. 236; 36 Am. D, 257) i. 488 e, 588; ii. 403, 416, err 80 — , 8. v. (51 Me. 125) i, 1020 —,S. v. (78 Me. 280) i, 3144 — 5S. v. (20 Mo. 58) ii, 516, 585 —, S. v. (63 Mo, 486) ii, 286 —, 8. v. (54 Mo. 478) i, 1239 —,S. v, (61 Mo. 282) i. 272, 931, 932, 980, 1353 —, 58. wv. (64 Mo. 391) i. 977, 1169; ii, 963 599 JUN JOR INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. Jones, S. v. (78 Mo. 278) i. 1049; ii. 599 | Jordan, S. v. (110 N. C. 491) ii. 1, 4 —, 8. v. (106 Mo. 302) i. 486; ii. 53; —, 8. v. (12 ‘Tex. 205) i. 383 ——, S. uv. (12 Mo. Ap. 93) i, 1281 v. Wapello Cire. Ct. (69 boas —, S. v. (1 Murph. 257) i, 1264 177) —, S. v. (68 N. : 443) ii. 631 | Jordt v. S, (81 Tex. 571; 98 Am. D. —, S. v. (69 N. C. 364) i1.1005a/ 550 _ 1, 488 —, 8. v. (77 N.C. 520) i. 975.4, 989 a | Joselyn, P. v. (80 Cal. 544) i. 3l4a —, S. v. (78 N. C. 420) ii. 945 | Joseph »v. S. Sa Ind. 255) i. 1278 —, S. v. (79 N. C. 680) ii. 628, 688 « | Josephine v. S. (39 Missis. 618) i. 454, 828 — _, S. v. (82 N. C. 691) i. 1264 | Josephs, P. v. (7 Cal. 129) i. 786, 1113 — , S. v. (83 N.C. 605; 35 Am. R. ——, Reg. v. (8 Dowl. P. C. 128) 4. 1380 586) ii. 957 Josey, S. v. (64 N. C. 56 i. 1066 —, S. uv. (87 N. C. 547) i. 975c | Joshua, S. v. (15 La. An. 118) i. 1264 —, S. v. (88 N. C. 671) i. 187, 717 | Joslyn v. S, (128 Ind. 160; 25 Am. — , S. v. (88 N. C. 683) i, 264a St. 425) ii. 698 5 — , S. v. (89 N. C. 559) i. 1151|Josselyn v. McAllister (23 set ——) 8. v. (91 N. ©. 654) 1.1281] 300) — , S. v. (938 N. C. 611) i. 1276 | —, P. v. a Cal. 393) i. 1159, 1170, 1173 —, S. v. (93 N. C. 617) i. 1264 Josslyn-v. C . (6 Met. 236) i. 1015, 1327; —, S. v. (97 N. C. 469) i, 3144, 948 4 ii. 142, 145 —, S. v. (98 N.C. 651) i. 975 e, 1049; | Jourdine, U. S. v. (4 Cranch C. C. ii. 599| 338 ii. 115 —,S. v. (100 N. C. 438) i. 251 | Journey v. S. (1 Misso. 428) i. 180 —, S. v. (101 N. C. 719) ii, 53 | Journeyman Tailors, Rex v. (8 Mod. —, S.v. (7 Nev. 408) i. 1265, 1269; ii.18,| 10) i, 378 697 | Joy v. Hopkins (5 Denio, 84) ii, 677 —,5S. v. (19 Nev. 365) ii. 152 v. S. (14 Ind. 189) i. 449, 458, 918, ——, S. v. (18 Or. 256) i. 977 978, 1001, 1394 — , S. v. (29S. C. 201) i. 278, 934, 975c¢ | Joyce v. C. (78 Va. 287) i. 1085 —,S. v. (18 Tex. 874 i, 96, 125 | —— v. Parkhurst (150 Mass. 243) i. 214 , 8. v. (33 Vt. 443) i, 611 ——, Rex v. (Car. Crim. Law, 3d ed. —, S. v. (3 Wash. 175) i, 975 €, 978 184) ii. 260 ——, S. v. (20 W. Va. 764) i. 1049; ii. 599 v. 8. (7 Bax. 273) i. 9984 —— v. Stevens (11 Price, 235) ii. 804 | —— v. S. ty Swan, Tenn. 667) ii, 511 v. Turpin (6 Heisk. 181) i. 857, 858 | Joyner v. S. (78 Ala. 448) i, 279 — v. U.S. (187 U.S. 202) ‘i. 66 Judd, C. v. @ Mass. 329; 3 Am. TD. —, U.S. v. (31 Fed. Rep. 725) i. 852 54) ii, 210, 238, 248, 466 —, U.S. v. (5 Utah, 552) i. 1018 | —, P. v. (10 Cal. 318) ii. 521, 524 —,U.S. ». (3 Wash. C. C. 224) i. 256, | ——, Rex v. (2 'T. R. 255; 1 Leach, 258, 259| 484; 2 East P. C. 1018) i. 228, 260 v. Van Zandt (5 How. U. S. Judge v. Arlen (71 Iowa, 186) i. 1415 215) i, 221 | —— v. S. (8 Ga. 173) 3, 981 Jopling, S. v. (10 Humph. 418) ii. 835 | ——, S. v. (12 La. An. 118) i. 1265 Jorasco v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 238) i, 549 | ——, &c., S. v. (16 La. An. 159) i. 1264 Jordan v. Henry (22 Minn. 215) i. 314 | Judge Super. Dist. Ct., S. o. (29 La. —, P. v. (65 Cal. 644) i.1264| An. 223) i. 1264 ——, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 118) i. 963 | Judges, Report of (3 Binn. 595) i. 207, 648, v. 8. (81 Ala. 20) i. 1085; ii. 595 674, 1198, 1265 —— v. §. (82 Ala. 1) i. 1212 | ——, Report of (3 Binn. hk i, 757 — v.S. (22 Fla. 528) i. 9496, 1285 | Judges, of Common Pleas, C. ». (3 — v.§. (18 Ga. 582) i. 9517] Binn. 273) i. 1408 —— v. S. (22 Ga. 545) i. 49, 790, 906, 928, | —— of the Ninth and Seventeenth 931, 931 a, 1121 ; ii. 641, 642} Judicial Districts, S. v. (29 La. An. v. 8. (56 Ga. 92) i 980) 785) i, 1402 v. 8. (60 Ga. 656) 105 | Judson v. Eslava (Minor, 2) i, 923 — v. §. (32 Missis. 882) i. sl4a, 123 37 | —— v. Reardon (16 Minn. 431) i, 184 — v.S. (10 Tex. 479) 1.980 a Jugiro, In re (140 U. S. 291) i. 1411 — v. §. (5 Tex. Ap. 422) i. 975¢| Jukes, Rex v. (8 T. R. 536) i, 618 —— v. 8. (29 Tex. Ap. 595) i. 1181 | Julian v. S. (122 Ind. 68) i. 287, 12544 — 5. v. (39 Iowa, 387) i. 1806 | Jumpertz v. P. (21 Ill. 875) i. 994, 995, 999 ; —,S.v. Ge Iowa, 506) ii. 740 ii, 482 b, 676 —, S. v. (72 Iowa, 377) i. 1415) Junction City v. Keeffe (40 Kan. —, S. v. (34 La. An. 1219) ii. 175] 275) i, 1264, 1272 — , S. v. (89 La. An. 340) ii. 180] Jung Qung Sing, P. v. (70 Cal. 469) i. 1363 — _, 8S. v. (19 Mo. 212) ii. 63a, 78! Junker, S. v. (87 Tex. 478) ii, 1051 600 KAU Jupitz v. P. (84 Ill. 616) i. 1060; ii. 981, 983 gy Jurche, S. v. (17 La. An. 71) i. 984, 985, 98 Justice v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 171) ii. 1052 v. S. (17 Ind. 56) i. 762, 772 Justices v. Griffin, &c. Plank Road (15 Ga. 39) i. 1276 —, Opinion of i. 900 (See Opinion of Justices.) —, S. v. (8 Har. & McH. 115) i. 950 Justices of Cent. Crim. Ct., Reg. v. (17 Q. B. D. 598) —, Reg. r. (18 Q. B. D. 814) Justices of Special Sessions, P. ve ii. 198 ii. 198 (74 N. Y. 406) i. 892 Justus, S. v. (11 Or. 178; 50 Am. R. 470) i. 887, 1179 K. v. H. (20 Wis. 239; 91 Am. D. 897 i. 564 Kaas, C. v. (3 Brews. 422) ii, 131 Kaatz, P. v. (3 Par. Cr. 129) i. 1076 Kabrich, 8. v. (39 Iowa, 277) i. 1119 Kaelin v. C. (84 Ky. 354) i. 1206; ii. 542 Kahlenbeck v. S. (119 Ind. 118) i, 966 Kahn v. S. (58 Ind. 168) ii. 419 Kain, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 187) ii. 189, 1029, 1029 b -— v. S. (8 Ohio St. 306) ii. 585 Kaine, In re (14 How. U.S. 108) i. 224 Kallman, P. v. (72 Cal. 212) i. 1116 Kalle v. P. (4 Par. Cr. 591) i. 966 Kalloch, P. v. (60 Cal. 113) ii, 825 — v, San Francisco Super. Ct. (56 Cal. 229) i. 1004 Kanamaan, S. v. (94 Mo. 71) i. 721 Kane, C. v. (12 Philad. 630) i. 1279 v. P. (38 Wend. 363) i. 764 —— v. P. (8 Wend. 203) i. 448, 449, 452, 457, 606, 1301, 1802, 1303, 1378 ; ii, 835 —, P. v. (4 Denio, 530) i. 264 a — r.S. (70 Md. 546) i. 1181 —, 8. ». (32 La. An. ya i. 981, 9314 —_S. v. (1 McCord, 482 i. 1175 —, S.». (63 Wis. 260) — i. 639; ii. 130 Kannon v. S. (10 Lea, 386) i, 487 ; ii. 5695 Kanouse v. Lexington (12 Bradw. 318) i. 1310 ——,S. x. (Spencer, 115) i, 1272 Kansas City, &c., Rid. v. wemphell. (62 Mo. 585) —, S. v. (54 Ark. 546) i. 639 Karn, S. v. (16 La. An. 183) — i. 354, 603 Karstendick, Ex parte (93 U. S. 396) i, 1837 Kaster, S. v. (85 Iowa, 221) ii. 869, 871, 877 a Kates v. C. (17 Grat. 561) i. 1268 Kattlemann, S. v. (85 Mo. 105) i. 1011 Kaufman v. 8. (49 Ind. 248) i. et ii INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. KEE Kaufman, S. v. (51 Iowa, 578; 38 Am. R, 148 i. 898 Kavanaugh »v. §, (41 Ala. 399) ii. 941 Kayser, Ex parte (17 Mo. 253) i. 1834 Kazer v, 8. (5 Ohio, 280) ii. 14 Kazinski, U.S. v. (2 Sprague,7) __ i. 470 Keach, §. v. (40 Vt. 118) ii. 216, 217 Kealey, Reg. v. (2 Den. C. C. 68; 5 Cox C. C. 193; 1 Eng. L. & lig. 585) ii. 184, 194 Kean vz. C. (10 Bush, 190; 19 Am. R. 63, i. 1196 —, S. v. (10 N. H. 847; 34 on D. 162) i. 651, 685 Keane, P. v. (43 Cal. 638) ii. 752 Kearney, Ex parte (7 Wheat. 88) i. 1264 v. Farrell (28 Conn. 817; 738 Am. D. 677) i. 1111 v. P, (11 Colo. 258) ii. 595 —, P. v. (43 Cal. 883) i. 976 — 'v.8. (46 Md. 422) i. 1264, 1265 Kearns v. 8. (3 Blackf. 334) i. 251 Kearny, Ex parte (55 Cal. 212) i. 1410 Keary, Reg. v. (14 Cox C. C. 148) ii. 664 Keat, Reg. v. (2 Moody, 24) ii. 938 a —, Rex v. (1 Salk. 47; Skin. 666) i. 1013 ——, Rex v. (1 Salk. 108; 12 Mod. 102; 5 Mod. 288) i, 252 Keath, S. v. (83 N. C. 626) 1. 975, 979 Keating, C. v. (183 Mass. 572) i, 1247 ——, Respublica v. (1 Dall. 110) ii. a v. S. (44 Ind. 449) Keaton v. McGwier (24 Ga.217) i. ae — v.S. (7 Ga. 189) i. 981 Keator v. P. (82 Mich. 484) 1. 488 a; ii. 910 a, 911, 912, 914 Keay’s Case (1 Swinton, 543) i. 1100 Keddie v. Moore (2 Murph. 41; 5 Am. D. 518) i, 893 Kee v. McSweeney (15 Abb. N. Cas. 229) i. 611 — ». S. (28 Ark. 155) 1.998 a, 999, 1113 Kee Ho, U.S. v. (33 Fed. Rep. 333) i. 628 Keech v. S. (15 Fla. 501) i. 429, 854, 980, 1159, 1160, 1270, 1293; ii. 9 Keedy v. P. (84 Ill. 569) i 1011 Keefe, C. v. (7 Gray, 332) i. 231, 402, 720 —, C.v. (9 Gray, 290) i. 397 v. P. (40 N. Y. 848) ii. 586 Keefer, P. v. (18 Cal. 636) ii. 661 —, P. v. (65 Cal. 282) ii. 9 v, S. (4 Ind. 246) i. 586; ii. 986 Keefhaver v. C. (2 Pa. (P. & W.) 240 i. 264 j, 1817, 1821 Keegan, §. v. (74 Iowa, 145) i. 12544 Keel, S. v. (54 Mo. 182) i. 885; ii. 910a@ Keeler ev, Milledge (4 Zab. 142) i. , 73 —, S. v. (28 Iowa, 551) i. 1057, 1059 Keeling, Ex parte (50 Ala. 474) err Keeller v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 527) i. 1005a Keen, S. «. (84 Me. 500) i, 636, 641 —,S. v. (95 N. C. 646) ii. 42 601 KEL INDEX TO THE Keen, U. S. v. (1 McLean, 429) i, 832, 459 a, 485 Keena, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C. 113; 11 Cox C. C. 128) ii, 324 —, 8. v. (63 Conn, 829) ii. 36 Keenan, In re (7 Wis. 695) i. 999 — , C. v. (140 Mass. 481) i, 1264 —, C. v. (148 Mass. 470) i, 975¢ — , C. v. (67 Pa. 203) i. 9895; ii. 799 — , C. v. (10 Philad. 194) i. ne re —}P. rv. (13 Cal. 581) v. S. (8 Wis, 182) —, 8. v. (38 La. An. 660) i. 165, 9238, 999, 128 i, 1212 Keene, S. v. (26 Me. 33) ii. 924 —, 8. v. (50 Mo. 357) __ ii. 610, a 615 —, S. v. (100 N. C. 509) 964 Keener v. 8. (18 Ga. 194; 63 Am. D. 269) i. 932, 959 a, 980, 986 a, 1085, 1110; ii, 621, 626, 627, 676 Keeper of Jail, C. v. (13 Philad. 573) i, 207 4 Keeper of Prison, C. v. (1 Ashm. 183) ve —,C. v. (2 Ashm. 227) i 251 Keeran, S. v. (5 R. 1, 497) i. 1287 Keeter, Sv. (80 N. C. 472) ii, 487 Keeton v. §. (10 Tex. Ap. 686) i. 966 b Kegan, S. v. (62 Iowa, 106) ii. 1002 Keger, C. v. (1 Duv. 240) i. 1400 Kehoe v. C. (85 Pa. 127) i. 1020, 1212 ; ii. 628, 633 Keighley, Reg. v. (Dears. & B. 145; 7 Cox C. C. 217; 20 Eng. L. & Eq. 546) ii. 172 Keil, Ex parte (85 Cal. 309) i. 1410 Keirsey v. Labette Commissioners (30 Kan. 576) i. 1817 Keiser v. S. (83 Ind. 234) i, 984, 986 a Keite, Rex v. (1 Ld. Raym. 188) i. 1007 Keith v. Lothrop (10 Cush. 453) ii. 432 a —,P. v. (50 Cal. 137) i. 966, 1276 v. S. (90 Ind. 89) i. 68, 73 —, 8. v. (9 Nev. 15) i. 1264, 1269 v. Tuttle (28 Me. 326) i. 207 Keithler v. S. (10 Sm. & M. 192) i. 279, 280, 702, 980, 1244, 1245; ii. 12, 15 Keleher v. Putnam (60 N. H. 30; 49 Am, R. 304) i.178 Kellan v. Manesby (Cro. Jac. 39) ii. 794 Kellar v. Savage (20 Me. 199) ii. 758 Kelleher, Reg. v. (14 Cox C.C.48) ii. 163 Kellenbeck v. S. (10 Md. 481; 69 Am. D. 166) i, 1287 ; 3 li. 42, 44 Keller v, 8. (51 Ind. 111) i, 325; ii. 168 —— v.§. (128 Ind. 110; 18 Am. St. 318) i. 966 v. 8. (12 Md. 822; 71 Am. D. 596 ) i, 1264 Kellerman, S. v. (14 Kan. 135) i. 1169, 1170 ; ii. 754 Kelley, In re (25 Fed. Rep. 268) i. 24 —, In re (2 Low. 339) i. 224 —, C. v, (116 Mass. 141) i. 1125; 602 CASES CITED. KEL Kelley v. P. (55 N. Y. 565; 14 Am. R. 342 i, 921, 1254 —,, P. v. (47 Cal. 125) i, 1257 —, P. v. (79 Mich. 320) i. 1298 v. S. (25 Ark. 892) i. 495, 651, 552, 578, 676 — v. §. (53 Ind. 311) i. 849 —— v.58. (69 Ind. 418) i. 1275 —— v. S. (6 Ohio St. 269) i. 3144 —— v.8. (18 Tex. Ap. 262) i, 975, 1120 —v. §. (31 Tex. Cr. 211) ii. 140 8 —,, S. v. (65 Vt. 531) ii. 750 Kellner, 8. v. (22 Neb. 668) i, 1126 Kellogg, Ex parte (6 Vt. 509) i, 1410 — , C.v. (7 Cush. 473) ii. 233, 284 v. S. (48 Missis. 57) i, 250, 251, : 264 a Kellum v. S. (64 Missis. 226) i. 10054 Kelly, In re (26 Fed. Rep. 852) i. 224 —, In re (62 N. Y. 198) i. 691 —, C. v. (10 Cush. 69) i. 400 —,C. v. (12 Gray, 175) ii. 273 —, CO. v. (1238 Mass. 417) ii. 902 — v. P. (39 Ill. 167) i, 8694 — v. P. (182 Ill. 368) i. 118, 1356 —,, P. v. (6 Cal. 210) i. 97, 387, 684, 711 ——., P. v. (28 Cal. 428) i. 980 a; ii. 740 ——, P. v. (46 Cal. 355) i. 849, 997, 998 a, 1002 — , P.v. (59 Cal. 372) ii, 921 —,, P. v. (31 Hun, 225) i. 9984 ——, P. v. (82 Hun, 536) i. 1410 —, P.v. (85 Hun, 295) i, 1062, 1095 — , P.v. (37 Hun, 160) i, 1248 — , P. v. (24 N. Y. 74) i, 869 —,,P.v. (94 N. Y. 526) i. 318, 1285 ——, Reg. v. (Jebb, 299) ii. 538 ==; Ree x v. (1 Moody, 118) ii, 514 v. 8. (52 Ala, 361) i. 68, 72, 1213 — v. 8. (72 Ala. 244) i, 1238; ii. 180 —«. S. (75 Ala. 21; 51 Am. R. 22) ii, 961 v. S. (7 Bax. 84) i. 1012, 1015 — v. 8. (7 Bax. 328) i, 1310 — v. 8. (3 Sm. & M. 518) i. 269, 3845, “981, 1310, 1878 —— v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 628) i. 1060 —— v.§. (13 Tex. Ap. 158) i, 224 ——, S. v. (57 Iowa, 644) ii. 740 ——, S.v.(76 Me. 331) i. 50, 51 —, S. v. (73 Mo. 608) ii. 740 — , S. v. (85 Mo. 143) i. 975¢ — §. v. (9 Mo. Ap. 512) ii. 740 —, S. v. (16 Mo. Ap. 218) i. 1066 ——~ $\». (97 N.C. 404; 2 Am. St. 299) i. 269, 271 —, S. v. (1 Nev, 224) i, 926 ——, Territory v. (2 New Mex. 292) + ORR Bs — v. U.S. (27 Fed. Rep. 616) i. ‘i212, 1343 —,U.S.v. (4 Wash. C. C.528) i. 1018 ; | Kelm, S. ». (79 Mo. 515) i, 145 Kelsey’s Case (2 Lewin, 45) i, 1170 KEN INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. KER Kelsey v. Parmelee (15 Conn. 260) i. 188 | Kennedy v. S. (85 Ala. 326) i. 1087 Kelsoe v. 8. (47 Ala. 5738) i, 1034, | —— v. 8. (15 Fla. 685) i. 814a 1107; ii. 618, 637 v. §. (81 Fla. 428) li. 721, 726 —,S. v. (11 Mo. Ap. 91) — i. 816 | —— v. S. (6 Ind. 485) ii, 595 Kelsy v. Wright (1 Root, 83) i. 204, 207 | —— »v, S. (53 Ind. 542) i. 814 Kemmiler, In re (136 U. S. 486) i. 100 a | —— v. 8. (62 Ind. 136) i. 481 —,P.v. {119 N. ¥. 580) i. 975c, 1179, | —— v. S. (66 Ind. 370) i, 1265 1277; ii. 629, 683 | —— v. 8. (81 Ind. 379) i. 951; ii. 187 Kemp v. C. (18 Grat. 969) i. 765, 950 b, | —— v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 899) i. 978, 1846 1038 | — v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 73) i. 1348 —,P.v.(76 Mich. 410) i, 457, 1125; ii. 473 — uw. S. (11 Tex. Ap, 174) i, 68, 878 — v.S. (28 Tex. Ap. 519) i. 1279 —, S. v. (84 Minn. 61) i. 50, 931 Kemple, S. v. (27 Mo. Ap. 892) i. 713 Kenan v. S. (73 Ala. 15) i. 931, 931 a Kendal’s Case (5 Mod. 78; 1 Ld. Raym. 65; 1 Salk. 347) i. 188, 228 Kendal, Rex v. (Holt, 144) i. 228 ——, Rex v. (Skin. 596) i, 228 Kendall, Ex parte (100 Ind. 599) =i. 255 —, C.». (12 Cush. 414) i. 894 —. C. v. (118 Mass. 210; 18 Am. R. 469) ii. 965, 978 — v. John (Fort. 104) i. 1818 — v. Powers (4 Met. 558) ii. 368 v. S. (65 Ala. 492) i, 1241; ii. 595 —-v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 569) i. 975¢ Kendle v. Tarbell (24 Ohio St. 196) . i. 234 b Kendrick v. S. (Cooke, 474) i. 1877 ». S. (10 Humph. 479) i. 1195, 1196 — v.S. (55 Missis. 436) i. 1086, 1098 Keneston, S. v. (59 N. H.36) i. 526 ; ii. 266 Kennard, C. v. (8 Pick. 138) ii, 881 —— v. Louisiana (92 U. S. 480) i, 314 Kenneally, U.S. v. (5 Bis. 122) ii. 268 Kennedy, In re (55 Vt. 1) 1, 1264 —v. C. (3 Bibb, 490) i. 879 ——v.C. (14 Bush, 340) i. 1250, 1265 — v. C, (2 Met. Ky. 36 ii. 457 ) — v.C. (2 Va, Cas. 510) i. 909, were —, C. v. (15 B. Monr. 531) i. 607 — , C.v. (181 Mass. 584) ii, 949 —, C. v. (135 Mass. 543) i, 1227 —— v. Favor (14 Gray, 200) i, 214 —— v. Howard (74 Ind. 87) i. 314a — v. Merriam (70 IIl. 228) i. 689 —— v. Niles (14 Me. 54) i, 1139 — v. P. (16 Ill. 418) i. 2647 v. P. (40 Ill. 488) i. 9800 —v. P. (44 Ill. 283) ii, 967 —— v. P. (122 Il. 649) i, 1301 — v.P. (89 N. Y. 245) i. 847, 681, 1179; ii. 576, 581, 584, 694, 629, 631 —, P. v. (55 Cal.201) i. 975 ¢, 9804 —} Pv, (58 Mich. 372) i, 1291 —,; P. v, (32 N. Y, 141) i. 1076 ——;P.v. (2 Par.Cr.312) i. 260, 892 — v, Raught (6 Minn. 235) — i. 1001, 1264 — v.S. (19 Tex. Ap. 618) i, 918, 9758, 1193 a —, S. v. (63 Iowa, 197) i. 432 —, S. v. (4 Lea, 228) i. 286 — , 8. v. (88 Mo. 841) ii. 740 —, S. v. (386 Vt. 563) i. 708 —, Territory v. (1 Ariz. 505) i. 975, 976 —,, Territory v. (8 Mont. 520) i, 909 Kennegar v. 8. (120 Ind. 176) i. 457 Kenner, C. v. (11 B. Monr. 1) i. 636 Kennerly, 8. v. (10 Rich. 152) i. 601; ii, 935 Kenney, C. v. (12 Met. 285; 46 Am. D. 672) i. 1058, 1254 v. S. (5 R. I. 385) i. 886, 706 a, / ‘18387 ; ii. 60 Kennon v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 356) — i, 1242 Kenny, S. v. (1 Bailey, 375) i. 1817 Kenrick, Reg. v. (Dav. & M. 208; 5 Q. B. 49) i. 1022 ; ii. 178, 205 Kensey, C. v. (2 Parsons, 401) ii. 878 Kent, C. v. (6 Met. 221) ii. 269 v. Lincoln (32 Vt. 591) ii. 626 ;]—— v. P. (8 Colo. 568) ii. 604 —,, P. v. (1 Doug. Mich. 42) ii. 732, 736 — v. 8. (42 Ohio St. 426) i. 998 a —, S. v. (65 N. C. 811) i. 1057 v. Tyson (20N.H.121) i. 1178: ii. 677 — v. Whitney (9 Allen, 62; 85 Am. D. 739) ii, 751 Kent Supervisors, P. v. (40 Mich. 481) i, 1314, 1817 9} Kentucky v. Dennison (24 How. U. S. 66) i, 220, 221, 222 Kenworthy, Rex v. (1 B. & C. 711; 3D. & R.178)_ i. 1295, 1296, 1866, 1378 Keogh, S. v. (13 La. An. 248) i. 611; ii. 846 Kepper, S. v. (65 Iowa, 745) ii. 153 Keppler v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 178) i. 264.4, 264 b Ker v. P. (110 Ill. 627; 61 Am. R. 706) i, 224; ii, 329 Kerby v. C. (7 Leigh, 747) i. 921 Kercheval v. S. (46 Ind. 120) i, 168 Kerese v. 8. (10 Ga. 95) i. 951 Kern, P. v. (61 Cal, 244) ii, 629 Kernan z. 8. (11 Ind. 471) i. 191 Kernin v. Hill (37 Ill. 209) ii, 482 b Kernon, Rex. v. (2 Russ. Crimes, 3d Eng. ed. 251) ii. 986 Kerns, S. v. (64 Iowa, 306) i. 1317 —,S. v. (90 N. C. 650) i, 1264 603 KIL INDEX TO THE Kerr v. P. (42 Ill. 307) 1. 825; ii. 910 — v. Preston (6 Ch. D. 463) i, 1414 —, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 176) i, 1238 Kerrains v. P. (60 N. Y. 221; 19 Am. R, 158) i, 1184 — , P. v. (1 Thomp. & C. 338) ii. 67, 631 Kerrick, P. v. (52 Cal. 446) i. 978 Kerrigan, P. v. (78 Cal. 222) i. 959 — , Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 383; 9 art C. "C. 441 ) i. 163 Kerry v. S. (17 Tex. Ap. (178; 50. Am. R. 122) i. 1199 Kersh v. S. (24 Ga. 191) i. 889, 519, 1138 —, S. v. (1 Strob, 352) ii. 768 Kerwin ». (P. 96 Ill. 206) i. 921 Kessler v. C. (12 Bush, 18) ii. 8, 957 v. §. (60 Ind. 229) ii. 1025 —, U.S. »v. (Bald. 15) i. 1169 Kesslering, S. v. (12 Misso. 565) li, 494 Ketchingman ». S. (6 Wis. 426) i. a8 9 Kettleworth, Rex v. (6 T. R. 33) i. 1817 Key v. C. (3 Bibb, 495) i. 2640 — v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 606) ii. 63 Keyes v. 8, (122 Ind. 527) i. 281, 931, 975 c, 984, 1086, 1097, 1118, 1181, 1185 —, 8S. v. (8 Vt. 57; 80 Am. D. 450) i. 145 —, 5. v. (75 Wis. 288) i, 237 —, Territory v. (5 Dak. 244) ii. 82 Keyon, C. v. (1 Allen, 6) i. 408 Keys v. Marin (42 Cal. 252) i. 1880 — , Reg. v. (2 Cox C. C. 225) i. 687 v. 8. (7 Lea, 408) i. 286 Kibby, S. v. (7 Misso. 317) i, 424, 449, 452, 457, 458 Kibling, S. v. (63 Vt. 636) i. 1169 Kibs v. P. (81 Ill. 599) ii. 316 Kidd, Rex v. (14 How. St. Tr. 123) i. 730 ». 8. (83 Ala. 58) i. 975, 1094 Kidder v. S. (58 Ind. 68) ii. 285, 286, 290 Kiene v. Ruff (1 Iowa, 482) ii, 792 Kilbourn v. S. (9 Conn. 560) i. 314 Kilcrease, S. v. (6 S. C. 444) i, 868 Kilderby, Rex v. (1 Saund. Wms. ed. 308) i. 879, 622 Kilgore, 8. v. (74 Ala. 1) i. 10154, 1068 —, S. v. (70 Mo. 546) i, 980, 1213 —, S. v. (93 N. C. 533) i. 909, 975d Kilgrow v. 8. (76 Ala. 101) i. 2644 Kilham v. Ward (2 Mass. 236) i. 1276 Kilkelly v. 8. (43 Wis. 604) ii. 657, 660 Killen v. 8. (50 Ga. 223) i, 1268 Killenbeck v. S. (10 Md. 481) _ iii, 42, 44 Killet, S. v. (2 Bailey, 289) i, 282 Killian, C. v. (109 Mass. 345; 12 Am. R. 714) ii. 1050 ames ge v. §. (23 Tex. 204) i, 1264 S. (7 Tex. Ap. 28) i. 264a, 2645 Killing v, S. (28 Fla. 313) i. 975 Killman v. 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 222; 28 Am. R, 482) ii, 105, 2764 Killough, S. v. (82 Tex. 74) i, 478 Kilpatrick v. C. (81 Pa. 198) i. 314 a, 981, 1115, 1116, 1212; ii. 600, 602 604 CASES CITED. KIN Kilpatrick, U.S. v. (16 Fed. Rep. 765) “1. 763 Kilrow »v. C. (89 Pa. 480) i. 711 Kimball, C. v. (7 Gray, 328) i. 1888, 1394; ii, 106, 112, 277 —, C. v. (108 Mass. 473) ii. 902, 933 ¢ — GC. v. (24 Pick. 366) i. 1049; 1050, 1121, 1187, 1277 , S. v. (29 Iowa, 267) i. 861 —, S. v. (50 Me. 409) ii, 420, 427 a Kimberlain, C. v. (6 T. B. Monr. 43) i. 264 m Kimble, S. v. (84 La. An. 392) ii. 740 Kimbrough v. S. (62 Ala. 248) i. 981, — t. S. (76 Ga. 786) i, 1054 —— v.§. (10 Humph. 97) ii. 1054 — v.S. (28 Tex. Ap. 367) i. 1182 —, 5S. v. (2 Dev. 431) i. 724, 966 d, 1350; ii. 483, 484, 910 Kimmel »v. P. (92 Ill. 457) ii. 921 Kincaid v. Howe (10 Mass. 203) _ i. 687 Kinch, Rex v. (28 How. St. Tr. 619) ii. 541, 544 Kinchelow v. 8. (6 Humph. 9) i. 1120, 1147, 1148, 1161, 1170 Kinder, S, v. (109 Ind. 226) ii. 56 Kindle, S. ev. (47 Ohio St. 358) i. 1218 Kindred v. 8. (88 Tex. 67) ii. 285, 286.4 v. Stitt (61 Ill. 401) i. 164, 168, 172 Kindrick, S. v. (21 Mo. Ap. 507) _ ii. 290 King, Ex parte (82 Ala. 59) i. 1810 — v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 78) i. 1207 —, C. v. (9 Cush. 284) i. 483; ii. 982 —. C. v. (8 Gray, 501) i, 279, 282, 1233, 1255 — v. P. (5 Hun, 297) i. 62 —, P. v. (27 Cal. 507; 87 Am. D. 95) i, 909; ii. 524, 589 —, P. v. (28 Cal. 265) i. 1164, 1309, 1310 —— v. Reg. (14 Q. B. 81; 8 Cox C. C. 561) ii. 911 ——, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C, 282) i. 1166 ——, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 134; 2 Eng. Rep. 198) ——, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 493) ——, Reg. v. (7 Mod. 150; 1 Salk. 342) ii, 426 —, Reg. v. (7 Q. B. 782) i. 1296, 1368; ii. 206, 210 ——, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 128) ii, 486 —, Rex ». (2 Chit. 217) i, 70 ——, Rex v. (2 Stra. 1268) i, 767 v8. (40 Ala. 314) i. 1227 — v. §. (71 Ala. 1) i, 975 ¢ v. S. (81 Ala. 92) i. 2644 v. S. (89 Ala. 48; 18 Am, St. 89) i. 191 — v. 8. (90 Ala. 612) ii. 618 — v8. - Ark. 604) ii. 618 — v. 8. (17 Fla. 183) ii, 118, 118 —— v. S. (21 Ga. 220) i. 909, 934, 950 b, 951 a, 966 b, 978, 1269 —— v. S. (64 Ga. 184 ): ii, 780 KIN INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. KLA King v. S. (8 Heisk. 148) i. 390] Kinney, S. z. (41 Iowa, 424) i, 123 — v.58. (5 How. Missis. 730) i, 665, | ——, S. v. (44 Iowa, 444) i, 1264, 1272 , 909 | —, S. v. (26 W. Va. 141) i. 1181 — v.S. (2 Ind. 528) i. 606 | Kinser v. S. (9 Ind. 543) i. 636 — v. §. (44 Ind. 285) ii, 718, 752] Kinsey, P. v. (61 Cal. 278) i. 760, 752, vz. S. (15 Lea, 51) i, 975 c, 1268 812 — v. 8. (65 Missis. 576) ii. 633 | ——, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 447) i. 210 — v. S. (1 Misso. 717) i. 926, 1189 | Kinsler v. Territory (1 Wy. 112) i. 1858 — v. S. (18 Neb. 875) i, 264, 264 | Kinsley v. S. (8 Ohio St. 508) {i. 1866 — v. 8. (91 Tenn. 617) ii. 673 | Kirbie v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 60) i. 185; — v. S. (10 Tex. 281) i, 764 ii. 868 — v.58. (45 Tex. 351) i. 814 | Kirby, Ex parte (76 Cal. 514) i, 1827 —v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 256) i. 1274 | —— v. C. (1 Bush, 113) i, 2647 —— v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 515) i. 1093; | —— v. C. (77 Va. 681; 46 Am. R. ii. 621] 747) i. 1086, 1181 — v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 277) i. 975 ; | ——, C. o. (2 Cush. 677) i. 1838; ii. 887, ii, 638 889 —v S. (27 Tex. Ap. 567; 11 Am. St. 203) ii — v.58. (82 Tex. Cr. 463) i. 181€; ii. 904 —,S. v. (20 Ark. 166) i, 1093 —, S. v. (20 Fla. 19) i. 68, 71 — , 8. v. (3 Ire. 411) ii. 1048, 1044 —, 8. v. (1 Kan. 466) i. 1264 —,§S. v. (387 La. An. 91) ii. 736 — , S. v. (78 Mo. 555) i. 1118, 1250 —, 8. v. (9 Mont, 445) i. 1094 —, S. v. (86 N.C. 603) i. 1195; ii. 16 — v. Whitley (7 Jones, N. C. 529) ii. 809 —, U.S. v. (5 McLean, 208) li. 254, 255 King William Justices v. Munday (2 Leigh, 165; 21 Am. D. 604) i. 1403 Kingen v. S. (45 Ind. 618) ii. 600 — v. 8. (46 Ind. 182) — v. S. (50 Ind. 557) Kingman, C. v. (14 Gray, 85) i, 894 —, U. v, (15 Gray, 208) i. 725, 1285 Kingsbury’s Case (106 Mass. 223) i. 220, 222, 223 Kingsbury v. Clark (1 Conn. 406) i. 2644 —, S. v. (58 Me. 288) i. 1276 Kingsley, P. v. (2 Cow. 522; 14 Am. D. 620) i, 553 ; ii. 404 Kingston, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 387) 1, 1238 —, Rex v, (8 East, 41) i, 424, 425, 449, 453, 473, 772 Kinley, 8. v. (48 Towa, 294) i. 1118 Kinloch’s Case (Foster, 16) i. 780, 747 Kinman, S. v. (7 Rich. 497) Kinne v. Kinne (9 Conn. 102; 21 Am. D. 732) ii. 674, 680 — ,S. v. (29 N. H. 129) i, 264 e —,S8. v. (41 N. H. 238) i. 1313 i, 949 a, 949 6 i. 1155, 1248 ii, 746° —, C. v. (9 Cush, 284) ii. 816 ——., P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 28) i. 1098; ii. 672 ;|——'v. 8. (89 Ala. 63) i. 1214 v. §. (3 Humph. 289) i. 1078, 1275 — v.§, (1 Ohio St. 185) ii, 426 — v.8. (7 Yerg. 259) ii, 595 v. 8. (9 Yerg. 883; 80 Am. D. 420) ii. 623, 625 —, 8. v. (1 Murph. 254) ii. 124 —, S. «. (108 N. C. 772) i. 1006 — , S. e. (2 Southard, 835) i. 772 — , 8. v. (1 Strob. 155)- i. 1234 —,, S. v. (1 Strob. 378) i. 1234 —, U. 8. v. (7 Wal. 482) i. 207 Kirk v. C. (9 Leigh, 627) i. 1015; ii. 262 —, Rex v, (12 Mod. 309) i, 256 —— v. §. (73 Ga. 620) i, 998 —— v. S. (6 Misso. 469) i. 883, 662, 665 — v.58. (14 Ohio, 511) i. 1000 — v. S. (138 Sm. & M. 406) i, 692 Kirkman, S. v. (104 N. C, 911) i. 649 Kirkpatrick, S. v. (72 Iowa, 600) i. 976c; ii. 740 , 8. v. (74 Iowa, 505) i. 1018 Kirkwood, U. 8S. v. (5 Utah, 128) i. 1256 Kirtley v. 8, (88 Ark. 548) ii. 183 Kiser v. S. (13 Ind. 80) i, 264 a, 2647 — v.S. (18 Tex. Ap. 201) i, 2644 Kistler v. 8. (64 Ind. 400) i. 1012, 1115, 1294; ii. 1026 —— v. 8. (64 Ind. 371) i, 1891, 1395 Kit v. S. (11 Humph. 167) _ i. 519; ii, 1006 Kitchen, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry.95) ii. 652 — v.§, (26 Tex. Ap. 165) i. 975¢; ii, 983 b, 936 —, 8. uv. (12 Vroom, 229) i. 12644 Kitchens v. S. (41 Ga. 217) i. 987 —, S. v. (2 Hill, S.C, 612; 27 Am. D. 410) i, 1811 Kite v. C, (11 Met. 681) =i. 1827; ii. i Kinnear, Rex v. (2 B. & Ald. 462) i. 995, | ——, S. v. (81 Mo. 97) ii. 825 996, 998, 999 | Kitrol v. S. (9 Fla. 9) i. 856 a Kinneman, §. v. (39 Ind. 36) i. 1317 | Kitson, Reg. v. (Dears. 187) ii, 45a Kinnersley, Rex v. (1 Stra, 193) i. 464, | Kitter v. P. (25 Ill. 42) i, 1042 : 1022 | Kittrel, Ex parte (20 Ark. 499) 1, 263 Kinney v. P. (108 Ill. 519) i. 1279 | Kitty, S. v. (12 La. An. 806) i, 1228 —,S. v. (44 Conn. 153; 26 Am. Kizer v. S. (12 Lea, 564) i, 313 R. 436) ii, 968 ' Klaise v. S. (27 Wis. 462) i, 814 605 KNI INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. KRE Klare v. S. (48 Ind. 483) i, 1176 | Knill, Rex v. (5 B. & Ald. 929) ii. 931 n Kleim, P.v. (Edm. Sel. Cas. 18) _ ii. 674 | Knippa, S. v. (20 Tex. 295) ii. 426 Klein v. P. (113 Ill. 698) i. 1279 | Knoll v, S. (55 Wis. 249; 42 Am. R. . v. P. (381 N. Y. 229) i. 1025, 1037 | _ 704) - i. 1275 Klepfer v. 8. (121 Ind. 491) i. 975a | Knopf v. S. (84 Ind. 316) ii. 867 Kline v. 8. (44 Missis. 817) i, 636, 639, | Knot v. Gay (1 Root, 66) _ 1 166 711; ii. 813 | Knouff v. P. (6 Bradw. 154) i. 991, 992 —, S. v. (54 Iowa, 183) ii. 629 | Knouse, 8. v. (29 Iowa, 118) i. 1015; Klinger, S. v. (43 Mo. 127) i.961; ii. 670, . ii. 585 671, 673 | Knowles v. P. (15 Mich. 408) i. 966c —, S. v. (46 Mo. 224) i. 931, 982, | ——, Rex v. (Comb. 278) i, 264d 1179; ii. 685 | ——, Rex v. (1 Salk. 47) i, 124 Klingman, S. v, (14 Iowa, 404) i, 878 | ——, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 11) A. 793 Klock v. P. (2 Par. Cr. 676) i, 824 | —— v. S. (3 Day, 103) ii. 865 Klug v. S. (77 Ga. 734) i. 975c¢ v. 8. (2 Root, 282) i. 1296 Klum ». S. (1 Blackf. 377) ii. 27 | —— v. S. (31 Tex. Cr. 388) 1. 975¢ Knadler, S. v. (40 Kan. 859) i, 68 | ——, S. v. (48 Lowa, 598) li, 428 Knap v. Sacket (1 Root, 501) ii. 432 6 | —, S. v. (84 Kan. 393) i. 707 a Knapf, S. v. (61 Iowa, 522) i, 1264 | ——, U. S. v. (4 Saw. 517) ii. 599 Knapp, C. v. (9 Pick. 496; 20 Am. Knowlton, C. v. (2 Mass. 530) i. 8144; D. 491) i. 282, 303, 909, 934, 945, 959 a, ii. 1050 965, 1238, 12384, 1235, 1236 | ——, S. v. (70 Me. 200) i, 241 —, C. v. (10 Pick. 477; 20 Am. D. —, U.S. »v. (8 Dak. 58) ii. 620 581) —, P. v. (71 Cal. 1) i. 282, 981, 984, 1050, 1161, 1164; ii. 12 i. 1050, 1097, 1181, 1182; ii. 603 —, P. uv. (Edm. Sel. Cas.177) i. 12138, 1216 —, P. v. (26 Mich. 112) i. 1207, 1212, 1249 —, P. ou. (42 Mich. 267; 36 Am. R. 438 i. 998 a —, S. v. (45 N. H. 148) , ii. 963, 966, 970 Kneas v. Fitler (28. & R. 263) i. 196 Kneeland, C. v. (20 Pick. 206) i. 468, 1269; ii. 124 —, v. S. (62 Ga. 395) i. 793 — v. §. (68 Ga. 641) i, 1846 Knickerbocker v. P. (43 N. Y. 177) ii, 152, 741, 747 —, P.v. (1 Par. Cr. 302) i. 945, 1212, 1214 Knight, Ex parte (61 Ala. 482) _i. 1368 —, C. vu. (12 Mass. 274; 7 Am. D. 72) ii. 921, 924 — v. Campbell (62 Barb. 16) i. 892, 897 v. Preston (2 Wils. 332) i. 406 ——, Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 878; 9 Cox C. C. 487) ii. 742 —, Rex v. (7B. & C. 418; 1 Man. & R. 217) ii. 1052 —, Rex ». (2 East P. C. 510) ii. 147 —, Rex v. (1 Salk. 875} i. 608 —, Rex »v. (8 Salk. 186 ii. 373 — v. S. (70 Ind. 375) v. §. (84 Ind. 78) —, S$. v. (8 Bax. 418) ——, 8. v. (19 Iowa, 94) i, 849 ——, 8. v. (43 Me. 11) i. 934, 979, 980, 1179; ii. 608, 617, 631 ——, 8. v. (29 W. Va, 340) ii. 818 Knightley, Rex v. (13 How. St. Tr. 897; Comb. 364) i. 1282, 1291 Knightly, Rex v. (Holt, 398) i. 801 606 Knox v. New York (55 Barb. 404; 38 How. Pr. 67) ii. 869. —, Reg. v. (2 Cox C. C. 165) ii. 902 v. S. (9 Bax. 202) i. 100a, 286, 1310, 1317 ——, S. v. (17 Neb. 683) ii. 820 Kobe, S. v. (26 Minn. 150) i. 975c, 981 Koch v. 8. (82 Ohio St. 358) i, 852 ——, 8. v. (4 Harring. Del. 570) ii. 721 Kock, 8. v. (61 Mo. 117) i, 899 Koeber, P. v. (7 Hill, N. Y. 89) i. 187, 236, 2644 Keehler, S. v. (6 Iowa, 398) i. 859 Koerner v. S, (96 Ind. 243) i. 1310 — v. §. (98 Ind. 7) ii. 680 "——, S. v. (61 Mo. 174) i. 783, 1287, 1288 Koester v. S. (86 Kan. 27) i. 1415 Kohle, P. v. (4 Cal. 198) i. 945 Kohler, P. v. (5 Cal. 72) i, 273 Koons v. S. (86 Ohio St. 195) ii, 472 KXoontz v. S. (41 Tex. 570) i, 354, 1269 —,S. v. (81 W. Va. 127) ii, 4825 Koops, Rex v. (6 A. & E. 198) ii. 911 Kopper, S. v. (65 Mo. 478) ii. 825 Koster v. P. (8 Mich. 481) i. 84, 618 Kotovsky, S. v. (74 Mo. 247) i. 9750 Kouns v. Draper (48 Mo. 225) i. 280, 286 —— v. 8. (3 Tex. Ap. 18) ii. 65 Kountz, S. v. (12 Mo. Ap. 511) ii. 794 Kowalsky, In re (73 Cal. 120) ii. 783, 805 Kraft, 8. v. (10 Iowa, 880) i. 747 Kraker, P. v. (72 Cal. 459; 1 Am. St. 65 i. 1159, 1170; ii. 980 Kramer, Ex parte (19 Tex. Ap. 123) i. 1410 —— v. C. (87 Pa. 299) i. 1125 Kraner, 8. v. (50 Iowa, 575) i, 264A Krautz v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 534) i, 276 Krebs v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 348) i. 10234; ii. 595 — v.S. (8 Tex. Ap. 1) i, 68, 78, 961, 1018, 1218 LAC Kreiger, S. v. (71 Iowa, 32) i. 975c, 1084 —, 8. v. (71 Iowa, 40) i, 1276 Krepple, 8. v. (20 La. An. 402) i, 1264 Kreps, S. v. (8 Ala. 951) i. 711, 1894 Kreuziger v. Chicago, &. Ry. (73 Wis. 158) i, 1179 Krewsen, S. v. (57 Iowa, 588) i. 1066 Kribs v. P. (82 Ill. 425) i. 1120 Krider, S. v. (78 N. C. 481) ii. 707 Krieger, S. v. (68 Mo. 98) ii. 761 —, S. ». (4 Mo. Ap. 584) ii. 740 Kriel v. C. (6 Bush, 362) —_ i. 676; ii. 674 Kring v. Missouri (107 U. S. 221) i. 2 —, 8. v. (64 Mo. 591; 1 Mo. Ap. 488) i. 955, 977, 980; ii. 674 —,, 8. v. (71 Mo. 551) i, 1265 — S. v. (74 Mo. 612) i. 49, 68, 798 — S. v. (11 Mo, Ap. 92) i. 68, 73 Kroeger, S. «. (47 Mo. 680) i. 825; ii. 708, 73 —, 8. v. (47 Mo. 552) ii. 401, 426 Kroemer v. C. (8 Binn. 577) i. 314.4, 1874 Kroer v. P. (78 Ill. 294) i. 399, 452, 905, 1827 Kroscher, S. v. (24 Wis. 64) ii. 86 Krug ev. Ward (77 Ill, 608) i. 189 Kruger v. S. (185 Ind. 573) ii, 36 v. 8. (1 Neb. 365) ii. 63a Kruise, 8. v. (3 Vroom, 313) i, 234a Krull, S. v. (6 Mo. Ap. 589) i. 97 Krum v. S. (19 Neb. 728) i. 975c; ii. 979 Krummer, P. v. (4 Par. Cr.217) i. 777; ii. 174 Krusick, P. v. (98 Cal. 74) i. 976c¢ Kube, S. v. (20 Wis. 217; 91 Am. D. 390 i, 408, 490, 627 ; ii. 173 Kuehner, S. v. (98 Mo. 193) i. 966 Kunbert, S. v. (14 Ind. 374) i. 1264 Kuns, S. v. (5 Blackf. 314) i. 484 Kunz, P. v. (78 Cal. 813) i. 909 Kunzmann, C. v. (41 Pa. 429) i. 49 Kurtz, P. v, (42 Hun, 335) i, 1248 — v. S. (22 Fla. 36; 1 Am. St. 1738) i, 222, 223 —, S. v. (27 Kan. 223) i. 264.0 Kusnick, S. v. (45 Ohio St. 535) —_ ii. 329 Kutter, 8. v. (69 Ind. 572) ii, 992 Kyle v. S. (10 Ala. 286) ii, 945 —, S. v. (8 W. Va. 711) i, 1363 Kynaston, Rex v. (1 East, 117) i. 189 La Beau v. P. (6 Par. Cr. 871) ii. 644, 645 La Bore, 8. v. (26 Vt. 765) i. 408, 724 La Coste, U.S. v. (2 Mason, 129) - i. 388 La Creux, S. v. (1 McMul. 488) — i. 612 Labbaite v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 169) —_ i. 1264 —— v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 257) ii. 415, 470 —— v.S. (6 Tex. Ap, 483) ii, 424 Labour v. Polk (70 Iowa, 668) i. 1816 ‘Labra, P. v. (6 Cal. 188) i. 1018, 1020 Labuzan, S. v. (87 La. An, 489) i. 613 Lacaze, Respublica v. (2 Dall. 118) i. 1268 Lacefield v. S. (34 Ark. 276 ; 86 Am. R. 8) i. 788; ii. 64, 659 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. LAM Lacey, Reg. v. (8 Cox C.C.517) i. 944 — v. 8. (58 Ala. 385) i. 983, 1223 ——, S. v. (111 Mo, 518) ii. 947 Lachanais, P. v. (32 Cal. 433) i. 980 Lachman, &. v. (98 N. C. 768) i. 1264 Lack, S. v. (68 Mo. 501) i. 68 Lackey, S. v, (85 Tex. 357) i. 278, 280 Lacy’s Case (Sir F. Moore, 121) i, 2642 Lacy v. 8. (45 Ala. 80) ii. 962, 963 —— v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 403) i. 172 — v. S, (16 Wis. 13) i. 84, 1878; ii. 40 Lad, Rex v. (1 Leach, 96) ii. 621 Ladd v. Prentice (14 Conn. 109) i. 921 —— v. 8. (17 Fla, 215) i. 583, 926 —, 8. v. (10 La, An. 271) i. 982 —, S. v. (82 N. H. 110) ii. 177 —,, S. vo. (2 Swan, Tenn. 226) i, 595, 600, 629 Ladow v. Groom (1 Denio, 429) i, 238 4 | Cadsingham, Rex v. (T. Raym. 193) i. 1001 Lafarge, P. v. (3 Cal. 130) i, 2647 Lafayette, C. v. (148 Mass. 180) i. 1265 Lafferty, S. v. (6 Harring. Del. 491) i. 188 Lafone, Rex v. (5 Esp. 154) i. 1020, 1166 Lafuente, P. v. (6 Cal. 202) i. 878, 1265, 1269 Lagorio, C. v. (141 Mass. 81) ii. 1050 Lagrave, In re (45 How.’Pr. 801) i. 224 Laidlaw, P. v. (102 N. Y. 588) i. 264, 2644 Laird v. 8. (15 Tex. 317) i. 1269 Lake’s Case (3 I-eon. 268) ii, 862 Lake v. King (1 Saund. Wms. ed. 120) ii. 783, 792 — v. P. (1 Par. Cr. 495) ii. 680, 683, 685 —, P. v, (2 Kern. 358) ii. 688, 685 —, P. v. (110 N. Y. 61; 6 Am. St. 344) i. 6890 —, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 215) ii. 666 —, S. v. (34 La. An. 1069) i. 1296, 1810 Lake Erie, &c. Rid. v. Heath (9 Ind. 658) i. 892, 893 Lakeman, C. v. (5 Gray, 82) ii. 981, 983 ——, U.S. v. (2 Mason, 229) i, 488 Lakey, S. v. (65 Mo. 217) ii. 682 Laliyer, S. v. (4 Minn. 868) i. 1095, 1265 Lamar v. 8. (63 Missis. 265) i. 961 — v. 8. (64 Missis. 428) i. 975 c, 980 — v. S. (64 Missis. 687) i. 946 Lamb’s Case (3 Mod. 87, note) Lamb, C. v. (1 Gray, 493) ii. 41 — v. Lane (4 Ohio St. 167) i. 894, 897 — v.S. (26 Wis. 424) i. 989, 944 — , S. v. (28 Mo. 218) i, 884, 1088, 1261 — , S. ». (66 N.C. 419) i. 601 Lambe, Rex v. (2 Leach, 652) i ae Lambert, C. v. (9 Leigh, 603) ii. 303 — v. P. (9 Cow. 78) ii. 100, 216 — v. P. (29 Mich. 71) i. 706 a, 713, 1086 — v.P. (76N, Y. 220; 82 Am. R. 298) ii, 988 6 607 LAN INDEX TO THE Lambert, Rex v. (2.Camp. 398) ii, 791 —, 8. v. (938 N.C. 618) i. 946; ii. 638 Lamberton v. 8. (11 Ohio, 282) i. 981, 1212 ; ii, 886, 889 Lambertson v, P. (5 Par. Cr. 200) ii. 1013 Lambeth v. S. (23 Missis. 822) i. 980 ——,, S. v. (80 N.C. 393) ii. 163, 165, 168 Lamden.v. S. (6 Humph. 88) ii. 908, a Lamferne, Rex v. (W. Jones, 879) i. 9504 Lamkin v. P. (94 Ill. 501) i, 405 v. 8. (42 Tex. 415) i, 872 Lamoine, 8. v. (68 Vt. 568) i, 2644 Lamon, 8. v. (8 Hawks, 175) i. 78, 870, 874, 886, 931 Lamont, 8. v. (2 Wis. 487) i. 1264, 1278; ii. 924 Lamos, S. v. (26 Me. 258) i. 230 Lamothe, S. v. (87 La. An. 48) i. 951 Lampe v. Manning (38 Wis. 673) i. 1001 Lampen v. Hatch (2 Stra. 934) ii. 794, Lamphere, In re (61 Mich. 105) — i. 1827 Lamphier v. S. (70 Ind. 317) i. 921 Lampkin v. 8. (87 Ga. 516) —_ i. 443, 946, \ 1085 ; ii, 1005 Lampriere’s Case (1 Mod. 41) i. 1877 Lampson v. Landon (5 Day, 506) i. 187 —, P. v. (70 Cal. 204) i, 951 Lampton, C. v. (4 Bibb, 261) ii. 494 Lanagan, P. v. (81 Cal. 142) i. 981, 1207, 1212 Lancashire Justices, Rex v. (1 Chit. | 602) i. 962 Lancaster, In re (187 U.S. 898) i. 1411 — v. Lane (19 Ill. 242) i. 179 —, Rex v. (1 How. St. Tr. 89) v. 8. (38 Coldw. 839; 91 Am. D. 288) i. 980.0 v. 8. (8 Lea, 652) i, 1317 v. 8. (48 Tex. 619) i. 586 —, S. v. (36 Arle. 55) i. 458 —, U.S. v. (7 Bis. 440) i. 1050 —, U.S. v. (44 Fed. Rep. 896) ii. 229 —, U.S. v. (2 McLean, 431) i. 321, 611, 1160; ii. 821, 776 a Lance v. Cowan (1 Dana, 195) ii. 758 Land, S_ v. (42 Ind. 811) i. 399 Landaff, Rex v. (2 Stra. 1006) i, 705 Lander v, Miles (3 Or. 85) 4. 160, 168 —— v. P. (104 Hl. 248) i. 1086; ii. 961, 972 i, 1087 i. 1278, 1277 Landgraf, 8. v. (95 Mo. 97; 6 Am. St. 26 i. 1100; ii. 602 Landis v, 8. (70 Ga. 651; 48 Am. R. 588) i. 1066 Landon, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 381) i. 9508 Landringham v, 8. (49 Ind. 186) © i. 98.4, 207, 217, 218 Landrum z. S. (63 Missis. 107) i. 975¢ Lane, In re (135 U.S. 448 i, 451, 959 a —— v. C. (69 Pa, 871) i. 977; ii, 691, 592 —— v. §. (12 Tex. 462) Landers ». S. (85 Tex. 359) —, O. v. (157 Mass. 462) ii, 1020 608 ’ CASES CITED. LAN Lane, P. v. (55 Barb. 168) i, 893 —, P. v. (101 Cal. 518) ii. 679 —, P. v. (81 Hun, 18) i. 1181 —, P. v. (49 Mich. 3840) i. 1058 ——, Reg. v. (6 Mod. 128) i, 649 — v. 8. (85 Ala. 11) i, 975c — v. S. (16 Ind. 14) i. 1128 —, S. v. (68 Lowa, 384) ii. 981 —, S. v. (4 Ire. 113) i, 883, 389 —, 8. wv. (11 Kan. 458) i, 951e — 8. v. (83 Me. 536) i. 2644 —, S. v. (64 Mo. 819) ii. 599 —., S. v. (78 N.C. 547) i. 1264, 1272 —— v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 164) i, 1147 — v. 8. (19 Tex. Ap. Se i, 1107 — v. S, (29 Tex. Ap. 310) i. 909, 921, 946 —, S. v. (80 N. C. 407) ii. 472 Lanergan v. P. (39 N. Y. 39) i, 457 Lang, C. v. (10 Gray, 11) i. 101, 417, 1018 —v. 8. (84 Ala. 1; 5 Am. St. 324) : i. 975 c, 980 a; ii. 618 — v. §. (3 Blackf. 344) i. 2644 — v.8. (16 Lea, 488) i. 1276 Langbein v. 8. (87 Tex. 162) i. 893 Langbridge, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 448; 2 Car. & K.975; 3 Cox C.C. 465) i. 1195, 1199 Langeake, Respublica v. (1 Yeates, ; 15 i. 1215 Langdon v. P. (138 Ill. 882) i. 685, 1279; ii. 674 Lange, Ex parte (18 Wal.163) i. 1298, . 1410, 1411 -—, 8. v. (69 Mo. 418) i. 951a; ii. 741 —, S. v. (22 Tex. 591) i. 619 Langener v. Phelps (74 Mo. 189) i. 951 Langford v. S. (45 Ala. 2) ii. 178 — v. 8. (33 Fla. 233) ii. 472 — v. S. (8 Tex. 115) ii. 720 v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 445) i, 1247 —, 8. v. (Busbee, 486) i. 1858; ii. 680 —, 8. v. (38 Hawks, 381) ii. 841, 844 ——, S. v. (45 La. An. 1177) ii. 963 Langham ». §. (26 Tex. Ap. 533) i. 549 Langher, Reg. v. (2 Cox C. C. 184) i. 1288 Langhorn, Rex v. (7 How. St. Tr. 417) i, 729 Langhurst, Reg. v. (10 Cox C. C. 353 i, 951a Langley, C. v. (14 Gray, 21) i. 897 —, Reg. v. (4 Cox C. C. 157) i, 254 —, Reg. v. (2 Salk. 697) ii. 807 —, 8. v, (84 N. H. 529) i, 1054; ii, 910 Langmead, Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 427) ii. 745, 747, 989 Langrish, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 176) ii. 164 Langston, S. v. (45 La, An. 1182) ii. = 6 Langton, P. v. (67 Cal. 427) ii, 599 ——, Reg. v. (2 Q. B. D, 296) ii. 187 LAT INDEX TO THE Langtree, P. v. (64 Cal. 256) i. 1151, 1164 Lanham ». S. (7 (7 Tex. Ap. 126) — i. 1817 6 Lanier v. S. (76 Ga. 3804) ii. 142 —, Suv. (88 N. C. 658) i, 636 —, S. v. (89 N. C. 517) ii. 318, 329 Soe Wee ee i. 869a Lann v. 8. (25 Tex. Ap. 495; 8 Am. St. 445) i, 1118 Lannan, C. v. (1 Allen, 590) ii, 180 —, C.v. (13 Allen, 563) | i. 726, 744, 747, 790, 798, 1188, 1254 a Lansford v. Dietrich (86 ‘Ala. 250 ; 11 Am, St. 37) ii. 754 Lantz, S. v. (23 Kan. 728; 33 Am. R. 215) i. 982a Lapage, S. v. (67 N. H. 245; 24 Am. R. 69 i. 1112, 1117; ii. 628 Lapoint, U.S. v. (Morris, 146) ii. 867 Laque, S. v. (87 La. An. 853) ii. 981, 982 —, S. v. (41 La. An. 1070) i. 1195 Larger, S. v. (45 Mo. 510) i. 118, 893 Lark v. S. (55 Ga. 485) i, 1339, 1371, 1374, 1410 Larkin, Reg. v. (Dears. C. C. 365; 26 Eng. L. & Eq, 572) ii. 986 —, S.v. (49 N. H. 36; 6 Am. R. 456) ii. 9 —,8.v. (49N. H.39) i. 1248, 1249; ii, 10, 980 —, S. v. (11 Nev. 314) i. 872, 881, 1107, 1265 Larned v. C, (12 Met. 240) ii. 136, 143 —, P.v. (3 Seld. 445) ii. 151 — ,U.S. v. (4 Cranch C. C. - i. 432 b Larney v. Cleveland (84 Ohio St 599 i. 1810 Laroe v. S. (80 Tex. Ap. 374) i. 436 ; ii. 1050 Laros v. C. (84 Pa. 200) i. 1179, 1242; ii. 675, 687 a Larrigan, S. v. (66 Iowa, 426) i. 893 Larrimore, S. v. (20 Mo. 425) i. 1279 Lartigue, S. v. (29 La. An. 642) i. 314a, 925; ii. 713 Larumbo, S. v. (Harper, 183) i. 1037 Lascelles v. Georgia (148 U. S. 587) i. 2246 — v.8. (90 Ga. 347) ‘ii 428 Lasindo +. S. (2 Tex. Ap: 69) i. 825, 831 Lassiter v. S. (67 Ga. 789) i. 269, 1191 Lassley, S. v. (7 Port. 526) i. 700, 1015 Lasure v. 8S. (19 Ohio St. 48) i. 678 ; ii. 724 Laswell v. Hickox (4 Scam.181) i. 3144 Latham v. Reg. (5 B. & 8. 635) i. 1866 —— v. Reg. (9 Cox C.C. 516; 10 Jur, n.8°1145) i. 1011 — v. 8. (19 Tex. Ap. 305) i. 878 Lathrop, S. v. (15 Vt. ae ii. 178 Latimer, Reg. v. (15 Q. B. 1077; 2 Eng. i Eq. 226) i. 1314 Lattimore, P. v. (86 Cal. 408) i. 1062 ; ii. 58 Lattin, S. v. (29 Conn, 889) ii. 968 VOL, 11. — 39 CASES CITED. LAW Laturner v. 8. (9 Tex. 451) i. 264, 264 a, 1264 Laubach v. 8. (12 Tex. Ap. 583) =i. 951, ‘9756 Lauder, P. v. (82 Mich. 108) i. 861, 8844 Lauderdale v. 8. (81 Tex. Cr. 46; 87 Am. St. 788) i. 1286 Laugher, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 225) i, 1283 ; ii, 989 Laughlin v. 8. (18 Ohio, 99; 51 Am. D. 444) i. 1192; ii. 963 Launock v. Brown (2 B. & Ald. 592) i. 196, 201 Laurent v. S. (1 Kan. 313) i. 1859 Lautenschlager, S. v. (22 Minn. 514) i. 314, 488 c, 984; ii. 514, 588, 541 —, 8. v. (23 Minn. 290) i. 1287 Lavarre v. §. (1 Tex. Ap. 685) ii. 708, 705 Lavelle, S. v. (78 Mo. 104) i. 1816, 1817 Lavender v. 8. (60 Ala. 60) ii. 700, 726 Lavery v. C. (101 Pa. 560) i. 8144, 898 —, C. v. (101 Mass. 207) i. 4888; ii. 700, 718, 714 Lavett v. P. (7 Cow. 339) i, 1862 Lavey v. Reg. (17 Q. B. 496; 2 Den. C. C. 604; 5 Cox C. C. 269; 7 Eng. L. & Eq.401) i. 1862; ii. 910 a, 911 —, Reg. v. (3 Car. & K. 26) ii. 911 Lavin v. P. (69 Ill. 803) i. 919, 984 Lavina v. S. (63 Ga. 518) i, 223 Lavinia, 8. v. (25 Ga. 311) i, 1272 Lavonsair, C. v. (182 Mass. 1) ii, 105 Law, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R.197) i. 1287 Lawes, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 62) ii. a 1 Lawhorn, S. v. (88 N. C. 634) i. 1181, 1185 Lawless, C. v. (108 Mass. 425) i. 488 b, 721, 722, 751 Lawley, Rex v. (2 Stra. 904) i. 820, 504, 554, 556 Lawlor, Reg. v. (6 Cox C. C. 187) i.910a —, S. v. (28 Minn. 216) =i. 948 a 17 Lawn »v. P. (11 Colo. 348) i. 273 Lawrence v. C. (380 Grat. 845) i. 278, 931 — v.C. (81 Va. 484) i, 981 v. C. (86 Va. 578) i. 884a — »v. Hedger (3 Taunt. 14) i. 181], 182 —— v. P. (17 Il. 172) i. 264. —, P. v. (21 Cal. 368) i. 700, 1209, 1216 v. §. (69 Ala. 61) i. 688, 730 — v5. (0 Ind. 453) i. 1018 — v.§. (14 Tex, 432) i, 1264, 1269 — v. §. (1 Tex. Ap. 392) i, 814a — v.8. (2 Tex. Ap. 479) ii, 956 — v. 8. (10 Tex. Ap. 495) i. 978 — v.S. (11 Tex. Ap. 306) i. ‘9750 — v. 8. (81 Va. 484) i, 930 ;|—— v. S. (50 Wis. 507) i, 282 —, 58. v. (Brayt. 78) ii, 431 —, S. v. (88 Iowa, 51) i, 982 609 LEA INDEX TO THE Lawrence, S. v. (57 Me. 574) i. 1050; ti. 670 —, S.v. (81 N. C. 522) i. 422, 56, 597 —, 8. v. (12 Or. 297) i. 850 —— v. Sherman (2 McLean, 488) i. 4130 v. Smith (Jacob, 471) i, 1442 —,, U.S. v. (13 Blateh. 295) i, 224 6, 777; ii. 418.4 Lawrie v. S. (5 Ind. 525) i. 3l4a Lawry, S. v. (4 Nev. 161) i. 68, 440, 951, 1005 a Laws v. S. (26 Tex. Ap. 643) i, 975¢ , U.S. v. (2 Low. 115) ii. 776.0 Lawson v. Buzines (3 Harring. Del. 416) —— v. Hicks (38 Ala. 279; 81 Am. D. 49) ii. cs 800 — v. S. (20 Ala. 65; 56 Am. D. 182 i. 665; ii. 91 i. 189 CASES CITED. LEE Leach, S. v. (60 Me. 58; 11 Am, R. 172 ) ii, 836 —, 8.2. (50 Mo. 535) ii. 121 ——, S. v. (27 Vt. 317) i. 512 Leaden, S. v. (85 Conn. 515) ii. 184 League v. S. (36 Md. 257) i. 893 Leak, S. v. (90 N. C. 655) i. 1264 Leake v. S. (10 Humph. 144) i. 1278 Leapfoot, S. v. (19 Mo. 3875) i. 761 Learnard, S. v. (41 Vt. 585). ii, 153 Learned, 8. v. (47 Me. 426) i. 98a, 99, 103 Leary’s Case (6 Abb. N Cas. 43) — i, 222 Leary, In re Ae Ben. 197) i. 2234 v. S. (39 Ind. 544) ii. 105, 275 Lease, Rex v. (Andr. 226) i. 768, 72 Leath, C. v. (1 Va. Cas. 151) i. 1810 Leatham, Reg. v. (7 Jur. n. 8. 674) i. 1391 Leathers v. S. (26 Missis. 73) i, 854 — v. S. (25 Ark. 106) 1. 1857 , 5. v. (81 Ark, 44) ii, 371 — v. S. (382 Ark. 220) i. 1248 a S. v. (16 Iowa, 406) i. 1317 — v.§. (71 Ind. 296) j. 1268| Leavenworth v. Brewer (9 Kan. — v. S. (3 Lea, 309) ii. 919] 3807) i, 286, 287 — v. §. (13 Tex. Ap. 83) i. 612| Leaves v. Bernard (5 Mod. 1381) i, 776 — v.S. (13 Tex. Ap. 264) i, 1274} Leavitt, S. v. (66 Me. 440) ii. 697 — v.§. (17 Tex. Ap. 292) ii. 967, 969 | ——, S. v. (63 N. H. 381) i. 612 —, S. v. (14 Ark. 114) i. 1276, 1356 | Lebkovitz v. S. (118 Ind. 26) i. 461 =—, S. v. (Phillips, N. C. 47) i, 1237 | Leckie, U. S. v. (1 Sprague, 227) i. 268 Lawther, S. v. (65 Mo. 454) i. 68, 73| Lecky, C. v. (1 Watts, 66; 26 Am. Laxton, S. v. (76 N. C, 216) i.1117| D. 37) i. 1410 , 5. uv. (78 N. C. 564) ii. 963 | Ledbetter, Reg. v. (3 Car. & K. Lay v. S. (42 Ark. 105) ‘i. 425] 108) i. 1195 —, S. v. (98 Ind. 341) i. 513 | Leddy, In re (11 Mich. 197) ii. 698 Laycock, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 826) ii. "933. Ledford v. S. (75 Ga. 856) 1, 9496 Laydon v. S. (52 Ind. 459) i. 884, 1287 | —, S. v. (6 Ire. 5) ii. 909, 910 Layer, Rex v. (16 How. St. Tr. 93) i 731, | ——, S. v. (3 Misso. 102) i, 892 956, 1836 | Ledwith v. Catchpole (Cald. 291) i. 168, Layton, Reg. v. (4 Cox C. C. 149) i. 1050; / 181 ii. 670, 674, 675 | Lee’s Case (2 Lewin, 276) i. 951 —, Reg. v. (1 Salk. 106) i, 252 | Lee, C. v. (3 J. J. Mar. 698). i, 264.4 —, Reg. v. (1 Salk. 358; Keilw. —, C. v. (107 Mass. 207) ii. 882, 888 41) i. 1301 | ——, C. v. (149 Mass. 179) ii. 168 —— v. §. (56 Missis. 791) 978 | — v. Curveton (Cro. Eliz. 153) i. 838 Lazarre, S. v. re La. An. 166) i. 250, 264 v, Gansel (Cowp. 1 i, 200 Lazarus, S. v. (1 Mill, 34) - i. ‘1202 Lazier v. C. (10 Grat. 708) i. 345, 430, 777, 1166, 1371; ii. 520, 531 LeBaron v. Crombie (14 Mass. 284) i. 1195 Le Blanc, S. v. (3 Brev. 889; 1 Tread. 354) i, 1144, 1150 Le Bur, Ex parte (49 Cal. 159) i. 1411 LeCerf, 8. v. (1 Bailey, 410) i. 250 Le Roy, P. v. (65 Cal. 613) i. 1217 Lea v. S. (64 Missis. 201) i. 436 —, 8. v. (3 Ala. 602) ii. 920 Leabo, S. vu. (84 Mo. 168; 54 Am. R. 91 ) ii, 680 —, S. v, (89 Mo. 247) i. 917, 975c¢ Leach, e v. (1 Mass. 59) i. 176, a P. (53 Ill. 311) 909 — , Pennsylvania », (Addison, 352) i, 021 — v.58. (8 Lea, 35) i, 286 —, 8. v. (75 Ala. 36) i, 1804 —, 5S... (7, Conn. 462; 18 Am. D. i. 187 118) —, 8. v, (120 Ind. 124) i, 1274 610 — ©. Lee (4 McCord, 183; 17 Am. D. 722) ii. 674 —, P. v. (5 Cal. 353) i. 71, 72 —, P. v, (14 Cal. 510) i. 1265 —, P.». (17 Cal. 76) i. Tz, 026, 1013 =F v. (49 Cal. 37) 1205 —,P.» (2 Utah, Ay i i. 869 a, 976 ¢, at 117 ——, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 281) ii. 470 ——, Rex v. (5 Esp. 123) i. 726 —, Rex »v. (1 Leach, 416) i. 486 ——, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 861) i. 1164, 1165 ——, Rex v. (2 Russ. Crimes, 3d Eng. ed. 649) ii, 982 — ». S. (55 Ala. 259) i. 681, 981 — v. S. (75 Ala. 29) i. 1804 —v. 8. (26 Ark. 260; 7 Am. R. 611) i, 750, 752, 812 — ». S. (56 Ga, 477) ii, 142 — » S. (69 Ga. 705) i, 862 — v. 8. (71 Ga. 260) i. 1278 — v. S. (76 Ga. 498) i, 1069 LEF INDEX TO THE Lee v. S. (45 Missis. 114) — v.S. (51 Missis. 566) i. 818, 955,1020 i. 878, 909, 135. CASES CITED. LEO Leggett, P. v. (5 Barb. 360) i. 2644 355 | ——, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 191) ii. 633 v, S. (15 Ohio, 283) i. 1087; ii. 752 —— v. 8. (51 Missis. 665) i, 248, 250 | —— v. S. (25 Tex. Ap. 635) i. 860 —, 8. v. (66 Mo. 165) ii. 621 | Leginham, Nex v. (1 Mod. 71) i. 580 — v.S. (21 Ohio St. 151) i. 1170] Legori v. 8. (8 Sm. & M. 697) i. 3873 v. 8. (82 Ohio St. 118) i. 1298 | Lehigh v. Schock (118 Pa. 878) _ i. 1816 —»v.8. (2 Tex. Ap. 338) i. 1116] Lehigh Valley Rld., C. v. (129 Pa. — v.58. (14 Tex. Ap. 266) i.975c,978| 429) i. 100d — v. 8. (25 Tex. Ap. 381) i. 264m — v8. tia Wis. 45) ii. 963 —, S. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 835) ii. 187 —, S. v. (80 Iowa, 75; 20 Am. St. 401) 1. 999, 1005 a, 1268; ii, 108, 113, 116 —, S. v. (22 Minn, 407; 21 Am. R. 769) i. 1117 —, 8. v. (80 N. C. 488) i. 869.4, 966.0 —}S. v. (90 N. C. 652) i, 1264 —'S§. v. (91 N. C. 570) i. 1264.4 —, 8. v. (17 Or. 488) i. 1250 ——S.o.(298.C.118) 4. 472, 975 —, U. S. v. (4 Mackey, 489; 54 Lehman v, S. (18 Tex. Ap. 174; bi Am. R. 298) ii. 740 ——, U.S. e. (89 Fed. Rep. 768) =i. Lehritter v. S. (42 Ind. 888) i. 3 Leiber v. C. (9 Bush, 11) i. 1207, 1211 Leicestershire Justices, Rex v. (1 M. & S. 442) i. 1298 Leicht, 8. v. (17 Iowa, 28) i. 909 Leigh v. Cole (6 Cox C. C. 829) 1.210, 214 v. P. (118 Ill. 372) —, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 915) ii. 674 ——, 8. v. (3 Dev. & Bat. 127) ii Leight, C. v. (1 B. Monr. 107) i. 229.4 Leighton v. Hall (81 Ill. 108; 83 Am. Am. R. 293) 1.926] D. 205) i. 187 -—, U.S. v. (4 McLean, 103) i. 1161, | —— v. P. (88 N. Y. 117) i. 815 1164 | ——, Reg. v. (Fort. 39) i. 252 Lee Ah Yute, P. v. (60 Cal. 95) i, 1276 | ——, Reg. v. (Fort. 178) i. 1864 Lee Chuck, P. v. (74 Cal. 80) i. 975¢, 979 | —, S. v. (56 Iowa, 595) ii. 1002, 1006 Lee Chuck, P. v. (78 Cal. 317) i. 999 | —— v. Sargent (ir Fost. N. H. 119; Lee Fat, P. v. (54 Cal. 527) i.1196; 64 Am. D. 323) i. 1270 Lee Gam, P. v. (69 Cal. 552) ii. 688a|——, U.S. v. (3 Dak. 29) ii. 620 Lee Kong, P. v. (95 Cal. 666; 29 Leisenring, OC. v. (11 Philad. 392) ii. 821 Am. St. 165) ii. 652 | Leitch, S. v. (82 N. C. 539) i. 1264 Lee Ping Bam S. v. (10 Or. 27) i. 854, 478 | Leland, In re (7 Abb. Pr. n. 8. 64) i, 222 Lee Sare Bo, P. v. (72 Cal. 628) i. 1212) ——, In re (5 Bankr. Reg. 222) i. 815 Lee Yan Yan, 8. v. (10 Or. 865) _ii. 698 | Lemasters v. 8. (10 Ind. 391) i. 1139 Lee Yune Chong, P. v. (94 Cal. 379) Lemay, S. v. (18 Ark. 405) —_— i. 825, 397; ii. 806, 1004 ii. 1050 Leech, Reg. v. (Dears. 642; 7 Cox Lembro v. Hamper (Cro. Eliz. 147) 1.618; c. 6. 100; 86 Eng. L. & Eq. 589) i. 53, ii. 922 56; ii, 197 | Lemmons, U. S. ». (Hemp. 62) i. 772 —, Rex v. (2 Man. & R. 119) i. 488 | Lemon v. 8. (19 Ark. 171) i. 611; ii. 846 Leefe, Rex v. (2 Camp. 134) i. 486; | Lemons v. S. (4 W. Va. 755; 6 Am. ii. 915, 916) | R. 293) i. 651 Leeks Case (Cro. Eliz. 249) i. 675a | Lemperle, P. v. (94 Cal. 45) i. 9754 Leeman ». 8. (85 Ark. 488; 37 Am. Lenares, S. v. (12 La. An. 226) UL 977 R. 44) ii. 358 | Lennom, C. v. (1 Browne, App. 40) i.814a@ Leeper.v. C. (Litt. Sel. Cas. 102) i. ne Lennox, P. v. (67 Cal. 118) i. 795, 798 264 m | Lenox, C. v. (8 Brews. 249) i. 909 i. 1974 — v.S. (5 Lea, 261) i. 951, eed . 63 — v. §. (29 Tex. Ap. 63) — v. 8. (29 Tex. Ap. 154) i. M66, 980 ; 12, 127 —, 8. v. (70 Iowa, 748) i, 1212 — »v. Texas (139 U. S. 462) i. 1004 Leer v. 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 495) i 1857 Lees, Ex parte (Bllis, B. & E. 828) i. en Leetch v. S, (2 Head, 140) i. 1052 Lefferts v. S. (20 Vroom, 26) ii. 431 Lefforge v. S. (129 Ind. 651) i, 1310 Lefler v. S. (122 Ind. 206) i. 354 3 | Leobold v. 8. (83 Ind. 484) Leftwich v. C. (20 Grat. 716) ii. 173, 185, 821, 70: ’ Lentz, S. v. (45 Minn. 177) i. 1107, 1270 ; ii. 633 i. 581; ii. 178 Leonard, C. v. (140 Mass. 473; 64 R, 485) i. 975c, 1115 ——, C. v. (8 Met. 530) i. 614 —, P. v. (11 Johns. ou ii. 888, 384, 885 ——, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 804) ii, 184 — v. 8. (66 Ala. 461) i, 949 —— v.8, (29 Ohio St. 408) ii. 269 —— v.§. (20 Tex. Ap. 442) i, 1254 ——, S. v. (22 Mo, 449) i, 454 —, 8. v. (8 Rich. 111) i. 1405 —, S. »v. (82 S. C. 201) i, 975 c, 978 — v. Territory (2 Wash. Ter. 881) i. 1079; ii. 585 611 LEW Leonardo »v. Territory (1 New Mex. 291) i. 700, 975, 976 Leong Quong, P. v. (60 Cal. 107) i. 686 Leoni v. S. (44 Ala. 110) i. 1275; ii. 949, 951, ‘965, 968 Lepper, P. v. (51 Mich. 196) L795 Leppere, S. v. (66 Wis. 355) i, 1277 Lerch v. Emmett (44 Ind. 831) i. 314 Leschi v. Territory (1 Wash. Ter. 23) i. 980, 1293 ; ii. 584, 593 — v. Territory (1 Wash. Ter. n.s. 13 i, 49 Lesher, C. v. (17 S. & R. 155) 1918 Lesingham, Rex v. (1 Lev. 299) ii. 849 Leslie v. S. (83 Ind. 180) __ 1, 68 Lesser v. P. (73 N. Y. 78) ii, 167 Lessing, S. v. (16 Minn. 75) i. 1181; ii. 574, 584, 586 Lester, C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 198) ii. 857 — v. 8, (32 Ark. 727) i. 1229 v. 8. (11 Conn. 415) i. 1276 — v. 8. (33 Ga. 192) i, 256 —— v. S. (9 Misso. 666) i. 409; ii. 512 Lett v. Horner (5 Blackf. 296) i, 1179 —_,S. v. (85 Mo. 52) i. 951, 951a, 975¢ Leuder v. P. (6 Bradw. 98) i. 975c Levelle, 8. uv. (84 8. C.120; 27 Am. St. 799) ii. 601, 604 Levells v. S. (32 Ark. 585) i. 1004 Leverich v. 8. (105 Ind. 277) ii. 96 Levett v. Perry (5 T. R. 669) i. 1362 Levi, S. uv. (41 Tex. 563) ii. 168 Levigne, S. v. (17 Nev. 485) i. 1116 Levine, P. v. (85 Cal. 89) i. 1064; ii. 50 Levinger v. Reg. (Law Rep. 3 P. C. 282; 11 Cox C. C. 618) i. 929 Levining v. S. (18 Ga. 513) i, 1279 Levison, P. v. (16 Cal. 98; 76 Am. D. 605) i. 978 — v. 8. (54 Ala. 520) i. 1241, 1254 ak a eas (1 Car.& P. 40) 1. 185 P. (80 N. Y. 327) ii, 36, 58 —, "Rex u. (2 Stark. 458) i. 400 v. 8. (49 Ala. 290) i, 1244 v. S. (79 Ala. 259) ii. 732 v, 8. (6 Ind. 281) i. 718 v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 208 ; 19 Am. St. 826) i. 965; ii. 627 —,S. v. (5 La. An. 64) i, 1136 —, 8. v. (23 Minn. 104; 23 Am. R. 678) i, 1144 ——,,8. v. (24 Minn. 362) i, 253 —— v. Wilson (69 Cal. 105) i. 850 Lewallen v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 475) ii. 65 Lewandowski v. S. (70 Wis. 458) i. 1040 Lewellen v. 8. (18 Tex. 538) — i. 475, 778 Lewellin, Rex v, (1 Show. 48) i. 618 Lewen’s Case (2 Lewin, 161) i. 691 Lewis's Appeal (67 Pa. 158) i. 47 Lewis, In re (31 Kan. 71) i. 718 —— v. Brown (41 Me. 448) ii. 676 v. C, (81 Va. 416) i, 1274 —, C. v. (26 Grat. 938) i. 1018 —, C. v. (128 Mass. 251) i. 1264 612 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. LEW Lewis, C. v. (1 Met. 151) i, 677, 687 —, C. v. (140 Pa. 561) i. 451 v. Garretson (56 Iowa, 278) i. 1095 —— v. Garrett (5 How. Missis. 434) i, 892; ii. 835 —— v. Lewis (9 Ind. 105) i. 1046 —— v. P. (44 Il. 452) i, 991, 992 —— v. P. (82 Ill. 104) i. 1264 —— »v. P. (28 Ill. Ap. 28) i. 2644 — ,, P. v. (36 Cal. 581) i. 1275 ——, P. v. (61 Cal. 366) i. 611 —, P. v. (4 Utah, 42) i. 946 ——, Pennsylvania v. (Addison, 279) ii. 608 —— v. Raleigh (77 N. C. 229) i. 163 ——, Reg. v. (11 Cox C.C. 404) ii. 205 ——, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 163; 2 Eng. Rep. 216) ii, 933 6, 935 ——, Reg. v. (Dears. & B. 182; 7 Cox C. C. 277) i, 1256 ; ii. 638 ——, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 161) ii. 645 ——, Rex v. (1 Stra. 704) i 72a —— v. S. (35 Ala. 880) ii. 91 v. §. (49 Ala. 1) ii. 677 — v.§. (51 Ala. 1) i. 988, 1270 v. §. (88 Ala. 11) i. 966, 1181 v. 8. (16 Conn. 82) ii. 131 —— v. §. (83 Ga. 131) ii. 59, 63 v, 8. (90 Ga. 95) i. 975c; ii. 638.4 —— v.§. (1 Head, 329) i. 789, 798, 1264 v, S. (8 Head, 127) i. 170, 172, 1294 v. 8. (8 Heisk. 338) ii. 782 —— v, 8. (118 Ind. 59) i. 486 v. S. (4 Kan. 296) ii. 746 — v, 8. (49 Missis. 854) ii. 40 v. 8. (11 Misso. 366) i. 785 —— v. S. (15 Neb. 89) i. 721 —v.8.(9Sm.&M.115) i, 918, 984, 1212 v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 140) ii. 740 —— v. 8. (18 Tex. Ae 401) i. 975c, 980 — v.8. (29 Tex. Ap. 105) i. 1094 v. 8, (29 Tex. Ap. 201; 25 Am. St. 720) i, 1086, 1228 ; ii. 683 ——, S. v. (3 Hawks, 410) : i. 910 —, 8. v. (45 Iowa, 20) i, 1101 ——,5. v. (19 Kan. 260; 27 Am. R. 113) ii, 944 ——, 8. v. (26 Kan. 128) ii. 175 —, 8. v. (28 La. An, 84) i, 925 ——, 8. v. (41 La. An. 590) i, 926 —,, 8. v. (69 Mo, 92) i, 1061, 1068, 1353 —, S. v. (74 Mo, 222) 9514 ——, 8. v. (80 Mo. 110) i, 1353 —, 8. uv. (118 Mo. 79) ii. 688.4 —, 8S. v. (5 Mo. Ap. 465) ii. 119 ——, 8. v. (98 N. C. 581) i, 488 ¢ —_ Sin. (20 Nev. eb 966 b; ii. 671, 678 v, Sapio (Moody & M. 39) ii. 432 @ — v. Soule (3 Mich. 614) ii, 788 v. Steele (1 Minn, 88) ii. 881 —, U.S. v. (2 New Mex. 459) i. 1268 —'». Wake (74 N. C. 194) i, 868 Lewson v. Riddleston (Cro. Eliz. 09) i, 672 LIN Leyner v. S. (8 Ind. 490) Leyton’s Case (Cro. Car. 584) i. 71, 1265 i. 767, 772; ii. 872 Libby, S. v. (44 Me. 469; 69 Am. D. 115) i. Liberman v. S. (26 Neb. 464; 18 Am. St. 791) i. 892 Licett v. S. (28 Ga. 57) i. 906, 1241, 1275 Licette v. S. (75 Ga. 253) ii. 980, 984 Lichliter, S. v. (95 Mo. 402) ii, 188, 197 Lichtenstein v. 8. (5 Ind. 162) i. 8144 Lieben, S. v. (57 Ind. 106) i. 1264 Life Association v. Boogher (4 Cent. -J. 40) i. 1416 Life 5 Fire Ins. Co. v. Adams (9 sea 57 Light, Reg. v. (Dears. & B. 332; 7 Cox C. C. 389) Lightbody, Sv. (38 Me. 200) 2 Lightfoot v. C. (80 Ky. 516) i. 975¢ — v. Commonwealth Bank (4 Dana, 492) ce i. 1869 — v. P. (16 Mich. 507) i. 1069, 1120, 1260 — v. 8. (20 Tex. Ap. 77) i. 1060 Lightner, P. v. (49 Cal. 226) i. 730, 1001 Ligon, S. v. (7 Port. 167) i. 849, 851, 884 Lilburne, Rex v. (4 How. St. Tr. 1269) Tee v. S. (30 Ala. 24; 68 Am. D. 108) i. 1087, 1247 i. 782 —, 8. v. (77 N. C. 496) 4. 902 —, S. v. (78 N. C. 496) ii. 733 Lillard v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 114) i. 951 —, S. v. (59 Iowa, 479) i, 383 Lilley v. S. (41 Tex. 439 ii. 637 Lillie, S. v. (21 Kan. 728 i. 440 Lilly, Ex parte (7 S. C. 372) 1. 966 d —, Rex v. (7 Mod. 63) ii. 890 Linbeck v. S. (1 Wash. 336) i. 278, 1181 Lincecum v. S. (29 Tex. Ap. 328) ii. 972 Lincoln, C. v. (11 Allen, 238) i. 627 —, C. v. (9 Gray, 288) i. 1265 —, C. v. (110 Mass. 410) ii. 68 v. P, (20 Ill. 364) i. 1065 —.,P. v. (25 Hun, 306; 62 How. Pr. 412) i. 1310 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 421) ii, 910 —, 8. v. (49 N. H. 464) i. 446, 449 —, 8. v. (17 Wis. 579) i. 688, 689 b — v. Smith (27 Vt. 328) i. 241, 245 Lincombe, Rex v. (2 Chit. 214) ii. 1056 Linde, S. v. (54 Iowa, 139) _ i. 984 Lindenburg, 8. v. (18 Tex. 27) ii. 920 Lindley v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 445) i. 975 c — v. §. (11 Tex. Ap. 283) i. 966 d, : 1279 — 1. §. (17 Tex. Ap. 120) i. 264 m —, S.v. (14 Ind. 480) i. 816; ii. 489 ——, 8. v. (51 Iowa, 343; 383 Am. R. ” 139) i. 1116 Lindsay v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 345) i. 1895 — v. Cundy (1 Q. B. D. 348) ii. 187 — v. S. (18 Ala. 43) i. 951 i, 488 — v.8. (19 Ala. 560) INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. LIT Lindsay v. 8. (86 Tex. 337) i. 980 —v.S, (1 Tex. Ap. 327) i. 980, 982 Lindsey v. S. (48 Ala. 169) i. 470 —— v. S. (72 Ind. 39) i. 713 6 | —— v. S. (88 Ohio St. 507) i. 58; ii. 428 —, S. v. (14 La. An. 42) i, 944, 945, 951, 1264 —,S. v. (78 N. C, 499) ii. 746 —,S.v. (19 Nev. 47; 3 Am. St. 776) ii. 690, 596 —— v. Smith (7 Jolins. 359) ii. 794 Lindville v. S. (3 Ind. 580) i, 814.@, 951 Lindzey v. 8. (65 Missis. 542) i. 1089 Line v. S. (51 Ind. 172) i. 980 Lingerfelt, S. v. (109 N. C. 775) i. 249 Lingo v. S. (29 Ga. 470) — i. 981; ii. 621, 628 Linhart v. Buiff (11 Cal. 280) i. 234 —, 8. v. (23 Iowa, 314) i. 95le Links v. S. (18 Lea, 701) i. 1125; ii. 750 Linn, C. v. (158 Pa. 22) ii. 123 Linney, S. v. (52 Mo. 40) i. 318, 966 Linsday v. P. (67 Barb. 548) i. 229 — v.P. (63 N. Y. 143) i. 1159, 1160, 1161, 1166, 1169, 1170, 1389; ii. 631, 637 Linthicum, S. v. (68 Mo. 66) ii. 1029a@ Linton, C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 205) i. 51; ii. 688 Lipes v. S. (15 Lea, 125; 54 Am. R. 402) i. 1097 Lippard, C. ». (6S. & R. 395) i. 981 Lipscomb, S. v. (52 Mo. 32) i. 3l4a Lipsey, 8. v. (8 Dev. 485) i. 982 Liscomb, P. v. (Tweed’s Case) (60 N. Y. 559; 19 Am. R. 211) i. 458, 1327, 1406, 1410 Lisle v. Rogers (18 B. Monr. 528) ii. 409 v. §. (6 Misso. 426) i. 982 Lister, Reg. v. (Dears. & B. 209; 7 Cox C. C. 342) ii. 861 — v.§. (1 Tex. Ap. 739) i. 1207 — v.58. (8 Tex. Ap. 17) i. 980; ii. 618, 638 a Litch, S. v. (88 Vt. 67) i. 403 Litchfield, S. v. (658 Me. 267) i. 1169 Lithgow v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 297) i. 909, 934, 945, 1270; ii. 751 Litman v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 461) i. 979 Littell, C. v. (1 A. K. Mar. 566) i. 264 Little v. Beazley (2 Ala. 708; 36 Am. D. 431) ii. ee v. C. (3 Bush, 22) v. C. (25 Grat. 921) i. 857, 858, ‘Sol. 1086 ; ii, 625 —, Reg. v. (15 Cox C. C. 319) ii. 968 v. 8. (58 Ala. 265) i. 975c . S. (89 Ala. 99) i. 975c, 980, 1094 . 8. (6 Bax. 491) ii, 627 S. (54 Ga. 24) i. 951 f . S. (90 Ind. 888; 46 Am. R. 0 —— ——= iD: — 2 224) i. 9984 —— v. 8. (26 Tex. 110) i. 1264 —, 8. v. (6 Blackf. 267) i. 404 —} S. v. (42 Iowa, 51) i. 859, 959 a — 8. v, (67 Mo. 624) i, 9785 ii. 63 0, 976 613 LOC Little, S. v. (1 Vt. 331) i, 612; ii. 1010 U.S. v. (2 Wash. C. C. 159) i. 951 a Little Miami Rid. v. Wetmore (19 Ohio St. 110; 2 Am. R. 373) i. 978 93 i. 1018 Littlechild, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 6 . B. 298) Littlefield, P. v. (5 Cal. 355) i. 887, 509, 1012; ii. 700 —— v. Peckham (1 R. I. 500) i, 894 —, S. v. (8 R.I. 124) i, 1223, 1343 Littlejohn, S. v. (1 Bay, 316) i. 1018 Littlepage, S. v. (80 Mo. 322) i. 264 m Littleton v. Fritz (65 Iowa, 488; 54 Am. R. 19) i. 1415 —— v. Harris (73 Iowa, 167) i. 1415 ——, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 671) i, 280 v. 8. (46 Ark. 413) i. 264 m Litton, C. v. (6 Grat. 691) i. 768 Livar v. S. (26 Tex. Ap. 115) i. 909 Livaudais, S. v. (34 La. An. 52) i. 814a Livermore, C. v. (4 Gray, 18) i. 484, 588 Liverpool, Rex v. (3 East, 86) i. 5134; ii, 1044 Livingston v. C. (7 Grat. 658) i, 966 — v. C. (14 Grat. 592) i. 1179; ii. 584, 631, 687 v. Kiersted (10 Johns. 362) i. 1141 —— v. New York (8 Wend. 85; 22 Am. D. 622) i, 891, 892 — v.58. (16 Tex. Ap. 652) i. 588 i i, 20 —, S. v. (64 Iowa, 560) i, 999 Lloyd v. Oliver (18 Q. B. 471) ii, 415 —, P. v. (9 Cal. 54) ii. 528, 584 ——, Rex v. (4 B. & Ad. 135) i. 1269 —, Rex »v. (Cald. 415) ii. 384 —, Rex v. (1 Car. & P. 301) ii, 517 —, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 283) i. 1207; ii. 1007 a —, Rex ». (6 Car. & P. 393) i. 1223 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 318) ii. 979 —, Rex v. (2 East P.C. 1122) ii. 1026 —, 8. v. (77 Wis. 630) ii. 921 — v.58. (Minor, 34) i. 264 —— v. Sandilands (2 Moore, 207) i. 201 —— v. Smith (T. U. P. Charl. 148) i. 314 —, U.S. ». (4 Blatch. 427) i. 2345 Loakman »v. S. (32 Tex. Cr. 561) i. 1265 Lockard v. C. (87 Ky. 201) i, 1181 Locke, C. v. (14 Pick, 485) v. S. (32 N. H. 106) —, 8.2. (35 Ind. 419) i. 959 a ii. 763, 764 ii. 163, 183 —, S. v. (26 Mo. 6038) i. 1279 —, S. v. (77 N. C. 481) i. 977 ——, S. v. (86 N. C. 647) i. 1264 Locker, Rex v. (5 Esp. 107) i, 1019 Lockett v. S. (47 Ala. 42) i. 13857 v, S. (63 Ala. 5) i. 1164 v. S. (40 Tex. 4) ii. 290 ——, S. v. (3 Heisk. 274) i. 708 Lockhart, Rex v. (1 Leach, 886) i. 1242 v. 8. (29 Tex. Ap. 35) i. 975, 1310, 1827 ; ii. 740 —— S. v. (24 Ga. 420) i, 264.4; ii. 142 Lockier, S. v. (2 Root, 84) i. 1279 614 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. LON Locklear, S. v. (Busbee, 205) i, 588 Lockley, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 155) i. 181 Lockwood, P. v, (6 Cal. 205) i. 1265; ; ii, 506 — v.S. (1 Tex. Ap. 749) i, 1005; ii. 67 —, S. v. (119 Mo. 468) ii. 548 —, S. v. (68 Vt. 378) — i. 854, 424, 461 —, 8. v. (43 Wis. 403) i. 893 Locost, Rex v. (J. Kel. 380) ii, 148 Locust, S. v. (63 N. C. 574) i. 1817 Lodano v. 8. (25 Ala. 64) i. 478, 611 Lodge v. C. (2 Grat. 579) ii. 908 v. Phipher (11 S. & R. 838) ii. 432e Loe, S. v. (98 Mo. 609) i. 68, 72, 9514 Loeb v. S. (75 Ga. 258) i. 858 ——,, S. v, (21 La. An. 599) ’ Loeffner v. S. (10 Ohio St. 598) i, 909, 951, 964, 1003, 1265, 1267, 1279; ii. 585 Loehfelm, P. v. (102 N. Y. 1) ii. 1054 Loehr v. P. (132 Ill. 504) i. 1071 ——, S. v. (93 Mo. 103) i. 966 ¢ Loew v. 8. (60 Wis. 559) i. 118, 999, 1275 Lofiand, S. v. (17 Kan. 890) i. 3144 Loftin v. S. (11 Sm. & M. 858) _ i. 1264, 1362, 1366 Loftis, S. v. (8 Head, 500) i, 698 Lofton v. S. (14 Ind. 1) i. 951 a Loftus v. C. (3 Grat. 631) i. 400, 551 Logan’s Case (5 Grat. 692) i. 1266 Logan, C. v. (12 Gray, 136) i. 873; ii. 866 v. McGinnis (12 Pa. 27) ii. 682 — , P. v. (4 Cal. 188) i. 951¢ —, P. v. (1 Nev. 110) i, 1264 —— v. 8. (24 Ala. 182) i, 488 a v. §. (8 Brev. 415) i, 258 — v.58. (9 Humph. 24) i, 1212 —— v. §. (2 Lea, 222) ii. 64 v. S. (50 Missis. 269) i. 875, 878, 909 v. 8. (53 Missis. 431) i, 931 v. 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 408) i. 884, 1855 —— v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 50) i, 1276 v. S. (2 Tread. 493) i. 951 f —— S. v. (37 La. An. 778) i. 983 ——, 8. u. (1 Misso. 532) ii. 700, 702 —, 8. v. (1 Nev. 509) i. 872, 1264 — v. U.S. (144 U.S. 263) i. 421, 918, 959 a, 1248 —, U.S. v. (45 Fed. Rep. 872) i. 1094 Loggins v. S, (8 Tex. Ap. 484) i. 1262 v. S, (12 Tex. Ap. 65) i. 949, 966.4 Loghlin, C. v. (15 Gray, 569) i, 1285 Logston v. 8S. (38 Heisk. 414) i. 68, 73 ——, 8. v. (3 Heisk. 276) i. 1317 Logue, C. v. (160 Mass. 651) ii, 823 a Lohman ». P. (1 Comst. 379; 49 Am. D. 340) i, 612, 909, 1248 ——, P. v. (2 Barb. 216) i. 478, 528, 1167 —, P. v. (2 Barb. 450) i: 253, 254, ee 1 , v. §. (Riley, 67) i. 1005 Lohman, S. v. (3 Hill, 8. C. 67) i. 1285 Lohrfink ». Still (10 Md. 530) i. 706 Lombard, P. v. (17 Cal. 816) ii. 610, 615 London, Reg. v. (Dav. & M. 486; 5 Q. B. 555) i, 2844 LON London, Reg. v. (Ellis, B. & E. 509) ii. 762 —, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 4 Q. B.371) ii. 762 —, S. v. (3 8. C. 230) ii. 722 —— v. Wood (12 Mad. 669) i. 314 Loney, In re (134 U.S. 372) i. 1410 —, S. v. (82 Mo. 82) i. 1020 Long’s Case (5 Co, 1204) i, 823, 348, 554; ii. 129, 516, 518, 522 — Case (Cro. Eliz. 489) i, 1376; ii. 699 Long, C. v. (5 Bina. 489) i. 1306, 1317 —, C. uv. (2 Va. Cas. 318) i. 750, 884 —— v. Fleming (2 Miles, 104) ii. 809 — v. P. (102 Ill. 331) i. 733, 1276 ——, P. v. (48 Cal. 444) i, 966. a, 966d; ii, 129 —, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 398) ii, 631 —, Rex v. (6 Car. & P.179) i. 1128, 1288 ; ii. 53 — v. S. (86 Ala. 36) i. 909, 1164, 1220 — v. 8. (11 Fla. 295) i. 976 — v. S. (12 Ga. 298) i. 165, 168, 668, 978, 980 — v. §. (22 Ga. 40) i. 1058, 1241; ii. 754 — v. §. (88 Ga. 491) i. 675 a, 750, 951, 1094 — v. 8. (54 Ga. 564) i. 1269, 1279 v. §. (10 Ind. 358) S. (46 Ind. 582) ii, 660 8. (56 Ind. 133) i. 383, 869 a §. (56 Ind. 182; 26 Am. R. i, 461, 1181, 1186 v. §. (95 Ind. 481) i. 1060, 1253 i. 229 =U. —— ts <= 2: 19) INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. LOU Longley, 8. v. (10 Ind. 482) i. 429; ii, 830 Longnecker v. 8. (22 Ind. 247) i, 980 Longton, S. v. (85 Kan. 375) i. 118 Longworth, S. v. (41 Tex. 162) ii. 329 Lonon, S. v. (19 Ark. 577) ii. 61 Lonsdale, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 56) i. 457 Look v. Dean (108 Mass. 116; 11 Am. R, 323) i. 178 Lookup, Rex v. (3 Bur. 1901) i, 1284 ——, Rex v. (cited 1 T. R. 240) i. 488 ; i. 912 Loomis v. Wadhamis (8 Gray, 557) i. 316 Loop, P. v. (8 Par. Cr. 559) ii. 1002 Looper v. Bell (1 Head, 373) i. 118; ‘ ii. 526 Loper v. 8. (5 How. Missis. 429) =i. 126, 1348 —, S. v. (2 Ga. Decis. 33) i. 2238 Lopez, P. v. (59 Cal, 362) 1.975 c, 980 v. 8. (20 Tex. 780) i. 541 —— v. S. (84 Tex. 133) i. 1169 — v. 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 204) ii, 637 v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 27) i, 1223 — v. §. (28 Tex. Ap. 343) ii. 740 — v. S. (30 Tex. Ap. 487 ; 28 Am. St. 935) i. 1141: ii. 961 , 8. v. (19 Mo, 254) i. 287, 652, 652 « Loppy, P. v. (128 N. Y. 629) i. 1264 Lorance v. 8. (1 Ind. 359) i. 264.4 Lord, In re (10 Abb. N. Cas. 293) i. 814a@ —— t.§. (37 Me. 177) i, 894 — v.§. (16 N. H. 825; 41 Am. D. 729) i. 1002 ; ii. 281, 488, 489 v. S. (18 N. H. 173) i. 959a v. §. (52 Missis. 23) i. 269, 989 a, | —— v. S. (20 N. H. 404; 51 Am. D. 1358; ii. 607, 610, 629| 231) i. 1285; ii. 703 v. S. (76 N. C. 254) ii, 824 | —— rv. 8. (17 Neb. 526) i. 1162 — v.S. (23 Neb. 33) i. 488c, 612, | —, S.v. (16 N. H. 357) i. 53; ii. 869 @ 1108 | Lordsmere, Reg. v. (15 Q. B. 689) — v.§S. (1 Swan, Tenn. 287) ii. 739, ii. 1045, 1055 745 | Lore w. S. (4 Ala. 178) i. 940 — v. S. (34 Tex. 566) i. 1005 | Lorey, S. v. (2 Brev. 895) i. 684 — v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 466) i. 979 | Lorimer v. S. (76 Ind. 495) ii. 351 — v. 8. (1 Tex. Ap. 709) i. 314 a| Loring, C. v. (8 Pick. 370) ii, 1012 — v.8. (3 Tex. Ap. 321) i, 1264| Los Angeles v. Babcock (45 Cal. 252) — v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 81) i. 975 c, 976 i. 264. — 5. to Tex. Ap. 186) i. 909 ; | Lossen v. 8. (62 Ind. 437) ii. 848 ii. 269 ; 432 6 | Lott v. S. (41 Tex. 121) i. 951 a — v. 5S. (11 Tex. Ap. 381) i. 975.c, 980 | —— v. S. (17 Tex. Ap. 598) i. N75 c; v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 211) i, 1248 ii. 130 — v. §. (17 Tex. Ap. 128) i. 718, 951 | —— v. S. (18 Tex. Ap, 627) i, 854 —, S. v. (1 Humph. 386) i. 660, 665 | —— v. Sweet (33 Mich. 308) i. 178 —, S. v. (103 Ind. 481) ii. 189 | Lottery Tickets, C. v. (5 Cush. 869) i. 242 —,S. c. (7 Jones, N. C. 24) i. 1014 Loud, C. v. (8 Met, 328; 37 Am. D. Long Island Rid., P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 602) i. 71 139) i. 752 Longbottoms, S. v. (11 Humph. 39) Lougee v. 8. (11 Ohio, 68) i. 1372 ii 699, 703 | Lough ~. Millard (2 R. I. 436) i, 227 Longfellow v. S. (10 Neb. 105) i. 1001, | Loughery, U. S. v. (13 Blatch. 267) 1.931 1268 | Loughton, Rex v. (3 Smith, 575) ii. 1056 Longhurst, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 969) Loui Tung, P. v. (90 Cal. 877) i. 384 ; i. 951 a ii, 631 Longley v. S. (43 Tex. 490) ii. 1025, | Louisiana, &c. Plankroad v. Pickett 1029a@| (25 Mo. 535) i. 89% — v.58. (8 Tex. Ap. 611) i, 1264 ; | Louisville, &c. Ry. v. Wood (118 Ind. ii. 524, 689! 644) ii. 631 615 LOW INDEX TO THE Love v. S. (6 Bax. 154) i. 998 a —v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 501) i, 1279 —, S. e. (+ Humph. 255) i, 188 — _, S. v. (52 Mo. 106) i, 1264 Loveday’s Case (8 Co. 66 b) i. 1006 “Lovegrove v. S, (81 Tex. Cr. 491) ii. pu 7 Lovejoy v. U. S. (128 U. S. 171) 975 c, 981 Lovelace v. S, (12 Lea, 721) ii, 728 Lovelady v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 545) i. 1057, 1179, 1278 — v. S. (17 Tex. Ap. 286) i. 1089 Lovell, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 286) ii. i. 931, —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 248; 2 East P. C. 990) i. 571; ii. 424, 425a v. S. (12 Ind. 18) i. 460, 461 v. S. (45 Ind. 550) i. 665, 668, eae a —, S. v. (23 Iowa, 804 i. 172 — , S. v. (10 Vroom, 463) ii, 487 Loveridge, C. v. (11 Mass. 337) i. 264.4 Lovett, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P.462) i, 953, 1048, 1100; ii. 800 — v. S. (31 Fla. 164) ii. 590, 595 v. S. (60 Ga. 257) i. 909 v. S. (80 Ga. 255) ii. 740 Loving v. C. (80 Ky. 507) i. 1081 — v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 471) i. 2644 — v. §S. (18 Tex. Ap. 459) ii. 740 — , S. v. (16 Tex. 558) i, 882 Low’s Case (4 Greenl. 439; 16 Am. D., 271) 1. 768, 854, 882 Low v. Com’rs (R. M. Charl. 302) i. 724 —— v. P. (2 Par. Cr. 37) ii, 731, 751 Lowber, S. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 824) i. 975c, 1169 Lowden v. Goodrick (Peake, 46) ii, 57 v. Schoharie Nat. Bank (388 Kan. 533) i. 1054 Lowder, S. v. (85 N. C. 564) i. 648 Lowe v. S. (88 Ala. 8) i. 989 a, 1242 v. S. (57 Ga. 171) li. 723 — v. 8. (46 Ind. 308) ii. 850 v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 34) ii. 105, 111 — v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 253) ii. 740 — , S. v. (93 Mo. 547) ii, 585 ——, S.v. (21 W. Va. 782) i. 50, 63 Lowenberg v. P. (27 N. Y, 336) — i, 1291 Lowenstein v. P. (54 Barb. 299) __ ii. 119 ——., P. vu. (Lowenstein’s Trial, 196) i. 1073 Lowenstine, S. v. (4 Lea, 737) 3. 286 Lowenthal v. S. (32 Ala. 589) ii. 821, 322, 829 Lowery, C. v. (149 Mass. 67) =i. 1005 a; ii. 144 — v. Howard (103 Ind. 440) i. 1410 Lowhorne, S. v. (66 N. C. 688) i. 1239 Lowick’s Case (Holt, 688) ii. 1087 Lowrance v. S. (4 Yerg. 145) i. 853; ii. 752 Lowrey, C. v. (159 Mass. 62) i, 1348 — , P. v. (70 Cal. 198) i. 965; ii, 152 Lowrie, Ex parte (4 Utah, 177) i. 951 7 616 CASES CITED. LUS Lowrie, In re (8 Colo. 499; 54 Am. R. 5 : 58) i, 850 ——, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C. 61) ii. 701 Lowry v. S. (12 Lea, 142) i. 1207 — , S. v. (29 Ala. 44) i, 1266 4] —, S. v. (74 N.C. 121) i. 1006 ——, ‘8. v, (1 Swan, Tenn. 34) i. 817 Loyd v. S. (45 Ga. 57) i, 909, 1261; ii. 9, 11 — v.S. (19 Tex. Ap. 137) i. 1288 Loza v. 8. (1 Tex. Ap. 488; 28 Am. R. 416) i. 1120 Luby v. C. (12 Bush, 1) i. 966 a, 1128, 1211, 1247 ——, P. ». (56 Mich. 551) i. 897 Lucas v. S, (62 Ala. 26) i. 59 —— v. §. (23 Conn. 18) i. 1152 — v. §. (27 Tex. Ap. 322) i. 401; ii. 911 , 8. v. (57 Iowa, 501) ii. 1007 4 Luce v. Graham (4 Johns. Ch. 170) i. 706 Luck v. S. (96 Ind. 16) i, 965 Luckett v. Clark (Litt. Sel. Cas. 178) ii, 753 v. S. (51 Missis. 799) i. 251 Luckey v. Roberts (25 Conn. 486) ii. 285 v. 8. (14 Tex. 400) i. 1806, 1384 Luckhurst, Reg. v. (Dears. 245; 6 Cox C. C. 243; 22 Eng. L. & Kq. 604) i, 1228, 1288 Lucking v. Denning (1 Salk. 201) i, 128 Lucre v. S. (7 Bax. 148) i. 1188; ii. 740 Lucy v. S. (8 Misso. 134) j. 691 —, S. v. (41 Minn. 60) ii. 525 Ludwig, In re (832 Fed. Rep. 774) i. 234 a Luera v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 257) i, 172 Lufkin, C. v. (7 Allen, 579) i, 436 Luke, S. v. (104 Mo. 568) i. 975 c, 980 Lukens, Rex v. (1 Dall. 5) i, 691 Lull, S. v. (837 Me. 246) — i. 1125; ii. 753 —, 8. v. (48 Vt. 581) i. 1359 Lum rv. S, (11 Tex. Ap. 483) i, 948 4 Lumbrick, S. »v. (1 Car. Law Repos. 548) i. 1314, 1817 Lumm ». S. (3 Ind. 293) i, 257 Lumpkin v. S. (68 Ala. 56) i. 1857 Lumsden, U. S.v. (1 Bond, 5) i, 238 Lund, S. v. (28 Kan. 280) i. 1265 —— v. Tyngsborough (9 Cush. 36) ii. 628, 625 Lundy v. S. (71 Ga. 360) ii. 152 Lung’s Case (1 Conn. 428) i. 861 Luning v. 8. (1 Chand. 178; 52 Am. D. 153) i, 1175, 1179; ii. 684, 686 Lunny, Reg. v. (6 Cox C. C. 477) ii. 625 Lunsford v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 217) i. 977 v. §. (29 Tex. Ap. 205) i. 1264 Lunt, U. S. v. (1 Sprague, 311) ii. 58 Lupton, S. v. (63 N. C. 483) i. 698 Lurch, S. v. (12 Or. 99) ji, 482 ¢ —,, S. v. (12 Or. 104) ii. 425 b Lure v, Rest (10 Mod. 30) i. 120 Luscomb, C. v, (180 Mass. 42) i. 485 LYO Lush v. McDaniel (18 Ire. 485; 57 Am. D, 566) ii, 626, 632 Lusk, S. v. (16 W. Va. 767) ii, 126 Luster v. S. (23 Fla. 339) i. 975 ¢, 976 —— v. S, (11 Humph. 169) i. 999 Luther v. Borden (7 How. U.S. 1) i. 184 —— v. S. (27 Ind. 47) i, 268, 1264 —, 8. v. (77 N. C. 492) i, 602 Lutterloh, S. v. (22 Tex. 210) ii. 79 Luttin v. Benin (11 Mod. 50) i, 224d Luttrell v. S. (85 Tenn. 232; 4 Am. St. 760) ii, 406, 416, 472, 481 Lutz v. C. (29 Pa. 441) i, 1285; ii. 528 Lycan v. P. (107 Ill. 423) i. 1181, 1186 Lyles v. 8. (41 Tex. 172; 19 Am. R. 38) i. 925, 1033 Lylies, S. v. (1 McCord, 288) i. 314; ii. 824 Lyman v. P. (7 Bradw. 345) i, 1857 — , P. x. (2 Utah, 30) i. 702, 861 v. Redman (23 Me. 289) i. 978 — v, S. (45 Ala. 72) i. 984 — v.58. (47 Ala. 686) i. 828, 829 — v. S. (69 Ga. 404) i. 1188, 1198 — , U.S. v. (1 Mason, 482) i. 141 Lyme Regis, Rex v. (1 Doug. 149) i. 324, 326, 329 Lynch v. C. (77 Pa. 205) ii. 670, 673 C. (88 Pa. 189; 32 Am. R. 445) i. 269 —, C. v. (8 Gray, 384) ii, 813 — , C. v. (3 Pittsb. 412) ii. 674 v. P. (38 Ill. 494) i, 254, 257, 262 —, P. v. (1 Idaho, n. 8. 358) i. 1264 —, P. z. (29 Mich. a i. 280 — , Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 81) i, 7 : — v. §. (89 Ala. 18) — v. 8. (9 Ind. 541) i. 313, 984, 86 7 — v.§. (24 Tex. Ap. 350; 5 Am. St. 888) i. 975 c, 978, 1086 — 2.8. (15 Wis. 38) i118 Lynd ». Picket (7 Minn. 184; 82 oe D. 79) 1276 ‘Lynde v. McGregor (18 Allen, 172) ii. 189 i. 1010, 1279 i, 1128 ; Lynes v. S. (46 Ga. 208) — v. §. (86 Missis. 617) i. 1239, 1276; ii. 12, 230 v. §. (5 Port, 286; 30 Am. D. 7) i. 677 Lynn, C. v. (107 Mass. 214) i. 641 — , Rex v. (1 Car. & P. 527) i. 460; ii. 1045 Lynott, S. v. (5 R. I. 295) i. 979, 981 Lyon, C. v. (4 Dall. 302) i. 1380 — v. Lyman (9 Conn. 55) li. 482 b —,, P. uv. (99 N. Y. 210) ii. 329 — , Rex v. (Ryan & Moody N. P. 151 ii. 1045 — v.§. (61 Ala. 924) i. 622 —— v.8. (22 Ga. 399) i. 1019.4 ——, S. vo. (12 Conn, 487) i. 1278; ii. 36 —, 5. uv. (89 Iowa, 379) ii. 112, 118 —) 8. v. (81 N. C. 600; 31 Am. R. 618) i, 1164 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. McB Lyon, S. v. (89 N. C. 568) ii. 797 ——, S. v, (938 N. C. 575) i. 1264 —, S. v. (47 N. H. 416) i, 708 —,5S. v. (16 Vroom, 272) ii. 820, 323 —, S. v. (17 Wis. 237) i. 424; 431 Lyons v. P. (68 Ill. 271) i. 449, 1015; ii. 130 —, P. v. (49 Mich. 78) i. 975c, 981 —, P. v. (51 Mich. 215) i. 1054 ——, Reg. v. (Bell, C. C.88) ii. 44, 454 ——, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 555) i. 1160; ii. 697 — v. 8. (1 Blackf. 309) i. 264 f 264 m —— v.8. (9 Tex. Ap. 636) i, 951 v. 8. (25 Tex. Ap. 408) ii. 287 Lytle v. Lee (5 Johns. 112) i. 989a — v. P. (47 Ill. 422) i. 688 —— v. S. (31 Ohio St. 196) ii. 985a — ,S8. v. (5 Ire. 58) i. 994 ——, 8. v. (64.N.C. 255) i. 486; ii. 415, 418a — v. Territory (1 Wash. 435) i. 1359 Maas, 8. v. (87 La. An. 292) ii. 401 McAdams ». Reney (4 Hayw. 252) ii. 806 —— v. 8. (26 Ark. 405) ii. 584 v. 8. (8 Lea, 456) i. 1276 — v. 8. (10 Tex. Ap.317) 1.264, 2645 McAdory v. 8. (62 Ala. 154) i. 975), 975e, 1289; ii. 53 McAfee v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 668) i. 685 —— v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 131) i. 975e¢ —, 8. v. (64 N. C. 839) i, 905 —, S. v. (107 N. C. 812) i. 183 McAleece, Rex v. (1 Crawf. & Dix C. C. 154 i. 60; ii. 729 McAllister v. S. (17 Ala. 484; 52 Am. D. 180) i, 946; ii. 674, 683, 684 — vv. S. (17 Ga. 618) i. 1018 —, S. v. (24 Me. 189) i. 966 a, 1119, 1126 —, S. vu. (25 Me. 490) i, 235 —, S. v. (26 Me. 374) i, 429, 431 —, S. v. (54 N. H. 156) i. 264A McAloon, S. v. (40 Me. 138) ii. 983 McAlpine v. S. (47 Ala. 78) i, 1094 McAnally, Ex parte (63 Ala. 495; 25 Am. R. 646) i. 261 v. 8. (74 Ala. 9) i. 1062, 1067; ii. 227 McAndrews, Territory v. (3 Mont. 158) i. 1094; ii. 599 McAnulty, S. v. (26 Kan. 538) i. 495, 553 Macard, P. v. (78 Mich. 15) i. 975c, 978; ii, 638 a Macarthy, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 625) i. 95la ——, Reg. v. (8 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. a 861, note) ii. 613 McAvoy, S. v. (73 Iowa, 567) ii. 63 —, U.S. v. (4 Blatch. 418) i. 704 McBean ». S. (3 Heisk. 20) i. 665, 667 McBee v. Bowman (89 Tenn. 132) i. 1095 —— v. Petty (3 Coldw. 178) i, 706 McBeth v. S. (50 Missis. 81) i. 677, 686, : 975¢ McBride »v. C. (18 Bush, 337) ii. 699, 700, 716 617 McC McBride v. S. (10 Humph. 615) i. 878 —, S. v. (19 Mo. 239) i. 1013 —, S. v. (26 Wis. 409) —_ i. 294; ii. 538 —— v. Thompson (8 Ala. 650) i. 978 —, U.S. v. (7 Mackey, 371) i. 682, 946 McBryde ». S. (84 Ga. 202) i. 400 — , S. v. (97 N.C. 898) ii. 147 McCabes’s Case (May Sess. O. B. 1785) i. 578 McCafferty, S. v. (63 Me. 223) i. 982a McCain v. S. (57 Ga. 390) ii. 112, 115, 118 McCall v. Parker (138 Met. 872; 46 Am. D. 735) i, 264 — v.§. (14 Tex. Ap. 353) i. 975c, 1129, 1265 v. U.S. (1 Dak. 320) i, 126 McCalla, P. v. (8 Cal. 801) i, 1032 v. S. (66 Ga. 846) i. 1170 McCampbell v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 124; 385 Am. R. 726) i, 925 McCann, C. v. (97 Mass. 580) i. 978, 1222 v. P. (88 Ill. 1038) i. 68, 73 — v. P. (3 Par. Cr. 272) i. 949; ii. 630, 688, 685 —, P. v. (16 N. ¥. 58; 69 Am. D. 642 i. 1048; ii. 671, 673 — v.§8. (9 Sm. & M. 465) i. 992 — v. §. (13 Sm. & M. 471) i. 1074, 1241 —, 5S. v. (59 Me. 383) i. 241 — §. v. (Meigs, 91) i. 691 ——v. U.S. (2 Wy. 274) i. 3144 McCanon, S. v. (51 Mo. 160) i. 1212, 1216 McCarney v. P. (83 N. Y. 408; 88 Am. R: 458) i. 966 a; ii. 752 McCarron, S. v. (51 Mo. 27) i. 931, 944, 1019 McCarter, S. v. (98 N. C. 687) ii. 34 McCarther, Rex v. (Peake, 155) i. 488e; ii. 912, 983 McCarthy, C. v. (119 Mass. 854) ii, 50 —, P. v. (45 How. Pr. 97) i, 892 —,P. v. (110 N. Y. 809) i. 457, 1011, 104 i. 486 ; ii. 813 — v.8. (56 Ind. 203) i. 1843 —— v. S. (56 Missis..294) v. S. (10 Neb. 438) i. 68 — , S. v, (43 La. An. 541) ii, 612 uv. Territory (1 Wy. 311) ii. 364 McCartie, Reg. v. (11 Ir. Com. Law, 188) i i. 938 McCartney »v. S. (8 Ind. 353; 56 Am. D. 510) i, 1085, 1128; ii. 428, 456 McCarty, C. v. (152 Mass. 577) ii, 921 v. P, (51 IL 231; 99 Am. D. 542) i. 1117 ——, P. vo. (48 Cal. 557) i. 1005, 1005a, 1010 — , P.»v. (5 Utah, 280) ii. 752 ——, Respublica v. (2 Dall. 86) i. 1244 — v.58. (1 Blackf. 338) i. 2644 —— v. §. (127 Ind. 223) i. 1273 — v. 8. (26 Missis. 299) i, 934 — v. S. (37 Missis. 411) i, 400 — v.§. (4 Tex. Ap. 461) i. 68, 951 — v.S. (1 Wash. 877; 22 Am. St. 152) ii. 700 618 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. McC McCarty, S. v. (2 Chand. 199; 54 Aw. D. 150) i, G61, 664, 663, 708 — , S. v, (73 Iowa, 51) i, 1275 ——, S.v. (4 R. 1.82) i. 264, 691, 761, 762 McCarver, S. v. (47 Mo. Ap. 650) i. 718 McCaughey, C. v. (9 Gray, 296) ii. 2764 McCaul, C. v. (1 Va. Cas. 271) i, 235, 999, 1347, 1359 McCauless, S. v. (9 Ire. 375) i. 1015 McCauley, C. v. (105 Mass, 69) i, 801 v. P. (88 Ill. 578) i. 68 — , P. uv. (1 Cal. 879) i. 73, 909, 1264, 1265 v. 8. (26 Ala. 135) i. 821, 824 v. U.S. (Morris, 486) i. 68, 78, 795 McChesney, S. v. (90 Mo. 120) ii. 173 ——, S. v. (16 Mo. Ap. 259) ii, 86 McChord, C. v. (2 Dana, 242) i. 452, 467, 471, 472, 474, 475 McClackey v. S. (5 Tex. Ap. 320) ii. 678 McClain v. C. (110 Pa. 263) i. 1228 ; ii. 604 McClanahan, C. v. (2 Met. Ky. 8) i. 689 McClary v. 8. (75 Ind. 260) _ i. 878, 888, 8844 McClear, S. v. (11 Nev. 39) i. 892, 897, 899, 939 McClellan, C. v. (101 Mass. 34) i. 356 — v, §. (53 Ala. 640) ii. 25, 26 — v. 8. (32 Ark. 609) ii, 406, 425 —, S. x. (87 Tenn. 52) i. 1310 McClerkin v. S. (20 Fla. 879) i. 1001, ee ii. 927 McClin, Territory v. (1 Mont. 394) i. 1058 McClintic, S. v. (738 lowa, 663) i. 869, 1106 McClintock, S. v. (1 Greene, Iowa, 392) 5 i. 1086; if. 65 — , S. v. (8 Iowa, 203) i. 959 a, 966; ii. 59, 60 McCloskey, S. v. (4 Iowa, 496) i, 1871 9 | McCluer, S. v. (5 Nev. 182) i. 1050; ii. 600, 606 McCluney v. Lockhart (1 Bailey, 117) i, 999 McClung, S. v. (35 W. Va. 280) i. 648, 649, 1005 a; ii. 144 McClure v. C. (81 Ky. 448) i, 9665 v. C. (86 Pa, 353) ii. 4256 ——, Reg. v. (2 Crawf. & Dix C. C. 244 ii. 965 —— v. §, (29 Ind, 369) i. 2644 v. S. (26 Tex. Ap. 102) ii. 367 v. S. (1 Yerg. 206) i. 660 —, 8. vu. (4 Blackf. 328) ii. 1010 ——, S. v. (25 Mo. 338) i. 1278; ii. 656 ——,, 8. v. (Phillips, N.C. 491) —_ i. 1882, 1883, 1384 ——, S. v. (13 Tex. 23) ii, 286 a v. Smith (56 Ga. 489) i, 251 McCluskey, C. v. (123 Mass. 401) i. 1018 Movlukys Ex parte (40 Fed. Rep. : i. 96 ——, C.v, (151 Mass. 488) i. 1264, 1390, 1394 McC INDEX TO THE McCole v. S. (10 Ind. 50) i, 251 McCollough v. S. (182 Ind. 427) ii. 144 McCollum v. 8. (29 Tex. Ap. 162) i. 1195 — , S. v. (44 Mo. 348) ii. 925 McComas »v, 8. (11 Misso. 116) i, 1268 McComb, S. v. (18 Iowa, 43) i. 1889, 1398 McCombs, C. v. (56 Pa. 436) i. 278 — v. S. (66 Ga. 580) i. 384 — v. 8. (8 Ohio St. 643) ii, 968, 965, 96 McConaughy, U. S. v. (88 Fed. Rep. 168 ii. 912 McCone, S. v. (59 Vt. 117) ii. 9104 McConkey v. C. (101 Pa. 416) i, 1125 —, 8. v. (20 Iowa, 574) i, 127 — , S. v. (49 lowa, 499) ii. 163 ii, 66 i. 1285 McConnel v. 8. (25 Tex. Ap. 329) McConnell, P. v. (82 Cal. 620) — v. S. (67 Ga. 633) i. 893 —_v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 390) i. 261 McCool, S. v. (34 Kan. 613) i. 1279 —, S. v. (84 Kan. 617) i, 1285 McCoombs v. Tuttle (5 Blackf. 431) ii. 791, 800 McCord »v. S. (79 Ala. 269) i. 621 v. §. (83 Ga. 521) i. 975c — ,S. v. (8 Kan. 282; 12 Am. R. 469) i. 1271 McCorkle v. S. (14 Ind. 89) i. 72, 272, 708, 821, 951 c, 1001; ii. 767 McCormack, C. v. (7 Allen, 582) i, 1264 —., C. v. (126 Mass. 258) i. 780 — , P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 9) i. 1880 — , S. v. (2 Ind. 305) ii, 831 —, 8. v. (56 Iowa, 585) ii. 481 McCormick, S. v. (52 Ind. 169) ii. 921 —, S. v. (27 Iowa, 402) ii, 585, 6038 —, 8. v. (84 Me. 566) i. 89, 1002, 1005, 1265 —, §.v. (14 Nev. 347) i. 1264 McCory, S. v. (2 Blackf. 5) i. 892 McCourt v. P. (64 N. Y. 583) ii, 754 McCourtney, S. v. (6 Misso. 649) — i. 691 McCown, S. v. (24 W. Va. 625) i. 261 McCoy, Ex parte (64 Ala. 201) i. 850 v. Curtice (9 Wend. 17; 24 Am. D. 113) i. 1180 — v. Harrell (40 Ala. 232) i. 757 — , P. v. (71 Cal. 395) i, 801, 994 —, P. v. (182 Ill. 188) i. 1264 — v. S. (46 Ark. 141) i. 126 v. S. (3 Eng, 451) ii, 655, 657 — v.§. (17 Fla, 193) i. 400 v. 8. (15 Ga. 205) i. 978 —— v. S. (52 Ga, 287) i, 1004; ii. 2, 9, 10 — v. 8. (78 Ga. 490) i. 999 — v. S. (121 Ind. 160) i. "1264 — v. §. (22 Neb. 418) i, 360; ii. 766 — v.8. (25 Tex. 33; 78 Am. D. 520) i, 261; ii, 607 — v. §. (37 Tex. 219) i. 264.0 — v. S, (44 Tex. 616) ii. 740 —v.S. (7 Tex. Ap. 379) i. 1005 a v. §. (27 Tex. Ap. 415) i. 9750¢ —, =e v. (1 Bax. 111) i, 251 CASES CITED. McD McCoy, S. v. (29 La. An. 593) i. 68, 75a, 314, 931; ii. 611, 621 —, S. uv. (84 Mo. 631; 86 Am. D. 121 ii. 670, 671 ——, 8. v. (111 Mo. 517) i. 782; ii. 625 — , S. v. (89 N. C. 466) ii. 723 —, 8. v. (14. N. -H. 364) ii. 728 McCracken ». S. (6 Tex. Ap. 507) i. 951. —— v.58. (8 Yerg. 171) i, 1317 6 —, S. v. (66 Iowa, 569) i. 1066, 1086 —, S. v. (20 Mo. 411) i. 379 v. West (17 Ohio, 16) ii. 751 McCraw v. Old North State Ins. Co. (78 N. C. 149) i. 1245 McCray, S. v. (74 Mo. 308) i. 1265 v. Stewart (16 Ind. 377) i. 1270 McCrea, P. v. (82 Cal. 98) i. 1082, 1253, 1254 McCready, C. v. (2 Met. Ky. 876) i. 128, 1264 McCreary v. C. (29 Pa. 823) i. 824, 996, 996 McCrory, P. v. (41 Cal. 458) i. 951, 951¢@ McCue »v. C. (78 Pa. 185; 21 Am. R. 7) i, 1107, 1247, 1271, 1298 ; ii. 603 —,, C. v. (16 Gray, 226) ii. 891 ——, S. v. (89 Mo. 112) i. 1011 McCuen, C. v. (75 Pa. 215) i. 691 . C. (2 Rob. Va. 771) 1.909, 1268, 1274 McCunniff, 8. v. (70 Iowa, 217) ii. 77 McCurdy, C. v. (5 Mass. 324) i. 608 —, P. v. (68 Cal. 576) i. 408, 994, 1097 McCurry, S. v. (68 N. C. 83) i. 981, 1276 McCutcheon v. P. (69 Ill. 601) i, 612 —, S. v. (20 Neb. 804) i. 1814 McDade v. S. (20 Ala. 81) i. 406 v, 8, (27 Tex. Ap. 641; 11 Am. St. 216) i, 1098, 1270 McDaniel’s Case (Foster, 121) i. 1006 McDaniel, Rex v. (Foster, 121) ii. 11, 1006 v. 8. a, Ala. 1) i. 976 ¢, 1050 — v. S. (30 Ga. 853) i. 968 a v. 8. (8 Sm. & M. 401; 47 Am. D.98) i. 951, 951a, 1112, 1116, 1212, 1218, 1265, 1268; ii. 600, 606 —, 8. v. (45 La. An. 686) i. 618 —, S. v. (94 Mo. 301) ii. 683 McDaniels v. P. (118 Ill. 801) i540 McDavid, S. v. (15 La. An. 408) i. 1168 McDermot, Rex ». (Russ. & Ry. 356) ii. 65, 654 Ee i v, (123 Mass. 440; 25 Am. R. 120) i, 1254 vw 8. re) ‘ind. 187) i. 951a 619 McD INDEX TO THE McDermott v. S. (13 Ohio St. 332; 82 Am. D, 444) ii. 965, 966 —, S. v. (36 lowa, 107) ii. 848 McDevitt, S. v. (69 Iowa, 549) i. 1147 McDivit v. S. (20 Ohio St. 281) ii. 703, 732 McDonagh, Rex v. (Car. Crim. Law, 24) i. 60 McDonald, C. v. (110 Mass. 405) i. 1120; ii, 965, 966 — v. P. (47 Ill. 583) i, 688 v. P, (126 Ill. 150; 9 Am St. 547) i. 289, 969, 1125, 1181, 1186 ; ii. 227 — v. P. (25 Ill. Ap. 350) i, 1121 P. v. (26 Hun, 156) i. 8l4a P. v. (9 Mich. 150) i. 335; ii. 63, ae 7 v. Rooke (2 Bing. N. C. 217; 2 Scott, 359) i. 214 2 — v. S. (83 Ala. 46) ii. 428 v. 8. (72 Ga. 55) i. 966 b v. S. (63 Ind. 544) i, 984 — v. S. (45 Md. 90) - 1.1878 — v. S. (8 Misso. 283) i. 379, 699 — v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 504) i. 1298 v, S. (15 Tex. Ap. 493) i. 999 — v.S. (79 Wis. 651; 24 Am. St. 740) i. 1310 — v. 8. (80 Wis. 407) i. 1810 —, S. v. (3 Dev. 468) i, 187 ——,, S. v. (89 La. An. 959) ii, 653 — S. v. (65 Me. 465) i. 978 —, S. v. (67 Mo. 1) ii. 59, 656 —, S.v. (10 Mont. 21; 24 Am. St. 25) i, 486 —, S.v. (73 N.C. 346) i. 595, 597, 1146 ——, S. v. (14 R. I. 270) i. 1128 ; ii. 67 —,S. v. (9 W. Va. 456) i. 911, 946; ii, 129 v. Schell (6 S. & R. 240) i, 894 —, U.S. v. (3 Dil. 548) i. 470 McDonell, P. v. (47 Cal. 134) i, 849 Macdonnell, In re (11 Blatch. 79) i. 224, 224 a McDonnell, P. v. (80 Cal. 285; 18 Am. St. 159) i, 682; ii. 269 —, Reg. v. (5 Cox C.C. 153) =i. 1128; ii. 1029 — v. §. (58 Ark. 242) ii, 425 — , S. v. (82 Vt. 491) i. 966.a, 980, 987, 1179, 1241 McDougal v. S. (88 Ind. 24) i. 975c, 980 a; ii. 673 McDougald v. McLean (Winst. i. 120) ii. 679 McDougall v. 8. (82 Tex. Cr. 174) i. 1264 McDow ». S. (10 Tex. Ap. 98) i. 966 d McDowell, C. v. (1 Browne, Pa. 359) ii, 731 —, P. uv. (64 Cal. 467) i. 975 — , P. r. (71 Cal. 194) i. 975 ¢ v. 8. (61 Ala. 172) i. 622 —, S. v. (6 Blackf. 49) i. 673, 674 ——, 8. v. (Dudley, 8. C. 846) ii. 110, 112, 118 620 CASES CITED. McF McDowell, S. v. (84 N.C. 798) i. 1264; ii. 1043, 1044 McDuff xv. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 58) i. 959.4 McDuffie v. S. (90 Ga. 786) i. 909 Mace v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 470) i, 975c v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 110) ii. 180 ——, S. v. (6 Md. 337) i, 1264, 1304 ——'S. v. (76 Me. 64) i. 626; ii, 918 — ,, S. v. (86 N. C. 668) 1. 702; ii. 9836 —} S.v. (6 R. 1. 85) ii, 869 a McElhaney, C.v. (111 Mass. 489) i. 1268 v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 281) ii. 278, 275 —, §. v. (20 Mo. Ap. 584) i. 264 m McElmurray, S. v. (8 Strob. 38) i. 994, 1200 McElrath v. McIntosh (11 Bost. Law Rep. 399) i. 1414 —— v. S. (2 Swan, Tenn. 378) i. 999 McElreath v. S. (55 Ga. 562) i, 372 McElroy v. 8. (75 Ala. 9) i. 1238 —— v. §. (18 Ark. 708) i. 49 —— v. 8S. (14 Tex. Ap. 235) i. 825; ii. 544 — , 8S. v. (3 Heisk. 69) ii. 823 — , Territory v. (1 Mont. 86) ii, 357, 364 McElvaine v. Brush (142 U. S. 155) i, 1810, 1811 —— , P. vo. (121 N.Y. 250) 4.1179; ii. 685 — , P. v. (125 N. Y. 596) i. 7304; ii. 666 McElven v. S. (80 Ga. 869) i, 1094 McElwee ». P. (77 Ill. 493) i. 264, 1899 McEneany, Reg. v. (14 Cox C. C. 87) i. 69, 70 McEntee v. 8. (24 Wis. 48) i. 10054; ii. 708, 732, 748, 1002 McEvoy v. Igo (27 Cal. 875) ii. 380 —, S. v. (68 Iowa, 355) i. 68, 71 — , S.v. (9 S. C. 208) i. 850, 1212; ii. 624 McEwen, P. v, (62 How. Pr. 226) i. 1310 ——, P. v. (67 How. Pr. 105) i, 1310 ——, S. v. (12 Kan. 37) i, 1264 McEwin v. S. (3 Sm. & M. 120) i. 235 McFadden v. C. (28 Pa. 12; 62 Am. D. 308) i, 932 a, 934, 947 —, P. v. (65 Cal. 445) i. 1005 a; ii. 652 —— v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 241) i. 966 b, 1181, 1248, 1261 McFail, S. v. (85 S. C. 605) i. 2644 McFain ». S. (41 Tex. 885) i. 611 McFall, Pennsylvania v. (Addison, 255 ii. 60 McFarlain, S. v. (42 La. An. 803) i. 1079 McFarlan v. P. (18 Ill. 9) i. 264, 314, 316 McFarland’s Trial (8 Abb. Pr. n. s. 57) ii, 673 McFarland v. S. (24 Ohio St. 829) ii. 967 ——»v. 8, (18 Tex. Ap. 813) i, 1354 , S. v. (49 Iowa, 99) ii. 144 ——,S. v. (88 Kan. 664) i. 1264 v. Shaw (2 Car. Law Repos. 102) i, 1207 McFarlane, Territory ». (1 Mart. La. 221) 3. 661 McFarlin v. 8, (41 Tex. 28) i. 977 McG Macferson v. Thoytes (Peake, 20) ii. 4824 McGaffey v. S. (4 ‘Tex. 156) i, 977; ii. 498 McGafiin, S. v. (86 Kan. 315) i, 822 McGahagin v. S. (17 Fla. 665) i, 443 McGahey, C. v. (11 Gray, 194) i. 175, 1383; ii. 63 McGann v. Hamilton (58 Conn. 69) i. 931 , P. v, (43 Hun, 65) i. 118 McGarr v, 8. (75 Ga. 155) ii. 415 McGarry v. P. (2 Lans. 227) _ i. 665, 666 ; ii. 34, 52, 881 McGarvey, P. wv. (56 Cal. 827) i, 68, 71 McGary v. P. (45 N. Y. 158) i. 4888, 682 ; ii. 84, 36 McGee, P. v. (1 Denio, 19) li. 961, 963 — v. S. (8 Mo. 495) ii. 595 v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 625) ii. 700 — v.8. (5 Tex. Ap. 492) ii. 65 — v. 8. (11 Tex. Ap. 520) i. 264 f —, S. v. (86 La. An. 206) — i. 887, 1285 McGehan, 8. v. (27 Ohio St. 280) i. 68 McGehee v. §. (26 Ala. 154) i. 404 — v. 8. (58 Ala, 860) i. 1020 — v.8. (62 Missis. 772; 52 Am. R. 209) ii. 659 McGill, Ex parte (6 Tex. Ap. 498) i. 1410 — ve. §. (34 Ohio St. 228) i. 946 — v. §. (25 Tex. Ap. 499) i. 906 —, U.S. v. (4 Dall. 426) i, 61 McGilver, P. v. (67 Cal. 55) i. 6895 McGimsey, 8. v. (80 N. C. 877; 380 Am, R. 90) i, 1001 McGinnis v. C. (102 Pa. 66) ii. 634 —,, C. v. (2 Whart. 118) i. 1880 v. 8, (31 Ga. 236) i, 1085, 1810 —— v, S. (9 Humph. 43; 49 Am. D. 697) i. 727 — v.§. (24 Ind. 500) ii, 462, 753 —, S. v. (71 Iowa, 685) ii. 175 —, §. v. (12 La. An. 748) i. 1296; ii. 63 a , 8. v. (5 Nev. 387) i. 979, 1101 McGinniss, S. ». (74 Mo, 245) i. 360 McGlinchy ». Barrows (41 Me. 74) i. 209 McGloin, P. v. (91 N. Y. 241) i, 1218 McGlothlen, S. v. (56 Towa, 544) i. 1095 McGlue, U. S. v. (1 Curt. C. C. 1) i, 1138, 1179; ii. 672, 685 McGlynn, S. v. (84 N. H. 422) i. 689 McGonegal, P. v. (186 N. Y. 62) i. 909 McGorty, C. v. (114 Mass. 299) ii, 152 McGovern, C. v. (10 Allen, 193) i, 114, 761, 1265 McGowan v. P. (104 Ill. 100; 44 Am. R. 87) i. 265, 269 —v.S. (9 Yerg. 184) i. 909, 945, 984 — , S. v. (20 Conn. 245; 52 Am. D. 836) ii. 62 —,S8.v. (18. ©, 14) i. 1059 McGrath, C. x. (102 Mass. 485) i. 1264 —, C. ». (115 Mass. 160) i. 1005 a —, 8. v. (78 Mo, 181) i, 1276 McGraw, S. v. (74 Mo. 578) ii. 750 —,, S. v. (87 Mo. 161) i, 61 — ,S. x. (35S. C. 283) i, 278, 1198 a McGregar, P. v. (88 Cal. 140) i, 884 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. MclI McGregg v. S. (4 Blackf. 101) i. 457, 909, 1004, 1859 McGregor, Rex v. (2 B. & P.106; 2 East P. C. 676; Russ. & Ry. 28) ij. 818, 820, 834 — v. §. (16 Ind. 9) i. 449, 591, 592, 1079; ii. 259, 261 —, S. v. (41 N. H. 407) i. 772, 791; ii. 105, 109, 116, 117 McGrew v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 589) — i. 980 —— v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 618) ii. 883 -—,S8.v. (18 Rich. 816) — i, 1018, 1138, 1151 McGrorty, S. v. (2 Minn. 224) i, 1264, 1272 McGruder v. §. (71 Ga. 864) i. 1020 v. 8. (88 Ga. 616) i. 780 McGuff v. S. (88 Ala. 147; 16 Am. St. 25) i. 975 c, 978, 1012, 1189; ii. 947 McGuffie v. S. (17 Ga. 497) i. 698, 700, 909, 984, 949, 979, 984, 1008; ii. 640 McGuire v. P. (44 Mich. 286; 88 Am. R. 265) i, 1144 —— v.P. (2 Par. Cr. 148) i. 1859 —, P. v. (89 Mich. 64) 1.975a —— v. §,. (87 Ala. 161) i. 53, 648 ; ii. 412, 475 — v.§S. (3 Heisk. 104) i, 1184 v. §. (5 Ind. 65) i. 264, — v.S8. (50 Ind: 284) i. 480 v. 8. (124 Ind. 536) i, 264 f — v.58. (85 Missis. 866; 72 Am. D. 124) i. 708, 710, 711, 784 — v. 8. (87 Missis. 369) i. 919, 947, 980 bh — v.§. (43 Tex. 210) i. 1094 — v.S. (10 Tex. Ap. 125) 1.998a; ii. 661 —,, S. v. (87 Mo. 642) i. 1060 —, 5S. v. (15 R. I. 28) i. 1181 v, Wallace (109 Ind. 284) i. 951 f McGungill, P. v. (41 Cal. 429) i. 905, 1181, 1183 McGunnegle, 8. v. (3 Misso. 402) i. 251 McHale, C. v. (97 Pa. 397; 89 Am. R 808 , i704 McHenry, C. v. (18 Philad. 451) i. 264a@ —— vw. 8. (40 Tex. 46) i. 1241; ii, 764 — v.§. (14 Tex. Ap. 209) i. 13864 —, U.S. »v, (6 Blatch. 508) i, 909 ; ii. 921 McHugh, C. v. (147 Mass. 401) i, 1249 —, Reg. v. (7 Cox C. C. 483) i. 1256 —— v. §. (31 Ala. 317) i. 1207, 1213 — v.S. (88 Ohio St. 153) i. 909, 931 — v.8. (42 Ohio St. 154) i. 909, 931 Machynlleth, Rex v. (2 B. & C. 166) ii. 1044 Mclleham v. Smith (8'T. R. 86) i. 207 McInnis v, S. (61 Ala. 23) i. 977 Macino v, P. (12 Hun, 127) ii, 764 MclInstry v. Tanner (9 Johns. 185) i. 1180 McIntire v. 8. (10 Ind. 26) i. 1120; ii. 990 —, 8. v. (58 Iowa, 672) i, 405, 1170 621 McK INDEX TO THE aaa ed S. v. (59 Towa, 264) 1, 546 ; ii. 137 . v. ( 59 Iowa, 287) i, 8694 Maheue v. McIntosh (79 Mich. 198) i, 1190 —— v. 8. (52 Ala. 355) i. 1247, 1309 —, S.v. (92 N. C. 794) ii, 783 MeIntyre, In re (5 Gilman, 422) i, 236 — vr. P. (38 Ill. 514) i, 993, 1001 —, P. v. (1 Par. Cr. 371) i. 1018, 1020 v. §. (65 Ala. 167) ‘i. 62 » S. (19 Tex. Ap. 443) i. 264 a Uelrers, Marshall (34 Fla. 42) =i. 1862 McJunkin, S. v. (7 8. C. 21) i, 931 McJunkins v. S. (10 Ind. 140) i. 144, 976, 1018 Mack »v. P. (82 N. Y. 235) i. 61 —,Pv(l Par. Cr. 567) i. 264a, 1850 —, P.v. (2 Par. Cr, 673) i. 1279, 1280 ——’v. 8. (63 Ala. 138) ii. 178 v. S. (63 Ga. 693) i. 975 ——v.§. (48 Wis. 271) i. 1086, 1255; ii, 629 —S. v, (41 La. An. 1079) ii, 118 Mackaboy »v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 268) i. 1877; ii, 992 McKain v, Love (2 Hill, S. C. 506; 27 Am. D, 40}) i 1146 Mackaley’s Case (Cro. Jac. 279) i, 170 Mackalley’s Case (9 Co. 61d) i, 1006 — Case (9 Co. 65 a) » McKane ». S. (11 Ind. 195) Mackartney, Reg. v. (1 Salk. 286; Holt, 300) ii, 192 Mackarty, Reg. v. (2 Ld. Raym. 1179) ii, 349 McKay v. Lane (5 Fla. 268) i, 966 b —, P. v. (18 Johns. 212) 945, 949, 1268 —, Reg. v. (8 Crawf. & Dix C. C. 5 i, 212 — v. 8. (12 Misso. 492) i. 951, 961 a McKean, Ex parte (3 Hughes, 23) i. 2234 —, C. v. (98 Mass. 9) ii. 407, 412 —_, 8. v. (86 Iowa, 343; 14 Am. R. 530 i. 1159 McKee, C. v. (Addison, 33) i, 403 v. Nelson (4 Cow. 855; 15 Am. D. 384) 1.1178 ; ii. 677 — v. P. (32 N. Y, 239) i. 1873 — v. P. (86 N. ¥.118) i. 1083, 1087; ii. 687 a — v. 8. (82 Ala. 32) i. 869a@, 1094, 1181 v. §. (111 Ind. 378) ii. 210 —,5. v. (1 Bailey, 651; 21 Am. D. 499) i. 995, 1888, 1394 — _,S. v. (109 Ind. 497) ii. 838 ——, S. v. (98 N. C. 500) i. 1274 —..U.S. v. (3 Dil. 646) i, 1248; ii. ve —, U.S. » (3 Dil. 651) i, 1248; ii, 229 —, U.8.»v. (4 Dil. 1) i. 816 McKeigue v. Janesville (68 Wis. 50) i, 11 McKenna, C. v. (125 Mass. 897) 622 i. 733.4 {! McKiernan, 8. v. (17 Nev. 224) i. 123, 932 a, | 1|— , S. ». (111 N, C. 690) CASES CITED. McK McKenna v. P. (81 N. Y. 360) ii. 638.4 —, P. v. (81 Cal. 158) i. 7064 — v.§. (61 Missis. 589) i. 975 McKennan, S. v. (Harper, 302) ii. 928 McKenney, C. v. (9 Gray, 114) i. 488d; ii. 716, 751 McKensie v. Missouri Pac. Ry. (24 Mo. Ap. 392) i. 2647 McKenzie v. Allen (8 Strob. 546) —_ ii. 68 2|——v. 8. (24 Ark. 686) i, 1167, 1855 — »v. S. (26 Ark. 834) i. 999, 1050; ii. 670, 672 —, S. v. (42 Me. 392) i. 612 —, U.S. v. (35 Fed. Rep. 826) i. 1074, 1079 McKeone v. P. (6 Colo. 346) ii. 612 McKeown, S. vu. (12 La, An. 596) i. 251, 264 a, 1264 McKettrick, S. v. (13 8. C. 489) i. 1264 —, S. v. (148. C. 346) i. 698 Mackey ». C. (80 Ky. 346) i. 1264 v. P. (2 Colo. 18) i. 849, 980 a, 980 b, 3010, 1094 —— v. 8. (3 Ohio St. 862) i. 665; ii. 426 — ».§. (20 Tex. Ap. 603) i. 546 —, S. v. (55 Mo. 51) i. 264,f — S. v. (12 Or. 154) i. 975c, 1111, 1268 McKie, C. v. (1 Gray, 61; 61 Am. D. 410) i. 1049 ii. 407 Mackin v, P. (116 Ill. 312) i. 1856 — v. U.S. (23 Fed. Rep. 334) i. 1865 v, U. 8. (117 U.S. 348) i. 146 McKinley v. S. (8 Humph. 72) i, 97, 708, 709 McKinney, Ex parte (5 Tex. Ap. 500) i, 1407 —, C. v. (8 Grat. 589) i. 699 —— v. P. (2 Gilman, 640; 48 Am. D. 65) i, 24, 322, 951 d, 1847 P. (82 Mich. 284) ii, 846 —, P. v. (10 Mich. 54) i. 884, 449, 644, 1382 ; ii. 826, 327 — ».§. (8 Tex. Ap. 626) i. 1126 — v. 8. (25 Wis. 378) i. 440 —, S. v. (42 Iowa, 205) ii, 985.4 —, S. v. (31 Kan. 570) i. 995, 1001 McKinsey, S. v. (80 N. C. 458) i, 975 McKinstry, 8. v. (60 Ind. 465) ii, 207, 218, 222 McKinzie, 8. v. (102 Mo. 620) i.975¢, 80 a, 1050; ii. 602 McKisson, C. v. (8 S. & R. 420; 11 Am. D. 630) i. 1873 McKivett, Ex parte (55 Ala. 236) i. 1317, 1410 McKleroy v. 8. (77 Ala. 95) i. 975 c, 980, 1094 245 Macklin, Reg. v. (5 Cox C.C. os Mc cenent Ex parte (48 Ohio St i “915 ¢3 ii. 184, 148 McL INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. MoN McLain v. C. (99 Pa. 86) i, 1054, 1195 | McLeod, P. v, (1 Hill, N. Y. 877; 87 —— v. 8. (71 Ga. 279) i.975c} Am. D.828) i, 236, 1889 — v. S. (18 Neb. 154) i. 975 a, 9756 v. §. (81 Tex. Cr. 331) ii. 687 a — v. 8. (30 Tex. Ap. 482; 28 Am. —,S.v. (1 Hawks, 344) i. 284, 1197, St. 984) i. 1097 1202, 1270 —— v.S, (10 Yerg. 241; 31 Am. D. — 8. v. (5 Jones, N. C. 818) ii. 7384 578) i. 999 | McLeran, S. v. (1 Aikens, 311) ii. 445, 446 —, 8. v. (48 Kan. 489) i. 1264 | Maclin v. S. (44 Ark. 115) i. 949, 998 a —, 8. v. (104 N. C. 894) i. 696, 975, | McLoon, C. v. (5 Gray, 91; 66 Am. 977| 1). 854) i, 846 McLane, C. v. (4 Gray, 427) i, 264 a | ——, S. v. (78 Me. 420) i. 872 — v. Leicht (69 Iowa, 401) i. 1415 | McLorinan, S. v. (14 Vroom, 410) ii. 276 — v. 8, (4 Ga. 335) i. 408, 1206 ; ii. 834] McMahan v. Green (34 Vt. 69; 80 —, 8. v. (15 Nev. 345) 1. 975c, 1018,| Am. 1D. 665) i. 185 1181; ii. 514 | —, S. v. (108 N. C. 379) i. 1180 —,S. v. (81 Tex. 260) i, 1388 | McMahon, C. v. (183 Mass. 894) i. 1287 McLaren v. Birdsong (24 Ga. 265) ii. 751 | ——, C. v. (145 Pa. 418) i, 1260 v, S. (8 Tex. Ap. 680) i. 264 a, 264 b | —— »v. P. (120 Ill. 581) i. 1274 McLarin v. S. (4 Humph. 881) i. 1117 | —~, P. v, (15 N. Y. 384) i, 1223, 1224, McLaughlin v. C. (4 Rawle, 464) ii. 732 1255, 1256 —, C. v. (11 Cush. 598) ii. 131 | ——, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 663) i. 905, 1255, —, C. v. (12 Cush. 612) i. 446 1368 —,, C. v. (12 Cush. 615) i. 181, 437 | —— v. Palmer (102 N. Y.176) i,100a — ,C. v. (103 Mass. 435) ii. 726 | ——, Reg. v. (18 Cox C.C. 275) ii. 740 —, C.v. (105 Mass. 460) i. 488; ii. 92, ] —— v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 102) i. 1052; 94, 849 ii. 752 —, C.v. (122 Mass. 449) ii. 919, 985 a | ——v.S. (16 Tex. Ap. 857) ii. 96 —v. Etchison (127 Ind. 474; 22 — v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 821) 1. 981, 1275 Am. St. 658) i. 1410 | —, S. v. (17 Nev. 365) i. 118 —, P. vo. (44 Cal. 435) i. 1082, 1212; | McManus ». C. (91 Pa. 57) i. 1268 ; ii. 435 ii. 629 —— v. Russell (17 Ohio, 475) ii. 799 | ——, C. v. (148 Pa. 64) i, 984, 987 — v.8. (45 Ind. 338) =i. 97, 98 a, 104, | MceMath.v. S. (55 Ga. 808) i. 408, 1179; 825; ii. 871 ii, 958, 972 — v. S. (52 Ind. 279) i, 1052; ii.65)McMechen v. McMechen (17 W. —— v. §. (52 Ind. 476) i. 688; ii. 65| Va. 683; 41 Am. R. 682) i. 1179 —— v, S. (66 Ind. 198) i, 1264 | McMeekin v. S. (48 Ga. 385) i. 1800, 1806 — v.S8. (10 Tex. Ap. 340) ii. 638 a | McMeen »v. C. (114 Pa. 300) i. 1094; —,S. v. (44 Iowa, 82) i, 1187, 1238; ii. 629 ii. 92, 962, 968, 975 | McMicken, In re (89 Kan.406) i. 951 —, S. v. (85 Kan. 650) ii. 981 | MeMickle, S. v. (34 Tex. 676) i. 890 —, S. v. (27 Mo. 111) i. 1269, 1279 | McMillan, P. v. (52 Mich. 627) ii, 481 —, 8. v. (76 Mo. 320) i. 1181, 1182 | —— v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 100) i. 1012 McLaurin »v, S. (64 Missis. 529) i. 975c | —— v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 142) i, 1094, 1188, McLaurine v.S. (28 Tex. Ap. 530) i. 485, 1189, 1190 583 | ——, 8. v. (68 N. C. 440) i, 488 b, 685 McLean v. Humphreys (104 Ill. 378) —, S. v. (94. N.C. 945) i. 269 i. 1810 | —, U.S. v. (29 Fed. Rep. 247) ii. 482c¢ —, P. v. (84 Cal. 480) i, 966a, 1170 | McMillen v. Anderson (95 U. S. 37) — , P. v. (2 Johns. 381) i. 930 i. 100 a —,P. v. (71 Mich. 809; 15 Am. — v. Andrews (10 Ohio St.112) i.1146 St. 263) ii, 965 | —— v. 8. ie Mo. 80) ii. 630 ——, Reg. v. (2 Crawf. & Dix C. C. —— v. 8. (6 Ohio, 268) ii, 462 850 ii. 963] McMullen ». S. (63 Ala. 531) ij. 697 —— v. S. (16 Ala. 672) i. 1110, 1179, |] —— v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 577) i. 975. ¢c 1189, 1207, 1212, 1218; ii. 680, 677 | McMurphy, S. ». (62 Mo. 251) i. 1116 — v. §, (28 Kan. 372) i. 1264 | McMurrin, S, v. (1 Ind. 44) i. 325; — r.S. (8 Misso. 153) i. 995, 999 ii. 1048 —, S. v. (21 La. An. 646) i. 922, 1028 | McMurry v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 207) i. 1264 MacLellan, C. v. (121 Mass.81) i. 8314a| McNab, S. v. (20 N. H. 160) i, 266 McLemore, U.S. v. (4 How. U. S. McNabb, P. v. (79 Cal. 419) i. 975, 978 286 i, 1414 | McNaghten’s Case (10 Cl. & F. 200) McLendon, S. v. (5 Strob. 85) i. 1021 ii. 671, 672, 685 MclLennon v. Richardson (15 Ae itt McNair v. P, (89 Ill. 441) i. 496; ii. i a 74; 77 Am. 1.363) i. 170, 790 . 623 McP INDEX TO THE McNair v. Rempublicam (4 Yeates, 328) ii. 382, 383 v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 78) i. 1277 _S. v. (98 N. C. 628) i. 975 MeNally, 8. v. (82 Lowa, 580) i. 1015 , 8. v. (65 Md. 559) i. 761 ——, 8. v. (84 Me. 210) i. 227, 235, 1130 —, 8. v. (87 Mo, 644) i, 160; ii, 627 McNamara, C. v. (116 Mass. 840) i. 494 Minnesota Cent. Ry. (12 —= Minn. 388) i. 1268 , P. ». (94 Cal. 509) i. 975 ¢ , Reg. v. (14 Cox C. C.229) =i. 951 ——, S. v. (100 Mo. 100) i. 869.4, 998 a, 1005 a —, S$. v. (3 Nev. 70) i. 849, 860, 1019 a McNamee ». P. (31 Mich. 4738) ii. 1010 McNaughten’s Case (1 Car. & K. 130 ii. 685 McNeal, S. v. (8 Harrison, 833) i, 2647 _ U.S. v. (1 Gallis. 387) i. 401 MeNealy v. S. (17 Fla. 198) i, 583, 951 McNeary, 8. v. (88 Mo. 143) - 4. 1264 McNeeley, Ex parte (86 W. Va. 84; 32 Am. St. 831) i. 50, 51 McNeely, S. v. (84 La, An. 1022) ii. 614 McNeese v. S. (19 Tex. Ap. 48) i. 854 McNeezer v. S. (63 Ala. 169) i. 1238 MeNeil v. 8. (47 Ala. 498) i. 1000, 1357 , 5. v. (383 La. An. 1332) i. 1200 MeNeill’s Case (1 Caines, 72) i, 1291 MeNeill, C. v. (19 Pick. 127) i. 226, 264 e, 264 j —, S. v. (3 Hawks, 183) i. 1395 — , S. v. (75 N. C. 16) i, 1338 —, S. v. (93 N.C. 652) i. 421, 461, 698, ~ ” 700 MeNinch, S. v. (90 N. C. 695) i, 159 —, 8. v. (12 S.C. 89) i. 850, 861, 1276 , 8. v. (18 8. C, 452) i, 1264 McNulty, Ex parte (77 Cal. 164; 11 Am. St. 257) i, 1410 McNutt, P. v. (64 Cal. 116) i. 1120 , P, v. (93 Cal. 658) i. 975 ¢ McO’Blenis, S. v. (21 Mo. 272) i. 1264, 1265 —. 8. v, (24 Mo. 402; 69 Am. D. 435 ; i, 1195 Macomb, U. 8. v. (6 McLean, 286) i, 1195 McPhail v. S, (9 Tex. Ap. 164) i, 1086 —— v. 8. (10 Tex. Ap, 128) Macpherson, Reg. v. (11 Cox C.C. 604) i McPherson v. S, (29 Ark, 225) — v.§, (22 Ga, 478) 10 —— ». 8. (9 Yerg. 279). i, 479 i, 417 i. 987, 989 8, 79, 1211; ii. 629 i, 1209, 1216; ii. 695 i, 449, 457; ii, 263, 254 ——, 5S. v. (70 N. C. 239; 16 Am. R. 769) it, 140 624 —, S. v. (9 Iowa, 63) CASES CITED. MAD McPike, C. v. (8 Cush. 181; 50 Am, D. 727) i. 1111; ii. 625, 635 v. Wells (54 Missis. 136) i. 315 McQuade, P. v. (110 N. Y. 284) i. 902, 409; ii. 126 McQuaige, S. v. (5 8. C. 429) - i. Nes McQuarrie, Reg. v. (22 U. C. Q. B. 600) ii. 173 McQueen v. Heck (1 Coldw. 212) i. 2684 — «. §. (82 Ind. 72) i. 1114; ii. 782 McQuillen v. S. (8 Sm. & M. 587) i. 744, 756, 798, 844, 994, 1345 McQuinn’s Petition (65 N. H. 84) i. 1310; ii. 666 McQuirk v. S. (84 Ala. 485; 5 Am. St. 881) ii. 965, 975 McQuistian v. 8. (25 Ark. 435) i. 360 McQuoid wv. P. (3 Gilman, 76) i. 814, 1878 ; ii. 888, 889 McRae v. S. (49 Ark. 195) i. 1004 — v.S. (71 Ga. 96) ii. 999, 1000 McRoberts, S. v. (4 Blackf. 178) _ii. 692 McSoley’s Liquors, In re (15 R. I. 608 i. 1264 McSpatton v. 8. (80 Tex. Ap. 616) i, 975, 979 McTigue v. S. (4 Bax. 313) i, 440 Macuboy, C. v. (8 Dana, 70) i, 612 MeVeigh v. U.S. (8 Wal. 640) i. 1871 McWaters v. S. (10 Misso. 167) tae ii. McWhirt’s Case (8 Grat. 594; 46 Am. D. 196) i. 1031, 1277 McWhorter v. S. (48 Tex. 666) ii. 1054 — v.S8, (11 Tex. Ap. 584) i, 976¢ —— v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 523) i. 1265 —— v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 239) i, 264 m McWilliams, S. v. (7 Mo. Ap. 99) i. 761 Mabry v. 8. (50 Ark. 492) i, 269 Madan, C. v. (102 Mass. 1) i, 1110; ii. 629 —,, Rex ». (1 Leach, 223) i. 1982, 1388 Madden, P. v. (76 Cal. 521) i. 975 , Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 239; 4 Eng. Rep. 628) i 964 , Rex v. (1 Moody, 277) i, 449 — v. S. (58 Ga. 563) ii, 661 — v. 8. (67 Ga, 151) i. 1004 i, 269 amy, 8, a Ga. 383) — v.58. (1 Kan. 840) i, 999; ii, 92, 552, 645 — v.S,. (85 Kan, 146) i, 264a —, S. v. (85 Iowa, 511) i. 1278 Maddox, C. ». (2 Va. Cas. 19) i. 138 v. S. (32 Ga. 681; 79 Am. D. 807) i. 909, 9518 ——— v. 8. (41 Tex. 205) ii, 754 —— v. 8. (12 Tex. Ap. 429) i. 975, 980 — v.8. (14 Tex. Ap. 447) i. 1274; ii. 718 —, S. v. (74 Ind. 105) i. 639 ——, S. », (85 Ind. 585) ii, 842 —, S. ve. (1 Lea, 671) i. 851 Madigan, S. v. (57 Minn, 425) ii, 921 MAH Madison v. C. (2 A. K. Mar. 181) INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. MAL i. 264, | Maiden v. C. (82 Ky.133) i. 976 ¢, 1008 24d | Maier, 8. v. (36 W. Va. 757) ii. 679 — v.§, (17 Tex. Ap. 479) i. 1348 —, S. v. (83 Me, 267) i, 980 ——, 8. v. (63 Me. 646) ii, 1048, 1045 Madison and Indianapolis Rld. v. Whitenevk (8 Ind. 217) i. 893 Mauoil, $. v. (12 Fla. 151) i. 921, 922, 999 Maeder v. S. (11 Misso. 363) i. 735 Magallones, P. v. (16 Cal. 426) i. 1005 a Magee, C. v. (12 Cox C. C. 649) i. 977 —, (. v. (10 Philad. 201) i. 975 ¢ — v. Osborn (82 N. Y. 669) ii. 482 a — »v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 99) i. 264.4, 264) — v.58. (14 Tex. Ap. 366) i. 1400 Magill, U.S. v. (1 Wash. C. C. 4638) i. 61, 948; ii. 638 Magnin, S. v. (78 N.C. 181) i. 1264 Magoon, §. v. (50 Vt. 388) i. 966 Magowan, C. v. (1 Met. Ky. 368; 71 Am. D. 480) i. 839, 485, 538 Magrath, Rex v. (2 Stra, 1242) i, 256 —, Sv. (31 Me. 469) i. 264 a, 1264 —, S. v. (19 Mo. 678) i, 387 Maguire, C. v. (108 Mass. 469) ii. 983 —, P. v. (26 Cal. 635) i, 1264 v. S. (47 Md. 485) ——, S. v. (69 Mo. 197) i. 1181, 1182 —,S. e. (113 Mo. 670) i. 975c Mahaffey, ‘Territory v. (3 Mont. 112) ii. 1018 Mahalovitch v. 8. (64 Ga. 217) ii. 115, 118 Mahan v. S. (10 Ohio, 2382) i. 940, 1082, i. 1005 a, 1341 1356 —, 8. v. (2 Ala. 340) i, 621 —, S. v. (68 Iowa, 804) i. 975 —,S8. v. (12 Tex. 283) i. 688, 885 Mahaney v. Penman (4 Duer, 603) i. 128 Mahanna, S. v. (48 N. H. 877) ii. 782 Mahar, C. v. (8 Gray, 469) ii. 779 —,C. v. (16 Pick. 120) i. 708 —'», §. (28 Ark. 207) ii. 826, 833 Maher v. P. (10 Mich. 212; 81 Am. D. 781) i. 962, 1085 ; ii. 607 — r.S. (8 Minn, 444) i. 878, 999 — v.S. (1 Port. 265; 26 Am. D. 379) i, 882 — , S. v. (74 Iowa, 77) 4. 975¢ —, S. v. (35 Me. 225) i. 1843 Mahi v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 127) i, 851, 878 Mahly, S. v. (68 Mo. 3816) i. 975); ii. 630 Mann, S. ». (25 Kan. 182) i. 975 ¢, 980; ij, 678 Mahon, In re (34 Fed. Rep. 525) i. 224) —— v. Justice (127 U. S. 700) i, 220, 224 b —-,S. v. (8 Harring. Del. 568) i. 159, 160, 249 —,S. v. (32 Vt. 241) i, 1241 Mahone, Ex parte (30 Ala. ane 68 Am. D. 111) 233, 1402 ee v. Ashton (4 Har. & MH. 63; ii, 678 —, C. v. (115 Mass, 161) i. 1264 — P. v. (18 Cal. 180) i. 909 VOL. 11,-—40 Mail Co. v. Flanders (12 Wal. 180) i. 316 Maile v. C. (9 Leigh, 661) ii. 544, 647 Maillet v. P. (42 Mich. 262) ii. 968 Main v. McCarty (io Ill. 441) i. 170, 207 —, P. v. (20 N. Y. 434) i, 264a —, 8. v. (31 Conn. 572) i, 966, 1895 Maine v. P. (Y Hun, 113) i, 1211 —, 8. v. (27 Conn. 281) i. 893 Maines v. S (26 Tex. Ap. 14) ii. 927 Mainor, S. v. (6 Ire. 340) i. 1036 Mains v. 8, (13 Ark. 285) i, 1275 —— v. 8, (42 Ind. 827; 18 Am. R. 364) i. 668; ii. 105, 278, 275 Mainwaring, Reg. v. (Ellis, B. & E. 474) i, 1402, 1403 Maires, S. v. (4 Vroom, 142) ii. 858 Mairs, S. v. (Coxe, 385) i. 256 Maitremme, S. v. (14 La. An, 880) i. 1082 Major, Reg. v. (Dears. 18; 14 Eng. L. & Iq. 144) i. 1814 , Rex v. (2 East, P. C. 1124) ii. 1028 — uw. S. (2 Sneed, 11) i. 73 v. 8. (4 Sneed, 597) i. 72, 909 Majors, P. v. (65 Cal. 100) i, 1264 — , P. v. (65 Cal. 188; 52 Am. R. 295 i. 918 Makely, C. v. (131 Mass. 421) ii, 50 Makin v. Attorney-General (1894, A. C. 57) i. 1129 — v. Attorney-General ‘(17 Cae C. C. 704) ii, 628 Makinson v. 8. (16 Tex. Ap. 188) i. 975¢, 1079 Malachi v. S. (89 Ala. 184) i. 1032 Malaspina, P. v. (57 Cal. 628) i, 1068 Malcolm, S. v. (8 Iowa, 413) ii. 77 Malcolmson v. Scott (56 Mich, 459) i. 219, 223 Maleverer v. Spinke (1 Dy. 856) —_i. 196 Maley v. S. (31 Ind, 192) ii, 163 Malia, S. v. (79 Me. 540) i. 688 Malim, 8. v. (14 Nev. 288) ii, 825 Malin, Respublica v. (1 Dall. 38) i. 51; ii, 1036 Malings, Reg. r. (8 Car. & P. 242) i. 962 Malison, In re (86 Kan. 725) i, ea b, 264a Mallett v. Stevenson (26 Conn. 428) i. 406 Mallinson, Rex x. (2 Bur. 679) i. 686 Mallison v. S. (6 Misso. 399) i. 940 Mallon, P. v. (89 How. Pr. 454) i. 286 —, P. ». (3 Lans. 224) i. 909 i. 90 ——., 8. v. (75 Mo. 855) i. 457, 492, 975, 1250 Mallory, P. v. (4 Thomp. & C. 567) ii, 8694 Malloy, C. v. (119 Mass. 847) i, 1264; ii, 945 —, 8. r. (80 La. An, 61) — i, 314 a, 489 — _, 8. v. (5 Vroom, 410) i. 523; ii. 845 Malone, C. v. (114 Mass. 295) i. 452, 458 — v. S. (51 Ala. 55) ii, 1046 — v. 8, (8 Ga. 408) 625 i, 1248; ii, 229 MAN INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. MAR Malone »v. S. (49 Ga. 210) | i. 951 | Mann z, S. (44 Tex. 642) i. 1269, 1279 v. 8. (66 Ga. 539) i. 984 | ——, S. v. (6 Ire. 45) i. 241, 242 — v. 8. (77 Ga. 767) i. 975 c | ——, S. v. (83 Mo. 689) i, 934, 951 a — v.§. (14 Ind. 219) i. 611, 718 | ——, S. v. (25 Ohio St. 668) ii. 697, 698 —, S. v, (28 La. An. 80) ii, 181 | ——, U.S. v. (1 Gallis. 3, 177) i. 145, —, U.S. vw. (20 Blatch. 187) i. 622, 8l4a 1015 a | Manners, P. v. (70 Cal. 428) i. 1005a; Maloney, C. v. (16 Gray, 20) i. 400 ii. 764 —, C. v. (112 Mass. 283) i. 408, 404 | ——, Rex ». (7 Car. & P. 801) ii, 264 —, Reg. v. (9 Cox C. C. 6) i. 1004; Manning, Ex parte (1 Caines, 59) i, 1814 ii. 603 ——, In re (189 U.S. 504) i. 316 —,S.v. (12 R.1. 251) — i. 763, 882; ii. |] ——, P. v. (48 Cal. 335) i, 384 883 | ——, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 467; 2 Maloy, S. v. (44 Iowa, 104) i. 9800; ii.)| Car. & K. 887; 4 Cox C.C. 31) i. 929; 611, 621, 627 ii. 4, 10 Malpass v. Caldwell (70 N. C. 130) —, S. v. (14 Tex. 402) i. 98, 683 i, 224a| Mansell v. Reg. (8 Ellis & B. 54; Malton v. S. (29 Tex. Ap. 527) 1.347] Dears. & B. 315) i. 938, 983, 1356, 1371 Man v. Ward (2 Atk, 228) i. 1161 | Mansfield, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 140) Manahan, P. v. (32 Cal. 68) ii. 967 i. 1241; ii. 710, 990 Manaway v. 8. (44 Ala. 375) i. 1085; |-——, S. v. (41 Mo. 470) i. 125, 898, 898 ii, 428, 433, 455 —, S. v. (83 Tex. 129) ii. 700 Manchester, In re (5 Cal. 237) i. 220, 299, Manson, C. v. (2 Ashm. 81) _ i, 448, 468, 223.4 1018, 1019, 1022, 1275, 1277 ——, Reg. v. (7 Ellis & B. 453; 40 —— v. S. (24 Ohio St. 590) i. 1276; Eng. L. & Eq. 141) i. 691, 1814 ii. 148 Maner v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 361) ii, 868 | Manton, Territory v. (8 Mont. 95) i. 1049 Maners, S. v. (16 Ind. 175) i, 229 | Manuel v. P. (48 Barb. 548) i. 1275 Manes v. S. (20 Tex. 388) i. 264 a, 1264; | ——, S. v. (64 N. C. 601) i, 966d ii. 840 | Mapes v. Leal (27 Tex. 345) ii. 4324 Mangham v. S. (87 Ga. 549) i. 1005 | —— v. P. (69 Ill. 628) i. 814.4, 316, 931 Mangrum, S. v, (35 La, An. 619) i. 981 | —— v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 85) i, 1291 Manigault v. 8. (58 Ga. 113) i, 1005; |} ——v. S. a Tex. Ap. 129) i. 9514 ii. 63 a | Maples v. 8. (3 Heisk. 408) i. 1288, 1289 Manion v. S. (11 Misso. 578) i. 1264 | Maranda v. S. (44 Tex. 442) i. 622, 628; Manitowoc Supervisors v. Sullivan ii. 172 (51 Wis. 115) i. 1803 | Marble, P. v. (88 Mich. 117) i, 1085, 1094, Mankato v. Arnold (86 Minn. 62) i. 892 1163; 1164 Manke v. P. (17 Hun, 410) ii. 631 | ——, P. v. (38 Mich. 809) i. 1265 v. P. (74 .N, Y. 415) i. 1265, 1368 March ». P. (7 Barb. 391) ii. 165, 216, 217 —, P. v. (78 N. Y. 611) ii. 631 Mankin v. 8. (2 Swan, Tenn. 206) ii. 1054 Manley, C. v. (12 Pick. 178) ii, 718 — »v. P. (3 Seld. 295) i. 63 —, S. v. (74 Iowa, 561) ii. 740 —, S. v. (107 Mo. 364) ii. 329 —, 8. uv. (1 Tenn. 428) i. 238, 239, 1130; ii, 824 — ». Shaw (Car. & M. ae i. 1146 Manlove, Rex v. (Trem. P. C, 246) ii, 941 —, S. v. (83 Kan. 483) i. ane —, S. v, (383 Tex. 798) 278 Manluff, S. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 208) i, 5. 457 Manly v. 8. (52 Ind. 216) i, 68, 71 v. 8. (7 Md. 185) i. 78, 1881, 1334, 1362, 1382 —, S. v. (95 N.C. 661) i. 1298 Mann, C. v. (4 Gray, 213) ii. 869 a —, C. v. (1 Va. Cas, 308) ii, B22 —, P. ». (75 N. ¥. 484; 81 Am. R. 482) ii, 416 v. §. (22 Fla. 600) i. 1124 — v. 8. (3 Head, 373) i. 949 b — v. §. (47 Ohio St, 656) ii. 864, 1027 626 —, P.v. (6 Cal. 543) ii. 608, 617, 640, 674 —— v. Portsmouth, &c. Rid, (19. N. H. 372) i. 9 —, Rex v, (1 Moody, 182) ii. 60 as ¥,'S, (85 Tex. 115) i, 1278 —— v. §. (44 Tex. 64) i. 298, 999, 1277 — v.§. (3 Tex. Ap. 107) i. 1110; ii. 653, 1028 — 2.8. (3 Tex. Ap. 335) i, 1276 —— v. S. (5 Tex. Ap. 450) i, 1264 ——, S. v. (1 Jones, N. C. 526) i, 458 Marchant, U.S. 2. (4 Mason, 158; 12 Wheat. "480) i. 1018 Marcum, $. v. (45 Ark. 397) i. 1264 Marcus, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 356) i. 1098 —, U.S. v. (68 Fed. Rep.784) ii. 472 Margerum, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 168) ii. 76 , 8. v. (9 Bax. 862) i. 59 Margetts, Rex v. (2 Leach, 930) ii. 188 Margoley v. C. (38 Met. Ky. 405) i, 1264 Margrave v. U.S. (Morris, 452) i, 691 Maria v. 8. (28 8 Tex. 698) i. 980 Marion v. Lear (108 IIL. 843) i. 1816 , P. v, (28 Mich. 265) i, 485; ii. 415, 421 MAR INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. MAR Marion, P. v. (29 Mich. 31) i.1101; ii. 410, | Marshall v. 8. (74 Ga.26) i. 1074, 1295 419, 427 a | —— v.8. (8 Ind. 498) i. 341, 816, 1020 v, §. (20 Neb. 233; 57 Am. R. — v. S. (128 Ind. 128) i, 487 25) i. 909 | —— v. 8. (40 Tex. 200) i. 978, 980 —, S. v. (15 La. An. 495) i. 664 | —— v. 8. (5 Tex. Ap. 273) i. 1288 Marion Commissioners v. Chambers ii. 562, 637 (75 Ind. 409) i. 1816, 1818 | —— v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 492) ii. 63 Mariot, Rex v. (2 Lev. 221) — —i. 602; | ——, S. v. (8 Ala. 802) i. 926, 934 ii, 426 |; ——, S. v. (14 Ala. 411) ii. 80 Mariposa Co., P. v. (31 Cal. 196) i. 101 | ——, S. o. (37 La. An. 26) i, 747 Mark’s Case (4 Leigh, 658) ii. 181 | —, S. ve. (86 Mo. 400) i, 882, 886 Markham ». S. (265 Ga. 52 ii. 188 | ——, S. v. (47 Mo. 378)- i. 825, 772, 778 —, S. v. (15 La. An. 498 i, 1807 | ——,, S. v. (Phillips, N. C. “) ii. 968 Markle ». 8. (3 Ind. 535) i. 669 | Marshman v. Conklin (6 C. E. Green, Markley v. S. (10 Misso. 291) i403] 646) i. 1841 Marks, P. v. (72 Cal. 46) i. 8360 | Marston v. C. (18 B. Monr. 485) i. 780 —, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 158) i. 1049 ; , 8. v. (81 Me. 292) i. 798 ii. 148, 149) Martha v. S. (26 Ala. 72) i. 816; ii. 86 — , Rex». (3 East, 157) i. 228| Martin, Ex parte (5 Yerg. 456; 26 — v. §. (10 Tex. Ap. 334) i. 1356| Am. D. 276 i. 1264 — , S. v. (30 La. An. 97) i. 314 | —— v. C. (2 Leigh, 745) i, 994, 1126, —,5S. v. (15 Nev. 33) i. 946 1248, 1249; ii. 481 Marlatt v. P. (104 Ill. 364) i, 1278 | —— v. C. (1 Mass. 347) i. 744 Marlborough, Ex parte (5 Q.B. 955) —, C.v. (6 J. J. Mar. 616) i 3l4a ii. 807 | ——, C. v. (98 Mass. 4) i. 189 Marler v. S. (67 Ala. 55; 42 Am. R. —, C. v. (125 Mass. 394) ii, 514 95) i. 1108, 1141, 1170, 1195 ; | —— v. Maguire (7 Gray , 177) ii, 482 b ii. 629, 666 | —— . P. (76 Ill. 499) i. 458, 1810, 1327 — v. 8. (68 Ala. 580) ii, 629 —, P.v. (6 Cal. 477) i. 1264, 1265 —, 8. v. (2 Ala, 48; 36 Am. D. 398) —, P. wv. (82 Cal. 91) i, 1265 i. 1071; ii. 671, 673 | ——, P. v. (47 Cal. 112) i, 779, 1264; Marmont »v. S. (48 Ind. 21) i, 12544 ii. 539 Marquis, P. v. (15 Cal.38) i. 1004; ii. 584 | ——, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P.215) i. 481; Marr v. S. (26 Ark. 410) i. 264 7, 264 m : ii. 976 Marra, C. v. (8 Philad. 440) i, 989 | ——, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C.398; 3 Cox Marre v, S. (86 Ark. 222) i.718| C.C.447; 2 Car. & K. 980) i. 964, Marriot’s Case (1 Salk. 104) i, 236 1266; ii. 980 Marrow, C. v. (8 Brews. 402) i. 1001 | -——, Reg. ». (Law Rep. 1 C. C. 56) ii. 175 Marsack, Rex v. (6 T. R. 771) i. 608 | ——, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C. cae Marsden, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1C. C. i. 271 131; 11 Cox C. C. 90) i, 181, 183 | —— , Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C.C. 318; —. Rex v. (4M. &S. 164) i. 820, 12 Cox C.C. 204) 322; ii. 785, 794 | — , Reg. v. (8 Nev. & P. 472; 8A. —, Rex v. (Moody & M. 439) _— i. 964 & E. 481) ii. 178 Marsh’s Case (Cro. Eliz. 225, 278; 1 —, Rex v. (8 Car. & P.211) i, 1098 Leon. 325) i. 1863 | —, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 128) ii. 517 Marsh v. Bower (2 W. BI. 861) i. 1276 | —, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 562) ii, 965, —,C. v. (10 Pick. 57) i. ies 1189, : 966 —, Reg. ». (1 Den. C. C. 505; 3 —, Rex v. G Leach, 923) ii. 482 Cox c C. 570; Temp. & M. 192) — , Rex ». (1 Moody, 483; 7 Car. ii. 87, 89,195| & P.549 ii, 411, 412, 416 ——, Rex v. (1 Barn. 45) i. 772 | —— v. S. (28 Ala. 71) i. 1128, 1150, —, Rex v. (1 Nev. & P. 187; 6A. 1170; ii. 36, 50, 53 &E, 236 ; 2 Har. & W. 366 ; ‘1 Jur. — v. &. (39 Ala. 5238 i. 1241 38) i. 659, 662, 666, "854, 858, 882 | —— v. S. (47 Ala. 564 i. 978 — «. §. (30 Missis, 627) i. 909 | —— v. S. (62 Ala. 240 i. 360 Marshall, C. v. (15 Gray, 202) i. 1265 ; | —— v. S. (77 Ala. 1) ' i 8l4a ii. 68 | —— v. S. (89 Ala. 115; 18 Am. St. —— v. Chicago, &c. Rid. (48 Ill. 475; 91) i. 185, 1180; ii. 227, 228 95 Am. D. 561) i. 1207 v. S. (90 Ala. 602; 24 Am. St. —— v. Fisher (1 Jones, N. C, 111) i 1845); 844) i. 1231; ii. 613 ——, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 147) i. 1195 | —— v. §, (82 Ark, 124) i, 187; ii, 941 -——, Reg. v. (4 Ellis & B. 475) i. 141] ——»v, S. (40 Ark. 364) i, 266, 278 ——, Rex v. ( 1 Moody, 158) fe 84 |—— v. S. (46 Ark. 88) _ 4. 1005 a — v8. (49 Ala. 21) 622 v, 8. (25 Ga. 494) i. 909, 1018 627 MAS INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. MAT Martin v. S. (388 Ga. 298) i. 1094 | Mason, Rex v. (2 Show. 126) i. 387 — v. S. (51 Ga. 567) i. 269 | ——, Rex v. (2 ‘I. R. 581; 1 Leach, v, S. (6 Humph. 204) i, 821, 671 487 i. 494, 611; ii. 165, 275 — v. 8. (63 Missis. 605; 56 Am. R. 812) i, 975a v. S. (9 Misso. 286) i. 618 — v. S. (16 Ohio, 864) i. 283, 918, 948 —v.8, (16 Tex. 240) i. 488 ; ii. 786 — v. S. (22 Tex. 214) i. 884 v. 8. (40 Tex. 19) ii. 56, 63 a, 77 ——v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 525) ii. 141, 142 — v.S8. (9 Tex.-Ap. 293) i, 951, 998 — v. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 265) i, 264 a — v. 8. (21 Tex. Ap. 1) i, 68, 72 — v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 364 i. 1126 —v. §. (32 Tex. Cr. 441 i, 1265 v. S. (35 Wis. 294) i. 68, 71, 1581 —, S. v. (22 Ark. 420) i. 612 —,S. v. (3 Dev. 329) ii. 976 — S$. v. (3 Hawks, 388) i. 1272 — , 8S. v. (2 Ire. 101) i. 75, 886, 966 c, 1036, 1349, 1352 ) —— 0.8. (42 Ala, 532) —v.§. (42 Ala. 543) — v.58. (82 Ark. 238) ii. 754 v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 623) i1.975c; ii. 945 — v.S. (15 Tex. Ap. 534) i. 909, 975¢, 4.1121, 1125 i, 611, 1120; ii. 153 980 v. 8. (29 Tex. Ap. 24) i, 451 —, S. v. (18 Ire. 341) ii. 848 — , S. v. (82 La. An. 1018) i, 869.4 —,, S. v. (38 La. An. 476) i, 1166 ——, §. v. (26 Or. 273) ii. 801 ——, U.S. v. (12 Blatch. 497) i, 488 ; ii. 405, 406, 408 Massage, S. v. (65 N. C. 480) i. 980 Massey, Rex v. (6 M. & 8. 108) i, 256 v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 580) i. 2644 —— v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 645) i, 1238 —— v. 8. (29 Tex. Ap. 159) i. 975 c, 9804 —, 8. v. (10 Lea, 549) i. 1317 | —— v. S. (31 Tex. Cr. 371) ii. 970 ——, S.v. (10 Misso. 391) i. 683 | —, S. v. (97 N. C. 465) i. 613 —,, S. v. (28 Mo. 530) i. 909, 1146, 1241 | —, 8. v. (104 N. C. 877) i. 1317 —— S. v. (34 Mo. 85) i, 1124] ——’». Walker (10 Ala. 288) ii. 676 —, 8. v. (74 Mo, 547) i. 1020; ii. 628] Massie v. S. (5 Tex. Ap. 81) ii. 912 — , S. v. (3 Murph. 633) ii, $92, 999 | Massure v. S. (86 Tex. 377) ii. 1048 — , S. v. (82 N. C. 672) i. 850 | Masteller, S. v. (45 Minn. 128) _ i. 63, 961 —, S. v. (30 Wis. 216; 11 Am. R. Masterson v. 8. (20 Tex. Ap. 574) i. 458 567) i. 1213 | Mastronada v. 8. (60 Missis. 86) i, 798 —, U.S. v. (2 McLean, 256) i. 1076 | Mathena v. S. (20 Ark. 70) ii. 404, 406, 460 Martinas v. S. (26 Tex. Ap. 91) 4. 1195 v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 460) i. 264.0 Martindale v. S. (19 Tex. Ap. 333) i. 1275 v, 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 473) ii. 163 —, S. v. (52 Mo. 31) i, 1264] Mather v. P. (12 Ill. 9) i, 2647 Martinez, P. v. (66 Cal. 278) i, 12574 , P. v. (4 Wend. 229; 21 Am. D. — v.S. (41 Tex. 164) ii. 741] 122) . 61, 906, 909; ii. 225 —— v.58. (7 Tex. Ap. 394) ii. 902 | ——, S. v. (N. Chip. 32) ii. 131 v. 8. (16 Tex. Ap. 122) ii. 751 v. Whitefoot 18 ‘Car. & P. 270) -ii. 675 Martini, Ex parte (23 Fla. 348) i. 1307 | Mathes, S. v. (90 Mo. 571) i. 1216 Marts v. S. (26 Ohio St. 162) i. 1117; | Matheson ». Grant (2 How. U. S. ii. 615| 263 i, 1018 Marvels, S. v. (2 Harring. Del. 527) ii. 419 | Mathews v. Biddulph (4 Scott, N. R. Marvin, S. v. (12 Iowa, 499) i.1018] 54; 1 Dowl. N. 8. 216) i. 167 —, 5S. v. (85 N. H, 22) i. 1391 h, 684; 5 T.R. Marwilsky v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 877) ii. 183 62) i. 380, 601 Mary v. 8. (24 Ark. 44; 81 Am. D. —— v. S, (19 Neb. 330) i. 1250 60) ii. 47 v. S. (83 Tex. 102) i. 488, 571, 688 v. 8. (5 Misso. 71) i, 966 | —— v. S. (36 Tex. 675) i. 611; ii. 140, 142 Mary Ann, The (8 Wheat. 380) i, 628 v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 138) i, 1250 Marzynski, C. v. (149 Mass. 68) i. 984; —~— 7. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 279) ii. 163, 177 Mask »v. 8. (382 Missis. 405) i. 72, 78, 951, v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 472) ii, 718 1018, 1019, 1037, 1109; ii. 230, 628 | ——, S. v. (98 Mo. 125) i. 966 a, 1181, — v. 8. (86 Missis. 77) i. 980; ii. 600 1186, 1388 Maskill v. S. (8 Blackf. 299) ° i. 618, 845| Mathis v. S. (18 Ga. 343) i. 999 Mason’s Case (1 East, 180) ii. 403 | —— v. S. (8 Heisk. 127) i, 314 Mason, Ex parte (105 U. S. 696) i. 1410 | —— v. S. (94 Ind. 562) i, 665 —, In re (8 Mich. 70) i. 1298 | ——, S. v. (21 Ind. 277) i. 665 —,C.v. (12 Allen, 186) ii, 818 | ——, S. v. (3 Pike, 84) i, 1882 — ,C.v. (8 A. K. Mar. 456) i. 264 | ——,S. v. (80 Tex. 506) ii, 1048 —., C, v. (185 Mass. 555) i. 1174| Mathoit, U. S. v. (1 Saw. 142) ii, 762 — v. Lothrop (7 Gray, 354) i. 184, 214 Matlock, Ex parte (18 Tex. Ap. aay, — v. P. (2 Colo. 873) i. 488 b, 980 ; ii. 764 — v. P. (26N. Y. 200) ii. 138, 142 —, Reg. v, (29 U. C. Q. B.481) ii. 9882 628 — v.58, (25 Tex. Ap. 654; 8 ens St. 451) 740 ii. 7 MAY Matlock, S. v. (82 Mo. 455) i. 68, 71, 74 Mato, Ex parte (19 ‘lex. Ap. 112) i. 314a, 1410 Maton ». P. (15 Il. 536) i. 68, 72, 1018, 1028 Marrassey, S. v. (47 Mo, 295) i. 999, 1009 Matthews v. C. (18 Grat. 989) i. 816, 1283 —, ©. v. (89 Ky. 287) i, 1264 —, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 596; 4 Cox C. C. 214) ii. 988, 989 —, Rex v. (9 Harg. St. Tr. 682) ii. 794 v, S. (55 Ala. 65) i, 1220; ii. 136 — v.S. (55 Ala. 187; 28 Am. R. 698) i, 1244 — uv. S. (9 Lea, 128; 42 Am. R. INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. MAZ May v. P. (60 TIl. 119) i. 1094 —— v. P. (92 Ill. 348) i. 1058, 1343 —, P. vo. (8 Mich. 598) i. 279 ——, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 236) i. 1121 —, Rex v. (1 Doug. 193; 1 T. R. 237 n.) i, 478, 487; ii. 912, 915 —,, Rex v. (1 Leach, 192) i. 660 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 201, note) i. 1817 — v. S. (55 Ala, 89) i. 1212 — v.58. (55 Ala. 164) i. 1011 —— v. S. (85 Ala. 14) i. 1015 v. S. (90 Ga. 793) ii, 627 zv, 8. (14 Ohio, 461; 45 Am. D. 6418) i. 337; ii. 459.4, 460, 472 667) i. 954, 955, 1236 | —— v. S. (15 Tex. Ap. 430) i, 1194 —— v. S. (61 Missis. 155) li. 740 v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 213) ii. 401 — »v. S. (25 Ohio St. 5386) ii. 871, 1051, | ——, U.S. e. (2 MeAr. 512) i. 1291 1052 | Mayberry, S. v. (48 Me. 218) i. 555, v. §. (82 Tex. 117) i. 1115 1265; ii. 205, 216 — v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 23) i. 931 | Maybush v. C. (29 Grat. 857) ii. 1023 —, S. v. (20 Mo. 55) i. 980, 1853; ii. 697 | Mayer v. P. (80 N. Y. 364) ii. 189 —, S. v. (88 Mo. 121) i, 931 | —— v. 8. (48 Ind. 122) i. 7064 —,S.v. (66N.C. 106) i. 1075, 1077, | —, U.S. v. (Deady, 127) ii. 931 1262 —, S. v. (76 N.C. 41) ii. 138, 726 — , S. v. (78 N. C. 5238) ii. 610, 615 —, S. v. (80 N. C. 417) i. 9756 —, §. uv. (9 Port. 370) i, 1359 —, S. v. (42 Vt. 542) ii. 865, 867 Mattingly v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 845) i. 118; ii, 902 Mauch, P. v. (24 How. Pr. 276) ii. 118 Mauck v. S. (66 Ind. 177) i. 1264 Maul v. S. (25 Tex. 166) i. 118 Maule, Ex parte (19 Neb. 273) i. 1801 Maulsby, Ex parte (13 Md. 625) i. 1297 Maunausau, P. v. (60 Mich. 15) —_—i.: 1248 Maunier, U.S. v. (1 Hughes, C. C. 412) i. 1256; ii. 520 Maupin, S. v. (57 Mo. 205) i. 435 Maurer v. P.:(43 N. Y. 1) i. 273 — , S. v. (7 Iowa, 406) i. 772; ii. 488 Maurin, P. v. (77 Cal. 436) i. 975 Maury, S. v. (2 Del. Ch. 141) i. 1418, 1417 Mau-zau-mau-ne-kah v. U.S. (1 Pin. 124; 39 Am. D. 279) i. 665 Mawbey, Rex v. (6 T. R. 619) i, 516, 1038 Max, Ex parte (44 Cal. 579) i. 1005, 1410 —, P. v, (45 Cal. 254) i. 976 Maxon, U. S. v. (5 Blatch. 360) i. 66 Maxwell, Ex parte (11 Nev. 428) i. a —, C. v. (2 Pick. 189) i, 636 —, P. v. (24 Cal. 14) i, 980 a — v. S. (89 Ala. 150) i, 269, 950 b — v.S. (8 Heisk. 420) ii. 67 —, S. v. (42 Iowa, 208) i, 977, 980, 1076, 1077; ii. 180, 141 —, S. v. (47 Iowa, 454) ii. 4256 — .,S. v. (51 Iowa, 314) i. 1264 —, S. v. (28 La. An. 361) ii. 921 — , U. S. v. (3 Dil. 275) i, 145 May v. Milwaukee, &. Ry. (8 Wis. 21 9) i. 897 v. P. (8 Colo. 210) i. 999; ii. 612 Mayes v. P. (106 Ill. 806; 46 Am. R. 698 i. 9756; ii, 541 — , P. v. (66 Cal. 597; 56 Am. R. 126) ii. 963 — v.S. (3 Heisk. 430) i. 50, 885 v. S. (64 Missis. 329; 60 Am. R. 58) ii, 625 Mayfield, In re (141 U. 8.107) i. 814a, 1410 —— v. 8. (110 Ind. 591) i. 975c, 12544 — vw. 8. (40 Tex. 289) i. 1264, 1296 — v.58. (44 Tex. 59) i. 1280; ii. 63a, 64, 77 — _, 5S. v. (66 Mo. 125) ii, 583 Mayhew v. Hill (2 Esp. 683) i. 235 v. Locke (2 Marshall, 377) i. 239 —— v. Parker (8 T. R. 110) i. 285 ——, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 315) ii. 932 Mayloy, C. v. (57 Pa. 291) i. 1298 Maynard, Rex »v. (2 East P. C. 501) ii. 188 v. §. (46 Ala. 85 ii. 697, 746 —— v. §. (14 Ind. 427) i. 449 —, 8. v. (19 Nev. 284) 1. 975c, 1181 Mayne »v. Fletcher (4 Man. & R. : 311) ii. 800 Maynes, S. v. (61 Iowa, 119 i. 1179 Mayo v. James (12 Grat. 17 i. 1405 — v. 8. (80 Ala. 82) i. 449, 455, 457; ii. 321, 825, 329 — v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 342} i. 481; ii. 947 —, U.S. ». (1 Curt. C. C. 483) i. 268 —— v. Whitson (2 Jones, N. C. 231) i. 1343 v. Wilson (1 N. H. 58) i. 180 Mayor v. Mason (4 Dall. 266) i. 720 Mays v. C. (82 Va. 550) i, 893 — v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 484) ii. 173 —, S. v. (24 8. C. 190) i. 717, 721 Mayson, S. v. (3 Brev. 284) ii. 937 Mayworm, P. v. (5 Mich. 146) i. 688 Mazagora, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 291) i. 1098; ii. 422 629 MEH INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. MER Mazon, S. v. (90 N. C. 676) i. 1049 | Meier v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 39) __ fi, 68 Mazzia v. S. (51 Ark.177) i. 975.c, 976 | Meiers v. S. (56 Ind. 836) 1. 850; ii. 515, lang P. v. (74 Ill. 292) i, 2644 516 . v, (78 N. C. 477) i. 979 | Meinaka w. S. (55 Ala. 47) i. 1227 Mead, Xo v. (12 Gray, 167; 71 Am. Meinhart, S. v. (73 Mo. 562) ii. 68 D. 741) i. 857, 858; ii. 6157 Meister v. P. (81 Mich. 99) i, 282 —, C. v. (160 Mass. 319) ii, 322 | Meixsell v. Williamson (35 Ill. 529) —— v. Daniel (2 Port. 86) ji. 882 i. —— v. Haws (7 Cow. 382) i. 679 | Melick, S. v. (65 Iowa, 614) ii, 53 —, P. v. (50 Mich. 228) i. 1097 | Meller’s Case (3 Inst. 167) ii. 922 —,, P. v. (92 N. Y. 415) i. 187 | Melling, C. v. (14 Gray, 888) i, 685 —, Rex v. (2 B. & C. 605) i. 1207; | Mellon, P. v. (40 Cal. 648) i. 314; ii. 727 ii. 935. | Mellor, P. v. (2 Colo. 705) i, 226, 264, — v. S. (26 Ohio St. 505) ‘i. 683, 706b 264 a — v. S. (24 Vroom, 601) i. 1015, 1287; | —,, S.v. (13 R. I. 666) i. 850 ii. 483 | Melrose, S. v. (98 Mo. 594) i. 1248 —,S.v. (4 Blackf. 309; 30 Am. Melton v. S. (8 Humph. 889) i. 1269, 1351; D. 661 i, 892 ii. 787 —, 5S. v. (15 R. I. 416) i, 884a | ——v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 619) i, 1854 —, S. v. (27 Vt. 722) ii. 1050 | —— v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 488) i. 975c, 976 Meader, S. v. (47 Vt. 78) ii. 65, 611, 613 v. S. (30 Tex. Ap. 273) ii. 65 Meadows, S. v. (22 W. Va. 766) ii. 129 | ——, S. v. (Busbee, 426) i. 2640 Meagher, oe v. (57 Vt. 398) i, 1391 | ——, S. v. (87 La. An. 77) i, 949 —, U. S. v. (87 Fed. Rep. 875) —i. 860 , S. (102 Mo. 683) ii. 656, 659 Meaker, S.v . (564 Vt. 112) i. 909 | Melvane, P. v. (89 Cal. 614) ii. 740 Meakim, P, v. (183 N. ¥. 214) ii, 822] Melvin v. Bullard (35 Vt. 268) ii, 751 Mealer v. S. (82 Tex. Cr. 102) i, 1265 v. Easley (1 Jones, N. C. 386; Meaney, C. v. (151 Mass. 55) i966] 62 Am. D. 171) i. 1180 Means v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 16; 38 Am. Memmnler v. 8. (75 Ga. 576) 1.460; ii. 69 R. 640) i, 91a, 980; ii. 625 —, U.S. v. (42 Fed. Rep. 599) i. 1094 Meany, P. v. (4 Johns. 294) i, 994 — , Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 213; 9 Cox C.C. 231) i. 1004 Mears v. C. (2 Grant, Pa. 385) i. 519, 535, 587 ; ii. 82 —, Reg. v. (2 Den. C.C.79; 1 oe L. & Eq. 581) i. 244, 279 Meaux v. Whitehall (8 Bradw. 173) i, 943 4 ii. 147 ii. 154 Meche, S. v. (42 La. An. 278) Mecker, S. v. (42 La. An. 273) Medaris v. S. (10 Yerg. 239) i. 692 Medcalf v. C. (84 Ky. 485) i. 814, 1264 Medis v. S. (27 Tex. Ap. 194; 11 Am. St. 192) i, 1825; ii. 1018 Medler v. S. (26 Ind. 171) i, 1265 Medley, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 292) ii. 878 Medlicott, S. v. (9 Kan. 257) i. 1212 Medlin v. C. (11 Bush, 605) i. 263.4 Medlock v. S. (18 Ark. 363) i, 400, 611 Meece v. C. (78 Ky. 586) i, 278, 1001 Meek v. Perry (36 Missis. 190) ii. 625 v. Pierce (19 Wis. 300) i, 188, 245 — ,S.v. (70 Mo. 355; 35 Am. R. 4277) i. 822 Meekins, S. v. (41 La. An. 548) i. 268, 816, 1227 Meeks »v. (51 Ga. 429) ii. 67, 97, 628 — v. S. (57 Ga. 829) i. 922, 1269, 1979 v. 8. (32 Tex. Cr. 420) ii. 927 Megowan », C. (2 Met. Ky. 8) i. 899, 707 a Megson, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 420) i, 1212; ii, 960, 963 Mehan v. S. (7 Wis. 670) i, 1049 6380 Memphis v. Brown (94 U. 8S. 715) i. 1298 —, U.S. v. (97 U.S. 284) i. 118 Memphis German Sav. Inst. v. Har- gan (9 Heisk. 496) i, 1869 Menage, Reg. v. (38 Fost. & F. 310) i. 1085, 1087 Mendiola v. §. (18 Tex. Ap. 462) i. 975¢; ii. 670 Mendum». C. (6 Rand. 704) i. 951, 1078, 1179, 1195, 1262 i, 691 i. 762 Menhart, S. v. (9 Kan. 98) Mentor v. P. (30 Mich. 91) Mercer, Reg. v. (6 Jur. 248) ii, 966 v, 8. (17 Ga. 146) i, 909, 918, 984, 980, 1003, 1142, 1150, 1245 — vv. S. (17 Tex. Ap. 452) i, 9754 —, S. v. (19 Iowa, 570) i. 1264 —, S. v. (67 N.C. 266) i. 918 Merceron, Rex v. (2 Stark. 366) — i, 1255 Merchant, S. v. (88 Iowa, 375) i. 714 Mercier, Rex v. (1 Leach, 183) i. 733 a Meredeth ». P. (84 Ill. 479) i. 314 Meredith v. Davies (1 Salk. 270) i. 1879 v. Lackey (14 Ind. 529) i. 951 — v. S. (40 Tex. 480) ii. 68 a, 77 Meriam, C. v. (7 Mass. 168) ii. 666, 687 b Merionethshire, Reg. v. (6 Q. B. 348) Merkle v. Bennington (58 Mich. 156; 55 Am. R. 666) i, 1111 v. Bolles (6 Blackf. 288) i. 816 v. 8. (87 Ala, 139) i. 1179 Merriam v. Hartford, &c. Rid. (20 Conn, 364; 52 Am. D. 344) i. 1152 Merrick v. S. (63 Ind. 827) i. ae ii. MET Merrick, S. v, (19 Me. 398) ii. 745 Merrifield, C. v. (4 Met. 468) ii. 320, 324 Merrihew, S. v. (47 Iowa, 112; 29 Am. R. 464) i. 68, 264 b, 2647 Merrill, C. v. (8 Allen, 545) — i. 750, 752, 754, 789, 790, 806, 811, 812 —, C. v. (14 Gray, 415; 77 Am. D. ) i. 128, 977, 1265; ii. 979 — v. Grinnell (80 N. Y. 694) =i. 1178; ii. 677 —, P. v. (4 Kern. 74) i. 1866 — v.S. (46 Ala. 82) i. 251 — v. S. (45 Missis. 651) i. 1005 — v.S. (58 Missis. 65) i. 1213 —, &. v. (3 Blackf. 346) ii, 841 — , S. v. (2 Dev. 269) i. 1112; ii. 600 —, 8. v. (37 Me. 329) i. 784 —— S$. v. (44.N. H. 624) i. 443, 1391, 1396 ; ii. 714, 718 — v. Whitefield (41 Me. 414) i. 1149 Merriman v. 8. (6 Blackf. 449) i. 488 Merritt v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 177) i. 1060 — , 8. v. (89 N. C. 506) i. 612 — v. Thompson (1 Hilton, 550) i. 2647 Merriweather v. S. (83 Tex. 789) ii. 726 Merriwether v. S. (81 Ala. 74) i. 1151 Meserve v. C. (187 Mass. 109) ii — v. Hicks (4 Fost. N. H. 295) i. Meservey, P. v. (76 Mich. 223) i. 1298 Meshek, S. v. (51 Iowa, 308) i. 975 c, 978 —, 8. v. (61 lowa, 316) i. 971, 1273 Mershon v. 8. (44 Ind. 598) i. 68, 71, 72 — v.§. (51 Ind.14) _ i. 449, 461, 689 8, 744, 872, 877, 878, 883, 884, 1185; ii. 633 Mertens, S. v. (14 Mo. 94) i. 700 Merwin v. P. (26 Mich. 298; 12 Am. R. 314) i, 495, 552, 558; ii. 700, 7038 — , S. v. (384 Conn. 118) i. 1015a Mesca, Respublica v. (1 Dall. 73) i. 980 Mesmer »v. C. (26 Grat. 976) i. 160 Mess, P. v. (65 Cal. 174) i, 1291 Messenger, C. v. (4 Mass. 462) i. 141, 1264; ii. 813 — 5S. vo. (58 N. H. 348) i. 612 Messersmith, P. c. (57 Cal. 575) i. 975 ¢, 980 a —, P. v. (61 Cal. 246) i. 980; ii. 671 Messinger, C. v. (1 Binn.273; 2 Am. D. 441) ii. 758 Messingham, Rex v. (1 Moody, 257) i, 1087; ii. 982, 988 Messner v. P. (45N. ¥.1) i. 1265, ae Metcalf v. Watertown (128 U.S. 586) _ . i. é Metcalfe v. Conner (Litt. Sel. Cas. 497 ; 12 Am. D. 340) ii. 229 —, Reg. v. (8 Cox C. C. 220) i. 947, 949 Methard v. S. (19 Ohio St. 363) ii. 131, 152 Metropolitan Telephone, &c. Co., P. v. (11 Abb. N. Cas. 804; 64 How. Pr. 120) 1.1417 Metsch, S. v. (87 Kan. 222) ii. 175 Metts v. S. (29 Ga. 271) i. 951 a INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. 3} Mickey v. C. (9 Bush, 593) — i. 472, TT a, 1 MID Metz v. C. (2 Met. Ky. 14) ii. 494 Metzer v, 8. (39 Ind. 596) i. 1260 Metzger, In re (1 Barb. 248; 1 Par. Cr. 108) i, 224 ——, In re (5 How. U. S. 176) i, 224 — v.§. (18 Fla. 481) i. 918, 975c, 980, 1220 —, S. ov. (26 Mo. 65) i. 1350 Metzker v. P. (14 Ill. 101) i. 689 — , P. v. (47 Cal. 524) i. 314 Meuly v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 382) ii. 1054 — v. §. (26 Tex. Ap. 274; 8 Am. St. 477) i. 68, 975¢ Meurer v. S. (129 Ind. 587) i. 1279 Mewherter, 8. v. (46 Iowa, 88) i. 68, 72, 874 Meyer, Ex parte (57 Missis. 85) i. 1817 v. Goedel (31 How. Pr. 456) i. 1265 — _, P. v. (73 Cal. 548) i. 969 —, Reg. v. (1 Q. B. D. 1738) i. 314 v. S, (19 Ark. 156) i. 909, 1238 —— v. §. (50 Ind. 18) i. 6895 v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 219) i. 1264 ——v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap.121) ii. 718, 714 —, 8. v. (64 Mo. 190) i. 360 —, 8. vu. (1 Speers, 305) i. 571, 586; ii, 815 —, S. v. (58 Vt. 457) i. 909, 975 ¢ —— v. Sulzbacher (76 Ala. 120) i. 478 Meyers, Ex parte (44 Mo. 279) i. 1810, 1827 — r.C. (83 Pa, 181) i. 1095; ii. 671 ——, P. v. (1 Sheldon, 429) 1. 264 m —— vr. §. (20 Ind. 511) i. 909 v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 35) ii, 632 , 8. uv. (61 Mo. 414) * i, 250 —,S. v. (68 Mo. 266) i. 405; ii. 823 a —, 8. v. (99 Mo. 107) i. 480, 966 d, 1220, 1254.4, 1282; ii. 548, 588, 591 Meynell’s Case (2 Lewin, 122) i. 1239 Miami v. Blake (21 Ind. 82) i. 1316, 1317, 1887 Miard, Reg. v. (1 Cox C.C.22) ii. 10296 Miazza v.8. (86 Missis. 613) —_i. 400, 755 Michael, Reg. v. (2 Moody, 120; 9 Car. & P. 356) ii. 658, 645 , Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 29; 2 Leach, 938) i. 515; ii. 271 v. S. (40 Ala. 361) i. 1817 Michel v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 108) ii. 1054 Mick, Reg. ev. (3 Fost.& F.822) — i. 1228 Mickal, Rex v. (11 Mod. 261) i. 1407 94 6 | —— v. C. (13 Bush, 237) i. 68, 72 Mickle v. S. (27 Ala. 20) i. 1079 Middleham, S. v. (62 Iowa, 150) i. 1254 Middlehurst, Rex v. (1 Burr. 399) i. 585 Middlemore, Reg. v. (6 Mod. 212) i. ub, Middlesex Justices, Rex v. (8 Nev. & M. 110) i, 815 ——, Rex v. (2 Q. B.D, 616) i. 1402, 1403 Middlesex Special Commission (6 Car. & P. 90) i, 868, 878 631 MIL INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. MIL Middleton v. C. (2 Watts, 285) i. 1265 | Miller, C. v. (8 Cush. 243) i. 1126; ii. ae — v. Crofts (Andr. 57) i, 1813 —— v. Holmes (3 Port. 424) i. 159 | ——, C.v. (6 Dana, 315) i, 1126, 1342, ine v, S, (52 Ga. 527) i. 1169, 1170 |} —, C. v. (79 Ky. 451) i. 408 —— v.58. (53 Ga, 248) ii. 779 | ——, C. v. (Lewis Crim. Law, oes Ai, 598 — , S. v. (5 Port. 484) i, 851, 884 | ——, C. v. (150 Mass. 69) 1018 Middletown v. Ames (7 Vt. 166) i. 907 | ——, C. v. {30 Pa, 276) ‘ie 888 Midville, Reg. v. (4 Q. B. 240) ii. 1048 | ——, C. v. (189 Pa. 77; 23 Am. St. Mieir v. McMillan (51 Iowa, 240) i. 1327! 170) i, 1094; ii. 8694 Miera, Territory v. (1 New Mex. 387) —, C. v. (1 Va. Cas. 310) ii. 584 i. 610; ii. 56 | —— v. Finkle (1 Par. Cr. 374) i. 1298 Mikell v. S. (62 Ga. 368) ' i. 850, 931 | —— v. Gilleland (19 Pa. 119) ii. 409 Mikle, S.v. (81 N. C. 552) i. 1247 | —— v. Maxwell (16 Wend. 9) ii. 786, 788 Milan »v. S, (24 Ark. 346) i. 1359 | —— v. Miller (8 Jolms. 74) ii. 809 Milburn, Ex parte (9 Pet. 704) i. 263 a, | —— v. Miller (14 Mo. Ap. 418) i. 1155 1383 | —— ». New York (18 Blatch. 469) i. 1417 — , U.S. v. (4 Cranch, C. C. 719) ii. 273 v. P. (5 Barb. 208) i. 1100 Miles, In re (52 Vt. 609) i, 228 a, 224b | —— v. P. (18 Colo. 166) ii. 983 v. Loomis (10 Hun, 872) ii. 482 ¢ | —— v. P. (21 Hun, 443) ii. 703 ——v. Loomis (75 N. Y. 288; 31 v. p (25 Hun, 473) i. 1006 Am. R. 470) ii. 432 b | —— v. P. (39 Il. 457) i. 688, 1237 — , P. v, (143 N. Y. 383) ii. 674 | —— »v. P. (2 Scam. 233) i. 535; ii, 269 —— v. Rempublicam (4 Yeates, 319) . — v. P. (52 N. Y. 804; 11 Am. R. i. 1362, 1366} 706) ii, 407, 410 —, Rex v. (Car. Crim. Law, 3d ed. —, P. v. (12 Cal. 291) i. 405 61) i. 1223 | —, P. v. (88 Cal. 99) i. 273 ——, Rex v. (1 Doug. 284) i. 713 | —, P. v. (66 Cal. 468) i. 1159 v. S. (98 Ga. 117; 44 Am. St. —, P. v. (14 Johns. 371) i, 722 140) ii. 979 | ——, P. v. (49 Mich. 23) ii. 67 — v.S. (3 Tex. Ap. 58) i. 1010; ii. 751, |——, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 197) i. 1145; ii. 19 764 v. §. (40 Ala. 54) i. 989, 1236 ——v. §. (14 Tex. Ap. 436) j. 975¢ v. S, (45 Ala. 24) i, 126, 424; ii. 48d v. S. (5 W. Va, 524) i. 1050 | —— ». 8. (77 Ala. 41) i. 1074 —, S. v. (4 Ind. 577) i, 147, 514 v. §. (40 Ark. 488) i. 1400 =e Ss. ee (31 La. An, Say i. 931 v. 8. (8 Blackf. 77) i, 264A U.S. (103 U.S. 304) i. 917 v, §. (15 Fla. 575) i, 254, 1310 —, v. Sv. (2 Utah, 19) i. 917 v, S. (15 Fla. 577) i. 962, 1185 Milgate, P. v. (5 Cal. 127) i, 1093, 1095, | —— »v. S. (58 Ga. 200) ii. 94 1116 v. S. (5 How. Missis. 250) i. 436, 587 Milhau v. Sharp (27 N. Y. 611; 84 — v. 8. (8 Ind. 325) i, 821 Am. D. 314) i. 1417 v. S. (9 Ind. 840) i. 95la Millain, S. v. (8 Nev. 409) i, 278, 890, | —— v. S. (42 Ind. 544) i. 95la@ : 909; ii. 569, 583, 584 | —— v. S. (51 Ind. 405) i, 424, 458 Millar, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 665) i. 60 v. S. (56 Ind. 187) i. 1265 — v.S. (2 Kan. 174) i. 667, 13838, | —— v. S. (69 Ind. 284) i. 689 b ; 1400 v. 8. (72 Ind. 421) ii. 1053 Millard, C. v. (1 Mass. 6) i. 951a; ii. 745, v. S. (73 Ind. 88) ii, 182 ; _ _ 146, 747 | —— v. S. (79 Ind. 198) i. 322 —, P. v. (53 Mich. 63) i. 1059, 1179 | —— ». S. (83 Ind. 834) ii. 2874 —, Reg. v. (Dears. 166 ; 6 CoxC.C. v. 8. (107 Ind. 152) i. 855 150; 20 Eng. L. & Eq. 595) i. 717, 718 v. S. (4 Iowa, 505) i. 68, 1264; ii. 436 ——, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 245) ii. 428 v. 8. (83 Missis. 356 ; 69 Am. D. —, U.S. »v, (18 Blatch. 584) i. 586] 351) i. 400, 884, 889 Milledgeville Manuf. Co. v. Ethe- v. §. (58 Missis. 403) i. 711; ii. 63 a, ridge (63 Ga. 568) i. 982 11 Miller’s Case (9 Cow. 730) i, 1299 v. S. (29 Neb. 487) i. 269, 909, 959.a, Miller, Ex parte (82 Cal. 464) i. 1807, 1410 966¢ —, Ex parte (41 Tex. 213) i. 262 v. S. (3 Ohio St. 475) i. 814.a, 872, ——, In re (23 Fed. Rep. 32) i, 224 522, 816, 817 —, In re (42 Fed. Rep. 307) i. 1411 | —— v. S. (48 Tex. 579) i. 1264 v, Balthasser (78 Ill. 802) i. 1095 | —— v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 251) i, 1159 — v. C. (1 Bibb, 404) i, 123) ——v.8. th Tex. Ap. 417} di. 180 — v. C, (78 Ky. 15; 39 Am, R. —— v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 34) 1.975; ii, 740 194 i, 1124, 1248 | —— ». §, (18 Tex. Ap. 282) i. 1249, —,, C. v. (4 B. Monr. 418) i, 264 m 1274 632 MIL Miller v. S. (27 Tex. Ap. 63) i. 293, 9754, 976 c, 1212 — v.S. (28 Tex. Ap. 445) i. 975c, 978; ii. 147 — v.§. (31 Tex. Cr. 609; 37 Am. St. 836) ii. 629 —, S. v. (3 Ala. 343) i. 854 —, S. v. (6 Bax. 5138) i. 1291 —, 8. v. (5 Blackf. 502) ii. 275, 490 —,, S. v. (24 Conn. 519) i, 652.4 —, dS. v. (24 Conn. 522) i. 442, 443, 6389 —, S.v. (1 Dev. & Bat. 500) i. 999 —., 8. v. (8 Gill, 335) ii. 409 —, 8. v. (98 Ind. 70) i. 612 —,S. v. (107 Ind. 39) i. 68, 74 —, S. v. (53 Iowa, 84, 154) i. 850, 931 —,, S. v. (53 Towa, 154) i. 975c, 984, 987 — 5S. v. (7 Ire. 275) i. 1015 — , S. v. (25 Kan. 699) ii. 64 — , S. v. (29 Kan. 438) i. 909 — , S. v. (85 Kan. 328) i, 1262 — , S. v. (386 La. An. 158) i, 1285 —,S. v. (42 La. An. 1186; 21 Am. St. 418) i. 966 b, 1220 —, S. v. (4 Lea, 734) i. 286 —,S. v. (48 Me. 576) i. 241 —, 8. v. (10 Minn. 313) - i. 1275 —, S. v. (15 Minn. 344) i. 68, 71 —, S. v. (23 Minn. 352) i. 1264 —, 8. v. (45 Minn. 521) ii. 740 — , S. v. (67 Mo. 604) i, 1015 a —, 8. v. (100 Mo. 606) i. 1161, 1353, 1394 —, S. v. (75 N. C. 78) i. 801, 318 , 8. v. (93 N.C. 511; 58 Am. R. 469) i. 488 b —, S. v. (94 N. C. 902) i, 1298 —, S. v. (94 N. C. 908) i. 1264 —,S. »v. or N. C. 450) i, 1264 —_, S. v. (97 N. C. 484) i. 1169 —, 8. v. (100 N. C. 648) ii, 825, 827 —, S. v. (112 N. C. 878) ii. 638 a — , S. v. (81 Tex. 564) i, 251 —, S. v. (84 Tex. 535) i.516a — , S. v. (24 W. Va. 802) i. 1181 — , S. c. (38 Wash. 131) i. 1279 ; ii, 133 4 — , S. v. (47 Wis. 530) i, 1120, 1124; ii. 482 b v. Snyder (6 Ind.1) _i.814 a, 1410 — ». Territory (3 Wash. Ter. 554) : i. 975 ¢ Millett, Ex parte (37 Mo. Ap. 76) i. 1410 v. Baker (42 Barb, 215) i. 227 —— v. Blake (81 Me. 531; 10 Am. St. 275) i. 688 Millhouse, Reg. v. (15 Cox C. C. 622) | i, 962 Millican v. S, (25 Tex. 664) i. 625 — v.S. (26 Tex. 365) i, 1264 —, 5S. v. (15 La. An. 557) 3. 964, 1287 Millikin v. 8. (21 Ohio St. 635) i. 264. Millington, Rex v. (1 Car. & P. 88) i. 691 Million v. P. (6 Bradw. 537) i, 488 Millis, Reg. v. (10 Cl. & F. 534) i. 1006 Millius v. Shafer (8 Denio, 60) i. 281 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. MIN Mills, In re (185 U. S, 268) v. C. (7 Leigh, 751) —— v. C. (13 Pa, 627) i. 1810 i. 1008, 1012 i. 816, 1015 a, 1310 —, C. v. (6 Bush, 296) i, 314 a, 433 ; ii. 867 — v. Kennedy (1 Bailey, 17) i. 687 , P. v. (17 Cal. 276) ii. 960 — , Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 146) i, 1227 — v. §. (52 Ind. 187) i, 458, 1270; : ii. 952, 972 —— v. §. (4 Tex. Ap. 263) i. 1848 —,S. v. (19 Ark. 476) i. 1001 —,S. v. (2 Dev. 420) i. 264; ii. 390 —,S. v. (17 Me. 211) ii. 171 —, S. v..(91 N. C. 581) i. 921, 1212 —, S. v. (12 Nev. 403) i. 8144 — , 5S. v. (83 W. Va. 455) i, 884 —,U.S. v. (7 Pet. 188) ii. 1002 Millsaps, S. v. (69 Mo. 889) i, 264 k, 264 m Milne, P. v. (60 Cal. 71) i. 437 Milner, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K.310) —__i. 58 Milnes, Reg. v. (2 Fost. & F.10) ii. 934 —, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 602) ii. 782 Milo, S. v. (82 Me. 55) ii. 1047 ——, S. v. (82 Me. 57) ii. 1045 Milstead v. S. (19 Tex. Ap. 490) ii. 63 Milton v. Blackshear (8 Fla. 161) i. 1279 —, Reg. v. (10 Cox C. C. 364) ii. 478 —,, Rex v. (Moody & M. 107) i. 193 —— v. Rowland (11 Ala, 732) ii. 677 — v. §. (6 Neb. 136) ii. 603 Miltonvale v. Lanoue (85 Kan. 603) i, 1264, 1301, 1810 Milwaukee Indust. Sch. v. Super- visors (40 Wis. 828; 22 Am. R. 702) i. 1810 Mimms v. S. (16 Ohio St. 221) i, 934, 949, 979, 1108; ii. 629 Mims v. 8. (26 Minn. 494) i. 1801 — v. 8. (26 Minn. 498) i. 1827 —,S. v. (42 La. An. 944) i. 762 —§. v. (26 Minn. 191) ii. 329 Minau, S. v. (87 La. An. 526) ii. 77 Miner v. Markham (28 Fed. Rep. 387) 1. 207 a —, P. v. (2 Lans. 396) i. 287 Ming v. 8. (73 Ala. 1) i, 975 c, 978 Mingia rv. P. (54 Ill. 274) i. 1269 Mingo, U. 8. v. (2 Curt. C. C. 1) 1. 384, 969, 970, 971; ii. 600 Mings v. C. (85 Va. 638) ii. 969 Minich v. P. (8 Colo. 440) —_ i. 788, ere Minnaugh, P. v. (181 N. Y. 568) i. ae Minnock, P. v. (52 Mich. 628) i, 822 Minor v. 8. (1 Blackf. 236) i. 264 c, 264 d v. S. (66 Ga. 630) i. 978; ii. 746 —— v. S. (63 Ga. 318) i. 685 — v. S. (86 Missis. 630) i. 1264 Minshall, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 576) i, 950 8 Minski, S. v. (7 Iowa, 336) i, 72 633 MIT INDEX TO THE Minton, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 1021) ii. 44 —, Rex v. (1 MacN. Ev. 886) — i. 1212 —, 8.v. (19 S.C. 280) i. 264. a, 24 e Minyard, S. v. (7 Eng. 156) ji. 294 Mirelles v. S. (138 Tex. Ap. 346) i. 1264 Mishler v. C. (62 Pa. 55; 1 Am. R. 377) i. 264 f, 1299 Misner, Pennsylvania v. (Addison, 44 ii. 486 Mississippi v. Johnson (4 Wal. 475) i. 1414 Missouri v. Lewis (101 U. S. 22) i. 891 Missouri City v. Hutchinson (71 Mo. 46 Wasi River, &c. Rid. v. Wilson (10 Kan. 105) i. 706 Missouri, &v. Ry. v. Chicago, &c. Rid. (132 U. S. 191) i. 1268 Mitchel, Reg. v. (8 Cox C.C.1) i. 783, 793, 931 a, 932 a, 984, 951 a — , Reg. v. (8 Cox C. C. 98) i, 1895 Mitchell, Ex parte (104 Mo. 121; 24 i, 230 Am. St, 324 i. 1410 — v. C, (42 Bush, 247) i. 250 »v. C. (838 Grat. 845) i. 3144 —— »v. C. (37 Pa. 187) i, 1269 v. C. (75 Va. 856) —, C. v. (7 Gray, 324) ii 24 —,C.v. (8d. J. Mar. 630) i. 1364 —, C. v. (115 Mass. 141) i. 894, 402 —,C. v. (117 Mass. 481) i. 1236, 1287 = C. v. (2 Wheeler Crim. Cas. 471) i. 1006 v. Jacobs (17 Ill. 236) ii. 753 —, P. v. (55 Cal. 236) ii. 152 —, P. ». (62 Cal. 411) i, 293, 9756 —, P. e. (92 Cal. 590) ii. 420 —, P. v. (94 Cal. 550) i, 1179 —, Reg. v. (17 Cox C. C. 503) i. 1213 ——., Reg. v. (2 Q. B. 636) i, 380 —— v. §. (58 Ala. 417) ii. 632 i, 1273 — o.8. (60 Ala. 26) — v.38. (5 Coldw. 53) ii. 48d v. 8. (7 Eng. 50; 54 Am. D. 253) i. 185; ii. 368 —— v. S. (22 Ga. 211; 68 Am. 1D. 493) i. 280, 909, 934, 51a, 1001, 1008, 1265 —v.S. ie Ga. 527) i, 9516 v. 8. (55 Ga. 556) i, 1278 —— v. 8. (71 Ga, 128) i. 1086, 1196, 1209 —— v. 8. (19 Ind. 381) i. 62 —— v.S. (3 Misso. 283; 25 Am. D. 442) i. 1862 v. S. (42 Ohio St. 383) i. 826 — v.58. eg Tex. 512) i. 931 — v. 8. (1 Tex. Ap. 194) i. 1276 —— v.8. (2 Tex. Ap. 404) 1. 1012, 1265 v, S. 33 Tex. Cr. 675) ii. 979 —v.5. eae 840) ii. 570, 584, 603 v. 8. (8 Yerg. 514) i. 883, 660, 662; il. 570, 574, 684 8 S, vl Bay, 267) i. 140, 772 ——,, 8. v. (68 Iowa, 116) ii, 968 634 CASES CITED. MOL Mitchell, S. v. (5 Ire. 350) 4. 1100 ——, 8. v. (41 La. An. 1078) i. 975 c; ii. 613 ——, 8. v. (6 Misso. 147) i, 611 — S$. v. (25 Mo. 420) ii. 296 —’ S.v, (64 Mo. 191) i. 9804; ii. 602 'S. v. (Phillips, N. C. 447) "i. 1226 —, U.S. uv. (2 Dall. 348) i. 1120; ii. 1036 —,, U.S. uv. (1 Hughes, C. C. 439) ii, 228, 229 Mitchener, S. v. (98 N.C. 689) i. Y89a; ii. 754 Mitchum »v. S. (11 Ga. 615) i, 384, 572, 577, 685, 909, 949 b, 1085, 1086 ; ii. 625 Mitton, Rex v. (8 Car. & P. 31) i, 198 Mix v. P. (26 LL 82) i, 264% i. 966 a, 980 a, 998, 1126, 1149 v. Woodward (12-Conn. 262) ii. 799 Mixon v. 8. (55 Missis. 525) i. 1060 —— v. §. (28 Tex. Ap. 347) i. 118 Mize, S. v. (86 Kan. 187) i. 975 c, 978 Moan, P. v. (65 Cal. 632) i. 966 Moate, Rex v. ay; B. & Ad. 287) i. 691 Mobbs, Reg. v. (2 Fost. & F.18) i. 951 Mobile v. Harton (47 Ala. 84) i. 1264 ——, S. v. (24 Ala. 701) i, 706 Mobiey v. 8. (53 Ala. 646) i. 1264 v. §. (46 Missis. 501) i. 478, 488 b, 1052, 1288, 1342; ii, 954 Mockabee ». C. (78 Ky. 380) i, 1213 Mockford, Reg. v. (17 L. T. n.s. 582; 11 Cox C.C. 16) i. 1057 Moeck v. P. (100 Ill. 242; 89 Am. R. 38) i. 1207 Moelchen, S. v. (53 Iowa, 310) i. 1097 Moett v. P. (85 N. Y. 373) i, 975.¢, 1299 ——, P. v. (58 How. Pr. 467; 28 Hun, 60) i. 1181 Moffatt v. S. (6 Eng. 169) i. 611, 680 ——, 8. v. (7 Humph. 250) ii. 921 Moffett, S. v. (1 Greene, Iowa, aa i. 871 Moffit v. S. (2 Humph. 99; 36 Am, D. 301) i. 1019 —— v. §. (43 Tex. 346) ii. 852 Moffitt, S. v. (31 Iowa, 316) ii. 58 Mogg, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 364) i. 1100; ii. 645, 845 Mohler »v. P. (24 Ill. 26) i. 1264, 1267, 1356 Mohn, C. v, (52 Pa. 248; 91 Am. D. 15 3) ii. 200 Mohr, In re (73 Ala. 503; 49 Am. R. 63) i. 220, 223 —, S. v. (68 Mo. 808) ii, 823 a Mohun’s Case (1 Salk. 104) i. 256 Mohun, Rex v. (Holt, 84; Skin. eh Moice, P. v. (15 Cal, 329) i. 304, 322, 93: Moles, S..v. (9 Misso. 694) i. 691 Moletor v, Sinnen (76 Wis. 308; 20 Am. St, 71) i, 22 MON Molett v. S. (33 Ala. 408) i. 405, 691 Molette v. S. (49 Ala. 18) i. 978 Molier, S. v. (1 Dev. 263) i. 854; ii. 932 Molihan v. S. (80 Ind. 266) i. 738 Molins v. Werby (1 Lev. 76) i, 1369 Molisse, S. v. (36 La. An. 920) i. 1212 —,S.v. (88 La. An. 881; 58 Am. R. 181) i. 1086 Moller, U. S. v. (16 Blatch. 65) i. 712 Molloy, U.S. v, (81 Fed. Rep. 19) i. 1854 Molyneux v. Huey (81 N.C. 106) i. 1298 Monahan, C. v. (9 Gray, 119) i. 401; ii. 911, 981 Monaquas, §. v. (T. U. P. Charl. 16) i, 1028, 1854 Monaquo, S$. v. (T. U. P. Charl. 24) i. 951 fF Moncallo v. 8. (12 Tex. Ap. 171) i. 1277 Moncla, S. v. (89 La. An. 868) i. 948 Moncrief v. 8. (59 Ga. 470) i. 946 Monday v. 8. (82 Ga. 672; 79 Am. D. 314) i. 909, 1111; ii. 67, 625 Mondon, P. »v. (38 Hun, 188) i. 1255 Mondragon ». 8. (33 Tex. 480) ii. 741 Money v. Leach (1 W. Bl. 555; 3 Bur. 1742) i, 242 Monk, S. v. ‘3 Ala. 415) i. 931 Monroe v. Meuer (35 La. An. 1192) i. 145 v. 8. (5 Ga. 85) i, 909, 949 a, 981, 982, 998 a, 999, 1086, 1087, 1107; ii. 616, 621, 625, 627, 630 —v. §. (10 Neb. 448) i, 1278 — v. 8. (23 Tex. 210; 76 Am. D. 58 i. 909, 980 a; ii. 637 — , S. v. (380 La. An. 1241) ii. 708, 782 — , S. v. (87 La. An. 113) i. 1264 Montague v. C. (10 Grat. 767) i. 926, re 1 4 — , P. v. (71 Mich, 318, 447) i. 282, 971, 75 a, 1277 — v. S. (17 Fla. 662) i, 909; ii. 5 —, 8. v. (2 McCord, 257) i. 449, 756 Montee rv. C. (8 J. J. Mar. 182) + i. 943; ii, 498, 494 Monteith, P. v. (78 Cal. 7) i, 481 Montejo, Pv. (18 Cal. 38) ii. 981 Monteth, Rex v. (2 Leach, 702; 1 East P.C. 420) i. 82, 521, 618 ; ae Montgomery. C. v. (11 Met. 584; 45 Am. D, 227) ii. 748 —— v. Courtney (105 Ind. 311) i. 805 —,, P. v. (13 Abb. Pr. n.s. 207) i. 995, “997, 1255, 1268 ; ii. 687 a —, P. v. (53 Cal. 576) i. 1250 ——, Respublica v, (1 Yeates, 419) i. 166 — 'v. S. (40 Ala. 684) i. 1015, 1192 — v.S, (80 Ind. 838; 41 Am. R. 815) i. 1207 —— v. §. (8 Kan. 263) i. 884 v. S. (11 Ohio, 424) i, 984, 1212 — v. S. (7 Ohio St.107) i. 289, 1872 — v.§. (33 Tex. 179) i. 2644 — v.S. (4 Tex. Ap. 140) ij. 64, 77, : 655, 656 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. MOO Montgomery v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 74) i. 998 a — , S. v. (7 Bax. 160) ii. 64 — , S. v. (7 Blackf. 221) i, 251 —, 8. v. (65 Iowa, 483) ii. 67 —, S. v. (71 Towa, 630) i, 1181 , 8. v. (79 Lowa, 737) ii. 972 — 8. v. (8 Kan. 351 i. 713 —, S. v. (41 La. An. 1087 i. 279 —, 8. v. (28 Mo. 594 i. 1015 ——, 8. v. (63 Mo. 296) i. 738; ii. 979 — , S. v. (98 Mo. 399 ii. 595 —, S. v. (109 Mo. 645; 82 Am. St. 684) ii. 1008 —, U.S. v. (3 Saw. 544) 1.586; ii. 981 Montresser v. 8. (19 Tex. Ap. 281) ii. 961 Moody v. C. (4 Met. Ky. 1) i. 305, 806, 308 —— v. P, (20 Ill. 315) i, 951 a, 1085, 1317 P. v. (69 Cal. 184) i. 97, 711 P. v. (5 Par. Cr. 568) ii. 888 v. Rowell (17 Pick. 490; 28 Am. D. 317) ii, 432 b, 482.c — v. 8. (60 Ala. 78) i, 811, 812 — v.S. (7 Blackf. 424) i, 884, 708 — v. 8. (54 Ga. 660) i. 951, 975 ¢ v. 8. (27 Tex. Ap. 287) ii. 13 v. S. (80 Tex. Ap. 422) i. 975c v. §. (1 W. Va. 337) i. 1269 —, S. v. (24 Mo. 560) i. 893, 1278 —, S. v. (69 N.C. 529) i. 1161, 1168, 1389 ——, S. v. (74.N.C. 78) i. 264A Mook, S. v. (40 Ohio St. 588) ii, 820 Moon ». Butler-(30 Kan. 458) i. 224a v. §. (68 Ga. 687) i. 1276; ii. 602 — v.§. (3 Ind. 438) ii. 595 — , 8. v. (41 Wis. 684) i. 752 a, 830, 166 ¢ 9 Mooney, Ex parte (26 W. Va. 36; 53 Am. R. 59) i. 1410 — v.P. (7 Colo, 218) i. 925 v. P. (81 Ill. 184) i. 264.a, 2646 — , Reg. v. (6Cox C.C.318) i. 1212 — v.58. (8 Ala. 328) i, 538, 586 —— v. S. (83 Ala. 419) ii. 660 —, 8. v. (10 Iowa, 506) —i. 68, 72, 849, 95la —, S. v. (64 N. C. 54) i. 1019 —, 8. v. (74 N.C. 98; 21 Am. R. 487) i. 1817 —, S. v. (1 Yerg. 431) i. 1166 — , U.S. v. (116 U.S. 104) i. 3l4a Moor, Rex v. (2 Mod. 128) i. 657 —,, Rex v. (W. Kel. 103) i. 762 Moor Critchell, Rex v. (2 East, 66) i. 879 Moore’s Case (2 Lewin, 87) i, 1164 Moore, Ex parte (30 Ind. 197) i, 262 ——, I’x parte (5 Tex. Ap. 103) i. 1204 ——, In re (108 N. Y. 280) —— v. Bond (4 Blackf. 458) ii, 809 — v. C. (7 Bush, 191) i, 945, 949 —— v. C. (2 Leigh, 701) i. 1287; ii. 7538 — v. C. (9 Leigh, 639) i. 884 — v.C. (6 Watts & S. 314) i, 251 —,,C. v, (11 Cush. 600) ii. 120 635 MOO Moore, C.v. (9 Mass. 402) i, 738.4 —, C.v. (180 Mass. 45) ii. 147 —,C.v. (99 Pa. 570) i, 1291 —, C. v. (3 Pick. 194) i. 1265 — v. Massie (3 Litt. 296) ii. 382 — ». Miller (4 8. & R. 279) i, 792 —— v. P. (26 Ill. Ap. 137) i, 1282 — , P. v. (8 Cal. 90) i. 9804 —, P.v. (2 Doug. Mich. 1) i. 186 —, P. v. (65 How. Pr. 177), i. 763 ——, P.v. (52 Mich. 563) i. 1274 — , Reg. v. (2 Den. C. C. 522; 3 Car. & K. 153; 5 Cox C. C. 555; 12 Eng. L. & Eq. 583) i. 1233, 1234 ——, Reg. v. (1 Fost.@ F.78) i. 1128; ii, 428 — , Rex v. (2 Car. & P. 285) i. 1121 —, Rex v. (Cas. Temp. Hardw. 176) i. 232 —, Rex v. (2 Leach, 575) i. 897 —, Rex v. (1 Moody, 122) ii. 269 —, Rex v. (2 Stra. 946) i. 760 —— v. Roberts (87 N. C. 11) i. 286 — v. 8. (12 Ala. 764; 46 Am. D. 276) i. 1153, 1207, 1209, 1210, 1216 — v. S. (26 Ala. 88) ii. 1044 — v.§. (40 Ala. 49) i. 1052; ii. 754 v, S. (52 Ala. 424) i. 1857 v, 8, (28 Ark. 480) i. 251 — v. 8S. (50 Ark. 25) i. 95la — v. S. (83 Ga. 225) i. 127; ii, 402, 419 v. S. (85 Ind. 90) i. 975c, 978 — v. S. (36 Missis. 187) i. 261, 264 a — v. §. (55 Missis. 432) ii. 727 — v. 8. (2 Ohio St. 500) i. 1078, 1249 v. S. (12 Ohio St. 387) i. 871 —— v. 8. (13 Sm. & M. 259) =i. 692,.707 — v. S, (31 Tex. 572) i. 256 — v. 8. (34 Tex. 138) i, 2644 — v.58. (44 Tex. 595) i. 1264 — v.§. (2 Tex. Ap. 350) ii. 700, 754 — v.58. (4 Tex. Ap. 127) ii. 118 — p. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 14) i. 1012 v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 42) i. 854 v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 1) i. 975¢; ii. 613 v. S. (17 Tex. Ap. 176) ii. 751 v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 212) i. 1279 v. 8. (20 Tex. Ap. 233) i, 488 6; ii. 183 — v. S, (26 Tex. Ap. 322) i. 975e v. 8. (28 Tex. Ap. 377) i. 975c; ii, 750 v. S. (81 Tex. Cr, 234) i. 975; y ii. 67 —, S.v. (19 Ala. 514 i. 148 — , S. v. (39 Conn. 244) ii, 882, 884, 892 ——, S. v. (6 Fost. N. H. 448) i. 52, 58 —, 8. », (1 Hayw, 482) i. 1242 ——, S. v, (1 Ind. 548) i. 708 ; ii. 368 — , S. v. (25 Iowa; 128; 95 Am. D. 776) i. 1170 —,S. v. (11 Ire. 70) i. 397; ii. 710 —, S. v. (88 La. An. 66) i, 1086 636 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. MOR Moore, S. v. (61 Mo. 276) i. 590 ; i. 36, 37 —, S. v. (65 Mo. 606) ii. 64, 657 ——, S. v. (101 Mo. 316) ii. 750 —, 8. v. (106 Mo. 480) i, 975¢ —, S. v. (82 N. C. 659) i. 814.4; ii. 63 —, S. v. (84 N. C. 724) i. 1264 ——,S. v. (98 N. C. 500) i. 1264 ——, S. v. (104 N. C, 743) i. 1087 —, 8. v. (12 N. H. 42) ii. 138 —., 8S. v. (14 N. H. 461) i. 674 —, 8. v. (8 Neb. 22) i. 1817 —, S$. v. (15 Rich. 57) i. 3l4a —, S. vu. (248. C. 150; 58 Am. R. 241) ii. 41 —, S. v. (26 S. C.607) i, 1264 — v. U.S. (91 U. S. 270) li. 432 4 —, U.S. v. (Wal. C.C. 23) i. 95la —— v. Watts (Breese, 18) i. 187, 230 Moore Justices, S. v. (2 Ire. 480) i. 1408 Moorehead »v. S. (88 Kan. 489) 1. 264 Moorer v. S. (44 Ala. 15) i. 1049 Moores, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 270) i. 1169, 117 Moorhouse, Rex v. (Cald. 554; 4 Doug. 388) i, 825 Mooring v. S. (42 Tex. 85) _i. 966, 980 Moorman, S. v. (278. C. 22) i. 975, 979, 1220, 1222 Moors, Rex v. (6 East, 419, note) ii. 753 Moose v.-8. (49 Ark. 499) 1.478; ii. 825 Mooty, S. v. (8 Hill, 8. C. 187) i, 614 Mora v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 406) i. 8140 Morales v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 494; 28 Am. R. 419) i, 970 —, S. v. (21 Tex. 298) ii, 728 Moran ». C. (9 Leigh, 651) i. 851, 909 —, C. v. (107 Mass. 239) i. 935 — , C. v. (180 Mass. 281) i. 850, 875 —, P.v. (48 Mich. 639) i. 959. —, P. v. (123 N. Y. 254; 20 Am. St. 782) ii, 86 v. Plankinton (64 Mo. 337) i, 458 i, 314.a, 1265, —, 8. uv. (7 Iowa, 286) 1267 ; ii. 596 —, 8. v. (8 Iowa, 399) i, 1264 ——, 8. v. (84 Iowa, 453) i. 1170 —, S. v. (40 Me. 129) i. 586 —, S. v. (18 Neb. 536) " i, 2644 More, Rex v. (T. Raym. 196) i, 264 m Morea, 8. v. (1 Ala. 275) 3. 909, 932, 1053, 1144, 1266 Moreau, Reg. v. (11 Q. B. 1028) ii. ve Morehead v. Jones (2 B. Monr. 210; 36 Am. D. 600) ii, 791 — ». S. (9 Humph. 536) i, 1288 — v.S. (9 Humph. 635) i. 1275, 1276 — v. S. (34 Ohio St. 212) i. 1241; ii, 586, 690 —— v.S. (7 Tex. Ap. 126) i. 1354 Morehouse v. Mathews (2 Comst. 514) ii. 676 Moreley, Rex v. (2 Bur. 1040) i. 1378 Morelock v. 8. (90 Tenn. 528) i. 1209 Morewood ». Hollister (2 Seld. 309) i. 722 MOR Morey, C.v. (1 Gray, 461) i. 1228, 1224 C. v. (8 Mass. 78) i, 229, 1317 — , S.v. (2 Wis. 494; 60 Am. D. 439) ii. 700, 752 a Morford v. Barnes (8 Yerg. 444) i. 893 Morgan, Ex parte (20 Fed. Rep. aan — v. Berlin (46 Conn. 497) 4 | Morningstar, C. v. (144 Pa. 103) i. 3317 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. MOR Morino, P. v. (85 Cal. 515) i. 951 7, oe C, 978 Morissey v. P. (11 Mich. 327) i. 239 a, 1019; ii. 728 i, 1195 ij. 642 i, 771 —— v. 8. (52 Ala. 405) i. 573, 676 ; ii. 843 Morley, Rex v. (J. Kel. 55) Morman ». S. (24 Missis. 54) v, C. (12 Bush, 84) i. 264 a | —— v. S. (59 Ala. 80) ii. 752 — v. C. (14 Bush, 106) i. 951; ii. 629 | —— v. S. (23 La. An. 8) i. 926 — v. C. (7 Grat. 592) i. 589 | Morphew, Rex v. (2M. & 8.602) i. 1205 —, C. v. (107 Mass. 199) i. 1013; Morphy, S. v. (83 Iowa, 270; 11 Am. ii. 783, 800] R. 122) i. 948; ii. 599, 631 —— v. Holladay (88 N. ¥. Super. Morrell, C. v. (99 Mass. 542) i, 1220 117) i. 1342 v. P. (82 Ill. 499) ii. 911, 915, 921 —— v. Jones (24 Ga. 155) ii. 753 v. Quarles (85 Ala. 544) i. 228, 1317 — v. Luckup (cited 7 ‘IT’. R. 465) ii. 11 | Morrigan, P. «. (9 Mich. 4) i. 1179; — ., P. v. (65 Barb. 473) i, 8144 ii, 754, 780, 1007 a — v. Pickard (86 Tenn. 208) i. 1815 —, Reg. v. (6 Cox C. C. 197) 11.934 —, Reg. v. (14 Cox C. C. 337) i. 1212 — , Rex v. (1 Bulst. 84) i, 252, 1007 —, Rex v. (1 Doug. 814) i141 — _, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 601) i, 606 — , Rexv. (1 Moody & R. 134, note) ii. 4326 — 0.8. (19 Ala. 556) i. 605, 674 — v. S. (45 Ala. 64) i. 1020 — v. §. (48 Ala. 65) i. 995, 999, 1275 — v. S. (63 Ga. 307) ii. 138 — v. S. (12 Ind. 448) i. 1001 v. §, (13 Ind. 215) i. 807, 821 — v.§. (81 Ind. 193) i, 1212 ——v. §. (61 Ind. 447) ii. 702 — ». §. (117 Ind. 569) i. 975c¢ —v. §, (63 Missis. 162) ii. 922 — v. S. (48 Ohio St. 371) i.975c, 1094 — v.§S. (13 Sm. & M. 242) i. 511 — v. S. (86 Tenn. 472) i. 1181, 1185 ——v.§. (44 Tex. 511) i, 1166 ——v.8. (4 Tex. Ap. 33) i. 1264, 1272 — v.&. (16 Tex. Ap. 593) i. 1095 ——.S. (25 Tex. Ap. 513) ii. 740 ——, S. v. (40 Conn. 44) ii. 114 —'§.v. (2 Dev. & Bat, 348) ii. 479 —, S. v. (3 Heisk. 262) | ii. 1027 —, S. v, (62 Ind. 35) i, 285 ——, 5S. v, (35 La. An, 1139) i. 97, 711 —, S. v. (112 Mo, 202) ij. 182 —, §.v. (1 Mo. Ap. 22) i. 1268 — 5S. v. (77.N. C. 610) i, 1264 —,S. v. (85 N. C. 581) ii, 521, 527 — 8S. v. (95 N. C. 641) ii. 631 —, S. v. (98 N. C. 641) ii. 34 —, S. v. (Winst. i. 246) ii. 372, 879 —— v. Stevenson (6 Ind. 169) i. 909 —, U.S. x. (Morris, 341) ii. 916 Morgenstern v. C. (27 Grat. 1018) i. ae 5 Moriarty, C. v. (185 Mass. 540) ii. 136 Morihan, C. v. (4 Allen, 585) i. 217; : ii, 945 Morine, P. v. (54 Cal. 575) i, 1199 —, P. v. (61 Cal. 367) i.975¢ Morino, P. v, (53 Cal. 67) i. 1062 Morrill, Ex parte (85 Fed. Rep. 261) i. 183 v. C. (9 Leigh, 636) i. 1285 — , C. v. (1 Cush. 391) i. 1265 —, C. rv. (8 Cush. 571) ii. 169 —, C. uv. (1 Va. Cas. 176) i. 799 — v. Foster (82 N. H. 358) ii. 625 v. P. (1 Par. Cr. 441) i, 722 —, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 89) ii. 845 —, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C.90; 10 Cox C. C. 480) ii. 685 —, Rex v. (2 Bur. 1189; 1 Leach, 50) ii. 938¢e — , Rex ». (1 Leach, 109) i. 481 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 468) ii. 699 ——,, Rex v. (2 Leach, 1096) i. 207 a —, Rex v. (2 Stra. 901) i. 408 — vw. 8. (25 Ala. 57) i. 976, 1265, 1269 — v. S. (1 Blackf. 37) i. 1809 v. 8. (7 Blackf. 607) i. 945 — v. 8. (8 Sm. & M. 762) i. 1128; ii. 428 — v. S. (5 Tex. Ap. 447) i. 1152 ——, 8. uv. (3 Hawks, 388) i. 979 —, 8. v. (86 Iowa, 272) i, 859 —, 8. v. (27 La. An. 480) ii, 141 —, 8. «. (48 Tex. 3872) i. 838 —, U.S. »v. (1 Curt.C.C. 23) i. 3144, 932 a, 947, 984 v. Wise (2 Fost. & F. 51) i172 ae In re (89 Kan. 28; 7 Am. St. 512) i. 1410 ——, In re v. Mechanics’ Bank (10 Johns, 484) i. 1408 - v. Gilmer (129 U. 8S. 315) i, 316 —— v. §. (84 Ala. 457) ii. 287 a —— v. §. (104 Ind. 457) i. 951 — v.§8. (2 Tex. Ap. 502) i. 718 — v.S. (4 Tex. Ap. 554) i. oan 264 b — v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 557) 264 a —— v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 589) i. 1834, 801 — v. §. (138 Tex. Ap. 65) ii. 85 — v.§. (17 Tex. Ap. 660) i. 623; ii. 403 — v. S. (80 Tex. Ap. 95) i. 783, 909 — 5S. v. (45 Ark. 62) i. 458 —, 8. v. (47 Conn. 179) i. 1060; ii. 184 —, 8. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 124) i, 279 637 MOR INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. MOU Morris, S. v. (84 N. C. 756) ii. 629 | Morton v. S. (1 Kan. 468) i, 984, 949 —,S. v. (104 N. C. 837) i. 1006 | —— v. S. (1 Lea, 498) i, 9984 —, U.S. v. (16 Blatch. 183) ii, 472 | —— v. S. (3 Tex. Ap. 510) i, 1002 Morris Canal and Banking Co., — , 8. v. (21 Ohio St. 669) ii. 829 S. v. (1 Green, N. J. 192) i. 8144, 1877, 1380 — , S. v. (2 Zab. 537) i, 665, 668 Morris and Essex Rld. v. Prudden (6 C. E. Green, 530) i, 1417 — v.58. (7 Vroom, 553) ii, $64 Morris Run Coal Co. v. Barclay Coal Co. (68 Pa. 173; 8 Am. R. 159) ii. 242 Morrison v. Dapman (8 Cal. 255) i. 711, 1842, 1848 v. Marquardt (24 Iowa, 35; 92 Am. J). 444) ii. 871 ——, Rex v. (8 Car. & P. 22) i, 1244 — v. S. (84 Ala. 405) ii. 629 — v. S. (40 Ark. 448) i. 814a —— v. S. (64 Ga. 751) i. 1380 —— v. S. (76 Ind. 335) i. 975 b, 1074 v. S. (18 Neb. 527) i, 1310 —— v. S. (5 Ohio, 488) i. 10194 v. S. (41 Tex. 516) i. 981, 1244, 1246 — , S. v. (3 Dev. 299) i. 1049 , 5. v. (2 Ire. 9) i. 480 — , S. v. (80 La. An. 817) i. 700 ——, S. v. (85 N. C. 561) i, 457 —— v. Stewart (24 Ill. 24) i, 1279 Morrissey, S. v. (22 Iowa, 158) i. 581; ii. 187 ——, S. v. (70 Me. 401) ii. 514 Morrow v. McLennen (2 Penning. 918) i. 998 a —, P. v. (60 Cal. 142) i. 1074, 1181 — v. §. (10 Humph. 120) i. 623 —— v.§. (48 Ind. 432) ii. 629 — v. S. (5 Kan. 563) i. 2644 — v.§. (6 Kan. 222) i. 264 v. §. (14 Lea, 475) i. 1018, 1019 ; ii. 1, 9 — v. §. (57 Missis. 836) i. 1277 —, 8. v. (13 Kan. 119) i. 1268 Morse, Petitioner (18 Pick. 448) i. 1408 —, C. v. (2 Mass. 128) i. 707, 1005; ; ii. 269 —, C. v. (14 Mass. 217) ii, 721, 722 — , Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 605) —— v.S. (6 Conn. 9) i. 1259, 1261 i, 612, 626, 676 ——v. S, (108 Ind. 599) i. 1279 —, 5. v. (1 Greene, Iowa, 503) —i. 598, 12; ii. 926 —-,S. v. (90 Mo. 91) ii. 922 Mortier, P. v. (68 Cal. 262) i. 945, 946, 975 Mortimer, P. v. (46 Cal. 114) i. 909, 9490 —, P. v. (48 Mich. 87) ii, 687 a —,, S. v. (20 Kan. 98) i. 1242 Morton v. Bradley (80 Ala. 683) i, 160 — , C. v. (12 Philad. 596) i. 850 —'v. P. (47 Ill. 468) i, 98, 747762 ——, P. ». (72 Cal. 62) i. 1181, 1184 ——, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 514) i. 1219, 1224, 1227 ——v. 8. (80 Ala. 627) i, 658; ii, 433 638 —, S. v. (27 Vt. 810; 65 Am. D. 201) ii. 234, 415, 487 — , S. v. (8 Wis. 352) ii, 450, 455 —— v. Skinner (48 Ind. 123) i, 220 Mosby, Ex parte (81 Tex. 566; 98 Am. D. 547) 1.2 Mose ». S. (85 Ala. 421) i, 1014, 1211, 1855 —— v. §. (86 Ala. 211) i, 1058, 1094 Moseley, Ex parte (30 Tex. Ap. 338) i. 1827 —, C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 154) ii. 735 — , Reg. v. (Leigh & C.92; 9 Cox C. C. 16) ii. 178 Mosely v. Gordon (16 Ga. 884) __ ii. 687a — v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 311) i. 639 ; ii, 813, 817 Moser v. Long (64 Ind. 189) i. 279 Moses v. Julian (45 N. H. 52 ; 84 Am. D, 114) i, 314 — v. S. (58 Ala. 117) i. 1169 — v. §. (88 Ala. 78; 16 Am. St. 21) i, 1086; ii. 10074 — v. 8. (9 Bax. 229) i, 959a — v. S. (60 Ga, 138) i, 931 —v. S. (10 Humph. 456; 11 Humph. 222) i. 68, 69, 71, 901, 909 —, S. v. (7 Blackf. 244) i. 606 — , S. v. (2 Dev. 452) i. 982 ; ii. 520, 549 Mosey, Rex v. (1 Leach, 265, note) i. 1242 Mosher v. P. (19 Hun, 625) i. 1170 — v.58. (14 Ind. 261) ii, 432 Mosier, C. v. (185 Pa. 221) i. 902 —, 8. v. (25 Conn. 40) i. 1050 Mosler, C. v. (4 Pa, 264) i, 1238 Mosley v. Gallatin (10 Lea, 494) i. 1804 —, Rex v. (1 Moody, 98) i. 1212; ii. 618 —, S. v. (81 Kan. 355) i, 1181, 1186 Moss »v. C. (107 Pa. 267) i, 999 — v. 8. (17 Ark. 827; 65 Am. D. 433) i. 1020 — v. S. (6 How. Missis. 298) i. 251, 2647 —,5S. v. (2 Jones, N. C. 66) i, 892 Mosser v. Mosser (82 Ala. 551) _ ii. 687a Motley, S. v. (7 Rich. 827) i. 552, 851, 887, 1004, 1242 Mott, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 1075; 1 Leach, 75, note) i. 620 ——, Rex ». (Russ. & Ry. 435) ii, 429 — ». 8. (29 Ark. 147) i. 585; ii. 36 —, S. v. (86 N. C. 621) i, 315 — , S. v. (16 Vroom, 494) ii, 794 Moughon ». S. (57 Ga. 102) i. 1079 —— v. S. (59 Ga. 308) i. 909 Moulder v. Kempff (115 Ind. 459) i, 951 @ Moulton v. Beecher (8 Hun, 100) i. 1895 —, C. v. (4 Gray, 39) i. 1068, 1242 —} C. v. (9 Mass. 80) i, 1138 — , C. v. (108 Mass. 807) ii. 1025, 1026 Moultrie, S. x. (83 La. An. 1146) i. 449 —,58. v. (84 La, An. 489) ii. 981 MUL Mounee, S. v. (106 Mo. 226) i. 1128; ii. 96 Mount v. C. (1 Duv. 90) i. 1127; ii. 446 —— v. 8. (14 Ohio, 295 ; 45 Am. D. 542) i, 1389, 1394, 1400 Mountain v. S. (40 Ala. '344) i, 1005, 1242 Mountjoy v. S. (78 Ind. 172) i. 713 Mousely, S. v. (4 Harring. Del. 653) i. 284) Mowbray »v. C. (11 Leigh, 643) i, 1015 Mowry, C. v. (11 Allen, 20) ii? 1002 — v. Chase (100 Mass. 79) i. 157 Moxley, S. v. (102 Mo. 874) i. 704, 975, 1111; ii. 626, 632 Moye v. S. (66 Ga. 740) i, 1264 Moyer v. C. (7 Pa, 489) i, 626 —, P. v. (77 Mich. 671) i. 969 Moyers v. S. (11 Humph. 40) — i. 692, 698 Moyle, Rex v. (2 Kast P. C. 1076) i. 620 Moynahan v. P. (8 Colo. a i. 689 Mudd v. Suckermore (6 A. & E. 703) ii. 482 a Mueller, C. v. (814 Pa. 127) i. 1006 Muely v. S. (31 ‘Tex. Cr. 155) i. 1181 Muir, S. v. (32 Kan. 481) i. 1001 Mulcahy v. Reg. (Law Kep. 3 H. L. 306) . i. 926 Muldoon, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 18) ii. 888, 892 Muldrew v. 8. (12 Tex. Ap. 617) i. 618 Mulkern v. Ward (Law Rep. 13 Eq. - i. 1416 619) Mulkey, P. v. (65 Cal. 501) ii. 147 Mulkins, S. v. (18 Kan. 16) i, 996 es U.S. v. (82 Fed. Rep. 370) i, 1181; ii. 432 ¢ Mullen, C. v. (18 Allen, 551) i. a 667 —, C. v. (97 Mass. 545) 1188 —, C. v, (150 Mass. 394) i. 480, 451, “1182, 1264; ii. 15, 980 — vv. S. (45 Ala. 43; 6 Am. R, 691 ) i, 1293 — v.§. (50 Ind. 169) i, 1287 —, S. v. (14 La. An. 570) 1, 99, 934 —, S. v. (83 La. An. 159) i. 1137 —,S. v. (72 Me. 466) i. 8l4a — , S. v. (52 Mo. 480) i, 717 Mulligan v. C. (84 Ky. 229) ii. 3 — v.S. (47 Missis. 7304) i. 1847, 1850 — v.§. (25 Tex, Ap. 199; 8 Am. St, 435) ii, 84, 36 Mullin - P. (15 Colo. 437; 22 Am. St. 414) i. 68 Malling P. v, (88 Cal. 188; 17 Am. St. 223 i. 966, 1181, 1182 Mullinix v. P. (76 Ill. 211) i. 462, 458, pen, 1827 — v. §. (10 Ind. 5) i. 1269 — v. §. (48 Ind. 511) i. 860 Mullins, C. v. (2 Allen, 295) i, 1144 — v. Cottrell (41 Missis. 291) ii. 687 a — ». P. (110 Ill. 42) i. 975e, 980,,1066 —, Reg. v, (8 Cox C. C, 526) i. 1170 acy, S° (37 Tex. 337) i. 1101; 1264 —, S. v, (101 Mo. oc i. 966, 1267 a Mullix, S. v. (68 Mo. 355) i, 1264 Mulrooney v. S. (26 Ohio St. 826) i. cw INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. MUR Mulroy, Reg. v. (3 Crawf. & Dix C. C. 818 ii. 57 Mulvaney, U.S. v. (4 Par. Cr. 164) i. 1058 Mumford, S. v. (1 Dev. 519; 17 Am. D. 578) ii. 919, 921 Munch v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 552) i. 2644 —-, 8. v. (22 Minn. 67) i. 846, 478, 665 ; ii. 828 Munchrath, S. v. (78 Iowa, 268) _ i. 906, 909, 934, 975c, 1181, 1248 Munco, $. v. (12 La. An. 625) i. 981, 1079; ii. 57,79 Munday v. C. (81 Ky. 238) i. 945, 1275 —, Reg. v. (2 Fost. & F. 170) ii. 10 Mundel, U.S. v. (6 Call, 245) i. 691 Mundell, U.S. v. (1 Hughes, C. C. 415) i. 694 Munden v. 8. (87 Tex. 353) i. 980 Munds, S. v. (7 Or. 80) i. 1817 Munger, S. v. (15 Vt. 290) i. 888, 641 Munkers v. S. (87 Ala. 94) i. 688 Munly z. 8. (7 Blackf. 593) i. 945 | Munn, C. », (14 Gray, 861) i. 286 Munoes, Rex v. (7 Mod. 315) ii. 165 Munoz, Rex v. (2 Stra. 1127) ii. 165 Munshower v, §, (55 Md, 11; 39 Am. R. 414) i. 1248 —— v. 8. (66 Md. 614) i. 685, 1265, 1368 MERE, Reg. v. (1895, 1 Q. B. 768) ii. 783 Munson »v. P. (6 Par. Cr. 16) ii. 866, 8774 — v. 8. (79 Ind. 641) ii. 404 ——, 8. v. (40 Conn. 475) i. 400 —, S. v. (76 Mo. 109) i. 975c, 979 —, 8. v. (7 Wash. 239) ii. 153 Munton, Rex v. (3 Car. & P. 498) ii. 934, 935 a Murback, P. v. (64 Cal. 369) i, 1848 Murdoch, S. v. (85 La. An, 729) i. 1005a Murdock, Reg. v. (2 Den. C. C. 298; 8 Eng. es & Eq. 577) i. 61; ii. 826 vw %. (65 Ala. 520) ii. 56 — v. 5S. (68 Ala. 667) i. 1286 — _, 8. v. (9 Misso. 789) i. 685 Murfreesboro, 8. v. (11 Humph. 217) 1.597 Murphy, In re (22 Mo. Ap. 476) i, 286 — ».C. (11 Bush, 217) 3, 226 — v. C, (28 Grat. aA i. 1015 —v.C. (1 Met. Ky. i. 898, 1268 —, C. v. (2 Allen, 13) i, 419; ii. 675, 597, 956 —, CO. v. (4 Allen, 491) — i. 1158; ii. 69 —, C.v. (12 Allen, 449) —_ ii. 92, 1025, 1026 —, C. v. (11 Cush. 472) ii. 604 —, C. v. (158 Mass. 290) i. 1264 —— v. McMillan (59 Iowa, 616) i. 2644 —v. P. (19 Bradw. 125) i. 611 — ». P. (3 Colo. 147) i, 1317 —— v. P. (2 Cow. 815) i, 891, 892 —— v.P. (87 Til. 447) ij, 608, 621 ——v. P. (63 N. Y. 590) i. 1078, 1097, 1107, 1238, 1242, 1247; it. 630 —-, P. v, (45. Cal, 187) i, 909, 1166, 1196 ; ii, 688 639 MUR INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. MYE Murphy, P. v. (47 Cal. 103) i, 282 | Murray, P. v. (2 Mich. N. P.94) _ ii. 62 ——, P. v. (51 Cal, 376) ii, 826 | —— v. Reg. (7 Q. B. 700) i. 13871 —, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 297) i. 460, 1046, 1188; ii. 227 ——, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 108) i. 771 —, Reg. v. (1 Crawf. & Dix C. C. 20) i. 159 v. §. (37 Ala. 142) i. 918; ii. 600 — v.§. (45 Ala. 82) — i, 68, 72; ii. 595 ( — v.8. (54 Ala. 178) i. 1265, 1357 v. §. (55 Ala. 252) ii. 882 — v. S. (86 Ala. 45) i. 850 — v. S. (7 Coldw. 516) i. 1004 — v. §. (31 Fla. 166) ii, 590, 595 v. S. (6 Ind. 490) i, 987 v. &. (31 Ind. 511) ii. 600 — v. S. (97 Ind. 579) i. 893, 1298 — ». 8. (106 Ind. 96; 55 Am. R. 722) i. 390 v4 §. (9 Lea, 373) i, 461 — ». §. (24 Missis. 590) i. 104 (28 Missis. 637) — i. 104, 1095, 1138 —uvS. v. §. (15 Neb. 383) i. 909, 1181, 1182 8. ( —s. 25 Neb. 807) i, 828 v. S. (86 Ohio St. 628) i. 1254 v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 420) i. 95la v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 554) i. 488 v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 100) i. 2644 — v, 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 645), i. 975¢ — 5. v. (6 Ala, 845) ii. 708, 981, 982, : 983, 984 —_,S8. v. (48 Ark. 178) i. 628 —, 8. v. (8 Blackf. 498) ii. 714, 769 —S.v. (6 Eng. 74) i. 1060; ii. 943, 944 ——, S. v. (21 Ind. 441) ii. 56, 77 —, S. v. (385 La. An. 622) i. 408 —, 8. v. (46 Mo. 347 i. 1275 ——,, 8. v. (47 Mo. 274) i. 486, 458, 700, 702, 772, 778 —. S. v. (118 Mo. 7) ii. 967, 972 —, S. v. (84 N. C. 742) i. 1085 — 8. v. (9 Port. 487) i. 665 — , S. v. (55 Vt. 547) i. 406, 714 Murrah v. S. (51 Missis. 675) i. 49 —, S. v. (25 Tex. 758) ii. 630 Murray v. C. (79 Pa, 311) i. 980a ——, C. v. (2 Ashin, 41) i. 1212, 1279 ——, C. v. (13 Philad. 454) i. 1181 ——, CO. v. (2 Va. Cas. 504) i, 235, 239 —— v. Charleston (96 U.S. 432) i. 100¢ —— v. Hoboken Land, &. Co. (18 How. U. 8. 272) i, 100a —, P. v. (8 Cal. 519) ii. 146 — P. v. (10 Cal, 309) ii, 616 — , P. »v, (41 Cal. 66) i. 980, 1077 —, P. v. (67 Cal. 103) i. 611; ii. 92, 130 —— P. v. (85 Cal. 350) i, 9984 ——,P.v. (94 Cal 212; 28 Am. St. 113) i, 994, 996 —, P. v. (57 Mich. 396) ii, 945 —, Z v. (72 Mich. 10) i. 975 c, 980 a —, Pv (89 Mich. 276; 28 Am. 640 i, 959 ——,, Rex v. (1 Moody, 276 ; 5 Car. & P. 145) i. 482; ii. 76 v. 8. (18 Ala. 727) ii. 728 — v. S. (48 Ala. 675) i. 489, 945; ii, 139 — v. S. (9 Fla. 246) i. 1286 —— v. §. (25 Fla. 528) i. 428, 959 a, 966 c, 1138, 1218, 1220, 1262) 1310; ii. 946 — v. §. (48 Ga. 256) i. 1244; ii. 58 — v.8. (26 Ind. 141) i. 1108 — v. S. (34 Tex. 331) i. 314 — v.S. (86 Tex. 642) ii. 661 v. S§. (1 Tex. Ap. 417) i. 951, 978; ii. 599 —, S. v. (41 Iowa, 580) i. 825, 329, 331 —, S. v. (91 Mo. 95) i. 998 a —, S. e. (63 N. C. 31) ii. 966 Murrell v. S. (44 Ala. 367) i, 611 — v. 8. (46 Ala. 89; 7 Am. R. 592) i, 1250 —, 8. v. (33 8. C. 83) i, 269, 1012 Murry v. C. (5 Leigh, 720) ii. 465 v. 8. (1 Tex. Ap. 174) i. 951 a Muscot, Reg. v. (10 Mod. 192) ii, 927 Muse, S. v. (4 Dev. & Bat. 319) i. 605 Musick v. P. (40 Ill. 268) i. 852, 877, 878, 881 —, S. ov. (71 Mo. 401) i. 1071 i. 975 a, 975 ¢, 980, 1247 ; ii. 601 Musqnez v. S. (41 Tex. 226) i. 689 a — 8. v. (101 Mo. 260) Musson, Rex v, (9 D. & R. 172) 1, 1338 Mussulman v. P. (16 Ill. 61) i. 264 d Muston, S. », (21 La. An. 442) i, 825 Mutters, Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 491; 10 Cox C. C. 6) ii, 1050 Muzingo, S. v. (Meigs, 112) i. 700, 1355 Myatt, S. v. (10 Nev. 163) i. 1264 v. Walker (44 Ill. 485) ii. 670, 674 Myer v. P. (8 Hun, 528) i. 1276 Myers v. C. (79 Pa. 808) i. 314a, ue 09 —— v.C. (2 Va. Cas. 160) i. 138 —, C. v. (187 Pa. 407) i. 264.4 ——, C.v. (1 Va. Cas. 188) i. 817 —— v. P. (14 Hun, 416) i314 —— v. P. (4 Thomp. & C. 292) i, 665 —, P. v. (20 Cal. 618) —, P. v. (70 Cal. 582) i. 999 ——,, P. v. (1 Colo. 508) i, 816 —, Pennsylvania v. (Addison, 320) | ii. ii. 36, 39, 47, 670, 671, 673 745 ——. Rex v. (1 T, R. 265) i. 207 ——., Rex »v. (6 T. R. 237) i. 1316 —— v. S. (62 Ala. 599) ii. 618 —— v. §. (84 Ala, 11) ii. 973 —— v. S. (92 Ind. 390) ii, 142 —— v. §. (101 Ind. 379 ii, 416 —— v. §, (115 Ind, 654 i. 798 ——v. §, (121 Ind. 15) i, 887, 975 ¢, 984, 986 a NAS INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. NEL Myers v. S. (83 Tex. 525) i. 978, 980 | Nason v. Staples (48 Me. 123) i, 235 v. S. (3 Tex. Ap. 8) i. 1161, 1171} Nat, S. v. (6 Jones, N. C. 114) i. 982, —— v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 1) i. 966 a 1250 — uv. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 640) i. 1018, | Nathan v. S. (28 Tex. 326) i. 1264 1077, 1170 | ——. S. v. (4 Rich. 518) i. 1405 v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 321) i. 68, 72 Nations, ‘Ss. v. (75 Mo. 58) i. 586 — v.S8. (9 Tex. Ap. 157) i. 975 c, 980 | Nauer v. Thomas (13 Allen, 572) i. 750, —, S. uv. (44 Iowa, 580) - i. 1801 794 a, 811, 1411 —, S. v. (10 Lea, 717) i. 791} Naughton, P. v. (7 Abb. Pr. n.s. —, S. v. (82 Mo. 558; 52 Am. R. 389) i, 488 b, 1125; ii. 178, 189 — , 8. v. (85 Tenn. 203) i. 854, 703 Mylor, S. v. (46 Iowa, 192) ii. 968 Mynatt v. S. (8 Lea, 47) i, 1121 Myrick, 8. v. (88 Kan. 238) i, 278 Mytton, Rex v. (Cald. 536; 4 Doug. 333) i. 529, 554 Nabb’s Case (1 Ct. Cl. 173) i. 804, 305 Nabors v. S. (6 Ala. 200) i. 1010 — v. S. (82 Ala. 8) i. 975¢ Nagle, C. v. (117 Mass. 142) ii. 818 —, 8. v. (14 R. 1.331) i. 400, 461, 643 Nail, S. v. (19 Ark. 563) i. 475, "761, 773; ii. 896 Nailor, U.S. v. (4 Cranch, C. C. 372) ii. 115 Nall v. S. (84 Ala, 262) i. 1248 Nalley v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 387) i. 943 a, 966, 969, 975 a Nally v. Reg. (15 Cox C. C. 688) i. 1877 Nance, S. v. (1 Lea, 644) i. 1317 —,S. v. (25 8. C. 168) i. 934, 1062, 1066, 1212 Nancy v. S. (6 Ala. 483) i. 1011 Naper v. Bowers (Wright, 692) i. 1821 Napier, S. v. (65 Mo. 462) i. 1247 Napper, Rex v. (1 Moody, 44) i. 401, 408; ii. 41, 155 —, S. v. (6 Nev. 118) ii. 67 Nardello, U. S. v. (4 Mackey, 508) i. ae 1 Narrows I. Club, S. v. (100 N. C. an 6 Am. St. 618) i. 1050 Nash, C. v. (185 Mass. 541) i "982 a —, P. v. (1 Idaho, nv. s. 206) ii. 883 v. Reg. (9 Cox C. C. 424; 10 Jur. x. s. 819; 4 B. & S. 935) i, 443, 1368 — v. S. (2 Greene, Iowa, 286) i. 2, 63; ii. 638 — v.S. (2 Tex. Ap. 362) 1, 949 b; ii. 77, 619 —, S. v. (7 Iowa, 347) i. 72, 73, 951 a, 1018, 1020, 1087, 1004, 1166, 1208, 1212, 1249, 1253, 1254, 1270; ii. 229 — 8. v. (10 Iowa, 81) i. 1166, 1275 —, S.v. (10 Iowa, 448) i. 456 —,, 8. v. (8 Ire. 35) i, 931, 1140 —, S. v. (109 N. C. 824) i. 975 ¢; ii. 975 — , U.S. v. (Bee. 266) Nashville v. Thompson (12 Lea, edd)” i, 224 VoL. 11.—4l 421; 38 How. Pr. 430) i. 874 Navis, P. v. (8 Cal. 106) i. 1241 Naylor, C. v. (84 Pa. 86) ii. 817 Nazro v. Cragin (3 Dil. 474) i. 316 Neaderhouser v. S. (28 Ind. 257) i. 743 Neagle, In re (135 U. S. 1) i. 1411 —, 8. v. (65 Me. 468) i. 931, 949d, 1128 Neal v. Delaware (103 U.S. 870) i. 980 — v. Joyner (89 N.C. 287) i, 181 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 168) i. 1170 —, Rex uv. (Cas. temp. Hardw. 112) i. 238 — v. S. (53 Ala. 465) i. 325; ii. 180, 186 v. S. (64 Ga, 272) i. 998 a ——,, 8. v. (42 Mo. 119) ii. 916 Neale, Reg. v. (1 Car. & KX. 591) ii. 975 Neales v. S. (10 Misso. 498) i. 893 Nealley v. Greenough (5 Fost. N. a 325) i. 758 Neatherly v. P. (24 Ill. Ap. 278) i. ‘Sl4a, 815 Neaves v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 1) i. 1317 Neblett v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 316) i, 2644 Neck, Rex v. (2 Show. 472) i. 490; ii. 426 Ned v. §. (83 Missis. 864) i. 118, 999 —— v. §. (7 Port. 187) i. 821, 909, 1265 Needham v. Ide (5 Pick. 510) ii. 682 —— v. P. (98 Ill. 275) 1, 975 ¢ —— v. 8. (78 N.C. 474) i. 1240 —— v. Thresher (49 Cal. 392) i. 1316 Neeley v. S. (27 Tex. Ap. 824) i. 1164 —,, S. v. (20 Iowa, 108) ii. 544 Neely v. P. (13 Ill. 685) i. 909 —, 5S. v. (74. N. C. 425; 21 Am. R. 496 ii. 97, 970 Nees, S. v. (47 Ark. 553) ii. 921 Neese, S. v. (N.C. Term R. 270) ii. 786 Neff v. S. (57 Md. 583) i. 1264 Nefus, C. v. (185 Mass. 335) ii. 482 a Neiderer, S. v. (94 Mo. 79) i. 314 Neil, P. v. (91 Cal. 465) i. 611 —— v. S. (2 Lea, 674) i. 814 —— »v. §,. (48 Tex. 91) i, 8l4a Neill, S. v. (6 Ala. 685) i. 1158; ii. 69 Neimeier, 8. v. (66 Iowa, 634) ii. 175 Neis, S. v. (68 Iowa, 469) i. 975 c, 1095 Nelmes, Reg. v. (6 Car. & P. 347) i. 598 ; ‘ ii. Nelnis v. S. (91 Ala. 97) ii, 4324 —— v. S. (84 Ga. 466; 20 Am. St. 377) i, 546 v. S. (58 Missis. 362) i. 975 c, 1062 — v. 8. (13 Sm. & M. 500; 63 Am. D. 94) i. 909, 1277; ii, 624 Nels v, 8. (2 Tex. 280) i. 980, 1248, 1264 a, 1367 641 NEV i. 1408 i. 1343 i. 81l4a i. 454, 1011 ii. 1006 4.611; ii, 142 i. 1066, 1077, Nelson, Ex parte (1 Cow. 417) —— v. Barker (3 McLean, 379) — v.P. (88 Mich. 618) —— y, P. (23 N. Y. 298) —, P. v. (56 Cal. 77) ——, P. v. (58 Cal. 104) —,, P. v. (85 Cal. 421) 1197, 1276 — P. v. (13 Johns. 340) ii. 383, 884 —v.§. (6 Ala. 394) i. 949; ii. 88 ——v. S$. (46 Ala. 186) i, 1821 v. S. (82 Ark. 192) ii, 935 —— rv. 8. (7 Humph. 642) i. 1207, 1212 v. 8. (10 Humph. 518) i, 3144, 921, 9984 v. §. (2 Ind. 249) i. 314 a, 1892 — v. S. (57 Missis. 286; 34 Am. R. 444) —— v. 8S. (61 Missis. 212) ii. 629 — v.S. (2 Swan, Tenn. 237) i. 234, 976, 1086, 1197, 1202 —— v. 8. (32 Tex. 71) i. 994 v. §. (1 Tex. Ap 41) i. 488; ii. 525 i, 921 —— v.S. (2 Tex. Ap. 227) i. 82; ao a v. 8. (52 Wis. 534) i. 10154 —. §. v. (7 Ala. 610) i. 810, 821 —, S. v. (68 Iowa, 208) i. 906 — ,S. v. (28 La. An. 46) ii. 412 —} §. v. (29 Me.329) 1. 431, 436, 449, "458, 518, 674; ii. 987 —, 8. v. (28 Mo. 13) i, 251 ——}S. v. (88 Mo. 126) i.975¢ ——) S.v. (101 Mo. 477) i, 4885 — 8. v. (8N. H. 163) i. 443, 457 ——) 8.0. (Il Nev. 334) i. 1094; ii. 1006 —, 8. v. (14 Rich. 169; 94 Am. TD. 180) i, 424, 447, 457, 1334 ——, Territory v. (2 Wy. 346) i. 1310 —, U.S. v. (1 Abb. U. S. 135) ii. 487 ’ U.S. v. (29 Fed. Rep. 202) i. 689 Nemo ». C. (2 Grat. 558) i, 1004 Nerbovig, 8. v. (33 Minn. 480) i. 931 Nesbit, C. v. (34 Pa. 898) i. 725 ——v. 8. (48 Ga. 238) i. 984, 1244; ii, 58 Nestle, P. v. (19 N. Y. 583) i. 1272, 1366 Nett, S. v. (50 Wis. 524) ii. 6 Nettles, Ex parte (58 Ala. 268) i. 1212 — v.58. (4 Tex. Ap. 837) i. 13843 — v.5S. (5 Tex. Ap. 386) i. 10054 Nettleton, 8. v. (1 Root, 308) i. 1188; ii. 429, 482 b Neubrandt v. S. (58 Wis. 89) ii. 147 Neumann, P. v. (85 Mich. 98) i. 975c, 977 Neuner, S. v. (49 Conn. 282) i. 948 Neustadt, Ex parte (82 Cal. 273) i. 8144 Neverson, U.S. v. (1 Mackey, 152) i. 943 a, 1110, 1169, 1249 Nevill v. S. (60 Ind. 308) ii. 229 Neville, Rex v. (1 Mod. 295) i. 612 v. 8. (26 Ark. 614) ii. 595 —, S. v. (6 Jones, N. C. 423) i. 1082, 1275, 1276 Nevills v. S. (7 Coldw. 78) i. 536; ii. 977 Nevling v. C. (98 Pa. 822) ii. 679 642 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. NEW New, S. v. (22 Minn. 76) i. 884; ii. pee 328 New Jersey Turnpike, S. v. (1 Harri- son, 222) ii, 1044 New Orleans, &c. Rid. x, Allbritton (38 Missis. 242; 75 Am. D. 98) ii. 632, 687 ae York v. Mason (4 E. D. Smith, 142) i. 387 New York, P. v. (1 Hill, N. Y. 862) i, 286 New Sarum, Reg. v. (7 Q. B. 941) ii. 1043 Newall, Reg. v. (6 Cox C. C. 21) ii. 9335 Newbern v. Dawson (10 Ire. 436) i. 980 Newberry, P. v. (20 Cal. 489) i. 1020 —, S. v. (26 Iowa, 467) ii. 77 —, 8. v. (43 Mo. 429) i, 1152 Newboult, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1C.C. 844; 12 Cox C. C. 148) ii. 86, 45a Newbury, C. v. (2 Pick. 51) ii. 1045 Newburyport, C. v. (103 Mass. 129) ii. 1048 Newburyport Bridge, C. v. (9 Pick. 142 ii. 1043 Newby, S. v. (64.N. C. 23) i. 1006 Newcomb ». S. (57 Missis. 383) i. 96, 98a, 104, 112, 123, 979, 1279; ii. 539, 609, 621, 625, 630, 638, 670 Newcome v. S. (27 Ind. 10) i. 62 Newcomer, C. v. (49 Pa. 478) i. 707 a; ii, 329 Newdigate’s Case (7 Mod. 17) i. 2644 Newer, S. v. (7 Blackf. 307) i. 884 Newfane, S. v. (12 Vt. 422) i. 882; ii. 1045 Newhouse, S. v. (29 La. An. 824) i. 931 —, S. v. (89 La, An. 862) i, 1212 Newill, Rex xv. (1 Moody, 458) ii. 46 Newkirk v. S. (27 Ind. 1) i. 982a, 9984 —, S. v. (80 Ind. 131) i, 1277 —, 8. v. (49 Mo. 472) i, 1271, 1863 Newland, Reg. v. (2 Cox C. C. 288) i.60 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 211; 2 East P. C. 1001) ii, 431 —, S. v. (7 Iowa, 242; 71 Am. D. © 444 ii, 458 Newlin, S. v. (69 Ind. 108) ii. 678 Newman ». P. (63 Barb. 630; 6 Lans. 460) i. 1185 —, P. v. (6 Hill, N. Y. 295) i, 1195 ——, Reg. v. (2 Den. C. C. 390; 5 Cox C. C. 547; 3 Car. & K. 240; 9 Eng. L. & Eq. 529) ii, 9983 ——, Rex v. (1 Ld. Raym. 562) i. 681, 683 —, Rex v, (Trem. P. C. 128) ii, 357 — v. 8. (49 Ala. 9) i, 1223 — v. S. (6 Bax. 164) i. 975, 976 —— v. 8. (26 Ga, 633) i, 1278 —— v. §. (22 Neb. 355) i. 951 — v.8. (48 Tex. 525) i. 849 —— v. 8. (82 Tex. Cr. 92) i, 1265 —— v. §. (14 Wis. 393) i. 827, 480, 884 — , 5S. v. (7 Ala. 69) i, 1098 Newmans, 5. v. (2 Car. Law Repos. 7 i ) f Newport, 8. v. (4 Harring. Del. 567) ii. 13 Newsom »v. S. (2 Kelly, 60) i, 1894 —, 8. v. (2 Jones, N. C. 173) i, 400 NIC Newsom, S. v. (18 W. Va. 859) i, 592 Newton, Ex parte (4 Ellis & B. 869) i. 1862 —, Inre (16 C. B. 97; 30 Eng. L. & Eq. 432) i. 1855, 1862, 1869, 1410 — v. Bailey (36 Ga. 180) i, 262 —, C. v. (128 Mass. 420) i, 241, 245 ——, C. v. (8 Pick. 234) i. 899 —— v. Chaplin (10 C. B. 356) i, 962 —— v. Porter (5 Lans. 416) ii. 758 —, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 469) i. 960, 1130; ii. 934 —, Reg. v. (8 Car. & K. 85) i. 822, 948 —, Rex v. (3 Keb. 356, cited 2 Ld. Raym. 921) ii. 4184 —— Rex v. (2 Lev. 111) ii, 485 —— »v. S. (87 Ark. 333) i. 975c — v. S. (15 Fla. 610) 1. 989 b, 1164 — v.S. (21 Fla. 53) i. 951, 959 d, 975 b, 1206, 1255; ii. 603 —, S. v. (1 Greene, Iowa, 160; 48 Am. D. 367) ii. 910 a, 911 — , S. v. (62 Ind. 517) i. 68 —, S. v. (28 La. An. 65) i. 984, 987 — , S. v. (30 La. An. 1253) ii. 142 —, 8. v. (4 Nev. 410) i. 1098 — , S. v. (26 Ohio St. 265) ii. 823.4 —, S. v. (42 Vt. 587) ii. 697 — , S. v. (22 Wis. 536) i. 264 m — v. Stubbs (2 Show. 435) ii. 789 —, U.S. v. (52 Fed. Rep. 275) ii. 227 Neyce, P. v. (86 Cal. 393) ii. 827 Neyland v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 586) i. 975¢ Nibbs, Rex v. (1 Moody, 25) ii. 710 Nicely, C. v. (180 Pa. 261) i. 975, 1004 Nichol, P. v. (84 Cal. 211) i. 9800 Nicholas, Ex parte (91 Cal. 640) ii. 829 —, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 246; 2Cox C. C. 186) i. 951; ii. 960 — , S. v. (2 Strob. 278) i. 1268 Nicholl, Rex v. (1 B. & Ad. 21) ii. 921 Nicholls, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 267) _ii. 63 ——, Reg. v. (2 Cox C. C. 182) ii. 975 — , Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 51) i. 1125; ii. 989 —— v.S. (2 Southard, 589) i. 229, 762, 882, 1377, 1880 — v.S. (68 Wis. 416; 60 Am. R. 870) ii, 738 —, S. v. (87 La. An. 779) ii. 1005 a Nichols’s Case (7 Grat. 589) i. 388 Nichols v. C. (11 Bush, 575) i. 1110 —,C. v. (10 Allen, 199) i. 486 ——, C. v. (114 Mass. 285; 19 Am. R. 346) i. 1128, 1181, 1183, 1186 ——, C. v. (184 Mass. 531) i. 10154 — v. Cornelius (7 Ind. 611) i. 222 — v. P. (40 Ill. 3895) i. 885 —,, P. v. (62 Cal. 518) i. 1276 —, Rex v. (13 East, 412, note) ii. 225 — v. S. (89 Ind. 298) ii. 1051 — v. S, (127 Ind. 406) i. 612 — v. S. (46 Missis. 284) ii. 539 — v,S8. (8 Tex. Ap. 546) i. 9506 — ». S. (85 Wis. 308) i. 648, 652 a INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. NIX Nichols, 8. v. (88 Ind. 228; 43 Am. R. 66) ii. 105 —, S. v. (5 Iowa, 413) i. 1264 — , 8. v. (88 Iowa, 110) i. 449 — ,S. v. (68 N. H. 41) i. 388 —_,S. v. (12 Rich. 672) i. 1005 — , S. v. (55 Vt. 211) i. 1317 —— v. Thomas (4 Mass. 232) i. 187 — v. Winfrey (90 Mo. 403) i. 1085 Nicholson’s Case (1 Lewin, 800) i. 966 a — Case (2 Lewin, 151) i. 966 Nicholson v. C. (96 Pa. 508) i. 975 c, 984 — v. Hardwick (6 Car. & P. 495) i. 181 — , Rex v. (1 East P. C. 846) 1. 1408; ii. 547 v. §. (18 Ala. 529; 54 Am. D. 168) ii, 259 — v.§. (2 Kelly, 363) i. 2644 v. 8. (88 Md. 140) i. 969, 989, 1220, 1282 v, 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 81) ii. 840 —, 58. v. (14 La. 785) i. 951, 1287, 1873 ; ii. 451 — , S. v. (67 Md. 1) ii. 8323.4 —,S. uv. (85 N. C. 548) i. 975 c, 980 —, S. v. (102 N. C. 465) i. 984, 986 a, 987 Nickelson v. Wilson (60 N. Y¥. 862) i. 1161 Nickens v. 8. (55 Ark. 567) i. 966d Nickerson, C.v. (5 Allen, 518) ii, 692 , 5. v. (46 Iowa, 447) i. 910 a, 9835 —, 8. v. (80 Kan. 545) i, 1264 —, U.S. v. (17 How. U.S. 204) ii. 924 Nicol, S. v. (80 La. An. 628) i. 264a Nicoll v. Glennie (1 M.& S. 588) ii. 988 Nicolls v. Ingersoll (7 Johns. 145) i. 249 —, Rex v. (2 Stra, 1227) i. 265 Nielsen, Petitioner (181 U.S. 176) i. 1291, 1410 Nies, S. v. (107 N. C.820) i. 1006 Nile v. S. (11 Lea, 694) i, 1270 Niles, P. v. (44 Mich. 606) ii. 661 —— v. Rhodes (7 Mich. 374) i. 1246 —,S. v. (47 Vt. 82) ii. 963 Niller v. Johnson (27 Md. 6) ii. 482c Nims v. Johnson (7 Cal. 110) i. 1090 v, Palmer (6 Cal. 8) i. 1090 Ninde v. Clark (62 Mich. 124; 4 Am. St. 823) i, 1343 Nininger v. Carver Conmnissioners (10 Minn. 133) i, 123 Ninnon v. §. (17 Tex. Ap. 650) i. 95l1a Ninth Avenue Rid. v. New York Elev. Rid. (7 Daly, 174) i, 1417 Nipper, S. v. (95 N. C. 653) i. 4880 Nisbett, Ex parte (8 Jur. 1071) i. 187 Nix, C. v. (11 Leigh, 636) i. 814a Nixon, Ex parte (2 S. C. 4) i. 1810 — v. P. (2 Scam. 267; 35 Am. D. 107) ii. 79, 655 —, Rex v. (1 Stra. 185) i, 715 — v. 8. (68 Ala. 535) i, 882 — v. 8. (25m, & M. 497; 41 Am. D. 601) i. 951, 951 e ——, S. v. (82 Kan. 205) ii. 673 643 NOR INDEX TO THE Nixon, S. v. (18 Vt. 70; 46 Am. D. 135 ii. 111 i. 49, 660, 665, 1285 ; Noake, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 620) ii. 834 Noakes v. P. (25 N. Y. 380) i. 682; ii. 4254 ——, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 326) i, 1162, 1170 Noble v. P. (Breese, 29) 1.909; ii, 429 —— v. P, (4 Gilman, 438) i. 264 — v. §. (59 Ala. 78) ii, 821 —,, 8. v. (66 Iowa, 541) ——, 8S. v. (15 Me. 476) Noblett, S. v. (2 Jones, N. C. 418) i. 293, 1181; ii. 67 i, 480, 485 i. 966, 979; ii. 516 Nockum, S. v. (41 La. An. 689) i. 998 Noden v. Johnson (16 Q. B. 218; 2 Eng. L. & Eq. 201) i. 170 Noe v. P. (39 Til, 96) i. 879 — v. S. (4 How. Missis. 3380) i. 909 v. S. (92 Ind. 92) i. 909 Noel, S. v. (5 Blackf. 548) i. 611 Noelke, U.S. v. (17 Blatch. 554) i: a Noftsinger v. S.(7 Tex. Ap.301) i. wee Nolan’s cg? (122 Mass. 330) i, 8144 Heler a S. (53 Ga. 137) i. 1002 8. (55 Ga. 521; 21 Am. R. 281) i. 818, 826 —, S. v. (4 Ind. 508) i. 8l4a —, 8. v. (18 La. An. 276) — i. 928, 1268 —, 58. v. (15 R. I. 529) i. 145, 436 Noland v. S. (19 Ohio, 181) i. 979, 1020; ii. 9, 15 — v. S. (3 Tex. Ap. 698) i, 68, 72 —, S. v. (29 Ind. 212) i, 403, 405 Nolen v. S. (2 Head, 520) i. 926, 9984 v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap.419) i. 925, 1238 v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 474; 46 Am. R. 247) i, 1238 Noles v. S. (24 Ala. 672) i. 106, 145, 187, 188, 358, 385, 661, 665, 943; ii. 539, 567, 584, 595, 642 v. §. (26 Ala. 31; 62 Am. D. 711) i. 162, 1107; ii. 595, 610, 629, 642 Noll, P. v. (20 Cal. 164) i, 892; ii, 595 Nomaque v. P. (Breese, 109) i. 125, 273, 700, 1001, 1003 Nonemaker v. 8. (34 Ala. 211) i. 812, 1264, 1272 Noonan v. §. (55 Wis. 258) ii. 978 —, 5S. v, (24 Minn. 174) i, 1264 Noregea, P. ». (48 Cal. 128) ii, 741 Norfleet v. S. (4 Sneed, 340) i. 909 —— v. Sigman (41 Missis. 631) i, 978 Norfolk, C. v. (5 Mass, 435) i, 932 v. P. (48 Ill. 9) i. 264,f, 264 m Norman, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 501) ii. 886 v. (101 Mo. 620; 20 Am. St. , 623) i 975¢ Norris'v. P. (101 Ill. 408) i. 1277 — »v. S. (16 Ala.776) ii, 678, 680 — v.S. (50 Ala. 126) i, 624; ii. 130, 136 644 CASES CITED. NOR Norris v. S. (87 Ala. 85) i. 1101, 1181 —— v. S. (8 Humph. 333 ; 89 Am. D 175) i. 1270 v. §. (95 Ind. 73; 48 Am. R. 700) ii. 1028 — v. §. (33 Missis. 373) i. 104, 109; ii. 728 —— v. §. (25 Ohio St, 217; 18 Am. R. 291) i. 53; ii. 175 —, S. v. (9 N. H. 96) ii. 918 — v. Stewart (105 N.C. 455; 18 Am. St. 917) i.1114 Norris House v. 8. (8 Greene, Iowa, 513) i. 872, 854 North, Rex v. (6 D. & R. 148) i. 586 —, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 1021) ii. 34 — v. 8. (12 Tex. Ap. 111) 1. 975¢ —, S. v. (95 Mo. 615) i, 1066 North Brookfield, C. v. (8 Pick. 463) i, 825; ii. 1046 North Pennsylvania Rid. v. Adams (54 Pa.94; 93 Am. D. 677) i. 1048 Northampton, C. v. (2 Mass. 116) i. 602 Northeastern Neb. Rid. v. Frazier (25. Neb. 42) i, 931 9| Northern Liberty Hose Co., Inre (1s. Pa. 193) i. 892 Northfield, S. v. (18 Vt. 565) i. bi3a; ii. 825, 835 Northington v. S. (14 Lea, 424) — i. 586, 975 Northrop v. Brush (Kirby, 108) i, 285 Northrup, S. v. (48 Iowa, 583; 30 Am. R. 408) i, 1066, 1112, 1116 Northumberland, S. v. (46 N. H. 156) i. 486; ii. 1048, 1045 Norton, C. v. (11 Allen, 110) ii. 320 —, C. v. (18 Allen, 550) i. 7064 —— v. Moore (3 Head, 480) ii. 677 —, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 196) i. 611; 4 ii. 173, 185 —, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P.671) | ii. 1002 ——, Reg. v. (16 Cox C.C. 59 i. 322 ——, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 510 i. 686 w, Ey (74 Ind. 337) ii, 136 —— v. §. (98 Ind. 347) i. 975¢ — v. 8, (106 Ind, 163) i. 1001 ——, S. v. (67 Iowa, 641) i. 118 —, S. v. (76 Mo. 180) ii, 187 —;S.v. (288.0. 572) 1. 423, 975, 981 —,S.x. Ae Tex. 102) i, 1264 i, 408, 404, 959 a i, 882 —», Sanders i J. Mar. 12) ii 378 — .,U.S. v. (91 U. 8. 558) i, 960 6 Norvell v. 8. (50 Ala. 174) i. 453; ii. 277 Norwich, Rex v. (1 Stra. 177) ii, 1049 Norwich University v. Denny (47 Vt. Ne e es N S o go &8 18) ii, 485 Norwood ». S. (45 Md. 68) i. 706, 747 —, S. v. (74.N. C. 247) i, 1079 —, S. v. (84 N. C. 794) i, 1814 ——, S. v. (93 N. C. 578) i. 1810 —_ , 8.0. (115 N, C. 789) i, 602 O’BR Nott, C. v. (185 Mass. 269) i, 1228 — , Reg. v. (4 Q. B. 768; Dav. & M. 1 i, 1343 — , U.S. v. (1 McLean, 499) i. 1236 Nottingham, Rex v. (4 East, 208) i. 68, 73 ——, Rex v. (2 Lev. 112) ii. 1049 Nourse v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 804) i. 1159, 1170; ii. 981 Nowell, S. v. (60 N. H. 199) i, 463 Nowlan, S. v. (64 Me. 581) i. 1005 a Nowlin v. S. (49 Ala. 41) ii. 1048 Noyes ‘ Crawley (10 Ch. D. 81) i. 405 —— v. §. (12 Vroom, 418) i. 1020 — , S. ». (10 Fost. N. H. 279) i. 480 —, 8. v. (47 Me. 189) i. 717 ——, S. v. (25 Vt. 415) ii. 218 Nueslein, S. v. (25 Mo. 111) i. 1094 Nugent, P. v. (4 Cal. 341) i. 826, 614 —, Reg. v. (11 Cox C. C. 64) i. 157 — v. §. (18 Ala. 521) ii, 963, 972 — v.§. (19 Ala. 540) ii. 80, 82 —, S. v. (71 Mo. 136) i. 951, 975 c, : 980 ; ii. 629 Nulf, S. v. (15 Kan. 404) i. 718 Nulty, S. v. (57 Vt. 5438) i. 97 Nunn v. §. (1 Kelly, 243) i. 139 —, S. v. (29 La. An. 589) i. 651 Nunnemacher, U.S. v. (7 Bis. 129) i. 612; ii. 245 Nutt v. S. (19 Tex. 340) ii. 840, 850 —, S. v. (28 Vt. 598) i. 814a]- Nutter, C. v. (8 Grat. 699) i, 869 a; ii. 654, 655 — v.§. (9 Ind. 178) i. 1265 Nutting, S. v. (89 Me. 359) i. 763, 1342, 1895 Nutton v. Crow (10 Mod. 171) i. 458 Nutwell, S. v. (1 Gill, 54) i. 820 Nye, C. v. (7 Gray, 316) i, 264.a Nyman, S. v. (55 Conn. 17) i. 978 Oakes, C. v. (151 Mass. 59) i. 118 Oakley v. Aspinwall (3 Comst. et 123, 314 —, Rex v. (4B. & Ad. 307; 1 Nev. & M. 58) ii. 377 ns S. v. (51 Ark. 112) ii, 782 —,, S. v. (103 N. C. 408) i. 1006 Oaks, C. v. (113 Mass. 8) ii, 864, 874 b —— v. Rodgers (48 Cal. 197) li. 914 Oates’s Case (10 How. St. Tr. 1079) i, 912, 942 O’Baldwin, C. v. (103 Mass. 210) _ ii. 65 O’Bannon v. S. (76 Ga. 29) i. 272, 1001 ——v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 465) i, 264, 264 b , Sv. (1 Bailey, 144) i. 585, 612 Ober, S. v. (52 N. H. 459; 18 Am. R. 88) i. 1188 Obermark v. P. (24 Ill. Ap. 259) i. 713 O’Blenis v, S. (18 Vroom, 279) ii. 965 —, S. v, (21 Mo. 272) i. 1817 O’Brian v. C. (6 Bush, 563) i. 818, 1195, 1196 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. o’coO O’Brian v. C. (9 Bush, 883; 15 Am. f R. 715 1, 815, 818, 911 ge 2 Car. & K. 115) ii. 3,5 —— v. S. (12 Ind. 369) i. 179 — v. 8, (14 Ind. 469) i. 1269 — ,,U. §. uv. (8 Dil. 881) i. 220 O’Brien, C. v. (12 Allen, 183) i. 1170; ii. 189, 722 —, C. v. (2 Brews. 566) -i 711 —, C. vu. (12 Cush. 84 ii. 240 —, C. v. (8 Gray, 487 ii. 280 — , C. v. (107 Mass. 208) ii. 60 C. v. (119 Mass. 842; 20 Am. R. 825) i. 1117 —, C. v. (152 Mass. 495) i. 1346 —, C. v. (140 Pa. 555) i. 988; ii. 228, 22 7 v. P. (48 Barb. 274) i. 457, 909, 918, 1228 - —— v. P. (28 Mich. 218) ii. 112, 118, 115 —— v. P. (36 N. Y. 276) i. 903, 906, 1269; ii. 678 ——., P. v. (66 Cal. 602) i. 1181, 1182 —, P. v. (78 Cal. 41) ii. 633 —, P. v. (88 Cal. 483) i. 934 —, P. v. (96 Cal. 171) ii. 419 —, P. v. (41 Ill. 303) i. 264 a, 2647 —, P. v. (60 Mich. 8) _ i. 1169; ii. 842 —, P.»v. ( (4 Par. Cr. 208) i. 814.4, 1280, 8. 1281 —— v. Reg. (2 Cox C. C. 122) i. 422, 458, 1329 — v. §. (125 Ind. 38) i. 211 —— v.§. (27 Tex. Ap. 448) ii. 146 — , 8. ce. (21 La. An. 265) i. 1015 —,§. v. (22 La. An. 27) i. 1012 —, 8. v. (74 Mo. 549) i, 639 —, 8. v. (7 R. 1. 836) i. 997, 999, 1021; ii. 686 —, S. o. (14 R. I. 266) i. 926 O’Bryan v. Allen (95 Mo. 68) i. 1191 —— v.§. (12 Tex. Ap. 118) i. 981 O’Byrne v. S. (29 Ga. 36) i, 932 a, 981 O’Byrnes v. S. (51 Ala. 25) i. 849, 860, 887 O’Callahan, U.S. v. (6 McLean, 596) i. 452 O’Carny, Rex v. (T. Jones, 180) i, 297 Ocean Freeholders, S. v. (18 Vroom,' 417) i, 286 Ocean Steamship Co. rae (69 Ga, 251) Ochs v. P. (25 Ill. Ap. 379; 124 t. 399) i. 947, 951 f, 1852 O’Connell v. C. (7 Met. 460) ii. 981, 985 —, C. v. (12 Allen, 451) ii, 703 —, C. v. (8 Gray, 464) i. 3144 —— v. P. (87 N. ¥. 877; 41 Am. R. 879) ii. 669, 673 —— v. Reg. (11 Cl. & F. 155; 1 Cox C. C. 413) i, 459, 798, 9381, 964, 1015, 1026, 1827, 1388 —,, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 894) i. 982 a — v. 8. (55 Ga. 191) i. 449, 1005; li. 989, 991 a 645 O’FL O’Connell v. S. (6 Minn. 279) ii. 949, 950, 952, 955 — v.S. (18 Tex. 348) {. 400, 978, 980, 1291 — v.S8. (10 Tex. Ap. 567) i. 1199 —, S. v. (26 Ind. 266 ii. 34 — , S. v. (31 Kan. 383) i, 461 —,, S. v. (82 Me. 30) i, 1179 O’Conner, P. v. (1 Idaho, n. 8. 759) i. 1264 v. S. (40 Tex. 27) i. 1808 O’Connor, In re (6 Wis. 288) i. 1410 —— ». Bucklin (59 N. H. 589) i. 183 —, C. v. (7 Allen, 583) i. 170, 181 — , C. v. (11 Gray, 94) ii. 625 —, C. v. (107 Mass. 219) i. 461 ——,, Reg. v. (5 Q. B. 16) i. 875, 380 v. S. (80 Ala. 9) ii. 182, 184 —— v.S. (9 Fla. 215) i. 901, 906, 909, 914 v. S. (45 Ind. 347) i. 1264 — v. S. (97 Ind. 104) i. 683 — v.S. (28 Tex. Ap. 288) i. 1159, 1265 —,S. v. (65 Mo. 374; 27 Am. R. 291) i. 975 —,, S. v. (11 Nev. 416) i. 1287; ii. 655 Octavia, The (1 Gallis. 488) i. 65 O’Daniel, C. v. (9 Bush, 551) i. 264 a O’Day, S. v. (89 Mo. 559) i. 966 c, 1131 Oddy, Reg. v. (2 Den. C. C. 264; 5 Cox C, C. 210; 4 Eng. L. & Eq. 572) : i. 1128 ; ii. 990 O’Dea »v. S. (57 Ind. 31) i. 1279 v. 8. (16 Neb. 241) ii, 1054 Odel, S. v. (2 Tread. 758; 3 Brev. 552) ii."261, 420 Odell, P. v. (1 Dak. 197) i. 1001 — , S. v. (8 Blackf. 396) ii. 828, 833 —, S. v. (42 Iowa, 75) ii. 105 —, S. v. (8 Or. 30) i. 1170 Oder v. C. (80 Ky. 82) ii. 618 Odgers, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 479 i. 780, 782 Odington v. Darby (2 Bulst. 35) i. 349, 708 Odle v. S. (6 Bax. 159) i. 998 a — v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 612) i975; ii. 1007 a Odlin, C. v. (23 Pick. 275) i, 514 O’Donald, 8. v. (1 McCord, 582) ii. 998 O’Donnell, C. v. (150 Mass. 502) — i. 725 —— v. Chicago, &c. Ry. (22 Ill. Ap. 283) 1, 314a ——, Reg. v. (7 Cox C. C. 387) i, 1021 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 188) i. 210, 212 —— S. v. (10 R. 1. 472) i. 635, 636, 639 O'Driscoll, S. v. (2 Bay, 153) i. 911 Odum, S. v. (11 Tex. 12) ii. 699, 700 Oeder, S. v. (80 Iowa, 72) i. 1279 Oehlshlager, S. v. (88 Iowa, 297 ) 4.747 Oelrichs v. Spain (15 Wal. 211) i. 458 Offener, C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 17) i. 1868 Office v. Gray (2 Car. Law R. 424) i. 691 Offutt, C. v. (82 Ky. 326) i. 1319 —, S. v. (4 Blackf. 355) i. 887 O'Flaherty, S. v. (7 Nev. 153) i. 88, 98, 706 a; ii. 64, 584, 655 646 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. OLI Ogden »v. P. (62 Ill. 63) i. 2344 —— v. P, (134 Ill. 599) i. 1060 — v. 5S. (13 Neb. 436) i. 909, 1279 — v. 5. (15 Tex. Ap. 454) ii. 506 v. 8. (12 Wis. 682; 78 Am. D. 764) ii. 13 Ogilvie, Rex v. (2 Car. & P. 280) ii. 718 Ogle v. S. (83 Missis. 383) i, 909, 932, 951, 1276 — v.58. (16 Tex. Ap. 361) i. 994 Oglesby Coal Co. v. Pasco (79 Ill. 164) i. 1417 Ogletree v. S. (28 Ala. 693) i. 1046, 1050, 1124 O’Gorman, S. v. (68 Mo. 179) i. 689 O’ Hagan, S. v. (88 Iowa, 504) ii. 912, 914 O'Halloran v. S. (81 Ga. 206) i. 982 O’Hara, C. v. (10 Gray, 469) ii. 721 —— v. P. (41 Mich. 623) i. 795 O'Hare »v. P. (40 Ill. 533) i. 1265 —, P. v. (2 Mich. N. P.170) i. 659.4 O’Hearn, C. v. (182 Mass. 558) i. 689 3 Ohio v. Marcy (18 Wal. 552) i. 1265 Ohio, &e. Rid. v. Irvin (27 Lil. 178) ii. 677 —— v. Shultz (31 Ind. 150) i. 663 Ohms v. 8. (49 Wis. 415) i. 1274 Oil City v. MeAboy (74 Pa. 249) i. 816 Oiler, P. v. (66 Cal. 101) i. 1204, 1206 O’Kane, S. v. (23 Kan. 244) i, 423 O’Keefe, C. v. (121 Mass. 59) ii. 824 — ». 8. (24 Ohio St. 175) i. 372 — , S. v. (41 Vt. 691) i. 890 O'Kelly, S. v. (88 N. C. 609) i. 314 Okey, Rex v. (1 Lev. 61) i. 1884, 1385 Okie, U.S. v. (5 Blatch. 516) ii. 820, 328, 776 a O’Laughilin, S. v. (19 Kan. 504) ii. 1054 Olcott, P.v. (2 Johns. Cas. 801 ; 1 Am. ii. 238 D. 168 ii. 2¢ Old v. C. (18 Grat. 915) — i. 1288; ii. 127, 822, 825 Olden, Ex parte (37 Mo. Ap. 116) i. 718 Oldfield’s Case (2 Russ. Crimes, 3d Eng. ed. 876) i, 562 Oldham, C, v. (1 Dana, 466) i. 229, 232 Oldnoll’s Case (2 Dy. 155 a) i. 603 Oldroyd, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry.88) i. 1276 Olds v. C. (3 A. K. Mar. 465) i. 951 a, 1275 —, C. ov. (5 Litt. 137) i. 818 O'Leary »v. P. (4 Par. Cr. 187) i. 1380 Oleson v. S. (11 Neb. 276; 388 Am. R. 366) ii. 963 — v. S. (19 Wis. 560) i. 1265 - —— v. S. (20 Wis. 58) i. 487; ii. 945 Olive v. C. (5 Bush, 376) i. 372, 478, 479, 1101 ; ii. 143 — v.§. (11 Neb. 1) i. 50, 68, 553, 909, 1060, 1169 Oliveira v. S. (45 Ga. 555) ii, 358, 364 Oliver, Ex parte (8 Tex. Ap. 345) i. 1410 —v. C. (77 Va. 590) i. 1144, 1160 ~—v. Cameron (MacAr. & M. 237) i. 1149 —— v. Chapman (15 Tex. 400) i. 1275 —— v. 8. (17 Ala. 587) i. 1086, 1211, ee ii, 69 ORI Oliver v. S, (87 Ala. 134) i. 452; ii, 163, 167, 173, 177, 178 — v. S. (66 Ala. 8) i. 850 ——v. §. (17 Ark. 508) i. 488 ¢; ii. 882, 883, 891, 892 — v.58. (5 How. Missis, 14) i. 400, 1878 ——, 8. ». (2 Houst. 584) i. 1207, 1212 —, 8. v. (38 La. An, 62 i. 1005, 1264 —, 8. v. (89 La, An. 470 i. 1087 —, 8. v. (42 La. An. 943) i. 762 , S.v. (43 La. An. 1003) i. 1110, 1196 Olivera, P. v. (7 Cal. 403) i. 5385 Olmstead, P. v. (30 Mich. 481) i. 1116, 1211 O’Loughlin, P. v. (3 Utah, 183) i. 909, 1032, Olsen, P. v. (80 Cal. 122) i. 975 c, 980 Olwell, P. v. (28 Cal. 456) ii. 669 O’Malia v. Wentworth (63 Me. 129) i. 1410 O'Malley, C. v. (97 Mass. 584) ii, 827 O’Mally, S. v. (48 Iowa, 501) ii. 1026 O’Mara v. C. (75 Pa. 424) i. 909, 984 ; ii. 628 O’Mealy v. 8. (1 Tex. Ap. 180) i. 1269 O'Meara v. 8. (17 Ohio St. 515) i. 1265, 1268 Omit v. C. (21 Pa. 426) _ i. 1268 One Horse, &c., U.S. v. (7 Ben. 405) i. 1319 Oneal v. S. (47 Ga. 229) i. 901, 950 b, 1279 O’Neal, P. v. (67 Cal. 878) i. 1181, 1182 v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 582) i. 1159, 1248 —,S. v. (7 Ire. 251) i. 629, 975, 980, 1119 Oneil v. S. (48 Ga. 66) i. 987 v. §. (42 Ind. 346) i. 1248, 1249 O'Neil, C. v. (6 Gray, 348) i. 919, 1264 —, P. v. (47 Cal. 109) i. 317 —, P. v. (48 Cal. 257) i. 898, 898 ; ii. 63 a, 976 —. P. v. (59 Cal. 259) i. 1061 ——, P.v. (61 Cal. 435) i. 943 —) P. v. (78 Cal. 388) ii. 595 —, P. wv. (49 Hun, 422; 112 N. Y. 355) i, 1249 ——, 8. v. (7 Or. 141) i. 1317 ——, 8. v. (13 Or. 183 i. 95la —, S. v. (58 Vt. 140 i, 1004, 107 v. Vermont (144 U. S, 823) i. 100@ O'Neill, P. v. (112 N. Y. 355) i. 1085; ii. 55 v. Reg. (6 Cox C. C. 495) i. 931; ii, 523 | — , Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 138) i. 951 O’Niel, S. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 468) i. 159 —,, S. v. (28 Iowa, 272) ii. 548 Ontario, P. v. (4 Denio, 260) i. 1800 Opinion of Justices (120 Mass. 600) i. 1012 — (41 N. H. 550) i. 897, 900 Oppenheimer, S. v. (41 Tex. 82) ii.910, 911 Orbell, Reg. v. (6 Mod. 42) i. 258; ii. 158 —— v. Ward (Trém. P. C. 27) i. 798 Orchard v. Osborn (48 Kan. 76) i. 1314 Orehard, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 665) i. 711 Orcutt, P. v. (1 Par. Cr. 252) i, 1100 Ordway, C. v. (12 Cush. 270) i. 1266 —— v. Sanders (58 N. H. 132) i. 1086 Organ v. 8. (26 Missis. 78) i. 999 Original Hartlepool Collieries Co. v. Gibb (5 Ch. D. 713) i, 1417 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. OST Orleans Criminal Judge, 8. v. (32 La. An. 1222) i, 869 Ormiston, S. ev. (66 Iowa, 148) ii. 206, 208 Ormond, 8. v. (1 Dev. & Bat. 119) i. 618 Ormsby v. P. (53 N. Y. 472) i. 1186 —, Pv. (48 Mich, 494) i. 276 O’Rourke, 8. v. (55 Mo, 440) i. 68, 72 Orr, C. v. (188 Pa. 276) i. 975 ¢, 981, 1181, 1182 — v.§. (18 Ark. 540) i. 452 v. S. (84 Ga, 342) i. 1077 —, 8. v. (64 Mo. 339) i. 1077 Orrell, Rex v. (1 Moody & R. 467) i. 969 Orrick, S. v. (106 Mo. i11) i. 281, 700, gu4 Orrok v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. (21 Pick. 456 ; 82 Am. D. 271) i. 1199 Orsborn, 8. v. (1 Root, 152) ii. 433 Orsini, S. v. (22 La. An. 93) i. 1276 Orsler, S. v. (48 Iowa, 343) i. 2647 Ortis v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 282) i. 618 Orton, Reg. v. i. 1827 , Reg. v. (14 Cox C. C. 226) ii. 24 —— v. §. (4 Greene, Iowa, 140) i. 417 , S. v. (67 Iowa, 554) i, 1410 Ortwein vw. C. (76 Pa. 414; 18 Am. R. 420) i. 909 ; ii. 672, 673 Orvis, S. v. (18 Ind. 569) ii. 176 Osborn, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 799) i. 258, 951 —— v. §. (52 Ind. 526) i. 611 —, §. v. (84 Kan. 473) ii. 786 v. U.S. Bank (Y Wheat. 738) i. 1414 Osborne v. P. (2 Par. Cr. 588) ii. 158 ——, Reg. x. (Car. & M. 622) ii. 962, 968 —, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 113) i. 1199 ——, Rex v. (4 Bur. 2125) i. 691 v. §. (64 Missis. 318) ii. 514 — v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 225) i. 688 —, S. v. (1 Dev. & Bat. 114) i, 1264 ——,, S. vu. (28 Iowa, 9) ii, 7524 —, S. v. (61 Iowa, 30) i. 852 v. Sargent (23 Me. 527) i. 814a v. Toomer (6 Jones, N.C. 440) i. 1341 Osburn v. 8. (4 Coldw. 184) i. 1264 z. 8. (7 Ohio, Ist pt. 212) ii, 934 Oscar, S. v. (7 Jones, N.C. 305) — i. 1094 —, 8. v. (13 La. An. 297) i. 239, 1310 Osgood v. S. (63 Ga. 791) i. 946, 9496 — v. 8. (64 Wis. 472) i, 960 —, S. v. (85 Me. 288) ii. 105 — v. Thurston (23 Pick. 110) i, 316 O’Shields v. 8. (55 Ga. 696) i. 948, 980, 997, 1086, 1277, 1278, 1279 — r.S. (81 Ga. 301) i, 814 Osiander v. C. (3 Leigh, 780; 24 Am. ee i, D. 693) Osmer, Rex v. (5 East, 804; 1 Smith, 555) ii. 881, 884, 895 Osmond, P. v. (188 N. Y. 80) ii. 611, 685 Osterhout, P. v. (34 Hun, 260) i, 733 Ostrander v. P. (28 Hun, 88) v. P. (29 Hun, 518) —, S. v. (18 Iowa, 435) 909, 926, 960, 983, 1094, 1357; ii. 586 647 OWE Ostrander, S. v. (30 Mo. 18) i, 981 Oswestry, Reg. v. (12 Q. B. 289) i. 691 Otero v. 8. (80 Tex. Ap. 450) i. 951 Otey v. Hoyt (3Jones, N. C. 407) ii. 482 b —, S. v. (7 Kan. 69) i. 1078 ; ii. 967 —, U.S. v. (12 Saw. 416; 31 Fed. Rep. 68) ii. 249 Otis, C. v. (16 Mass. 198) i, 251, 2644 —v. Thom (28 Ala. 469; 58 Am. D. 303) i. 1175 Otmer v. P. (76 Il]. 149) i. 1065, 1066, 1079 Ott, S. v. (49 Mo. 826) i. 272, 980, 1858 Otto, P. v. (70 Cal. 523) i, 898 Ouachita v. Sanders (5 Eng. 467) i. 1816 Outerbridge, S. v. (82. N.C. 617) i. 885 Outeveras, P. v. (48 Cal. 19) ii. 13 Outlaw v. Hurdle (1 Jones, N. C. 150) ii. 482 Outs, S. v. (80 La. An. 1155) ii. 436 Overaker v. S. (4Sm. & M. 788) — i, 251 Overall v. 8. (15 Lea, 672) ii. 674 Overby, C. v. (80 Ky. 208; 44 Am. R. 471) i, 2642 Overholser, S. v. (69 Ind. 144) i.975¢, 977 Overman v. 8. (49 Ark. 364) i. 1278 Overseers v. Smith (2 8. & Rk. 868) i, 1878 Overshiner v. C. (2 B. Monr. 344) i. 140, 698 Overstreet v. S. (46 Ala. 30)’ i. 1107 Overton, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 655) i. 1868 —, Reg. v. (2 Moody, 263) ii. (902 — , Reg. v. (Dears. 308; 6 Cox C. C. 277) i. 1060; ii. 827 v. S. (60 Ala. 73) i. 378. —v. 8. (43 Tex. 616) i. 1151; ii. 726 — , 8. v. (75 N.C. 200) i. 1254 v. Tracey (14 S. & R. 311) i, 792 Oviatt v. S. (19 Ohio St. 573) ii. 846 Owen v. Baker (101 Mo. 407; 20 Am. St. 618) i, 1131 — v. Doty (27 Cal. 502) ii. 380 ——, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 83) i. 1020, 1021, 1219 ——, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 238) i, 1255 ——, Reg. v. (6 Cox C. C. 105) ii. 931, 932 —, Rex v. (1 Moody, 118) i. 485 — v.8. (48 Ala. 328) i. 689 —— v. 8. (78 Ala. 425; 56 Am. R. 40) i. 1218 v. 8. (38 Ark. 512) i. 265, 273 —— v. 8. (6 Humph. 330) ii. 721 v. S. (52 Ind. 879) 1. 449; ii. 9914 — v.58. (5 Sneed, 493) i. 627; ii. 456, 465 v. 8. (89 Tenn. 698) i. 1151 — v. S. (89 Tenn. 704) i. 975, 980, 980 a v. 8. (44 Tex. 248) ii. 763 —v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 29) i. 686 —, §. v. (73 Mo. 440) li. 432 6, 914 —, 8. v. (78 Mo. 367) i. 1276 ——,S8. v. (1 Murph. 452; 4 Am. D. 571) fi. 616, 520, 535 s . Warburton (1 New Rep. 826) i. 1270 648 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. PAG Owens v. S. (52 Ala. 400) i. 1094; ii. 848 v. S. (74 Ala. 401) i, 1254 v. S. (2 Head, 455) i. 793 —— v. S. (59 Missis. 547) i. 1181, 1212 —— v. §. (63 Missis. 450) i. 975, 1147, 1195 ——». 8. (35 Tex. 861) i. 1273, 1278 ——v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 153) i. 1265 v. 8. (25 Tex. Ap, 552) i. 926 ——»v. §. (28 Tex. Ap. 122) i, 582, 975¢ — v. §. (27 Wis. 486) i. 1878 —— v. 8. (83 Wis. 496 ii. 168 —, S. v. (22 Minn. 238) i. 689, 1264, 1269 ——) S.v. (79 Mo. 619) i, 1094 sri. 152 —} 8. uv. (87 N.C. 565) i. 1314 ——, 5. v. (10 Rich. 169) ii. 723 Owings v. Arnot (33 Mo. 406) ii. 409 ——,, Territory v. (38 Mont. 1387) i. 1094 Owsley, S. v. (111 Mo. 460) ii. 152 Oxford, Rex v. (13 East, 411) i, 1377 —, Rex v. (5 Nev. & M. 877 i, 1268 —,, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 382 ii. 270 v. 8. (33 Ala. 416) i. 1010 — v. §. (82 Tex. Cr. 272) i. 1079 —, S. v. (80 Tex. 428) i. 859 Oxley, Reg. v. (8 Car. & K. 317) ii. 922 Oyer and ‘Terminer, P. v. (7 Hun, 114) i, 2644 ——, P. v. (83 N.Y. 436) 4. 909; ii. 163 —, P.v. (101 N. Y. 245; 54 Am. R. 691) i, 965, 994 Oystead v. Shed (13 Mass. 520; 7 Am. D. 172) i. 195, 204 Ozaukee Circ. Ct. S. v. (71 Wis. 595) i. 1268 Pace v. S. (63 Ga, 159) i. 1279 ——, 8. v. (9 Rich. 355) i. 1015, 1882 Pacheco, P. v. (70 Cal. 473) ii, 949 Packard, C.v. (5 Gray,101) i. 977, 1265 —,, S. ». (4 Or. 157) ii, 358 —— v. U.S. (1 Greene, Towa, 225) i. 1270 Packenham, P. »v. (115 N. Y. 200) i. 926; ii. 674, 678 Packer, Rex v, (2 East P. C.658) ii. 721 Packham v. Newman (1 Cromp. M. & R. 585) i, 1276 Packwood, S. v. (26 Mo. 340) i. 980, 1275 Pacquett, S. v. (75 Mo. 330) i. 975¢ Paddock, S. v. (24 Vt. 312) i, 698 Padfield v. Cabell (Willes, 411) i, 227 Padgett v. S. (103 Ind. 550) i. 1101 . S. », (82 N.C. 544) i. 1264 Padillia, P. v. (42 Cal. 535) i. 1079 Paetz v. Dain (1 Wils. Ind. 148) i, 178 Pagaud v, S. (6 Sm. & M. 491) ii, 486 Page, Ex parte (49 Mo. 291) i. 1873, 1411 — v. C. (26 Grat. 943) 1. 480; ii. 34, 40 —— v. C. (27 Grat. 954) i. 747, 755, re v. C. (9 Leigh, 683) i. 1010; ii. 486 v. Harwood (Aleyn, 48; Style, 68) i, 596 PAL Page v. Homans (14 Me. 478) ii. 482 a —, P. v.(1 Idaho, 114) i, 982, 1100 —— v. Page (15 Pick. 868) i, 1189 — v. Parker (40 N. H. 47) ii, 229 —— v. Price (3 Salk. 57) i, 256 ——, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 756; 2 Moody, 219) ii, 258, 250 —, Reg. v. (2 Cox C. C. 221) i. oe 96: — v. §. (61 Ala. 16) i. 688 —v.S. (9 Tex. Ap. 466) i. 1264 —, 8. v. (19 Mo. 213) ii, 415 —, S. v. (12 Neb. 355) i. 1265 ——, S. v. (12 Neb. 386) i.314a Pagels, S. v. (92 Mo. 800) _ i. 951, 9664 Paice, Reg. v. (1 Car.& K.73) ii. 40, 45 Paige v. O’Neal (12 Cal. 483) i, 934 —— v. P. (8 Abb. Ap. 439) i. 1272 ; ii. 418 a, 421 Pain, Rex v. (Comb. 858; Holt, 294) i, 230, 1194, 1199 Paine v. Boston (4 Allen, 168) ii. 751 —— v. Fox (16 Mass. 129) i. 406 —-, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 185) i. 691 —, Rex »v. (1 Salk. 281; 5 Mod. 163 ) i, 1194, 1195 — v.S. (7 Blackf. 206) i. 251 — . 58... (1 Ind. 163; Smith, Ind. 73) i, 661, 662 Painter v. P. (147 Ill. 444) ii, 628 — v. §. (26 Tex. Ap. 454) ii, 134 — 8. v. (70 N. C. 70 ii. 846 —, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 319; 2 Cox Gc. 244) i. 2340 —, S. v. (40 Iowa, 298) i, 951 Pairo v. S. (49 Ala. 25) ii, 145, 146 Palatka, &c. Rid. v. S. (28 Fla. 546; 11 Am. St. 395) i, 1268 ; ii. 1051 Palfrey’s Case (Cro. Jac. 527) ii. 99, 100 Palfus v. S. (86 Ga. 280) ii. 869 a Palliser, In re (186 U. S. 257) ii. 805 Pallister, P. v. (188 N. Y. 601) ii. 633 Palmer, Ex parte (86 Cal. 631) ii. 826 — v. Crook (7 Gray, 418) ii. 626 — v. Fiske (2 Curt. C. C. 14) i. 1279 — v. Lesne (8 Ala. 741 i. 706 — v. McMahon (133 U.S.660) i. 100a —v. P. (188 Ill. 356; 32 Am. St. 146) ii. 506, 585, 541, 627 v. P. (48 Mich. 414) i, 962 — v. P. (4 Neb. 68) i. 313, 909, 1278 — v. P.(10 Wend. 165; 25 Am. D. 651) ii. 721 —,, P. v. (53 Cal. 615) ii, 426 — , P. v. (48 Hun, 397) i. 965 ii. 688 a — , P. v. (96 Mich, 580) —, P. v. (109N. Y. 110; 4 Am. St. 423) i. 1060, 1264 —, Reg. v. (5 Ellis & B. 1024; 3a Eng. L. & Eq. 290) 1. 68, 72 a —, Rex v. (2 Bur. 1162) i. 1817 — ,, Rex ». (6 Car. & P. 652) i. 870 a — , Rex v. (1 Leach, 102) i. 618, 686 — v, S. (42 Ohio St. 596) i, 909, 949 —,S. v. (40 Kan. 474) ii. 184 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. PAR Palmer, S. v. (50 Kan. 318) ii. 168 —, 8. v. (82 La. An. 565) i. 1287; ii. 822 ——, S. v. (85 Me. 9) i. 440 —, S. v. (4 Misso. 453) i. 378, 449 —, S. vu. (88 Mo. 568) i. 1181, 1185 —, 8. vo. (15 R. I. 6) + 1.1814 —, S. v. (18 Vt. 570 i. 689 — v. U.S. (1 Wash. Ter. 5) i. 783, 801 —, U.S. v. (3 Wheat. 610) i. 314¢@ Palmore v. 8. (29 Ark. 248) i. 851, 949, 983 ; ii. 588, 610, 613 Palo Alto v. Moncrief (58 lowa, 131) 1. 1316 Palvadore v. S. (12 Tex. 230) i, 264a Pamenter, Rex v. (12 Cox C. C. 117: 2 Eng. Rep. 231) i. 1226 Pancake v. §. (81 Ind. 93) i. 975 c, 978 Pankey, 8S. v. (104 N. C. 840) i. 951, 1001 Pannell v. C. (86 Pa. 260) ii. 671, 684, 685 — v. S. (29 Ga. 681) i, 948, 951 u a Sa’s Case (5 How. St. Tr. Papineau v. Bacon (110 Mass. 319) i. 189, 214 i. 393 ; ii. 867, Parchman v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 228 ; a Am. R. 435) — v.S. (8 Tex. Ap. 225) i. 783, 1264, 1354 Pappineau, Rex v. (1 Stra. 686) Pardue v. S. (4 Bax. 10) ii, 142 Parfitt, Rex v. (8 Car. & P. 288) i. 88; ii. 321 Parham v. 8. (10 Lea, 498) _i. 692, 1276 —, 5S. v. (5 Jones, N. C. 416) i. 1086 Paris v. S. (86 Ala. 232) i. 73, 1269 Paris Ry, S. v. (65 Tex. 76) i. 1417 Parish, P. v. (4 Denio, 153) i. 978; ii. 178, 198 ——,, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 94) i. 1179 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 782) i. 258 —, S.v. (Busbee, 289) i, 234 b, 1259 —, S. v. (78 N. C. 492) i, 1236 —, S. v. (104. N. C. 679) i. 461, 902, 1126 —, S. v. (42 Wis. 625) i, 1266 Park, C. v. (1 Gray, 553) i. 488 d —— v.S. (4 Ga. 329) i. 264 a, 264 £ Parke v. Evans (Hob. 62a) ° i. 199 Parker’s Case (2 Dy. 186 a) ii. 5 Parker, Ex parte (106 Mo. 551) =i. 1301, 1317 ——, Ex parte (6 S. C. 472) i. 317 v. C. (8 B. Monr. 30) i. 1015 — v. C. (12 Bush, 191) i, 870 —, C. v. (2 Cush. 212) ii. 982 —, C.v. (117 Mass. 112) i. 612 , ©. v. (140 Mass. 439) i, 264 a, 264 b —,, C. v. (2 Pick. 550) —i.- 60, 849, 883, 965 ; ii. 638 — v. Chambers (24 Ga. 518) ii, 677 v. Green (2 B. & S. 299) eee ii, 27 —— v. New Orleans (15 La. An. 43) i. 1817 649 PAR Parker v. P. (18 Colo. 155) i, 855 —v. P. (97 Ill. 82) i. 461 ——, P. v. (67 Mich. 222; 11 Am. St. 578) i, 1248; iit 482, 436 — P. v, (187 N. ¥. 535) ii, 633 —— v. Patrick (5 T. R. 175) ii. 759 —, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 639) ii. 917, ee 919, 934 — , Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1C. C.-225) i. 59 — , Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 42; 8 Cox C. C, 465) i. 1227 — _, Reg. v. (3 Q. B. 292; 2 Gale & D. 709) ii. 210, 211 v. Robertson (14 La. An. 249) i. 1817, 1821 v. S. (81 Ga. 832) i. 9500 v. 8. (16 Lea, 476) ii. 812 — »v. S. (67.Md. 329; 1 Am. St. 387) i. 1191; ii. 968 v. 8. (51 Missis. 535) i. 1298 — v. S. (55 Missis. 414) i. 909 v. S. (4 Ohio St. 563) i. 230 v, 8. (5 Tex. Ap. 579) i. 1410 — v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 351) i, 822, 571 — v.§. (18 Tex. Ap. 72) i. 951a —, S. v. (89 Ark. 174) i. 1314 ——, S. v. (1 D. Chip. 298)- i. 561; ii. 404 ——, S. v. (42 La. An, 972) — i. 488, 1153 — , S.v. (5 Lea, 568) i. 387 — , 8. v. (13 Lea, 221) i. 975c —, S. v. (96 Mo. 3882) i. 975 ¢, 1207 —, S. v. (106 Mo. 217) i. 951 ¢ —S. v. (39 Mo. Ap. 116) i. 713 —, S. v. (65 N. C. 453) i. 495, 553 —, 8S. v. (75 N. C, 249) i, 214 —, S. v. (81 N. C. 548) ii. 845 —, S. v. (106 N.C. 711) i. 981, 1276 —, S. v. (43 N. H. 83) i. 825 ; ii. 216 —, S. v. (16 Nev. 79) ' ii. 187 —, S. v. (Phillips, N. C. 473) i, 978 — v. Smith (3 Minn. 240; 74 Am. D. 749) i. 279 Parkerson v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 72) i. 951 Parkes, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 963) i. 884 , Rex v. (2 East P. C. 992) ii. 477, 478 Parkin, Rex v. (1 Moody, 45) i. 59, 1003 Parkins, Rex v. (1 Car. & P. 548; Ryan & Moody N. P. 166) i. 962 Parkinson, Reg. v. (2 Den. C. C. 459; 6 Eng. L. & Eq. 352; 15 Jur. 1011) i, 276, 1038 , » 8. (16 Lea, 132) i, 251 —,v.S. (14 Md. 184; 74 Am. D. 522) i, 628 —, v. 8. (2 W. Va. 589) ii, 1044 Parks, Ex parte (1 Hughes, C. C. 604) i. 1410 —-, Ex parte (93 U. S. 18) i. 1410 ——, P.v. (44 Cal. 105) i. 860 v. S. (87 Ark. 97) i. 1264 —— v. S. (66 Ga. 192) ii, 149 — v.§. (20 Ind. 513) i. 1347 —v.8. (20 Neb. 515) ‘i. 8694, 966c — +. §.(3 Ohio St. 101) i. 8144; ii, 596 650 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. 1|—’ Reg. ». (2 Fost. & F. 861) PAT Parks v. S. (4 Ohio St. 234) i. 909, 949 b, 1856 — , S. v. (109-N. C. 813) ii. 58 Parmenter, C. v. (101 Mass. 211) ii. 718, 742 —, C. v. (121 Mass. 854) i. 478; 11.170 — , C. v. (5 Pick. 279) i. 51; ii. 476 Parmer v. S. (41 Ala. 416) i. 1018; ii, 723 Parr, P. v. (42 Hun, 313) i. 314a ——., Rex v. (1 Leach, 434) Parrant, S.v. (16 Minn. 178) i Parratt, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 570) i. 1228, a 1233 Parrish v. S. (12 Lea, 655) i. 901, 949 — v. 8. (14 Md. 288) i. 189, 264 a, 264 d, 7 62 —— v. 8. (14 Neb. 60) i. 975¢ —— v. S. (18 Neb. 405) i. 975c; ii. 590, 595 —, S. v. (8 Humph. 80) i. 869 — v. Stephens (1 Or. 73) i. 1417 Parry, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 836) i. 938, 944, 975 — ., Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 239) ii. 285, 286 v. S. (21 Tex. 746) i. 1895 Parsley v. Nicholson (65 N. C. 207) i. Parsons v. Bellows (6 N. H. 289; 25 Am. D. 461) ii. 128 — v. C. (2 Rob. Va. 771) i. 1274 —,, C. v. (189 Mass. 381) i. 946 —— v. Davis (3 Cal. 421) i. 1379 —— v. Huff (38 Me. 137) i. 999, 1149 —, Rex v. (W. BI. 392) ii. 227 v. §. (22 Ala. 50) i. 926, 931, 981 a, 950 b, 1871 — v.§. (81 Ala. 577; 60 Am. R. 1938) ii. 671, 678 v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 204) ii. —, S. v. (7 Nev. 57) i. 999 Part of Lot v. S. (1 Iowa, 507) i. 1362 Partee v. 8. (67 Ga. 570) i. 1170, 1279 Parton, P. v. (49 Cal. 682) i. 1217, 1282 Partridge, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 551) i, 1227; ii. 744 —— ». Strange (1 Plow. 77) i, 546 Pascal v. 8. (77 Ga. 596) i. 975 ¢, 980 Pascalis, C. v. (1 Binn. 37) i, 9506 Paschal, In re (10 Wal. 483) i. 303 —,S. v. (22 Tex. 584) i, 1264, 1269 Pasley v. Kemp (22 Mo. 409) ii. 809 Pasman, Rex v. (2 Dowl. P. C. 529). i. 1880 ——, Rex v. (3 Nev. & M. 730) i. 1817 Passaic Freeholders, S. v. (18 Vroom, 583) i, 28 Passman, Rex v. (1 A. & E. 603) i. 1817 Patchin v. Cromach (18 Vt. 330) i. 264¢ Pate v. P. (8 Gilman, 644) i. 9808, 1098, 1094, 1179, 1268, 1847 ; ii. 482¢, 4594 — S. v. (67 Mo. 488) i, 850 Patent Eureka, &c. Co., Reg. v. (18 Law T.N. 8. 865) i.70 PAT INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. PEA Paterno, S. v. (48 La. An. 514) i. 810, ) Patteson’s Case (2 Lewin, 262) i. 963 - 816, 1894; ii. 65} Patton v. 8. (41 Ark. 486) i. 280 Paterson, S. v. (10 Vroom, 489) i. 1876 | —— v. S. (80 Ga. 714) i. 400 Patience, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 775) i. 186] —— v. S. (6 Ohio St. 467) ii. 230 Patilla v. The Governor (5 Port. 232) — v. §. (85 Tex. 92) i. 264 a i. 8144 Patillo v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 456) i. 250, 264a Patram’s Case (1 Leach, 419, note) i, 1160 Patrick, C. v. (80 Ky. 605) ii. 652 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 253; 2 East P. C. 1059) i. 583, 682; ii. 843 — v. S. (16 Neb. 330) i. 878 ——, S.. (3 Jones, N.C. 448) i. 932a, 1284, 1235 ; ii. 623, 625 ——, S. v. (107 Mo. 147) i. 966.8, 1054; ii. 967, 970,972 ——, S. v. (79 N. C. 655; 28 Am. R. 340) ii. 700 —, 8. v. (8 Wis. 812) ii. 798 —— v. Smoke (8 Strob. 147) ii. 912 Pattee, C. v. (12 Cush. 501) ii. 494 v, 8. (109 Ind. 545) i. 123 Patten v. Ferguson (18 N. H. 528) ii, 625 ii. ——v.P. (18 Mich. 314; 100 Am. D. 178) i. 1083, 1087, 1170, 1866 —, S. v. (10 La. An. 299; 63 Am. D. 594 i, 303, 1265 Patterson, In re (99 N. C. 407) i. 223 a C. (86 Ky. 313) i. 700, 1166 —, C. v. (2 Met. Ky. 374) i. 516 a, 691 — v. Chicago, &c. Rid. (75 IL. 588) —v. i. 1417 ~— v. Cook (8 Port. 66) i, 1013 —— v. Daviess (18 Ind. 141) i. 1817 v. P. (46 Barb. 625) i. 1018 — v. P. (12 Hun, 137) i. 689 —, Reg. v. (27 U. C. Q. B. 142) i. 585 — v.S. (85 Ga. 131; 21 Am. St. 152) ii, 602 — v. §. (10 Ind. 296) i. 264 a — v.§. (12 Ind. 86) i. 264 a — 0.8. (70 Ind. 341) i. 946 — 0.S. (17 Tex. Ap. 102) i. 1134 —v. 8. (19 Vroom, 381) i, 926, 932 a, 1359 — v. S. (20 Vroom, 326) i. 314 a, 951 —, S. v. (7 Bax. 246) i, 264 m —,S. v. (2 Ire. 346; 38 Am. D. 699 i, 688, 1154 —, S.v. (7 Ire. 70; 45 Am. D. 506) ii. 107, 276 — , S. v. (52 Kan. 335) ii, 1, 8,4 —. 8. vo. (1 McCord, 177) i, 951 —, S. v. (78 Mo. 695) i, 1238 —, S. v. (1 Murph. 448) i, 49, 3144 —, 8. v. (68 N. C. 292) i, 1222, 1232, 1244 —, S. v. (78 N. C. 470) ii. 789, 745 —)S. v. (45 Vt. 308; 12 Am. R. 200) i. 1000, 1213; ii. 603, 606 —, U.S. v. (29 Fed. Rep. 775) _ i. 1310 —U. S. » (8 MeLean, 53, 299) i, 1188, 1175; ii. 828, 776.4 Paty, Reg. v. (2 Salk. 508, 504; 14 East, 92, note; 14 How. St. Tr. 861) i. 1862, 1364 Paul »v. P. (82 Ill. 82) i. 898 v. 8. (65 Ga. 152) i. 1242 — .S, (12 Tex. Ap. 346) ii. 239 — v.S. (17 Tex. Ap. 688) i. 795, 1264 ——, S. v. (69 Me. 215) ii. 163 —, 8S. v. (6 R. I. 185) i. 1287 — v. Silver (16 Cal. 73) ii. 382 —, U.S. v. (6 Pet. 141) i. 668 Pauley, S. v. (12 Wis. 537) i. 50, 51 Pauli v. C. (89 Pa. 482) i. 975 c, 977 Paulk, S. v. (18 S. C. 514) ii, 671 Paulus, C. v. (11 Gray, 305) i. 1265 Paylor, 8. v. (89 N. C. 539) i. 269, 983 Payne v. Barnes (5 Barb. 465) i. 230 — v. C. (31 Grat, 855) i, 1182 —v. C. (1 Met. Ky. 370) i. 976, 980, 1095 ; ii. 615 v. Mahon (15 Vroom, 218) i. 314a@ —, P. v. (8 Cal. 341) i. 976, 978 —, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C. 349; 12 Cox C. C. 118) i. 1018, 1088 —, Rex v. (4D. & R. 72) i. 1820 ——, Rex v. (1 Ld. Raym. 729) i. 1194, 1199 —, Rex v. (1 Moody, 378) i. 158 v. 8. (60 Ala. 80) i. 1071; ii. 621 —— v.8. (8 Humph. 3875) i. 909 — 1. §. (74 Ind. 208) i. 639 —— v. S. (57 Missis. 348) ii. 740 v. S. (61 Missis. 161) i. 1207 — v. 8. (30 Tex. 397) i, 264 a v. 8. (5 Tex. Ap. 35) ii. 64, 656 — v.S. (12 Tex. Ap. 160) i, 1264 —, S. v. (86 N. C. 609) ii. 671 ——, S. v. (98 N. C. 612) i. 1264 Payson v. Everett (12 Minn.216) _ ii. 261 ——, S. v. (87 Me. 361) ii. 867, 877 a Payton, S. v. (90 Mo. 220) i. 998 a, 1094 Paxton, C. v. (14 Philad. 665) i. 650 Peabody, P. v. (26 Barb. 437) i. 1877 ——, P. v. (25 Wend. 472) ii. 463, 469 Peace, Rex v. (8 B. & Ald. 579) ii. 65 — v.S. (27 Tex. Ap. 83) i. 951, 951 a —_, 5S. v. (1 Jones, N. C. 251) i. 984, 1149, 1212 Peach, Rex v. (1 Bur. 548) i. 141 Peacher v. S. (61 Ala, 22) i, 461 Peacock, Ex parte (25 Fla. 478) i. 1801 —— v. Bell (1 Saund. Wms. ed. 73) 1, 236, 663, 1850 — v. P. (83 Ill. 381) i. 264 a, 264 m — _, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 278) ii. 429,472 —— ».§. (44 Tex. 11) i. 263 a Peak v. P. (76 Ill. 289) i. 1095 —, S. v. (85 Mo, 190) i. 1241 Pearce v. Atwood (18 Mass. 3824) i. 187, 207, 3144 651 PEG INDEX TO THE Pearce, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 667) ——, Rex v. (Peake, 75) —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 174) ——v. S. (1 Sneed, 63; 60 Am. D. i. 966 c; ii, 666 ii. 801 i. 639 135) i, 627 —,S.v. (14 Fla. 153) i. 667, 668, 983, 1387; ii. 127 —, 8. v. (14 Ind. 426) i, 1343 i. 1118 ; ii. 616 —, S. v. (15 Nev. 188) i, 822, 619, 620 —, 58. v. (Peck, 66) —,, U.S. v. (2 McLean, 14) i. 1099 —— v. Whale (5 B. & C. 38) ii. 804 Pearles’s Case (2 East P.C. 741) _ ii. 751 Pearsall, P. v. (50 Mich. 233) i. 975 .¢, 980 a —, §. v. (48 Iowa, 630) ii. 119 Pearson, Ex parte (59 Ala. 654) 1. 1338 v. McGowran (8 B. & C. 700; 5 D. & R. 616) i. 55 —, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 119) ii. 911, 924 ——,, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 121) i. 595, ee ii. 7 —, Rex v. (1 Moody, 313) i. 602 v. S. (55 Ga. 659) ii. 436 v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 279) i. 264 a — , 8. v. (100 N. C. 414) i. 1810 ——,S.c. (2 N. H. 550) ii. 383 CASES CITED. PEN Peggy, U.S. v. (1 Cranch, 103) i. 1264 Peglow v. S. (12 Wis. 534) i. 1387 Peiffer v. C, (15 Pa. 468; 53 Am. D. 605) i, 998 —, v. C. (80 Pa. 191) i. 1317 Peirce, S. v. (19 La. An. 90) i. 405 Pelamourges v. Clark (9 Iowa, 1) ii. 678 Pelfryman, Rex v. (2 Leach, 563; 2 East P. C. 783) ii. 1003 Pell v. Prevost (2 Caines, 164) i, 687 Pells v. 8. (20 Fla. 774) i. 584 Pellum v. S. (89 Ala. 28) i. 9668, 975c, 980 a, 1061, 1066 Peltier, Rex v. (28 How. St. Tr. 529) ii. 792, 798 Pelts v. S. (3 Blackf. 28) ii. 986 Pember’s Case (1 Whart. 439) i. 1889 Pemberton, C. v. (118 Mass. 86) i. 975¢ , Rex v. (2 Bur. 1085, 1087; 1 W. BI. 230) i. 632, 689, 799 —, S. v. (80 Mo. 876) i. 652, 1287; ii. 549 Pembridge, Reg. v. (8 Q. B. 901) Pender v. 8. (12 Tex. Ap. 496) Penderryn, Rex x. (2 T. R. 513) ii. 1044 Pendleton v. C. (4 Leigh, 694; 26 Peas, C. v. (2 Grat. 629; 4 Leigh, 692) Am. D. 342) ii, 483, 434 i. 618 | — ». S. (1 Eng. 509) i, 1264 Pease v. 8. (63 Ga. 631) i. 962 | —— v. Vandevier (1 Wash. Va. 381) — , S. v. (74 Ind. 2638) i. 685 i. 1013 Peaslee v. Robbins (3 Met. 164) ii. 674 | Pendry z. S. (18 Fla. 191) « ii175 i. 465 i. 1154 Peat’s Case (1 East P. C. 229) — Case (2 Lewin, 111, 288) Penegoes, Rex v, (8 D. & R. 888) ii. 1044 Penfold v. Maxwell (1 Chit. 275, Peck, C. v. (1 Met. 428) 1, 1188, 1265,} note) i. 1882 1269; ii.429, 480 | Penhallo’s Case (Cro. Eliz. 231) i. 601 — v. Reg. (1 Per. & D, 508) ii. 210, 212 | Penhollow, P. v. (42 Hun, 103) i, 1204 —, Reg. v. (9 A.& E. 686) ii. 210, 212] Penland ». S. (1 Humph. 383) i. 1035, v. 8. (2 Humph. 78) i, 1276 1317 — v. S. (86 Tenn. 259) i. 1181, 1185, v. S. (19 Tex. Ap. 865) ii. 584, 588 1248 | Penley, S. v, (27 Conn. 587) _ ii. 175, 191 — v. 8S. (5 Tex. Ap. 611) ii. 619 —, 8. v. (51 Mo. 111) i. 286, 1827, 1863 —, 8. v. (82 Vt. 172) i. 8144 Peckham, S. v. (3 R. I. 289) i. 1006 Peddell v. Rutter (8 Car. & P. 387) i. 950d Peden v. S. (61 Missis. 267) ii. 228 i. 951; Pedley, Rex v. (1A. & E. 822) ii. 877 a ——, Rex v. (Cald. 218) i. 1100 Peebles v. S: (55 Missis. 484) i. 97 Peel, Reg. v. (2 Fost. & F. 21) i, 1212 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 407) ii. 713 Peeler v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 455) i. 951 — v. §. (8 Tex. Ap. 347) i. 788, 1854 t. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 533) ii. 946 Peeples v. Walker (12 Ga. 358) i. 1819 Peers v. Carter (4 Litt. 269) i, 231 Pefferling v. 8. (40 Tex. 486) i. 978; ii. 962, 963 Peffers, S. v. (80 Iowa, 580) i. 975 c, 1047; ii. 617 Pegalow v. S. (20 Wis. 61) i, 314 Pegge, Rex v. (1 East P. C. 420) ii. 80 652 Penn, Rex v. (6 How. St. Tr. 951) i. 983; ii. 992 v. 8. (62 Missis. 450) i, 272, 960 —, U.S. ve. (18 Bankr. Reg. 464) i. 1086, 1195, 1197 Pennaman ». S. (58 Ga. 336) ii. 911 Pennegves, Rex v. (1 B. & C. 142) i, 1877 Penniman, C. v. (8 Met. 519) i, 846 ——, P. v. (87 Cal. 271) i. 2644 Pennington v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 281) i. 1264 — v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 44) i. 314 —,S. v. (3 Head, 119) i. 611; ii. 845 —, 8. v. (8 Head, 299; 75 Am. D. 771) ii. 318 ——, S. v. (5 Lea, 506) ii. 790 Pennock, C. v. (8S. & R. 199) ii, 185 Pennoyer v. Neff (95 U.S. 714) i. 1004 Pennsylvania v. Kirkpatrick (Addi- son, 198) i, 1880 —— v. Leach (Addison, 352) i. 1021 —— v. Wheeling Bridge (18 How. U.S. 518) i. 1417 Pennsylvania Hall, In re (5 Pa. 204) i. 892 PER INDEX TO THE Pennsylvania, &c. Rid. and Canal v. Bunnell (81 Pa. 414) ii. 677 Pennsylvania, &c. Steam Nav. Co. v. Dandridge (8 Gill & J. 248; 29 Am. D. 543) Penny, S. v. (1 Car. Law Repos. 517) i. 1085 ii, 468 —, 8.v. (70 Iowa, 190) ii. 187 v. Walker (64 Me. 430 ; 18 Am. R. 269) i. 207 a Pennyman, S. v. (68 Iowa, 216) ii. 678, 740 Penprase, Rex v. (4 B. & Ald. 573) i. 70, 73 Penpraze, Rex v.(1 Nev.&M.312) i. 70 Penrod v. P. (89 Ill. 150) i, 488, 677 Penton v. Brown (1 Keb. 698) i. 194 Peoples, In re (47 Mich. 626) i. 1407 — v. Devault (11 Heisk. 431) ii, 752 Pepper, Rex v. (Comb. 298) i, 256, 257 — , S. v. (11 Iowa, 347) i. 1169; ii. 267 —, S. v. (8 Misso. 249) i, 264 —,S. v. (68 N. C.259; 12 Am. R. 637) ii. 123 Pepys, Rex v. (Peake, 138) ii. 988 a Peralta, P. v. (8 Cal. 379) i. 814 Perault v. Rand (10 Hun, 222) =i. 1414 Percavil, C. v. (4 Leigh, 686) ii. 894 Percival, Rex v. (1 Sid. 243) i. 911 Perdue v. C. (96 Pa. 811) i. 854 —, C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 227) ii. 25 —, P. v. (48 Cal. 552) i, 258 —, P. v. (49 Cal. 425) i. 68, 72, 1005 a, 1010, 1264, 1269 —— v. 8. (2 Humph. 494) ii. 428, 405, 468 Perea, Territory v. (1 New Mex. 627) i. 975¢ Perez, P. v. (87 Cal. 122) i. 480, 1005 a, 1310; ii. 764 — v. 8. (10 Tex. Ap. 327) i. 719 Perham, Ex parte (2 Ellis & E. 383) ii. 242 —, Inre (5 H. & N. 30) i. mB. ray —, S. v. (4 Or. 188) Peri v. P. (65 Ill. 17) i. 1093, 1268, ita Perigo, S. v. (70 Iowa, 657) i. 68, gs Perin, Rex v. (2 Saund. 393) i. 1349 Perini, P. v, (94 Cal. 578) i. 1101 Perkin’s Case (2 Lewin, 150) i. 61; ii.475 Perkins v. C. (7 Grat. 651; 56 Am. D. 123) i. 1276; ii. 472 —,C. v. (1 Pick. 388) i. 683, 687 —— v. Concord Rid. (44 N. H. 223) i. 1179; ii. 626, 685 —— v. Nugent (45 Mich. 156) i. 1131 —, P. v. (1 Wend, 91) i. 273 ——., Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 395; 2 Moody, 135) i. 1209 —, Rex v. (Holt, 403) i. 998 a = aS: (50 Ala. isd) i. 665, 667, ae — v. §. (60 Ala. 7) i, 983, 1236 — v.§. (66 Ala. 457) i. 764 —— 2. §. (8 Bax. 559) i711 — v. §. (82 Tex. 109) ii. 740 — v.§, (4 Ind. 222) i. 858 CASES CITED. PET Perkins, 8. v. (6 Blackf. 20) ii. 805 —, 8S. v. (8 Hawks, 877) i, 1254 — , S. v. (81 La. An. 192) i. 1222 —,S.v tao La. An. 210) i. 266, 269 —,S. v. (82 N. C. 681) i. 1807 —, 8. v. (63 N. H. 89) i. 230 —,S. v. (45 Tex. 10) ii. 983 —,S. ». (58 Vt. 722) i. 721 —— v. Wilson (38 Cal. 187) i. 1013 Perley, S. v. (86 Me. 427; 41 Am. St. 564) ii, 1006 Permstick, In re (8 Wash. 672; 28 Am. St. 80) i. 1410 Perrigo, C. v. (8 Met. Ky. 5) i, 548, 585, Perrin, Ex parte (41 Ark. 194) i. at 131 — v.S. (81 Wis. 135) ii. 748 —,S. v. (2 Brev. 474) ii. 799 —, 8S. v. (8 Brey. 152; 1 Tread. 446) i, 481 —., U.S. ». (131 U.S. 55) i, 1264 Perris, C. v. (108 Mass. 1) i. 581; ii. 137 Perrott, Rex v. (2 M. & 8. 379) ii. 168, 918 Perry v. Adams (83 N. C. 266) i, 1342 — vu. C. (8 Grat. 632) i, 931 v, Newton (1 Nev.& P.1; 5A. & E, 614) ii. 482 b v. P, (14 Ill. 489) i. 814 a —, P. v. (8 Abb. Pr. w. 8. 27) i, 251, 261, 262, 1212 —, P. v. (65 Cal. 568) i. 1000 — v.S. (48 Ala. 21) i, 1298 — v. §. (78 Ala. 22) i, 975 c, 978 —— v. S. (87 Ala. 80) i. 975c, 978, 1076, 1094, 1195; ii. 666 — v.58. (63 Ga. 402) ii. 946 —v. S. (41 Tex. 483) ii. 746 — v. 8. (41 Tex. 488) i. 1410 —v.§. (44 Tex. 478) ii. 599 v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 566) i. 685, 738.4 — v.8. (9 Tex. Ap. 371) i. 1264 v. §. (14 Tex. Ap. 166) i. 1850 — v.8. (9 Wis. 19) i. 894, 931 —, S. v. (2 Bailey, 17) i, 508 —, 8. v. (Busbee, 380) i. 861, 901, 997 —, S. v. (28 Minn. 455) i. 264 a —-, 8. v. (42 Tex. 238) ii. 926 Perryman v. Gardner (42 Missis. 548) i, 1342 —— v. S. (86 Tex. 821) i. 615 Person v. Neigh (52 Pa. 199) i. 1001 — . Ozark (82 Mo. 491) i, 1317 Persons v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 240) i. 1005 Perteet v. P. (65 Ill. 230) i. 68, 72 —— »v. P. (70 Ill. 171) i. 50, 68, 1371 Petcherini, Reg. v. (7 Cox C. C. 79) i. 1248 Pete, S. v. (89 La. An. 1095) i, 1264 Peter v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 380) i. 314a —,P.»v. (i Cal. 250) i. 1161 — v.S. (3 How. Missis. 488) i, 229, 692, 698 ——v. S. (6 How. Missis. 526) i. 314 —— v. §, (6 Humph. 486) i. 484 a 653 PET Peter v.S. (4Sm. & M.31) i. 1223, 1288, 1239, 1260 —— v. 8. (11 Tex. 762) i. 1285 — ,, S. v. (1 Ga. Decis. 46) i. 999, 1278 ——, S. v. (8 Jones, N. C. 19) ii. 963 — , S. v. (18 La. An. 232) j. 1264 —, S. v. (14 La. An. 521) i. 314a, 1282 ; ii, 968 Peters, Ex parte (2 McCrary, 403) i. 148 — , Reg. v. (16 Q. B. D. 686; 16 Cox C. C. 36) i. 61; ii. 197 v. S. (89 Ala. 681) i. 275 — v.§. (9 Ga. 109) i. 211, 1317 v. 8. (3 Greene, Iowa, 74) j. 799 — v. 8. (66 Wis. 339) i. 612 —, S. v. (107 N. C. 876) i. 886, 649; ii. 911, 985 — , S. v. (48 Ohio St. 629) i. 1810 ——, 8. v. (42 Tex. 7) ii. 910, 910a — , U.S. v. (2 Abb. U. 8. 494) ii. 249 Peterson v. Morgan (116 Mass. 350) i. 1117 —— v. Ottawa (41 Kan. 293) i. 1264 — v.§. (63 Ala, 118) i. 951 v. §. (74 Ala. 34) ii. 932 — v.58. (47 Ga. 524) i. 1012, 1094, 1144, 1178; ii. 514, 539 v. 8. (50 Ga. 142) i. 1279; ii. 611, 621 — v.8. (82 Tex. 477) i. 469 —— v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 650) ii. 541 — v. S. (45 Wis. 535) i. 126 —, S. v. (74 Ind. 174) i. 286 ——, S. v. (67 Iowa, 564) ii. 740 —, S. v. (88 Kan. 204) i. 999 ——, S. v. (41 La. An. 85) i. 1353 — , S. v. (70 Me. 216) i. 686 — , S. v. (88 Minn. 143) i. 1301 —, 8. e. (85 S. C. 279) i. 1181 —, S. v. (41 Vt. 504) © i, 892 uv. U.S. (2 Wash. C. C. 86) i. 1008 —, U.S. uv. (1 Woodb. & M. ae) i. 449, 1891, 1896 Petite v. P. (8 Colo. 518) i. 1181, 1278 Petre v. S. (6 Vroom, 64) i. 980; ii. 726 Petrea, P. v. (92 N. Y. 128) i. 850, 875 Petrie v. Woodworth (3 Caines, 219) i, 688 Petry, P. v. (2 Hilton, 623) i. 264 e, 2647, 264 h, 270 Pettes v. C. (126 Mass. 242) i, 429, 1015 a —, C. v. (114 Mass. 307) ii, 482 ¢ Pettibone v. Hamilton (40 Wis. 402) 1. 1417 — v. §. (19 Ala. 586) i, 612 —,S. x. (T. U.P. Charl, 300) i. 951a — v. U.S. (148 U.S. 197) i. 628; ii. 204 Pettigrew v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 225) ii, 740 Pettinger v. P. (20 Mich, 336) ii, 1063 Pettis, S. v. (63 Me. 124) ii, 752 Pettit, P. v. (8 Johns. 611) ii, 655, 657 —,S. v. (119 Mo. 410 ii, 612 Pettus v. McClannahan (52 Ala. 55) i. 72 654 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. PHI Pettus v. S. (42 Ga. 358) i, 222 Petty v. P. (19 Bradw. 317) 1. 2644 — v. P. (118 Ill. 148) i. 2644 ——, S. v. (Harper, 59) i, 1121, 1126; ii. 481, 458 Pew’s Case (Cro. Car. 183) i, 158 Pewterus, Rex v. (Cas. temp. Hardw. 203) i. 764 Pewtress, Rex v. G Stra. 1026) i. 764 Peyton, In re (12 Kan. 898) i. 68, 71 Ptefferle, S. v. (86 Kan. 90) i. 1181, . 1182 Pfitzer, Ex parte (28 Ind. 450) i, 223 Pfomer v. P. (4 Par. Cr. 558) i. 977; ii. 613, 615 Phair, S. v. (48 Vt. 366) i. 909, 1068 Pharr v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 129; 10 Tex. Ap. 485) i. 1086 — v.§. (10 Tex. Ap. 485) i. 975 ¢, 1079 Phelan, S. v. (9 Bax. 241) i. 1342 Phelps v. Baldwin (17 Conn. 209) ii. 386 — v. P. (6 Hun, 401) i. 909 —v. P. (6 Hun, 428; 72 N. Y. 365) ii. 401 — v. P. (72 N. Y. 334) i. 909; ii. 697, 721, 730, 782, 784, 735 —, P. v. (49 How. Pr. 487) ii. 697, 780 —, P. v. (17 Ill. 200) i. 1317 —,P.v. (5 Wend. 9) ii. 909, 911, 924 v. Parks (4 Vt. 488) i. 2644 ——, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 180) i. 170, 749, —, S.v. (24 La. An. 498)” ii, 544, 548, 657 —, S. v. (74 Mo. 128) i. 1926 — S. v. {91 Mo, 478) ii. 740 — S. v. (65 N.C. 450) i, 429; ii. 981 —, S.v. (2 Root, 87) ii, 262 —, 8. v. (11 Vt. 116; 34 Am. D. 672) i. 601, 1228; ii. 429 ——., U.S. v. (4 Day, 469) i. 1180: Phereby v. S. (16 Ala. 774 i, 4886 Phifer, S. v. (90 N. C. 721 ii. 50 Phil, S. v. (1 Stew. 31) i. 951f Philadelphia’s Appeal (78 Pa. 38) i. 1417 Philadelphia, C. v. (6 Binn. 897) i. 1317 —, C.v. (28. &R. 299) i. 1816, 1817 —,C. v. (48. & R.541) i. 691 v. Campbell (11 Philad. 163) i. 724 —— v. Nell (3 Yeates, 475) i, 720. Philadelphia County Prison, C. v. (4 Brews. 820 1, 951d Philbin, 8. v. (88 La. An. 964) i. 611 Philbrick v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 617) ii, 180 ——, S. v, (381 Me. 401) i. 325 ; ii, 176 Philipps, Rex v. (2 Bur. 757) i. 1820 —, Rex »v. (6 East, 464) i, 521, 524, 568; ii. 304, 310 Philips v. C. (19 Grat. 485) 1. 289, 04, 99 —, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 105) =i. 2244 ——, Rex v. (Barnes, 3d ed. 429) ii, 946 —,, Rex v. (3 Bur. 1564) i, 142 —, Rex v. (2 Stra. 921) i, 449, 470; ii. 986 PHI INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. PIE Philips v. Sampson (2 Head, 429) ii. 383 | Phipoe, Rex v. (2 Leach, 675) ii. 751 Phillips, Ex parte (57 Missis. 357) i. 1410 | Phipps, P. ». (89 Cal. 326) i. 416, 1079 — 7, C. (3 Met. 588) ii. 136 | —— v. 8. (3 Coldw. 344) i. 1278 — v. C. (44 Pa. 197) i, 706 a v. S. (25 Tex. Ap. 660) i. 264 m —, C. v. (16 Mass, 423) i, 258 | —, S. v. (76 N. C. 203) i. 1020, 1893 —, C. v. (11 Pick. 28) i. 1843 | Phleming v. S. (Minor, 42) i. 1264 —,C. v, (16 Pick. 211) i, 101 | Phenix Fire Ins.,Co. v. Philip (18 v. Eyre (Law Rep.6 Q.B.1) i.314] Wend. 81) li. 482 ¢ —— v, Fadden (125 Mass. 198) i. 184 | Pickens v. §. (58 Ala. 364) i, 847 — v. Kelly (29 Ala. 628) ii. 626 v. S. (6 Ohio, 274) i. 488 — v. Ocmulgee Mills (55 Ga. 633) —v.§. (18 Tex. Ap. 353) i. 975e i. 980 a | Pickering v. Meyers (2 Bailey, 113) ii. 753 —— v. P. (55 Il. 429) i. 747 | —— v. Missis. Valley Nat. Tel. Co. —, P. v. (45 Cal. 44). i. 1264] (4 Misso. 457) i. 1285 —, P. v, (70 Cal. 61) i. 488; ii. 472 | ——, Rex v. (stated Hardres, 83) i. 1395 — , P. v. (Edm. Sel. Cas. 386) i. 892 | Picket, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 501) ii. 188 —, P. v. (42 N. Y. 200) i. 1228, 1277 | —— v. S. (22 Ohio St. 405) i. 614 —, P.v. (1 Par. Cr. 95) i. 722 | Pickett v. P. (8 Hun, 88) i. 495 — v. Phillips (7 B. Monr. 268) ii. 66 | —— v. S. (60 Ala. 77) i, 585 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 369) ii. 270 | —— v. 8. (10 Tex. Ap. 290) i. 764 —, Rex v. (2 Smith, 550) i. 524, 528 | —— v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 86) i. 975c, 9804 — v. 8. (68 Ala. 469) i. 850, 931 | —— v. S. (16 Tex, Ap. 648) i. 264a, 264c —— v. §. (85 Ark. 384) i. 354 | —, S. v. (78 N.C. 458) © ii. 168 — v.§. (36 Ark. 282) i, 488 b | —_, S. v. (94 N. C. 971) i, 269 — v.S. (7 Bax. 151) ii. 869 a | —— v. U.S. (1 Idaho, w. 8. 528) i. 880 — v. S. (17 Ga. 459) i. 523 | Pickles, S. v. (65 Mo. 481) i, 1841 — 1.8. (29 Ga. 105) i. 907, 981, 1059 | Pico, P. v. (62 Cal. 50) ii. 687 a — vu. §. (34 Ga. 502) i. 1167] Picton, Rex v. (80 How. St. Tr. — v. S. (62 Ga. 296) i. 1061, 1279] < i. 1006 —— v. 8. (66 Ga. 755) i. 185 | Pierce, C. v. (11 Gray, 447) i, 461 ——v.S. (9 Humph. 246; 49 Am. — ., C. v. (130 Mass. 31) ii. 188 D. 709) ii. 963 } —— v. Northey (14 Wis. 9) ii. 4825 — v. S. (29 Tex. 226) ii. 1011 | —, P. r. (11 Hun, 633) ii, 34 — v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 44) i, 959 a, 966 | ——, Reg. v. (Bell C. C. 285; 8 Cox v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 364) i, 1248;| ©. C. 344) ii. 756, 762 ii. 482 b | ——, Reg. v. (6 Cox C. C. 117) i. 63, 212 — v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 169) i. 1159 ; ii. 850 —— v. 8. (19 Tex. Ap. 158) 1.1086] ©. C. 235) ii. 762 — v.S. (26 Tex. Ap. 228; 8 Am. — v. S. (53 Ga. 365) i. 1101; ii. 677, St. 471) i. 975c, 1049; ii. 1, 9, 228 678, 808 —, S.v. (2 Ala. 297) i, 849 | —— v. S. (75 Ind. 199) i, 354 —, S.v. (27 La. An. 663) i. 814 | ——v. S. (13 N. H. 536) i, 934 ——, S. v. (28 La. An. 387) i. 1857 | —— v. 8. (10 Tex. 556) i. 1264 —, S. o. (24 Mo. 475) i, 68, 1082, 1034, ) —— v. S. (12 Tex. 210) i. 882, 1857 1078, 1202, 1250; ii. 8, 595 | —— v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 365) i, 1264 —, S. vu. (78 Mo. 49) ii, 42566 | —— v. S, (17 Tex. Ap. 282) i. 187; ii. 883 —,S. v. (104 N. C. 786) i. 461, 488¢:} —, S. v. (8 Iowa, 231) 1. 635, 849, 858, ‘ ii. 68, 65 939, 940; ii. 455, 456 — ». Stone Mountain (61 Ga. 386) —,, S. v. (65 Towa, 85) i.975¢ . i, 1414} ——, S. v. (8 Nev. 291) i. 1094 —v. Towler (23 Mo. 401) i. 1254 | Piercy v. P. ie Bradw. 219) i, 2647 — v. Trull (11 Johns. 486) i. 165, 166; | Pierre, S. v. (88 La. An. 91) i. 451, 1888 ii, 368 | —, S. v. (89 La. An. 915) i, 686 —, U.S. v. (5 Mackey, 250) i, 1264 | ——, S. v. (65 Me. 293) i. 814a —— v. Welch (12 Nev. 158) i, 1410 | Pierson v. P. (18 Hun, 289) i. 11075 Phillipsburg, C. v. (10 Mass. 78) i. 682 ii, 681 Philp, Rex v. (1 Moody, 263) i, 1098, | —— v. P. (79 N.Y. 424; 85 Am. R. 1100, 1246| 624 i. 932; ii. 629 Philpot, C. v. (180 Mass. 59) ii, 1026 | —— v. S, (12 Ala. 149) i. 984, 1265, 1269 —— v. Page (4 B. & C. 160) i. 1268 | —— v. S. (11 Ind, 841) ; i. 919 Philpotts, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K.112) ii. 172 | —— v. S, (18 Tex. Ap. 624) i. 906, 966a, Phinney, Petitioner (32 Me. 440) i. 1837 9756 —, S. v, (82 Me. 439) i, 406 | —— v. S. (21 Tex. Ap. 14) i. 909 — , S.v. (42 Me. 384) i. 162, 980, 1011, } —,, S. v. (44 Ark. 265) i. 491 1381; ii. 660 '——, S. v, (69 Iowa, 271) ii. 786 — , Reg. v. (8 Cox C. C. 344; Bell 655 PIR INDEX TO THE Pifer v. C. (14 Grat. 710) i. 1802 Pigeon, Rex v. (1 Car. & P. 98) ii, 429 Pigeonry, Rex v. (7 Mod. 149) ii. 555 Pigg v. 8. (9 Ind. 368) i, 1264 — v. 8. (438 Tex. 108) ii. 683 Pignel, U.S. v. (1 Cranch C. C. 310) i. 188 Pigott, In re (11 Cox C.C. 311) i, 1362 Pike v. Neal (73 Me. 518) i. 264, 2640 — , Rex »v. (3 Car. & P. 598) i. 1144, 1209 v. §, (35 Ala. 419) i. 1085 v. §. (8 Lea, 577) ii, 84 — , §. v, (33 Me. 361) ii, 847 ——)§. «. (65 Me. 111) i, 689 a, 978, 1085, 1276, 1277 — , S. v. (20 N. H. 344) i. 909, 951, 1276 —, S. v. (49 N. H. 899; 6 Am. R. 583) ? ii. 584, 678 Pikesley, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 124) i. 1199, 1261 Pile, S. v. (5 Ala. 72) i. 469, 887, 888; ii. 5 — , U.S. v. (180 U.S. 280), i. 1299, 1310 Pilfold’s Case (10 Co. 115) i, 1313 Pilger v. C. (112 Pa. 220) i. 1063 Pilkington v. York (Dick. 84) i. 1414 Pilkinton v. S. (19 Tex. 214) i. 1108, 1277 Pillow v. Gaines (3 Lea, 466) i, 1316 Pillsbury v. Brown (45 Cal. 46) i. 286 —— v. Brown (47 Cal. 477) i, 286 Pim, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 425) i, 884, 595, 606; ii. 475 Pinckard v. P. (1 Scam. 187) i. 264m — »v. §. (62 Ala. 167) ii. 733 Pinckord v. S. (138 Tex. Ap. 468) i. 951a Pindar, C. v. (11 Met. 539) i. 314a Pinder v. S. (27 Fla. 870; 26 Am. St. 75) i. 934 Pine, C. v. (2 Pa. Law Jour. Rep. 154) ii. 700 — , P. v. (2 Barb. 566) —i. 984; ii. 675, —, 8. v. (80 Tex. 399) ii, 845 Pines v. S. (50 Ala. 153) ii. 180, 140 —— », S. (21 Ga. 227) i. 909, 934, 950, 1244, 1276 Pinger, S. v. (57 Mo. 248) ii. 825 Pingree, P. v. (61 Cal. 141) i. 8l4a Pinhorn, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 70) ii. 658 Pinkard v. S. (80 Ga. 757) i. 1247 Pinkerton, P. v. (17 Hun, 199) i, 222 ——, P.v. (77 N.Y. 245) i. 222 —v. Verberg (78 Mich. 573; 18 Am. St. 478) i, 181, 188, 184 Pinkney v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 352) i. 1197 Pinkston v. Taliaferro (9 Ala. 547) i, 1348 Pinson v. S. (28 Fla. 785) i. 975 — vu. 8. (23 Tex. 579) i. 700 Pipe v. S. (3 Tex. Ap. 56) ii. 51 Piper, C. v. (120 Mass. 185) i. 966, 1060, 1178; ii. 631 —, P. v. (50 Mich, 390) i. 1005 — v. Willard (6 Pick. 461) i. 1265 Pippin v. S. (2 Sneed, 43) i, 279 — v.S. (9 Tex. Ap. 269) i, 1264 Pirates, U.S. v. (5 Wheat. 184) i. 314a, 449, 453 Pirtle v. S. (9 Humph. 668) ii, 634 656 CASES CITED. PLU Pistorius, C. v. (12 Philad. 550) i. 68, 74 Pitcher v. Jones (Hardres, 217) i. 633 —— v. P. (16 Mich. 142) i. 10154 — , P. v. (15 Mich. 397) i. 1250 — , Rex v. (1 Car. & P. 85) i. 1053 Pitman v. S. (22 Ark. 354) ii. 621, 625, 627 Pitner v. 8. (44 Tex. 578) i, 806, 1411 Pitsinger, C. v. (110 Mass. 101) i. 1241 Pittman v. S. (25 Fla. 648) ii. 520 —»v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 576) i. 540; ii. 751 Pitts, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 284) i. 1098 v. 8. (48 Missis. 472) i. 1059, 1079 — v.58. (8 Tex. Ap. 210) ii. 754 —, S. v. (89 La. An. 914) i, 1358 — S. v. (58 Mo. 556) i. 931 —, 8. v. (18 Rich. 27) i. 1052; ii. 187 — S. »v (12 8. C. 180; 32 Am. R. 508 i. 975 c, 1264 Pittsburg, &c. Rid. v. Slusser (19 Ohio St. 157) i. 978 Pizano v, 8. (20 Tex. Ap. 139) i. 806 Place, C. v. (153 Pa. 314) ii, 801 —,S. v. (6 Wash. 773) ii. 92, 1018 a Plain v. S. (60 Ga. 284) i. 1298 Plainfield v. Batchelder (44 Vt.9) i. 799 Plake v. S. (121 Ind. 433; 16 Am. St. 408) ii. 77, 585, 673 Plano Manuf. Co. v. Rasey (69 Wis. | 246) i, 1238 Plasters v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 6738) i. 191; ii. 613 Platt v. New York, &c. Rid. (26 Conn. 544) i. 314 Platte, S. v. (84 La. An. 1061) i. 1236 Platteville v. McKernan (54 Wis. 487) : i. S140 Playford v. C. (4 Pa. 144) i. 1317 Playter’s Case (5 Co. 34d) i, 575, 577 Pleasant v. 8. (17 Ala. 190) i. 581 v. S. (18 Ark. 360) i. 965, 984, 1269; ii, 83, 967 — v. §. (15 Ark. 624) i. 73, 1190, 1192, 1275 ; ii. 968, 965, 966 Pledger v. S. (77 Ga. 242) i. 1255 Plestow, Rex v. (1 Camp. 494) i, et ii. 187 Pliemling v. S. (46 Wis. 516) >» ii. 589 Plimpton v. Somerset (88 Vt. 283) i. pe 89 Pline, P. v. (61 Mich. 247) i. 1395 Plowright, Rex v. (3 Mod. 94) i, 1878 Plumer, U. S. v. (3 Clif. 1) i. 1865 — , U.S. v. (3 Clif. 28) i, 698, 1365, 1869 Plummer v. C. (1 Bush, 76) i. 1250 —,, C. v. (147 Mass. 601) i. 1164 — v. P. (74 Ill. 361) i, 822 —, P. v. (9 Cal. 298) i, 71, 909 —, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 600) ii. 687 — , Rex v. (J. Kel. 109) i. 1006; ii. 3 —, 8. v. (60 Me. 217) ii. 910 a, 914 —v. Whichcot (T. Jones, 60) i. 10054 Plunken »v, Griffith (Cro. Eliz. 236) i. 608 Plunket, S.v. (2 Stew. 11) i. 620 PON Plunkett v. Appleton (41 N. Y. Su- per. 159) i. 1000 Plymouth, Rex v. (4 Bur. 2089) i. 142 v. Werring (Willes, 440) i. 1313 Plympton, Rex v. (2 Ld. Raym. 1377) ii. 75 Poage v. S. (8 Ohio St. 229) i. 612 ——v. S. (43 Tex. 454) i. 1060 Pocket v. 8. (5 Tex. Ap. 552) i. 269, 898, 975 c, 1288 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. POR Pontius v. P. (82 N. Y. 339) i. 1181; 11.96, 653 Pook, Reg.:'v. (13 Cox C. C. 172, note; 14 Eng. Rep. 625; 3 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 351, note) ii. 625 Pool, Ex parte (2 Va. Cas. 276) i. 237 —— v. Minge (50 Ala. 100) i. 123 —, P. w. (27 Cal. 572) i. 183,192, 9804 —— v. S. (87 Ga. 526) i. 975c, 1004 —, S. v. (106 N. C. 698) i. 720, 721 Pocock, Rex v. (2 Stra. 1157) ii. 807 | Poole, Rex v. (Cas. temp. Hardw. Poe v. 8. (10 Lea, 673) i, 68, 71, 955;| 9 23 i. 1269 ii. 628 | —— v. Richardson (3 Mass. 330) ii. 682 —, 5S. uv. (8 Lea, 647) i. 951 | —— v. S. (2 Bax. 288) 1.1117; ii. 570, Pogue v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 288) i. 1077 584 Poindexter v. C. (83 Grat. 766) i. 931, | —— v. 8. (3 Brev. 416) i. 1015 946, 9490; ii. 227 | —— v. S! (18 Ga. 567) i. 9515 — »v. C. (6 Rand. 667) i. 1013; ii. 764, | Pooler v. Reed (75 Me. 488) i. 2640 769 | Poore v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 474) i. 909 —, S. v. (23 W. Va. 805) ii. 477 Pointer v. 8. (89 Ind. 255) i, 883, 8844 — v. U.S. (151 U. S. 396) i. 1847, 1348; ii, 629 Poland, S: v. (838 La. An.1161) ii. 828 a Police Jury v. Manning (16 La. An. 182) i, 1264 Police Justice, P. v. (41 Mich. 224) i. 285 Polin v. S. (14 Neb. 540) i, 281, 9984 ; ii. 611 Polite, U. S. v. (85 Fed. Rep. 58) i. 718 Polk v. Coffin (9 Cal. 56) ii. 824 — v. 8. (86 Ark. 117) 1.1179 v. §. (45 Ark. 165) i. 269, 909, 1248 — v. S. (19 Ind. 170; 81 Am. D. 382) ii. 673 —,5S. v. (91 N. C. 652) i. 784 Poll. S. v.(1 Hawks, 442; 9 Am. D. 655 i, 68, 1212, 1248, 1249 Polland, S. v. (53 Me. 124) ii, 700 Pollard, C. v. (12 Met. 225) ii. 929, 935 v. Hagan (3 How. U. S. 212) i. 891 — v. Holeman (4 Bibb, 416) i. 893 — v. P. (69 Tl. 148) ii, 934 — , Rex v. (Ld. Raym. 1870) ii. 981 —, Rex rv. (8 Mod. 264) i. 1268 v. §. (53 Missis. 410; 24 Am. R. 703) i, 1066, 1094 ——, S. v. (83 N. C. 597) i, 812 Pollman, Rex v. (2 Camp. 229) i, 406 Pollock v. Pollock (71 N. Y. 187) i. 1169 Polly, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 77) i. 598 Polser v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 510) i, 1279 Polson, S. v. (29 Iowa, 188) i. 118, 1205 Polsten v. S. (14 Mo. 463) ii. 47 Pomeroy v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 842) ii. 735 738, 751 —,C. v, (117 Mass. 143) ii, 674 —. 5S. v, (25 Kan. 349) i. 1086 Pond v. P. (8 Mich. 150) i, 1265 — v. 8. (55 Ala. 196) i. 354 — v. 8. (47 Missis. 39) i, 1355 —,U.S.v. (2 Curt C. 0.265) ii one 24 Pons, S. v. (28 La. An. 43) 11.412 Pontius v. P, (21 Hun, 328) ii, 482 6 VOL. 11. —~ 42 oo v. Askew (1 Ire. 16 ; 85 Am. D. 9 ii. 482 a —, C. v. (12 Cush, 272) i. 488 —, C. v. (3 Dana, 418) ii. 805, 309 v. Davis (2 Taunt. 252) i. 56 — »v. Foster (4 T. R. 590) i. 406 —v. Nance (1 Stew. 354; 18 Am. D. 60) ii, 429 — v. Phifer (3 Heisk. 682) i. 3144 ——, Rex v. (1 Leach, 336) i. 678; ; ii. 780 — v. §. (22 Ark, 372) i. 1196 —— v. 8. (86 Missis. 121) i. 997, 998 a, 999 v. 8. (56 Missis. 790) i. 1077 Popinaux v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 140) i. 1854 Popish Lord’s Case (7 How. St. Tr. 1217) i. 1293 Poppell v. 8. (71 Ga. 276) i. 951 a, 975 ¢ Poppenheim v. Wilkes (1 Strob. 275) ii. 809 Popplewell, Rex v. (1 Stra. 686) ii. 128 Populus, 8. v. (12 La. An. 710) i. 997 Porter, Ex parte (16 Tex. Ap. 321) i. 239 a —,C.v. (1 A. K. Mar. 44) i. 264 d —, C. v. (4 Gray, 423) i. 909 ——,C. v. (10 Met. 263) i. 18, 984, 986 —— v. Cooper (6 Car. & P. 354) ii. 983 6 —, P.v. (90 N. Y. 68) i, 814 a —, P. wv. (2 Par. Cr. 14) ii. 125 —, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 524) i. 1889, 1391, 1392 —— v. Peckham (44 Cal. 204) i. 1276 —— v. §. (55 Ala. 95) 1. 1063, 1289 — v. S. (57 Ark. 267) ii. 590, 595 — v. §, (53 Ga, 236) i. 814 4 — v. S. (76 Ga. 658) i, 400, 1169 —— v. S. (2 Ind. 435) i. 994, 1188, : 1192, 1250 — v. §. (15 Ind. 433) ii. 406 —— v. §,. (17 Ind, 415) i. 816, 1821 v. 8, (3 Lea, 496) i. 68, 78, 951 — v.8. (47 Missis. 300) ii. 94 — v.58. (5 Misso. 538) i. 68, 73 657 POT INDEX TO THE Porter v. S. (43 Tex. 367) i, 1252 —,S.v. (2 Hill, S.C. 611) ii, 852, 918 —,S. v. (84 Iowa, 131) i. 1050, 1179; ii, 699 —, S. v. (57 Iowa, 691) ii. 967 —, 8. v. (64 Iowa, 237) i. 1094 ——, S. v. (74 Iowa, 623) i. 869 a, 1195 — , S. v. (85 La. An, 1159) i. 975 ¢ —— 8. v. (41 La. An. 402) i. 269 —, S. vu. (26 Mo. 201) i. 449, 457, 966 ; ii. 825, 829 -—, S. v. (75 Mo. 171) i, 1181, 1182; ii. 163 —, S. v. (90 N. C. 719) ii. 34 — , S. v. (10 Rich. 145) i, 400 —, U.S. v. (2 Dall. 345) i. 934 , U.S. v. (3 Day, 283) i. 1052 Portis v. Fall (384 Ark. 375) i, 1414 —, Reg. v. (40 U. C. Q. B. 214) ii. a — v. S. (23 Missis. 578) i, 853 Portland v. Bangor (65 Me. 120; 20° Am. R. 681) i. 145 v. Rolfe (37 Me. 400) i 285 Portland, &c. Rid., S. v. (58 Me. 46) ii. 1052 Portwood v. 8. (29 Tex. 47; 94 Am. D. 258) ii. 142 Posey v. Mobile (50 Ala. 6) i. 306 — v.S. (738 Ala. 490) ; i. 931 — v. S. (32 Tex. 476) i. 535 —, S. v. (79 Ala. 45) i. 264 m —, 8. «. (7 Rich. 484) i. 446, 449, 951 d, 1010 —, S. v. (4 Strob. 108) i. 1078, 1277; ii. 642 Post v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 579) i, 909 v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 598) i, 1249 Poston v. 8. (12 Tex. Ap. 408) ii. 12 —, S. v. (63 Mo. 521) i, 264 Poteete v. S. (9 Bax. 261; 40 Am. R. 90) i. 1020, 1207 Potsdamer v. §. (17 Fla. 895) i, 662, 887, 975 ¢, 1310 Potter v. ey i Day, 98) i, 284 a —, P. v. (35 Cal. 110) ii. 820 —,P. v. (6 Mich.1; 71 Am. D. 763) i. 1083 ; ii. 584 — , P. v. (89 Mich. 853 i. 975 —, P. v. (1 Par. Cr. 47 i. 1883, 1884 —— v. Padelford (3 R. I. 162) i. 1279 — , Reg. v, (2 Ld. Raym. 987) i. 1877 v. 8. (42 Ark. 29) i. 49 —— v. §. (85 Tenn. 88) i. 975 c, 1110 — 1.5%. (39 Tex. 388) i, 326; ii. 700 — v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 55) i. 688 — , §. v. (18 Conn. 166) i. 909, 1228, 1234 — ,, &. v. (28 Iowa, 554) ii, 216, 217 — , S. v. (13 Kan. 414) ii, 612 —, 8. v. (15 Kan, 302) i. 976, 1004, 101%, 1276 —, S. v. (16 Kan. 80) i. 60, 68, 73, 1010, 1013 ——, S. v. (Phillips, N. C. 838) i. 750 658 CASES CITED. POW Potter, S. v. (42 Vt. 495) i. 1169 —— v. Sturdivant (4 Greenl. 154) i. 2644 v. Swindle (77 Ga. 419) i. 213 —., U.S. v. (6 McLean, 186) i. 1003 Potts, C.». (79 Pa. 164) i. 3l4a —— v. S. (26 Tex. Ap. 663) i. 1196, 1199 —,S. v. (4 Halst. 26; 17 Am. D. 449) i. 1147; ii. 484, 460 —,, 8. v. (78 Towa, 656) ii, 127 —, S. v. (100 N. C. 457) i. 7955 ii. eri, —, S. v. (20 Nev. 389) i. 975 c, 1076 ‘Poucher, P. v. (80 Hun, 576) i711 —, P. v. (99 N. Y. 610) i, 1274 Poulterer’s Case (9 Co. 55 d) i. 861 Pound v. S. (48 Ga. 88) i. 982 a, 1085, 1086 ; ii. 612, 630 Pountney, Rex v. (7 Car. & P, 3802) i, 1238 Powell, Ex parte (20 Fla. 806) i. 222 — v. C. (11 Grat. 822) ii, 443 —, C. v. (8 Bush, 7) i, 482, 440 — v. P. (5 Hun, 169) i. 981 —, P. v. (87 Cal. 848) i. 50, 283, 900, 922, 1050 ——, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 500) ‘i. 966 ——, Reg. v. (2 Den. C. C. 408; 5 Cox C. C. 396) ii. 118, 146, 147 ——, Rex »v. (2 B. & Ad. 75) i. 453 ; ii, 975 —, Rex »v. (Bayley Bills, 5th ed. 562) ii. 406 —, Rex v. (1 Car. & P. 96) i. 691 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 640) ii. 758 ——,, Rex v. (1 Leach, 110) ii. 961 ——, Rex v. (2 W. BI. 787; 1 Leach, 7 ; 2 East P. C. 976) a 559 ; ii, 405, 421 —, Rex v. (Ryan & Moody, N. P. 101) i. 488 ¢; ii, 912 — v. S. (19 Ala. 577) ii. 621, 6380 —— v. 8. (25 Ala. 21) ii. 678, 679 —— v. S. (48 Ala. 154) i. 926, 934 —— v. §. (62 Ala. 1) ii. 610, 621 v. 8. (68 Ala. 362) i. 1161 v. S. (65 Ga. 707) i. 986 —,. . (61 Missis. 319) 1. 965, 982 a —— v. §. (67 Missis. 119) i. 975 v8. (15 Ohio, 679) i, 251 —— v.8. (44 Tex. 63) i, 1247; ii, 746 — v.§S. (8 Tex. Ap. 630) i, 1264 a —— v. §, (5 Tex. Ap. 234) i, 9756 — v. §. (11 Tex. Ap. 401) i, 1278 — v.58. (13 Tex. a, 244) i. 1190 v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 441) i, 1169 —— v. 8. (28 Tex. Ap. 393) i. 975 ¢, 1093 — v. §. (52 Wis. 217) i. 68; ii. 727 —, Sv. (2 Halst. 244) =i. 959.a, 1146, 1179 ——, S. v. (28 La. An. 315) ii, 718 —, 58. v. (86 N. C. 640) i, 1264 ——, 8. v. (94 N. C. 965) ii, 147 PRE INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. PRI Powell, S. rv. (103 N.C, 424; 14 Am. ; ae C. v. (140 Mass. 276) i. 1227 St. 821) ii. 721, 754 | Prehm v. S. (22 Neb. 678) ii. 183 —, S. v. (106 N. C. 685) i. 975 b| Preisker v. P. (47 Ill. 382) i, 9804 —, 8. v. (24 Tex. 135) i. 698, 700 ;| Prell v. McDonald (7 Kan. 426; 12 : ii. 685| Am. R. 423) i, 236, 717, 718 — , S. v. (28 Tex. 626) i, 325] Prendez v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 587) i. 63 — v. U.S. (Morris, 17) i, 733 | Presbury v. C. (9 Dana, 203) i. 928, Power v. Frick (2 Grant, Pa. 306) 949 a, 949 b ii. 482 e | Presby, C. v. (14 Gray, 65) i. 181, 182 Powers, In re (25 Vt. 261) i. 170, 183 | Prescott, C, v. (151 Mass. 60) i. 611 — v.P. (4 Johns. 292) i. 722 | ——, C. v, (153 Mass. 896) i, 1264 —,P. v. @ Barb. 462) i, 1850 v. §. (19 Ohio St. 184; 2 Am, —— v. Russell (13 Pick. 69) i. 1050] R. 888) i, 891, 892 — v.S. (44 Ga. 209) i. 1170 | ——, S. v. (31 Ark. 39) ii. 836 — v. S. (4 Humph. 274) i. 1126 | —, S. v. (7 N. H. 287) i. 999 -— v. S. (80 Ind. 77) i. 951, 951 a | ——, S. v. (83 N. H. 212) ii. 498 —— v. S.-(87 Ind. 144) i. 68, 975, 984, | —, U. S. «. (2 Bis. 825; 2 Abb. 986a) U.S. 169) i. 845, 585 — v. S. (16 Tex. 546) i. 1078 v. Wright (6 Mass. 20) i. 187 — v.8. (17 Tex. Ap. 428) ii, 910a| Preslar, 8S. v. (8 Jones, N. C. 421) v. 8. (27 Tex. Ap. 700) i, 946 ii. 559 —, S. v. (25 Conn. 48) i. 878, 639 | Presley, S. v. (13 Ire. 494) i. 979, 1147 —,S. v. (14 Ga. 388) i. 1265] Presser v. P. (98 Ill. 406) i. 1275 — , 8. uv. (1 Ga. Decis. 150) i, 1278, | Pressley v. S. (19 Ga. 192) i. 981 a, 978 1278 Pressly, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 183) i. 1288, —_, 8. v. (8 Hawks, 376) i. 1268 1259 —,S8.v. (12 Ire. 5). ii, 176, 796 | Preston v. Bowers (13 Ohio St. 1; 82 —, 8. v (10 Or. 145; 45 Am. R Am. D. 430) ii. 626 188) i. 946, 949 b | ——, Reg. v. (7 Dowl. P.C. 593) i. 691 — v. West Troy (25 Hun, 561) i, 1086 v. S. (63 Ala. 127) i, 1856 Powles, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 571) ii. 648 v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 186) i. 68, 73, Powlter’s Case (11 Co. 29) i, 578 1248, 1276 Powner, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 235; — v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 30) i. 983, 1107 4 Eng. Rep. 525) ii. 420, 441 | ——, U. S. v. (8 Pet. 57) i, 1264 Poynts’s Case (Cro. Jac. 214) i, 413 | Preston-on-the-Hill, Rex v. (2 Stra. Prat-v. Stearn (Cro. Jac. 382) ii, 864/ 1040) i. 1265 Prater, S. v. (26 S. C. 198) i. 906, 909, | Preswood v. 8. (8 Heisk. 468) i. 949 1027, 1169, 1170 | Preuit v. P. (5 Neb. 877) i. 68, 1005a; —, 8. v. (27 S. C. 599) i. 1264, 1836 ii. 603 Prather, S. v. (54 Ind. 63) ii. 56 | Prewitt v. S. (65 Missis. 437) i, 996 Prator v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 363) i. 1264) Price v. C. (21 Grat. 846) ii. 740, 745, 981 Pratt v. Bogardus (49 Barb. 89) _i. 228 v. C. (83 Grat. 819; 36 Am. R. ——, C. v. (182 Mass. 246) ii. 816, 318} 797 ii. 595 ——, C. v. (187 Mass. 98) i. 772; ii. 315, v. C. (77 Va. 393) i. 1181, 1186 829 | —, C. v. (10 Gray, 472; 71 Am. —, P. v. (22 Hun, 300) i. 183, 718 D.. 668) i. 1169, 1172; ii. 463, 464, 466 —-, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 315) i. 1160, | —— v. Graham (3 Jones, N. ©. 545) i 228 1170 v. Messenger (2B. & P. 158) i. 208 — v. S. (49 Ark. 179) ii. 56 v. P. (9 Bradw. 36) i. 788 ; ii. 993 — v. S. (51 Ark. 167) ii. 975 | —— v. P. (181 Ill. 228) i. 966d —— v. S. (56 Ind. 179) i. 999, 1120; | ——, P. v. (53 Hun, 185) i, 948 a ii. 97, 617 ——, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 729) ii. 50 v. S. (19 Ohio St. 277) ii. 964, 965 | ——, Rex v. (6 East, 323) i. 1288, 1288, — »v. §. (35 Ohio St. 514; 85 Am. 1298 R. 617) ii. 751 | ——, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 177) ii, 154 ——, 8. v. (20 Iowa, 267) i. 1079 | —— »v. S. (42 Ark. 178) i, 2647 —, S. v. (88 N. C. 639 i. 1034, 1241 | —— v. S. (25 Ga. 133 ) i. 951 f —, 8. v. (14. N. H. 456) i, 403 | —— v. 8. (67 Ga. 723) i. 854 —,S. v. (44 Tex. 93) i. 478, 651 | —— v. S. (72 Ga. 441) i. 1212 — S. v. (64 Vt. 484) i. 502, 612 | —— v. S. (8 Gill, 295) i. 78, 74 Pratten, Rex v. (6 T. R. 559 i, 689 | —— v. S. (86 Missis. 681; 72 Am. D. Pray, C. v. (18 Pick. 879) i. 888, 402;] 195) i. 269, 952 a, 1087 ii. 100, 275 | —— v. 8. (19 Ohio, 423) i, 683 , S.v, (14 N. H. 464) i. 1188 v. 8. (18 Ohio St. 418) i, 1228 Prebble, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 325) i. 188 '-—— v. 8. (85 Ohio St. 601) i, 281 659 PRO Price v. 8. (41 Tex. 215) — v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 235) i. 264 — , 8. v. (12 Gill. & J. 260; 87 Am. D. i. 641 — 5. v. (6 Halst. 208) i. 588. 665, 1856, ioe) = — 1374; ii. 41 — , S. v. (37 La. An. 215) i. 1270 —'S. v. (41 La. An. 594) 1. 981 —-; §. v. (111 N. C. 708) ii. 67 —§. v. (10 Rich. 351) i. 944 —— v. Seeley (10 Cl. & F. 28) 1.166, 183 —— v. White (27 Mo. 275) i. 2646 Prickett v. Gratrex (8 Q. B. 1020) i. 229 Priddy, S. v. (4 Humph. 429) ii. 17 Pridgen v. S. (31 Tex. 420) ii. 615 Pridgeon, U. 8. v. (153 U.S. 48) i. 1410 Priest, Reg. v. (2 Cox C. C. 878) i. 1288 — v. §. (10 Neb. 393) i, 884, 1248 Priester, S. v. (Cheves, 108) i, 449 Prigg v. C. (16 Pet. 539) i, 221, 228, 287 Prim v. 8. (82 Tex. 157) ii. 737 Primm, S. v. (61 Mo. 166) —_ i. 1348, 1895 Prince, Ex parte (27 Fla. 196; 26 Am. St. 67) i. 1410 — v. S. (35 Ala. 367) ii, 80 — v.8. (7 Humph. 187) i. 1318, Fae 181 — v. S. (3 Stew. & P. 253). i, 931 v. 8. (44 Tex. 480) i. 1827; ii. 152 ——, S. v. (63 N. C. 529) i. 8l4a Prine v. C, (18 Pa. 103) i. 271 Pringle, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 408; 2 Moody, 127) ii, 414 —v. 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 800) i. 738, 1354 Printz v. P. (42 Mich. 144; 386 Am. R. 487) ii, 751 Prior v. S. (77 Ala. 56) i. 1125 —— v. §. (41 Ga. 155) ii. 68a Pritchard, Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 34; Cox C. C. 461) ii, 724 -—,, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 303) ii. 666, 667 —, S. v. (35 Conn. 319) i. 289a@; ii. 163 — , 8. v. (81 La. An. 209) i. 989 —, S. v. (15 Nev. 74) i. 945 —, S. v. (16 Nev. 101) i. 917, 946 Pritchett, C. v. (11 Bush, 277) i. 853 v. 8. (22 Ala. 89; 58 Am. D. 250) ii. 614, 619 —, S. v. (106 N. C.667) 1.948, 975, 980; ii. 633, 674 Pritchford v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 69) i. 752, 811, 812 Prius, C: v. (9 Gray, 127) ii. 214, 221 Probert, Reg. v. (Dears. 30; 18 Eng. L. & Eq. 111) i, 1377 Proctor v. S. (6 Harring. Del. 887) i. 1850 Proffit v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 51) i. 980 Profit, C. v. (4 Binn. 424) i. 1862, 1880 Prohibitory Amendment Cases (24 Kan, 700) i. 1410 Proper v. S. (85 Wis. 615) ii, 972 Prophet, C. v. (1 Browne, 135) i. 951 Prophit v. 8. (12 Tex. Ap. 233) i, 325 Proseck v. S, (88 Ohio St. 606) i, 264.4 Prospero, P. v. (44 Cal. 186) i. 076 660 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. i, 1269 | PYB Prosser, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 502) ii. 138 , Rex v. (1 Leach, 290, note) ii. 12 Prout, U. S. v. (4 Cranch C. C. 301) ii. 482 b, 482¢ Provo v. 8. (55 Ala. 222) i. 1063 Prudential Assurance Co. v. Knott (Law Rep. 10 Ch. Ap. 142) i. 1416 Prudhomme v. Fraser (2 A. & E. 645) ii. 794 Prynn’s Case (5 Mod. 459) i. 141 Pryor v. C. (27 Grat. 1009) i. 1275, 1278 —, S. v. (80 Ind. 350) " ii, 163 Puckering, Rex v. (1 Moody, 242) ii. 708 Puckett, S. v. (7 Lea, 709) i. 1816 Puckford v. Maxwell (6 ‘T. R. 52) i. 263 a, 1382 Puddick, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 497) i. 966 c, 9754 Pugh, Reg. v. (6 Mod. 140) i. 608; ii. 992 — v. 8. (2 Head, 227) i, 264 —— v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 589) i. 978; ii. 63, 652 — 5. v. (2 Hayw. 55; 2 Am. D.621) i. 465, 1023 —, S. v. (15 Mo. 609) i, 629 —, S. v. (101 N. C. 737; 9 Am. St. 44) i. 159; ii. 836 Pugsley, S. v. (75 Iowa, 742) —_—i. 68, 882 Pujo, S. v. (41 La. An. 346) i. 3144 Pulham, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 280) i. 1087 Pulitzer, S. v. (12 Mo. Ap. 6) ii. 786 Pullen v. P. (1 Doug. Mich. 48) i. 1019, 1161 —— wv. §. (28 Tex. Ap. 114) i, 1094 Pullens, S. v. (81 Mo. 887) i. 559, 560, 5 688, ii, 470 Pulley, S. v. (63 N. C. 8) i. 1170 Pulliam v. S (88 Ala. 1) i, 1212 Pulling v. S. (16 Ind. 458) i. 68, 73 Purcell v. Macnamara (9 East, 157) i. 4880 Purcelly v. S. (29 Tex. Ap. 1) i. 975¢ Purchase, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 617) i. 429, 756, 780, 782; ii. 834 ——, Reg. v. (15 How. St. Tr. 651) i. 1006, 1354 Purdie, S. v. (67 N.C. 25) i, 635 Purdin, 8. v. (69 Mo. 450) i. 1264 Purefoy, Rex v. (Peake Ev. 64) —_i. 1200 Purify, 8. v. (86 N. C. 681) i, 488 ¢ Purkey v. S. (8 Heisk. 26) i. 1094 Purse, 8. v. (4 McCord, 472) ii. 861 Purtell v. S. (48 Tex. 483) i, 980 Puryear v. C, (83 Va. 51) i. 946, Be 12 — v8. CF Ga. 692) i. 1196 —— v.58. (28 Tex. Ap. 73) i. 546, 975, 978, 1170 Push, S. v. (28 La. An. 14) i, 925 Putman v. 8. (49 Ark. 449) ii, 884 Putnam, C. v. (29 Pa, 296) ii, 205 ——, 8. v. (88 Me. 296) i, 761 —v. Wadley (40 Ill. 346) ii, 482 a, 432d Pybos v. S. (8 Humph. 49) i, 864 RAC Pyburn v. S. (84 Ga. 198) i. 9514 Pyke v. Crouch (1 Ld. Raym. 730) i. 1195 Pyland v. 8. (4 Sneed, 357) ii. 782 Pynes v. 8. (45 Ala. 52) i. 1266 Quann, C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 89) i, 1342 Quarles v. S. (1 Sneed, 407) i. 1273 Quarman v. Burnett (6 M. & W. 499) 96 ii. 77 Quarrel, S. v, (2 Bay, 150; 1 Am. D. 637) i. 923 Quartermus, S. v. (8 Heisk. 65) i. 885 Queen’s Case (2 Brod. & B. 286, 302) ii, 231 Queen v. S. (5 Har. & J. 232) ii. 92 —, 8. v. (66 N. C.615) i. 187 — , S. v. (91 N. C. 689) ii. 142, 147 Quesenberry v.8. (8 Stew. & P. 308) i, 909 ; ii. 609, 615, 616 Quick v. Miller (103 Pa. 67) i. 207 —, P. v. (68 Mich. 321) i. 298, 9758 —, S. v. (73 Ind. 147) i. 1264 — , S. v. (72 N. C. 241) i, 1264 —,S. v. (15 Rich. 342) i. 1216 Quigg, S. v. (1 Green, N. J. 293) i, 718 Quigley v. C. (84 Pa. 18) i. 931 v. P. (2 Scam. 301) i. 585; ii. 460 Quimby, S. v. (51 Me. 395) i. 852, 926 Quin, C. v. (5 Gray, 478) i, 231, 377, 378, 383 —, P.r. (1 Par. Cr. 340) i. 991 Quincy, P. v. (8 Cal. 89) i. 9514, 977, 980 —, U.S. v, (6 Pet. 445) i. 375, 384 Quinlan v. P. (6 Par. Cr. 9) ii. 1002 Quinn, C. v. (150 Mass. 401) i. 975¢, 1110, 1276; ii. 58 —— v. Heisel (40 Mich. 576) i. 183 ——v.P. (71 N. Y. 561; 27 Am. R. 87 ii. 130 — v. S. (49 Ala. 353) i. 452, 453 — v.8. (14 Ind. 589) i. 995, 998 — »v. §. (35 Ind. 485; 9 Am. R. 754) i. 625 — v.§. (128 Ind. 59) i. 1012 —, S. v. (16 Nev. 89) i. 314a@ —)U.8.». (8 Blatch. 48) i. 611; ii. 910 a Quinnery, S. v. (Taylor, 33) i. 1264 Quintana v. S. (29 Tex. Ap. 401; 25 Am. St. 730) Quitzow e S. (1 Tex. Ap. 47; 28 Ant R. 396) i, 814, 816 Quock Ting v. U.S. (140 U. 8,417) i. 1091 Qurise, P. v. (59 Cal. 343) i. 1196 Quvise, P. v. Ce Cal. 896) i. 442 i. 1066 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. RAM Radbourne, Rex v. (1 Leach, 457) i. 1195 Radcliffe, Reg. v. (2 Moody, 68; 2 Lewin, 57) i. 602 ——, Rex »v. (1 W. BI. 3) i. 942 Rader v. S. (5 Lea, 610) i. 1270 Radford v. S. (85 Tex. 15) i. 541; ii, 751 Radley, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 450; 2 Car. & K. 974; 3 Cox C.C. 460) ii. 699, 704 Rafe v. S. (20 Ga. 60) i. 893, 909, ‘Ou, 1223 Rafferty v. P. (66 Ill. 118) i. 68, 72; ii. 674 —— v. P. (69 Ill. 111; 18 Am. R. 601 i. 230, 235 v. P, (72 Ill. 37) i. 1000, 1887 Raffety’s Case (2 Lewin, 271) ii. 6 Ragan v. S. (67 Missis. 332) i, 372 —, S. v. (22 Mo. 459) i611 Ragland, S. v. (75 N. C. 12) i. 921 Ragsdale, S. v. (10 Lea, 671) i. 1863, 1370 eae P. v. (92 Mich. 165; 31 Am. 575) i. 975 c, 980; ii, 652, 659 au v. S. (30 Tex. ‘Ap. 310; 28 Am. St. 911) i. 975b, 1265 ; ii. 924 Raiford, S. v. (7 Port. 101) _—i. 345, 586, 620, 624 Railing v. C. (110 Pa. 100) i. 1207 Rainbolt v. 8. (84 Tex. 286) i. 264.4 Rainer, Rex v. (1 Sid. 214) i, 1809 Buus v, 8. (33 Ga. 571) i. 1278 . v. (8 McCord, 533) i. 625 ; ii. 641 Rainey v. P. (3 Gilman, 71) i. 700 — v5. C Ind. 278) i. 1279 — v. S. (19 Tex. Ap. 479) i. 854 —v. 8. (20 Tex. Ap. 455) i. 955 v. 8. (20 Tex. Ap. 478) i. 1264 Rainforth v. P. (61 Ill. 365) i. 982 4 Rains v. Hood (23 Tex. 555) i. 1264 —— v. S. (88 Ala. 91) i. 975c, 1181, 1249 Rainsbarger, S. v. (71 Iowa, 746) i. 1019 Raisler v. S. (55 Ala. 64) i, 264 a, 585 —— v. Springer (38 Ala. 703; 82 Am. D. 736) i. 1178 Rake v. Pope (7 Ala. 161) i. 816 Ralph v. U.S. (11 Bis. 88) ii. 924 Rambo, S. v. (95 Mo. 462) i. 467 Ramey v. C, (83 Ky. 584) i. 264 f Ramirez, P. v. (18 Cal. 172 i. 980 Am, R. i, 1229 i, 1212 — ». 8. (20 Tex. Ap. 183) i. 975, 1079 Rampey v. S. (83 Ala. 31) i. 683, 850 Raab v. S. (7 Md. 483) i. 68 | Ramsay, C. v. (2 Duv. 385) i. 2644 Raber v. Wayne (12 Ohio St. 429) i. 1316 Ramsden, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 87) ii. 6 Rabon ». S. (7 Fla. 10) i. 1371 | Ramsey v. ras oad Ind. 493) i. 184 —,S.z. te Rich. 260) i. 611; ii, 552 v. 8, (48 Ala. 404) ii. 945 Rabourn, 8 . v. (14 Ind. 300) i. 966 b, 1265 | —, S. v. (23 Mo. 327) i, 251 Race, P. v. (2 Bradw. 563) i, 264 f] —, 8. v. tae Mo. 398) ii. 1054 Rachels v. S. (51 Ga. 374) i. 1022, 1276! ——, S, v. (82 Mo. 133) i. 1085; ii. 521 661 RAT Ranch v. S. (5 Tex. Ap. 363) ii. 62 Rand v. C. (9 Grat. 788) i. 1015, 1275 ——, C.v. (7 Met. 475; 41 Am. D. 455) i. 59, 60 ——, S.v. (83 N. H. 216) i. 887; ii. 18, 138 a, 189, 151 Randal v. Wale (Cro. Jac. 59) i. 264¢ Randall v. C. (24 Grat. 644) i. 535 —, C. v. (4 Gray, 36) i, 481 — , C. v. (119 Mass. 107) _ ili. 740, 745 ——, Rex v. (1 Leach, 267) ii. 84 v. 8. (182 Ind. 539) ii. 703 — , S. v. (88 N. C. 611) i. 314 Randle, S. v. (41 Tex. 292) i, 452 Rando, P. v. (3 Par. Cr. 835) i. 990 Randolph, Ex parte (2 Brock. 447) i. 1406 v. C. (68. & R. 398) ii. 88, 89 — v.§. (14 Ind. 282) ii. 233 —, S. v. (24 Conn. 363) ii, 965 — , S. v. (22 Mo. 474) i, 264 a, 264 b — , S. ec. (26 Mo. 218) i, 234 tie a Randon, Ex parte (12 Tex. Ap. 145) i. 256 Rangel v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 461) i. 486 Rankin v. C. (9 Bush, 558) i, 264 —, S. v. (8 Iowa, 355) i, 1140, 1152 —., S.v. (88. C. 488; 16 Am. R. 787) ii, 869 Ransberger, S. v. (106 Mo. 135) i. 713 —, S. ». (42 Mo. Ap. 466) i. 713 Ransell, S. v. (41 Conn. 433) i. 897 Ransom, P. v. (7 Wend. 417) i. 9381 v. S. (49 Ark. 176) i, 733 Ranson, Rex v. (2 Leach, 1090) ii. 751 Rasberry v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 664) i. 713; ii, 68a Rasco v. Willis (5 Ala. 38) i, 1101 Rash v. S. (61 Ala. 89) 1. 981; ii. 631 — , S. v. (12 Ire. 382; 55 Am. D. 420) i. 966, 979, 980; ii. 623, 625, 630 — v. Whitney (4 Mich. 495) i, 1899 Rasmussen v. S. (63 Wis. 1) i. 97, 711, 1264 Rasnick v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 356) ii. 488 Rataree v. S. (62 Ga. 245)- i. 8l4a Ratcliff v. Planters’ Bank (2 Sneed, 425) ii. 409 —— v. §. (29 Tex. Ap. 248) i. 360 Ratcliffe v. Burton (3 B. & P. 228) i. 200, 201, 208 — , C. v. (180 Mass. 36) i. 1248 —, Rex v. (Foster, 40; 1 Wills. 150; 18 How. St. Tr. 429) i, 297, 942, 951 ¢, 1836, 1384, 13885 Raten, P. v. (63 Cal. 421) i. 1049; ii. 599 Rathbone v. Rathbone (4 Pick. 89) i.9 , U.S. v. (2 Paine, 578) i. 893 Rathbun, P. v. (21 Wend. 509) i. 53, 905, 906, 909, 981; ii. 472, 475 Rather v. S. (25 Tex. Ap. 623) ii. 671 Ratliff v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 830) i. 951 —, S. v. (5 Eng. 530) ii. 290 Ratteree v. S. (53 Ga. 570) i. 91a v. S. (77 Ga. 774) 1.976 c, 1287 ; ii. 827 Rattray v. S. (61 Missis. 377) i. 68, 1817 ; ii. 783 662 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. REA Ratts, S. v. (63 N. C. 503) i, 597 Ratzky v. P. (29 N. ¥. 124) i. 1873 Rauscher, U.S. v. (119 U.S. 407) i. 2246 Ravelin, S. v. (1 D. Chip. 295) ii. 459 a Ravenscroft v. Giboney (2 Misso. 1) i. 1899 Rawley v. Vigo (2 Blackf. 355) i, 286 Rawlings v. S. (1 Md. 127) i, 1264 ——v. 8. (2 Md. 201) i. 814.4, 480, 639, 1800 Rawlins v. Ellis (16 M. & W.172) i. 207 ——, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 439) ii. 924 ——, Reg. v. (6 Mod. 243) i. 951 ——, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 150) ii. 188 Rawls v. S. (8 Sm. & M. 599) i. 793, 884, 1265 Rawson v. Brown (18 Me. 216) i. 891 —, Rex v. (2B. & C. 698; 4D. & R. 124) i. 1814 — v. S. (19 Conn. 292) i. 345, 346, 890, 436 Ray, C. v. (3 Gray, 441) i. 488 —,C. v. (cited 2 Met. Ky. 386) i. 250 —, C. v, (1 Va. Cas. 262) i. 469 — v. P. (6 Colo. 231) i, 733 ——,, Respublica v. (3 Yeates, 65) i. 1188 v. S. (50 Ala. 104) i. 1094, 1170, 1240; ii. 677 —— v.§. (15 Ga. 228) i. 909, 9496 ——¥v. S. (1 Greene, Iowa, 316; 48 Am. D. 879) —_ i. 126, 1161, 1170, 1265, 1267; ii. 764 v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 450) i. 898, 934 ——v.§. (13 Tex. Ap. 51) i. 975c, 978 v. 8. (16 Tex. Ap. 268) i. 264 a —, §. v. (50 Iowa, 520) i. 1291 — 8. v. (10 Ire. 39) ii. 391 —}§. v. (87 Mo. 365) ii. 63a —} 58. v. (53 Mo, 345) i. 1279 —; S. v. (89 N. C. 587) i. 727 — , S. v. (63 N. H. 406; 55 Am. R. 458, note) i. 3144 Ray County Court, S. v. (52 Mo. 27 i. 1820 Rayburn »v. Belotti (10 Misso. 597) ii. 482a Raye, Ex parte (63 Cal. 491) i, 1343 Raymond ». Bell (18 Conn. 81) ii. 887 v, P. (9 Bradw. 344) ii, 105 —_, S. v. (46 Conn. 345) ii. 740 —, S. v. (7 Fost. N. H. 388) ii. 1045 ——, 8. v. (20 Iowa, 582) j. 3857, 1128; ii, 982 ——, 8. v. (11 Nev. 98) i. 892; ii. 29 Rea v. S. (8 Lea, 356) i. 975¢ Read v. C. (24 Grat. 618) i. 1264 v. Matteur (Cas. temp. Hardw. 286) i, 792 ——, Rex ». (1 Lev. 9) i. 1272 — v.S. (1 Ind. 511) ii 841 — v. S. (2 Ind. 438) i. 978; ii. 67 — , S. v. (49 Iowa, 85) i. 68, 71 —— v. Sutton (2 Cush. 115) i, 1841, 1842 Reader, Rex v. (4 Car. & P, 245) ii. 48 —,, Rex »v, (1 Stra. 531) i. 254 —,, S. v. (60 Iowa, 527) i, 878, 1159 Reading, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 649) i. 1261 RED Reading, Rex v. (1 East, 180 n.) ii. 470 ——, Rex v. (7 How. St. Tr. 259) i. 729, 733 b, 942 —, Rex v. (2 Leach, 590) i. 490; ii. 418 Ready v. C. (9 Dana, 38) i. 264a ——, 8. v. (44 Kan. 697) i, 495, 623, 946 ; ii. 751, 1002, 1004 Reagan v. 8. (28 Tex. Ap. 227; 19 Am. St. 838) i. 444, 1279, 1280 Reakey, 5. v. (62 Mo. 40) ii. 589 ——, 8S. v. (1 Mo. Ap. 3) i. 389, 409, 651; ii. 538, 541 Real v. P. (42 N. ¥. 270) i. 314, 488; ii. 525, 674, 678 Reaney, Reg. v. (Dears. & B. 151; 7 Cox C. C. 209; 40 Eng. L. & Eq. 552) i. 1207, 1212 —, S. v. (13 Md. 230) i. 2647 Rearden, Reg. v. (10 Cox C. C. 241) ii. 988 — . Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 76) i. 1128 ; ii. 970 Reardon, ©. v. (4 Gray, 420) i. 1060 ——, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C. 31) ii. 988 —v.§. (4 Tex. Ap. 602) i. 610, 1068; ii. 1002 Reason, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 228; 4 Eng. Rep. 517) i. 1224, 1227 , Rex v. (1 Stra. 499) i. 1218 Reaves, S. v. (85 N. C. 553) i. 8144 Reavey, P. v. (88 Hun, 418) i, 454 Reavis, S. v. (71 Mo. 419) i. 1120, 1124, 1170 Reckards, S. v. (21 Minn. 47) i. 268, 271; ii. 105, 273 Record, Rex v. (2 Show. 216) ii. 866 — v. §. (36 Tex. 521) i. 126 —, S. «. (56 Ind. 107) ii. 825 Recorder, S. v. (15 La. An. 406) — i. 1264 Rector v. C. (80 Ky. 468) i, 1238 —, P. v. (19 Wend. 569) ; ii. 621 —, S. v. (11 Misso. 28) i. 761, 764; ii. 695 Red, 8. v. (53 Iowa, 69) i. 1066, 1181, 1182, 1217 —. S. ec. (2 Ire, 265) i. 1817, 13819 —. S. v. (82 La, An. 819) i. 931 Redd v. S. (68 Ala. 492) i, 1288 —— v. S, (69 Ala. 255) — i. 1223; ii. 541 Reddan v. S. (4 Greene, Iowa, 137) i. 611; ii. 68a, 80 Reddick v, S, (21 Tex. Ap. 267) i. 264 m —, S. v. (7 Kan. 148) ii. 674, 687 Reddill’s Case (1 Whart. 445) i. 18389 Redemeier, S. v. (71 Mo. 173; 36 Am.+ R. 462) i. 1279; ii. 670 Redfield v. S, (24 Tex. 183) i. 229; ii. 367 Redford, S. v.. (82 Kan. 198) i. 711 Redman, Rex v. (1 Keny. 384) i. 965 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 477) i, 481 — v. 8. (40 Ark. 445) i. 1279 — v.S. (1 Blackf. 429) i. 1124; ii. 9, 980, 988 a —— v.§. (28 Ind. 205) INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. i. 263 a, 264 f- REE Redman, §. v. (17 Iowa, 329) ii. 764 Redmon ». C, (82 Ky. 333) i. 1268 Redmond ». S. (12 Kan. 172) i. 230, 2845 — v. 8. (85 Ohio St. 81) ii. 163 Redus v. P. (10 Colo. 208) ii. 584, 611 Redwine, S. v. (87 La. An. 780) 1.1265 Reece v. Knott (8 Utah, 451) i, 922 ——,, S. v. (27 W. Va. 375) ii. 187, i Reed v. C. (7 Bush, 641) ii, 718 —, C. v. (3 Bush, 516) i, 251 —, C. v. (1 Gray, 472) i. 907 =n EE (1 Par. Mie 481) Zi. 482; ii 685 , P. v. (70 Cal. 529) ii. 183 —, Pv. (11 Wend. 157) ii. 383 ——, Rex v. (Moody & M. 403) i. 1259 v. Rice (2 J. J. Mar. 44; 19 Am. D. 122) i. 185, 244 v. S. (88 Ala. 36) i. 478; ii. 708 — v.58. (16 Ark. 499) i. 548, 552 ; : ii. 511, 6874 —— v. S. (64 Ark’621) i. 1121; ii. 740 — v. 8. (16 Fla. 564) i. 1265, 1854 —— v. §. (8 Ind. 200) i. 738; ii. 513 — v.&. (12 Ind. 641) i. 950d v. S. (28 Ind. 896) ii. 459 —— v. 8. (62 Missis. 405) i. 1179 v. 8. (11 Misso. 379) i. 73 v. 8. (15 Ohio, 217) i. 682, 931, 1126; ii. 428, 483, 456 — v. S. (43 Tex. 319) ii, 127 —— v.S. (1 Tex. Ap. 1) i. 878 v. §. (11 Tex. Ap. 509; 40 Am. R. 795) i. 1018 v. §. (11 Tex. Ap. 587) 1.814, 975c¢ v. §. (14 Tex. Ap. 662) ii. 130 — v.S. (16 Tex. Ap. 586) i. 61 uv. S. (82 Tex. Cr. 25) i. 1181 —. 5S. v. (45 Ark. 333) i. 610 —,S. v. (26 Conn. 202) i. 817 ——,, S. v. (62 Iowa, 40) i. 1062, 1066 ——. 5S. v. (53 Kan. 767; 42 Am. St. 822) ii. 629 —, S. v. (41 La. An. 581) ii. 664, 666, 965 ——, S. v. (85 Me. 489; 58 Am. D. 727) i, 848, 344, 345 ——,, 8. v. (62 Me. 129) i. 1094, 1254 ——, S. v. (67 Me. 127) i. 702 ——, S. v, (12 Md. 263) i, 1287 ——, 8. v. (67 Mo. 36) i, 1898 —, 8. v. (71 Mo. 200) i. 9756 —, S. v. (89 Mo. 168) i. 909, 1097 —, S. v. (47 N. H. 466) i. 1028 —, 8. v. (89 Vt. 417; 94 Am. D. 337) ii, 960, 965, 966 v. Shenck (2 Dev. 415) i. 981 —, U.S. v, (2 Blatch. 435) i. 849, 861, 865, 868, 872, 931 Reel, S. v. (80 N. C. 442) i. 455, 457, 461 Rees v. Bowen (McClel. & Y. 383) ii, 933 c ——, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 802) i, 1818 — , Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 568) =i. 1261; ii, 138 Reese v. P. (11 Bradw. 346) i. 264a@ 663 REI Reese v. 8. (90 Ala. 624) i. 491 v. §. (7 Ga. 873) i. 951a, 951d, 1083 v. 8. (8 Ind. 416) i. 821 — , 8. v. (83 N. C. 637) ii, 173 — v. U.S. (9 Wal. 13) i, 2649 Reeve v. Lee (6 Wis. 80) i. 484a —, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C. 363; 12 Cox C. C. 179) Reeves v. Graffling (67 Ga. 512) — , Rex v. (26 How. St. Tr, 529) i. 1001 —, Rex v. (2 Leach, 808) ii. 401, 416, 442 ——,, Rex v. (Peake Ad. Cas. 84) i. 1100 — v.8. (20 Ala. 33) i. 879, 661, 665 i, 1227 i. 314 v. 8. (84 Ind. 116) i. 1855 v. 8. {; Tex. Ap. 276) ii. 148 —, S. v. (8 Ire. 19) i, 1849, 1354 —,S. v. (15 Kan, 396) ii, 836 ——, S. v. (97 Mo. 668; 10 Am. St. 349) i. 762 —, U.S. v. (3 Woods, 199) i. 850 Regan, C. v. (105 Mass. 593) ii. 966 ——,, Reg. v. (17 Law T. wn. 8, 325) i. 1228 —,S8.v. (67 Me. 380) i. 128 —— v. Territory (1 Wash. Ter. 21) i. 1336 — vv. Territory (1 Wash. Ter. n. s. 31) i. 1364 Reggel, Ex parte (114 U. S. 642) i. 220, 222, 2236 Regicides, Trials of the (5 How. St. Tr. 947) i. 797 Rego, P. v. (86 Hun, 129) i. 975¢ Regular v. S. (58 Ga. 264) i. 975, 978 Rehberg, Territory v. (6 Mont: a 1264 Reich v. S. (53 Ga. 78) i. 314a, 316, 851, 873 Reichert, U.S. v. (12 Saw. 643; 3 Fed. Rep. 142) ii, 204 Reick, S. v. (43 Kan. 279) i. 400 Reid, C. v. (8 Philad. 385) i. 1019 v. Hodgson (1 Cranch C. C. 491) ii. 4324 v. Louisiana State Lottery Me (29 La. An. 388) 1248 —v. Morton (119 Ill. 118) si. 314a v. §. (53 Ala. 402; 4 Cent. L. J. 154, and note at p. 156; 25 Am. R. 62 7) i. 1001; ii, 783 — v.S. (20 Ga. 681) i. 384, 1248, 1249 ; ii. 432 a — v. S. (23 Ga. 190) i. 951 a, 966 v. 8. (60 Ga, 656) i, 918, 1072, 1396 v. 8. (81 Ga. 760) i. 1054 — v.58. (9 Tex. Ap. 472) i. 975 c, 1050 —,S. v. (1 Dev. & Bat. 877; 28 Am. D. 572) i, 1879 —, S. v. (20 Iowa, 418) i. 668, 868, 875, 878, 1357 ; ii. 129, 152 ——,, S. v. (89 Minn. 277) ii. 963 —— v. Wood (102 Pa. 312) i, 1880 Reiker, Respublica v. (3 Yeates, 282) ii, 857 664 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. REY Hey ys S. (14 Ind. 217) ii. 13 —, . v. (10 Saw. 134) i. 145 Reilly, oe v, (638 Mich, 260) i. 1299 ——, Rex v. (1 Leach, 454) ii. 1022 ——, S. v. (4 Mo. Ap. 392) 1. 9756 Reily, S. v. (2 Brev. 444) i. 1272 Reimer’s Appeal (100 Pa. 182; 45 Am. R. 373) i. 1417 Reinex v. 8. (51 Wis. 152) i. 1371 Reinhart v. S. (29 Ga. 522) i. 1400 zv. S. (45 Ind. 147) i. 1268 Reininghaus, 8. v. (43 Iowa, 149) i. 287 Reins v. P. (30 Ill. 256) i. 999, 1002 Reisner, S. v. (20 Kan. 548) i. 1314 Reitz, S. v. (62 Ind. 159) i. 3l4a ——, S. v. (838 N. C. 684) i. 1064, 1081 Rembert v. 8. (53 Ala. 467; 25 Am. R. 639) ii, 402, 415, 418 a@ v. 8. (56 Missis. 280) i. 611; ii, 845 Remby, C. v. (2 Gray, 508) i. 1275, 1884 Remnant, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 136) i. 966 ; ii, 721 —, Rex v. (5 T. R. 169; 2 Leach, 583) i. 618; ii. 84 Remon v. Hayward (2 A. & E. 666) i. 795 Remsen »v. P, (438 N. ¥. 6; 57 Barb. 324) i. 1115 Remson, Ex paite (23 Ala. 25) i. 68, 78 Renaud v. Abbott (116 U. 8.277) i. 315 Rendle, Reg. v. (11 Cox C. C. 209) i. 869 Reneau »v. S. (2 Lea, 720; 31 Am. R. 626) i. 161 Renfrow, P. v. (41 Cal. 37) i, 984 Reno, S. v. (67 Iowa, 587) i. 1078 Renshaw, Reg. v. (11 Jur. 615) i, 1098 Rensselaer, P. v. (6 Wend. 543) i, 1264 Rentiford, S. v. (14 La, An.214) i. 1264, 1272 Renton, S. v. (15 N. H. 169) i. 1124; ii. 995 Reonnals, 8. v. (14 La. An. 278) _ i. 1001, 1018; ii. 329 Report of Judges (3 Binn. 599) i. 178 Reserved Cases, In re (Jebb, 234) i. 1266 Reside v. 8. (10 Tex. Ap. 675) iii. a 321 Respass, S. v. (85 N.C. 534) i. 812, 1391 Restell, P. v. (3 Hill, N. Y. 289) i. ae 1199 Reuck v. McGregor (3 Vroom, 70) i. a Revel, Rex v. (1 Stra. 420) ii. 807 — v.S. (26 Ga. 275) i, 931, 951, 951 b, 1250, 1275, 1834; ii. 640 Revells, S. v. (81 La. An. 387) i. 931, 1343 ——, S.»v, (84 La. An. 881; 44 Am. R. 436) i, 1287 ——, S. v. (85 La. An. 302) i. 981, 1288 Revels v. S. (33 Fla. 308) ii. 661 Revett v. Brahan (4 T. R. 497) ii. 482¢ Reyburn, U. S. v. (6 Pet. 852) i. 875, 384 Reyes, P. v. (5 Cal. 347) i. 909, 919 —— v. S. (34 Fla. 181) ii, 7944 RHO sere v. C. (83 Grat. 834) i. 1005a@ —, C. vu. (14 Gray, 87; 74 Am. D. 665) i. 555; ii. 864, 897 —, C. v. (4 Leigh, 663) i. 8144 —,, C. v. (120 Mass. 190; 21 Am. R. 510) i. 195, 204, 205 — , C. v. (122 Mass. 454) ii. 180, 188. a — v. Corp (3 Caines, 267) i. 187 v. Harral (2 Strob. 87) 1,264 m — v. P. (41 How. Pr. 179) i. 977 v. P. (83 Ill. 479; “ Am. R. 410) 816; ii. 9, 10 —, P. v. (16 Cal. 128) i "905, ’916, 934, 945 —, P. v. (2 Mich. 422) i, 980 b — v. 8. (68 Ala. 502) i, 1207, 1293 ——v.S. (24 Ga. 427) i. 1278 —v.§. (1 Kelly, 222) i. 909, 939; ii. 618, 625 —v. 5. (8 Kelly, 58) i. 1888, 1394 —— v. S. (27 Neb. 90; 20 Am. St. 659) i. 975c; ii. 968, 975 — v.§. (2 Nott & McC. 365) i. 689 ——v.§. (11 Tex. 120) i. 704; ii, 660 —v.§. (7 Tex. Ap. 516) i, 951 —v.S. (8 Tex. Ap. 412) i. 975¢ — v.58. (8 Tex. Ap. 493) i. 951, 975c — v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 427) i. 975c¢ —». S. (17 Tex. Ap. 413) i. 1012 — v. §. (29 Tex. Ap. 368) i. 1278 —, S. v. (108 Ind. 353) ii, 911 —— §. v. (87 N. C, 544) i. 975 — , S. r. (18 Neb. 481) i. 1408 v. U.S. (98 U.S. 145) i. 909, 975 c, 982, 1204 ——, U.S. v. (1 Utah, 226) i. 852, B54, 91 — U.S. v. (1 Utah, 319) —_ i. 909, 919, 982, 1196 Reynoldson v. Bishop of London (3 Lev, 435) i. 572 Rhea v. S. (10 Yerg. 258) i. 951 a, 1248 —, S. v. (88 Ark. 555) i, 430 —, 8. v. (25 Kan 576) i, 68, 1277 Rhear, Ex parte (77 Ala. 92) i. 257 Rheinhart v. S. (14 Kan. 318) i. 314 Rhett v. Poe (2 How. U. 8. 457) —_ i. 981 Rhinehart v. 8. (45 Md. 454) i, 1264, 1265 Rhoads v. C. (15 Pa. 272) i, 1848 —, 8. v. (29 Ohio St. 171) ii, 676 Rhodes v. C. (48 Pa. 396) i. 977; ii. 574, 691, 592, 593 v, C. (78 Va. 692) ii. 911 —— v. Comer (2 Sneed, 40) ii. 383 v. King (52 Ala. 272) i. 159 —, Reg. v. (2 Ld. Raym. 886) i. 379; ii. 916, 934 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 24) ii. 429 —, Rex »v. (1 Stra. 703) i. 950 d —, Rex »v. (2 Stra. 728) ii. 429 —'v. 8. (41 Ga, 215) i 51a —— v. S. (128 Ind. 189; 25 Am. St. 429) i, 925 — »v.§. (11 Tex. Ap. 563) i, 1159, 1249 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. RIC Rhodes, S. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 476) i. 932 —, U.S.« (1 Abb. U.S. 28) i. 38144, 608 Rhodius, S. v. (87 Tex. 165) i. 264. Rhoner, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 166) i, 235 Rice v. C. (8 Bush, 14) i, 264 a, 264 ¢ — v. Olin (79 Pa. 391) i. 980 a —v. P. (15 Mich. 9) i. 146, 685; ii. 77 —, P. v. (73 Cal. 220) i, 540; ii. 985 v. Rex (Cro. Jac. 404) i. 1291, 1867 —, Rex v. (3 East, 581) ii. 803, 304 — v. 8. (47 Ala. 38) i. 1238 —— v. §. (35 Fla. 236) it 965 ——v. 8. (45 Ga. 526) 1275 _S. (8 Heisk. 215) i. 502, 648, 1013, — v.§. (7 Ind. 332) 4. 909; ii, 18 v, S. (16 Ind. 298) i. 911, 932; ii. 77, ae 657 —v.§. (8 Kan. 141) i. 816, 549, 762, 849 —— v.§. (8 Tex. Ap. 451) i. 975 e, 981 — v.8. (1 Yerg. 432) ii. 411 —, S. v. (56 Iowa, 431) i. 975 c, 984, 987 —,S. v. (83 N. C. 661) ii. 740 — U.S. vw. (1 Hughes, C. C. 560) i. 160; ii. 610, 619 Rich, C. v. (14 Gray, 335) i. 849; ii. 683, 687 —— v. Flanders (39 N. H. 304) i. 1089 —— v. S. (8 Ohio, 111) ii. 734 — v.8. (1 Tex. Ap. 206) i. 1033, 1269 — v. U.S. (1 Okla. 354) ii, 921 Richards v. C. (11 Leigh, 690) i. 930 v. C. (81 Va. 110) i. 761, 931, 1015 —, C. v. (1 Mass. 337) li. 732 —, C. v. (17 Pick. 295) i. 1264 ——, C. v, (18 Pick. 484; 29 Am. D. 608) i. 1195, 1196, 1204 —, C. v. (1 Va. Cas. 1) i. 876 —, P. »v. (67 Cal. 412; 56 Am. R. 716) ii. 239 —, P. v. (44 Hun, 278) i. 97 —, P. uv! (1 Mich. 216; 51 Am. D. 75) ii, 205, 216 —, P.c. (108 N. Y. 187; 2. Am. St. ii. 180 ——, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 62) i. 1018, 1040 —, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 87) ii. 675 —, Reg. v. (2Q. B.D 311) ii. 9 ——, Rex ». (5 Car. & P. 318) i. 1233, 1239 ——, Rex v. (7 D. & R. 665) ii. 922 —., Rex v. (2 Man. & R. 405; 8 B. & C. 420) i. 691 —, Rex v. (1 Moody & R.177) ii. 185 v, S. (22 Neb. 145) i. 712 —— ». §. (91 Tenn. 723; 30 Am. St. 907) i. 1020 v, S. (8 Tex. Ap. 423) ii. 68 — , 8. v. (77 Ind. 101) i. 1264 —., S. v. (83 Iowa, 420) ii, 963 —, S. v. (83 La. An. 1294) i. 486 665 RIC 3 Richardson, Ex parte (Harper, 308) i. 8l4a — v. C. (80 Va. 124) i. 384 -—, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 656) i, 236 —— Reg. ». (8 Cox C.C. 448) — ii. 827 =" Peru. OD. &R.141) i. 691 -—, Rex v. (1 Leach, 387) i. 1054, 110 — , Rex ». (1 Moody & R. 402) ii. 205 — v. S. (31 Ala. 847) i, 264 m —— v. S. (54 Ala. 158) : ii. 975 v. 8. (70 Ga. 825) i, 975 c, 978 v. S. (63 Ind. 192) i, 459, 461 v. §. (66 Md. 205) Ji. 797 ——v.§S. (43 Tex. 539) i, 950d v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 322) i. 951 v8. (3 8 Tex. Ap. 69) i. 1264 v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 486) i. 272 ——v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 612) ii. 599 — v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 216) i. 975c¢ —, 8S. v. (28 Ark. 846) i. 264 —, S. v. (2 Greenl. 115) i. 1264 — , S. v. (84 Minn. 115) i. 222 —,S. v. (388 N. H. 208; 75 Am. D. 173) li. 882 —, U.S. v. (28 Fed. Rep. 61) i, 750 Richart, S. v. (57 Iowa, 245) ii. 740 Richarte v. S. (5 Tex. Ap. 359) ii. 603 Richels v. S. (1 Sneed, 606) ii. 58 Richie v. S. (58 Ind. 855) ii. 965, 975 , S.v. (28 La. An. 327; 26 Am. R. 100) i 1144 Richmond, P. v. (57 Mich. 899) i, 796, 798 —, P. v. (59 Mich. 570) i. 977 Cox C. C. 9) ii. 269 v. S. (18 Neb. 388) i, 68, 71 , S. v. (42 La. An, 299) ii, 607 Richmond Justices, S. v. a Ga. 37) INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. RIN Riculfi, S. v. (85 La. An. 770) i. 975 ¢ Riddle v. Brown (20 Ala. 412; 56 Am. D. 202) ii. 627 v, 8. (8 Heisk. 401) i, 536; il. 542 —, S. v. (20 Kan. 711) i. 68, 818; ii. 618 Ridenhour ». 8. (75 Ga. 382) i. 959 a, 975 c, 984, 986 a Ridenour v. S. (88 Ohio St. 272) i. 1015, 1101 ; ii. 90 Rider v. Ocean Ins. Co. (20 Pick. 259) i. 1175 — , Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 589) i. 962 ——'y. S. (26 ‘Tex. Ap. 234) i. 1062 ——, 8. v. (95 Mo. 474) i. 975 ¢ Rideus v. S. (41 ‘Tex. 199) i. 980 b Ridgely, S. v. (2 Har. & McH. 120; 1 Am. D. 372) ii. 620, 621 Ridley, Rex v. (2 Camp. 650) ii. 587, 588 a, 558 —,S. v. (114 N. C, 827) ii, 9385 Ridling v. 8. (56 Ga. 601) i. 858, 854, 856 Ridpath, Reg. v. (10 Mod. 152) i. 264 b —, Rex v. (Fort. 358) i, 264 7 Ridsdale v. Clifton (2 P. D. 276) ii. 587 Riebe, S. v. (27 Minn. 315) ii. 473 Ried v. S. (19 Neb. 695) i. 1317 Rietzell v. P. (72 Ill. 416) i. 264 m Riffe, S. v. (10 W. Va. 794) i. 611, 612, 762 Riflemaker v. S. (25 Ohio St. 895) i. 1005 Rigg, S. e. (10 Nev. 284) i. 416, 931, 932, 1265; ii. 63 4 Riggen v. C. (3 Bush, 493) i, 264 A Riggins v. Brown (12 Ga. 271) ii. 677 Riggs, C. v. (14 Gray, 376; 77 Am. D. 333) i. 338 — v.8. (6 Coldw. 517) i, 1248 v. §. (104 Ind. 261) 1. 77, 88; ii, 782 —v.8. i Lea, 475) ii. 290 —— v. S. (26 Missis. 51) i. 51; ii. 584 Richmond, &c. Rid. v. Childress (82 — v. §. (30 Missis, 685) i. 405, 1274, Ga. 719; 14 Am. St. 189) i. 1097 1275; ii. 638 Richter, 8. v, (37 Minn. 436) i. 220 | —_, S. v. (89 Conn. 498) i. 1128; ii. 801 Rickard o. S. (74 Ind. 275) i. 998 a | Righton, Rex vw. (3 Bur. 1694) i. 691 Ricker, C. v, (131 Mass. 581) i. 1081 | Rights, 8. v. (82 N. C. 675) ii. 740 ——, Petitioner (82 Me. 87) i. 228, 1317] Rigsby, S. v. (6 Lea, 554) i. 1227 ——, S. v. (29 Me. 84) ii. 4| Riley’s Case (2 Pick. 172) i. 1868, 1410 Rickers v. Simcox (1 Utah, 33) i, 212] Riley, P. v. (48 Cal. pale i. 1264, 1873 Rickerson v. 8. (78 Ga. 15) i. 975 ¢, 978; | —, Reg. v. (3 Car. & K. 116) i. 1200 : ii. 631 | —— v. S. (88 Ala. 188) i. 926, 975 c, Ricketson, C. v. (5 Met. 412) i. 1000, 1094 ; 1194] ——z. S. (88 Ala. 193) i. 966, 1076, Ricketts, S. v. (74 N. C. 187) i. 1001 1178, 1179, 1190 Rickey, S. v. (4 Halst. 298) i. 768, 849 zv. S. (16 Conn. 47) i, 1207 —-, 8. v. (5 Halst. 83) i, 884] —— v. S. (9 Humph. 646) i, 51, 52, Rickles v. 8. (68 Ala. 538) i. 799 994, 1269; ii. 638 Rickman, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 1084) v. 8. (95 Ind. 446) i. 998 a; 3 ii ae . i. 573 ; ii. 86] —— v. S. (438 Missis. 397) 611 Ricks v. S. (16 Ga. 600) i611, 1269) —— v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 588) i, “od — v.58. (19 Tex. Ap. 308) i. 975 a, v. S. (20 Tex. Ap. 100) i, 975.¢ 1248 | ——, S. v, (42 La. An. 995) i. 1195 , 8. v. (82 La. An. 1098) i. 1265 | ——, S. v. (100 Mo. 493) i. 975 c, 980 Ricord, Ex parte (11 Nev. 287) ii. 829 | ——, U.S. v. (5 Blatch. 204) i, 402 — v. Central Pac. Rld. (15 Nev. 167) ii. 829 666 Rinaldi, Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 830; 9 Cox C, C. 891) ii. ‘401, 402 ROB INDEX TO THE Rinehart, S. v, (75 N. C. 58) i, 354 Ring, Rex v. (1 Vent. 23) ii. 556 —, S$. v, (29 Minn. 78) i. 925 Ringer, 8. v. (6 Blackf. 109) i. 586 ; ii. 285, 290, 293 Ringgold v. Ross (40 Iowa, 176) —, U.S. »v. (8 Pet. 150) Ringrose, Rex v. (Trem. P. C, 38) ii, 855 Riojas v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 95) i. 975 ¢, 978 Riordan, P. ». (117 N. Y. 71) i. 1049, 1093 i. 264,f i, 1815 Ripley v. Coolidge (Minor, 11) i. 932 —, 8. v. (2 Brev. 300) ii, 731 — , 8. v. (31 Me. 386) ii, 218 i. 700 Rippey v. 8. (29 Tex. Ap. 37) i. 1060, 1264 Rippon, 8. v. (2 Bay, 99) i. 269, 1268 Rippy ». S. (2 Head, 217) ii. 615 —, 8. v. (104 N. C. 752) i. 975 c, 978 Riseley, P. ». (18 Abb. N. Cas. 186; 66 How. Pr. 67) i. 801 Rispal, Rex v. (8 Bur. 1320) ii. 206 Ritcher v. S. (88 Tex, 643) ii. 752 Ritchey v. Davis (11 Iowa, 124) i. 229 — v.58. (7 Blackf. 168) i. 540, 567 Ritte v. C. (18 B. Monr. 35) i. 978 Ritter v, §. (111 Ind. 324) ii. 823 a — v. §. (83 Tex. 608) i. 581; ii. 843 Ritty, 8. v. (23 Ohio St. 562) i. 234 b Ritzman v. P. (110 Ill. 362) i. 1276 Rivera, Territory v. (1 New Mex. 640) i. 975 ¢ Rivers, Ex parte (40 Ala. 712) i. 68, 73 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 177) i. 1260, 1261 —,S. v. (58 Iowa, 102; 48 Am. R. 112) i. 1127, 1400; ii. 187 — , S. v. (60 Iowa, 381) ii. 721 ——, 8. v. (68 Iowa, 611) i. 1066; ii. 152 —, S. v. (90 N. C. 738) i. 9756 Riviere v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 55) i. 264 a, 264 b Rizzolo v, C. (126 Pa. 54) i. 68, 909, 1293 Roach, C. v. (1 Grat. 561) ii. 902 — v.P. (77 Ill. 25) i. 977, 980. — , P. v. (48 Cal. 382) i. 360 — v.§. (5 Coldw. 39) i. 60 a, 1019 —— v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 46) i. 1169 — v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 478) i. 1170 —,S8.v.(2 Hayw. 352; 2 Am. D. 626) i. 887 Roane, S. v. (2 Dev. 58) i. 159, 160, 168 Roark, C. v. (8 Cush. 210) i. 814 a, 1398 — , S. v. (28 Kan. 147) i. 951 Robb, In re (64 Cal. 431) i, 223 a — ». §. (52 Ind. 216) i. 488 — v.S. (85 Neb. 285) ii. 740 —, 8. v. (90 Mo. 30) i. 283 Robbins v. Budd (2 Ohio, 16) i. 816 —, C. ». 13 Pick. 63) i. 1078 —». §. (49 Ala. 394) i. 994 v. 8. (8 Ohio St. 181) i. 8144, 984, 1208, 1212; ii. 564, 585, 638 CASES CITED. ROB Robbins, 8. v. (3 Jones, N. C. 249) i. 9804 —, S.v. (66 Me. 324) i. 612, 613 —, S. v. (65 Mo. 443) ii. 745 —, 8. v. (1 Strob. 355) i. 606 Robe, Rex v. (2 Stra. 999) ii. 862 Roberson v, Lambertville (9 Vroom, 69) i. 546, 717, 720 — v.8. (53 Ark. 516) i. 162 v. §. (15 Tex. Ap. 317) ii. 57 Roberts, Ex parte (9 Nev. 44; 16 Am. R. 1 . i. 1827 —, In re (24 Fed. Rep. 182) i. 220, 222, 223 —, C. v. (108 Mass. 296) i. 1212 —— v. Camben (9 East, 93) ii. 794 — v. Holsworth (5 Halst. 57) =i. 1403 —— v. Hughes (7 M. & W. 399) i. 1270 —— v. Moon (5 T. R. 487) i, 828 — v. P. (9 Colo. 458) i. 68, 74, 488 ¢; ii. 187 — v. P. (11 Colo. 218) i. 425, 1057, 1058, 1074 — v. P. (99 Ill. 275) i. 401; ii. 934 —— v. P. (19 Mich. 401) ii. 67, 97 —, P. v. (6 Cal. 214) i. 854, 878, 883, 977, 978, 1859 ——, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 607) ii. 929 —,, Reg. v. (Dears. 589; 7 Cox C. C. 39; 33 Eng. L. & Eq. 558) ii. 269 ——, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 9 Q. B. 77; 12 Cox C. C. 574) i, 212, 691, 1321 — »v. Reilly (116 U. S. 80) i. 220, 222, 2284 ——, Respublica v. (1 Dall. 39) i. 1244 ——,, Rex v. (1 Camp. 399; 2 Leach, 987, note) ii. 206 —, Rex »v. (7 Car. & P. 485) ii. 726 a Rex v. (Car. Crim. Law, 3d ed. 5 : i. 7384 —, Rex v. (4 Mod. 101; 198; Comb. 193; Carth. 226; 1 Show. 389; Holt, 863) i. 396, 443; ii. 862 v. S. (19 Ala. 526) i. 387 v. §. (61 Ala. 401) i. 1059; ii. 740 v. 8. (68 Ala. 156) ii. 627 — v. 8. (68 Ala. 515) i. 931 —— v. §. (14 Ga. 6) i, 951 ——v. S. (14 Ga. 8; 58 Am. 1). 528) i. 951 b, 999, 1015 —— v. 8. (14 Ga. 18) i. 301, 962 —— v. 8. (55 Ga. 220) i. 1160, 1169 v. S. (72 Ga. 678) i, 992 v. §. (111 Ind. 340) i. 273 v8. (34 Kan. 151) i251 —— v. 8. (55 Missis. 421) ii, 144 — v. 8. (3 Kelly, 510) i. 1268, 1279 — v. 8. (14 Mo. 188; 55 Am. D. 97) i. 170, 183 v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 4) i. 453, 490; i. 416 — v, S. (8 Tex. Ap. 47) i. 1264 v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 129) i. 250 — v.58. (5 Tex. Ap. 141) i. 981, 1207, 1218; ii. 618 667 ROB INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. ROB Roberts v. S. (11 Tex. Ap. 26) i. 264a Robinson v. Dauchy (8 Barb. 20) ii. 759 — v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 82) ii. 740 | —— v. Davis (1 Stra. 526) “4.1399 —, S. v. (3 Brev. 189) i. 611 | —— v. Flanders (29 Ind. 10) i. 223 — , S. vu. (1 Dev. 259) i, 1239 | —, P. v. (17 Cal. 363) i, 370 — , S. v. (26 Me. 263) ii. 881 | —, P. v. (19 Cal. 40) i, 1280 — , S. v. (34 Me. 320) ii. 216 | ——, P. v. (46 Cal. 94) i, 126, 1291 , ——, S.v. (15 Mo. 28) i. 188, 801, 1020, | —, P. v. (1 Par. Cr. 649) i. 1107 ; ii. 670 1021, 1357 | —, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 285) i. 887, 1086, — 5S. v. (106 N. C. 662) i. 1814 1212; “ii. 626 —, S. v. (52 N. H. 492) ii. 63, 885, 889 | ——, Reg. v. (4 Fost.& F. 43) i. 977, ——, S. v. (55 N. H. 483) i. 1121 1169; ii. 982 — , S. o. (T. U. P. Charl. 30) i. 801, | ——, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C. 80; 1354| 10 Cox C. C. 467) ii. 320 —, Territory v. (9 Mont. 12) ii. 679 | ——, Rex v. (2.Bur. 799) A, 1284 ay, Trenayne (Cro. Jac. 507) i. 618 ——, Rex v. (2 Hast P.C.1110) ii. 1029 Robertson, Ex parte (27 Tex. Ap. ——, Rex v. (Holt N. P. 595) 1 549; 628; 11 "am. St. 207) i. 1804 i 718 =, Len (1 Stew. 141) i, 744 | ——, Rex v. (1 Moody, 413) i, 1827 —— v. Neal (60 Mo. 579) i. 1848 | ——, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 321) _1, 639 — , P. v. (8 Wheeler Crim. Cas. —, Rex v. (2 Smith, 274) i. 1402 180) ii. 912, 916, 921 | ——, Rex v. (1 W. Bl. 541) i, 148 — , Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 483) ii. 1025 | —— v. Richardson (18 Gray, 454) i. 240 v. S. (42 Ala. 509) ii. 695 | —— v. S. (5 Ala. 706) i. 264d — v.S. (48 Ala. 325) i, 931 a, 959. a,| -—— v. S. (52 Ala. 587) i. 624; ii. 180, 136 1264 | —— v. S. (83 Ark. 180) i. 984, 1269, 1277 v. & (31 Tex. 86) i. 612; ii. 63 a, 952 | —— v. S. (38 Ark. 548) 4. 399 v. 8. (88 Tex. 187) i. 1277, 1281 v. S. (41 Ark. 400) i. 1188 v. §. (1 Tex. Ap. 311) ii. 700 | —— v. S. (20 Fla. 804) i. 860 ad, (6 Tex. Ap. 669) i, 422 | —— v. S. (66 Ga. 517) i, 984 — v.S. (10 Tex. Ap. 602) i. 975 v. S. (82 Ga. 535) i. 1277 —, v. (28 La. An. 580) i. 1264 v. 8. (84 Ind. 452) i. 1117 —, S. v. (30 La. An. 340) ii. 520, 610, 613 v. 8. (1 Kelly, 563) i. 908 ; ii. 721 —, S. v. (38 La, An. 618; 58 Am. —— v. 8. (1 Lea, 678) i, 1018 R. 201) ii, 963 v. S. (58 Ma. 151; 36 Am. R. —, S. v. (71 Mo. 446) i, 981, 1842} 399) in. 147 —, S. v. (86 N. C. 628) i. 9664; ii. 280 v. S. (12 Misso. 592) —i. 951, 1058 —,S. v. (98 N. C. 751) ii. 909 | —— v. S. (15 Tex. 311) i, 1280 — 8. v. (268.C.117) i. 9758, 1181, v. §. (80 Tex. 437) i. 2644 1185 v. S. (31 Tex. 170) ii. 684 —— v. Smith (18 Ala. 220) ii, 625 v. S. (88 Tex. 341) i. 628; ii, 182 Robey, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 552) i. 691 | —— v. S. (3 Tex. Ap. 256) i. 1083, 1086, —, 5S. v. (8 Nev. 312) ii. 63 1265 Robinett v. Ruby (13 Md. 95) ij. 809 v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 487) ii. 746 Robinius v. S. (68 Ind. 235) i. 1249 v. §, (11 Tex. Ap. 309) i. 264m Robins v. Fowler (2 Pike, 133) i, 981 | —— v. 8. (16 Tex. Ap. 347) ii, 604 ——, Reg. ». (2 Moody & R. 512) ii. 966 | ——, S. v. (9 Fost. N. H. 274) i. 691, 768, v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 666) i. 975c, 1264 172 — v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 671) i, 1254 | ——, S. v. (1 Harrison, 507) i, 1126 Robinson, Ex parte (3 McAr. 418) i. 1005 a —, Ex parte (6 McLean, 855) i —,In re (28 Law J. y. 8. Q. B. 286) i, 255 —-, In re (29 Neb. 135; 26 Am. St. 78 i, 2246 v. Adams (62 Me. 369; 16 Am. R. 4738) ii. 682 —— »v. Brown (82 Ill. 279) i. 1298 — v. C. (16 B. Monr. 609) ii. 657 — v. C. (101 Mass. 27) ii. 1025, 1027 i. 1018, 1019, —,,C. v. (1 Gray, 555) 1084, 1265; ii. 184 —, C. v. (146 Mass. 571) i, 1125, 1128 — v. Dana (16 Vt. 474) i. 1141 668 ——, S. v. (29 La. An, 364) i. 885, 9514; li. 1004 , S. v. (35 La. An, 964) ii, 752 —,, S. v. (36 La. An. 873) i. 9496 —, 8. v. (87 La. An, 673) i. 1272 —, 8. v. (438 La. An. 383) i. 893 —, 8. v. (2 Lea, 114) i, 229 —, S. v. (33 Me. 564) i. 245 — , S. v. (89 Me. 150) i. 978 — , 8. v. (14 Minn. 447) i, 63 —, S. v. (79 Mo, 66) i. 1265 —, S. v. (117 Mo. 649) ii, 631 , 8. v. (17 N. H. 263) i. 1804, 1806 —, $. v. (27 8. C. 615) i, 650, 975 ¢, 978 —,S. v. (85 S. C. 340) i. 976; ii. 152 ——, S. v. (6 Vroom, 71) ii. 183 — v. Smith (57 Ga. 382) i, 286 ROG Robinson v. Wilson (22 Vt. 35; 62 Am. D. 77) ii, 68 Robison v. 8. (16 Lea, 146) i. 1170 Robles, P. v. (34 Cal. 591) i. 1121, ii. 754 v8. (5 ‘Tex. Ap. 846) i, 408, 921 Robnett v. P, (16 Bradw. 299) i. 965 Robson, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 360) i. 66d ——, Reg. v, (2 Moody, 182; 9 Car. & P. 428) ii. 412 — v.&. (83 Ga. 166) i. 266, 269 — v. §. (3 Tex. Ap. 497) i, 1266 Roby, C. v. (12 Pick. 496) i. 51, 810, 997, 998 a, 999, 1001, 1008, 1379 — v. S. (61 Ga. 45) i. 1012 Rocco v. S. (87 Missis. 357) i. 124, 711, Roche, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 341) —_, Rex v. (1 Leach, 134) Rochell v. Holmes (2 Bay, 487) i. 1898 Rochester, Reg. v. (2 Jur. 64) ii Rochforde, S. v. (62 Mo. 199) i. 326 Rock Island v. Cuinely (126 II. 408) i. 378 Rockatellow, S. v. (1 Halst. 332) i. 256, 851, 883, 884 Rockett, S. v. (87 Mo. 666) i. 1279 Rockhold v. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 577) i. 975¢ Roddy v. Finnegan (43 Md. 490) i. 188, 185, 1183 Roden, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 630; 10 Eng. Rep. 511) i, 1128; ii. 628 Roderigas, S. v. (7 Nev. 828) i. 7064, 931, 949; ii. 64, 635 Rodes, C. v. (1 Dana, 595) i. 714 — v.&. (10 Lea, 414) i. 692 Rodgers v. P. (86 N.Y. 360; 40 Am. R. 648) ii. 188 — v. 8. (60 Ala. 102) i, 488c, 1359; ii. 514 Rodman, S. v. (62 Iowa, 456) i. 1250 Rodrigoy P. v. (69 Cal. 601) i. 772 Rodriguez, P. v. (10 Cal. 50) —— v, S. (5 Tex. Ap. 256) i. 849, 981, 945, 969, 1232 i, 1076, 1079 — v8. te Tex. Ap. 562) i. 98a Rodundo, P. v, (44 Cal. 538) i. 980, 1001, 1185, 1276; ii. 740 Roe, P. v. (5 Par. Cr. 231) i. 760, 799 —, Reg.v. (11 Cox C. C, 554) —_ i, 488; ii. 706, 708 — v. Roe (40 N. Y. Super.1) ii. 4826 — v.§. (19 Tex. Ap. 89) i. 1854 — v. 8. (16 Vroom, 49) i. 975¢ —, S. v. (12 Vt. 93) i. 980, 1894 ; ii. 36 Roebuck, Reg. v. (Dears. & ’B. 24; C. 126; 36 Eng. L, & tea 4 i. 1128; ii. 189 —v, S. 87 Ga, 154) i. 951 f Roelim, S. v. (61 Mo. 82) i. 899 Rogers, Ex parte (10 Tex. 655; 88° ‘Am. R. 654) i. 488 —,C.v. (7 Met. 500; 41 Am. D. 458) i i. 946 ; ii. 671, 678, 683, 684, 686, 687 —,C.v, (18, & RB. 124) ii, 388 — v. P. (98 Ul. 581) i. 1062 — v. P. (34 Mich. 345) ii. 967 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. ROL Rogers, P. v. (18 Abb. Pr. w. 8. 370) i. 981, 980, 1862; ii. 631 — , P. v. (71 Cal. 565) ii, 628 —, P. v. (81 Cal. 209) ii, 188 —, P.v.(18 N. Y. 9; 72 Am. D. 484) i. 1288 — v. Page (Brayt. 169) i. 1276 —-, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 41) ii. 416 ——, Reg. v. (Law Rep.1 C.C. 136; 11 Cox C. C, 38) i. 59 — , Reg. v. (7 Mod. 28) i. 229 ——, Reg. v. (2 Moody, 85) _ ii. 264, 268 —, Reg. v. (8 Q. B. D. 28; 14 Cox C. C. 22) i. 61; ii, 326 —, Rex v. (3 Bur. 1809) i. 1810, 1836, 1884, 1385 —, Rex v. (2 Camp. 654) i. 1049 ; ii, 7524 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 89) i. 573; ii. 188 — v. 8. (62 Ala. 170) i. 185 — v.§. (79 Ala. 59) Is Poe —-y. S. (15 Ark. 71) 849 —v. 8. (1 Tex. Ap. 187) ii. 965, 966, 969 — v.§. (11 Tex. Ap. 608) i. 870, 1194 — v. §. (82 Tex. Cr. 447) ii. 1007 a —, S. v. (58 Iowa, 644) i. 1264 ——,, S. v. (87 Mo. 367) i, 691 —, S. v. (93 N. C. 5238) i. 975 c, 979 -—, 8. v. (94 N. C. 860) i. 9756 v, Shaler (Anthon, 109) ii, 482 5 —, U.S. v. (28 Fed. Rep. 658) i. 64, 123 — v. Vosburgh (4 Johns. Ch. 84) i. 1414 — v. Wilson (Minor, 407; 12 Am. D. 61 i. 168 ae Rex v. (2D. & R. 431; 1B. & C, 272 ii. 200, 276, 488 Rohan v. Sawin (5 Cush. 281) i, 168, , 184 Rohe, Ex parte (5 Pike, 104) i, 22) Rohfrischt, S. v. (12 La. An. 882) i. 699, 966 b, 1012, 1251; ii. 63 Rohrer v, S. (18 Tex. Ap. 163) ii, 924 Roland, C. v. (12 Gray, 182) i, 641 —, Cv. (97 Mass. 698) i. 1400 —, S.v.(9 Tex. Ap. 277; 85 Am. R. 743) i. 1152 Rolfe, P. v. (61 Cal. 540) i. 1060 Rolfs, In re oe Kan. 758) i. 893 Rolland ». C. (82 Pa. 806; 22 Am. R. 758) i. 861, 878, 881 ——,S.v, (14 La, An.40) i. 1264, 1359 Rollet, S. v. (6 Iowa, 585) i. 400, 405, 1264 Rollins v. S. (61 Ga. 480) i. 1279 — v.58, (62 Ind. 46) i. 975 c, 1005 a — v. §. (59 Wis. 55) i. 1265 ——, S. v. (2 Fost. N. H. 528) i. 983 —, S. v. (62 Ind. 168) i, 250, 264A —., S. v. (118 N. C. 722) ii. 611 —., S. v. (8 N. H. 560) i. 1005 —,S. v, (65 N. H. 101) i. 440 Rolls, C.v, (2 Va, Cas. 68) i, 68 — v. §. (52 Missis. 391) i. 265, 278, 276, 1010, 1276 669 ROS Romain, §. v. (44 Kan. 719) i, 1276 Romaine, In re (28 Cal. 585) i.228 6, 235 — v. S$. (7 Ind. 63) i. 909, 933, 949 b Roman z. 8. (41 Wis. 312) _ i. 980 a, 999 Romanes, Ex parte (1 Utah,23) i. 2236 Romano, §. v. (387 La. An. 98) i, 1274 Romero, P. v, (18 Cal. 89) i. 877, 1265 —— v. 8. (60 Conn, 92) i. 144 — v.8. (25 Tex. Ap. 394) ii. 740 —, Territory v. (2 New Mex. 474) i. 884, 975¢ Romine, Territory v. (2 New Mex. 114) i. 925, 975c, 1181; ii. 593, 602 Romp »v. S. (8 Greene, Iowa, 276) 1.611 Rondeau, U.S. v. (4 Woods, 185; 16 Fed. Rep. 109) i. 850 Roney, S. v. (87 Iowa, 80) i, 285 Ronzone, U.S. v.(14 Blatch. 69) i. 239. Rook, S. v. (42 Kan. 419) i. 685; ii. 751 Rooker v. S. (65 Ind. 86) ii. 460 Rooks v. S. (83 Ala. 79) i, 688 —— v. §. (65 Ga. 330) i. 1191 Rookwood’s Case ( Holt, 683) ii. 1082 — Case (18 How. St. Tr. 189)i. 700, 729, 762 Rooney, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 615) ii. 758 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 617) i, 1125 Roper, Rex v. (1 Stark. 518; 6M. & S. 327) i. 488c; ii. 911, 912 —,S.v. (1 Dev. & Bat. 208) ii. 852 —, S. v. (88 N. C. 656) i. 685; ii. 34 Rorabacher, S. v. (19 Iowa, 154) i, 849 Rorie, S. v. (74.N. C. 148) i. 1261, 1262 Rosdeitscher, Inre (83 Fed. Rep. 657) i. 64 Rose v. Lewis (10 Mich. 483) ii. 758 — v. S. (83 Ind. 167) ii, 946 — v. S. (82 Ind. 344) i. 1005 a — v. S. (Minor, 28) i. 478, 665, 764 —— v. 8. (20 Ohio, 31) i. 272, 273 — v.§&. (1 Tex. Ap. 400) i, 488 —, S. v. (20 La. An. 143) ii. 9 — , S. v. (29 La. An, 755) i. 1299 ——,, S. v. (33 La. An. 932) i. 966 —, 8. v. (47 Minn. 47) i. 975c, 1147 —, S. uv. (82 Mo. 346) i. 909 —, 8. v. (82 Mo. 660) ii, 852, 354 —, 58. v. tog Mo. 201) i. 981 — , S. v. (14 Mo. Ap. 567) i. 975 —, S. v. (90 N. C. 712) i, 612 —, S. v. (Phillips, N. C. 406) Rosekrans v. P. (6 Thomp. & C. 467; 3 Hun, 287) ii, 426 Rosenbaum ». S. (38 Ala. 354) i. 125, 980 a, 982, 1086, 1254 a; ii. 67, 631 Rosenblat, Ex parte (61 Cal. 285) i. 228 Rosenblatt, Hx parte (19 Nev. 439; 3 Am. St. 901) i, 1410 Rosenbrook v. S. (78 Ga. 111) i. 950 b Rosenburgh, U. S. v. (7 Wal. 680) i. 761 Rosencrants v. S. (6 Ind, 407) i, 1277 Rosenstein, Rex v. (2 Car. & P. 414) i. Rosevear, P. uv. (56 Mich. 168) i. 922, 923 670 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. ROT Rosewell’s Case (10 How. St. Tr. 147) i. 16, 19, 855 ——, Rex v. (3 Mod. 53) ii. 798 Ross, Ex parte (82 Cal. 109) i. 951 f ——, In re (2 Bond, 252) i. 224 —,, In re (38 La. An. 523) ii. 666 ——, In re (140 U. S. 453) i. 891 —— v. Bruce (1 Day, 100) ii. 483 —— v. Buhler (2 Mart. nw. s, 312) i. 1145 v. Irving (14 Il. 171) i. 892 ——v. Leggett (61 Mich. 445; 1 Am. St. 608) i. 183 ——, P. v. (65 Cal. 104) i. 1125; ii. 750 —, P. v. (108 Cal. 425) ii. 1020 —— v. Reddick (1 Scam. 73) i. 878 ——, Respublica v. (2 Yeates, 1; 2 Dall. 239) ii. 429, 430 — v. §. (55 Ala. 177) i711 v. 8. (62 Ala. 224) ii, 94 —v. §. (74 Ala. 532) i. 1170 ——v.§. (82 Ala. 65) ii. 740 — v.§, (92 Ala. 28; 25 Am. St. 20) i. 1094 — v.S. (23 Ark. 198) i, 1847, 1355 — v.S. (6 Blackf. 315) i. 264 4 v. S. (15 Fla. 55) ii. 367 — v. S. (65 Ga. 127) i. 1268 v. S. (116 Ind. 495) i. 687 —— v. S. (67 Md. 286) i. 1289 —— v. S. (9 Misso. 696) i. 785 —— v. 8. (29 Tex. 499) i, 981 v. §. (16 Tex. Ap. 554) ii. 152 ——, S. ». ( 2 Dutcher, 824) i. 1277 — , S. v. (4 Ind. 641) ii, 838 ——, S. v. (21 Iowa, 467) i. 68, 72; 224b —, S. v. (14 La. An. 364) i. 144, 1264 —, 8. v. (18 La. An. 340) i, 1212 ——, 8. v. (82 La. An. 854) i. 1002 —,S. v. (25 Mo. 426) ii. 80 —,S v. (26 Mo. 260) i. 408 —, 8S. v. (29 Mo. 82) i. 909, 978; * ii, 12, 229, 230 —, U.S. v. (92 U. 8. 281) i. 1181 Rosseau, S. v. (89 Tex. 614) i, 250 Rosser v. McColly (9 Ind. 687) —* i. 1001 v. Randolph (7 Port. 258; 31 Am. D. 712) il ——, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 648) i. 1146; ii, 751 Rossewell, Rex v. (2 Show. 411) _ ii. i 1 Rossiter, Rex v. (Jebb, 60) ii, 778 Roten v. 8. (81 Fla. 514) ii. 618 ——, S. v. (86 N. C. 701) i, 1006 Roth, In re (15 Fed. Rep. 506) i, 224 —— v. 8. (10 Tex. Ap. 27) ii, 727 — , S. v. (17 Iowa, 336) i. 232 Rothaker, In re (11 Abb. N. Cas. 122) ii, 924 Rothbauer v. 8. (22 Wis. 468) —_ i. 998 a, 008, 1265 2 —, 8. v. (68 Mo. 52) i, 9666 ROW Roubles, S. v. (48 La, An. 200; 26 Am. St. 179) ii. 820, 3823 a Roudenbush, U. S. v. (Bald. 614) i. 1116; , ii. 428 Rough v. C. (78 Pa. 495) iv —, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 607) ii. 706, 708 Roulstone, S. v. (8 Sneed, 107) ii. 811 Round ». 8. (14 Ind. 493) i. 1269 Rounds v. S. (78 Me. 42) ii. 486 v. 8. (57 Wis. 45) i, 281 — , S. v. (76 Me. 128) i. 1015 a, 1094 Rountree v. 8. (58 Ala. 381) li. 698 —, S. v. (82 La. An. 1144) i. 925 — v. U.S. (1 Pin. 59) ii. 63, 884 — v. Waddill (7 Jones, N. C. 309) i. 250 Rousch, S. v. (60 Ind. 304) i. 1285 Rouse, P. v. (2 Mich. N. P. 209) i. 127 — _, Rex v. (9 How. St. Tr. 687) i. 729 —— v. 8. (4 Ga. 186) i. 909, 911; ii. 259 Rousseau, S. v. (28 La. An. 579) i. 925 Roussell v. C. (28 Grat. 980) i. 951 Rout, S. v. (8 Hawks, 618) ii. 782 Rover, 8. v. (10 Nev. 388; 21 Am. R. 745) i. 1004, 1264; ii. 595 —, S. v. (11 Nev. 348) i. 1094 — , S. v. (138 Nev. 17) i. 1001 Row, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 158) i. 1234 Rowan, C. v. (3 Dana, 395) ii. 805 — v. 8. (80 Wis. 129; 11 Am. R. 559) 1. 98a, 106, 145, $99; ii. 539 —, S. v. (35 Wis. 303) i. 68, 73 Rowand »v. C. (82 Pa. 405) i. 770 —, Territory v.(8 Mont.110) i. 1049 Rowe, Ex parte (7 Cal. 175) i. 869 —, C. v. (141 Mass. 79) ii. 1050 — v. London Pianoforte Co. (18 Cox C. C. 211) i, 218 —, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 258) i. 224, 772 —, Reg. v. (Bell C. C. 93; 8 Cox C. C. 139) ii. 721 — v. Roach (1 M. & 8. 304) ii, 788 — v. S. (11 Humph. 491) i. 994, 999 — , 8. e. (103 Ind. 118) i. 2644 —, S. v. (22 Mo. 328) i. 1264, 1272 —, 8. v. (8 Rich. 17) i, 228, 2644 —, 8. v. (48 Vt. 265) i, 646 — »v. Yuba (17 Cal. 61) i, 804, 306 Rowed, Reg. v. (3 Q. B. 180; 2 Gale & D. 618) ii. 1017 Rowell v. Lowell (11 Gray, 429) _ ii. 682 Rowland, P. v. (1 Wheeler Crim. Cas. 286) ii. 116 ——, Rex v. (Ryan & Moody, N. P. 401 i. 1020 —— v. 8. (55 Ala. 210) =i. 1015; ii. 136 v. S. (45 Ark. 182) i. 1248 —— v. §, (14 Ind. 575) i, 1060, 1270 — v. §. (126 Ind. 517) i. 229 — ».§. (35 Tex. 487) i. 9514 —, S. v. (72 Iowa, 827) i. 976 c, 980, 1064, 1066 —,S. v. (86 La. An, 198) i, 882 Rowlands, Reg. ». (2 Den. C. C. 364; 5 Cox C. C. 466; 9 Eng. L. & Eq. 287) ii. 207, 218, 242 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. 7 | Rowt v. Kile (1 Leigh, 216) RUL Rowley, Rex v. (Ryan & Moody, N. P. 299) i. 488 e; ii, 933 ¢, 984 , S. v. (Brayt. 76) i. 488; ii. 426 — , S. v. (12 Con. 101) i. 714 ii. 482 b Rowton, Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 520; 10 Cox C. C. 25) i. 1112, 1117 Roy v. 8. (91 Ind. 417) i. 899 — v. S. (2 Kan. 405) i. 417; ii. 689 —, S. v. (83 Mo. 268) i. 869 a Royal, P. v. (53 Cal. 62) ii. 973 —,S. v. (90 N. C. 755) i. 9984 Royall, Ex parte (117 U. 8. 241) —, Rex v. (2 Bur. 882) i. 1002, 1285, 1298, 1354 —, U.S. v. (8 Cranch C. C. 620) ii. 200 Royce, Rex v. (4 Bur. 2073) i. 1006 Roysted, Rex v. (1 Keny. 255) i, 666 Royster, S. v. (65 N. C. 589) i, 488 Rozelle, P. v. (78 Cal. 84) i. 1181, 1182 Rubush v. 8. (112 Ind. 107) i, 2644 Ruby v. 8. (7 Misso. 206) i. 73 — v.5. (9 Tex. Ap. 353) i. 857 ; ii, 627 —,, S. v. (61 Iowa, 86) i. 1094; ii. 131 —,, S. v. (68 Me. 548) i. 429 i. Ruck v. Attorney-General (3 H. & N. 208) i, 1391 Rucker, C. v. (14 B. Monr. 228) i. 675 — , P. wv. (5 Colo. 455) i. 8144 — v.S. (7 Tex. Ap. 549) — i. 487, 1018 —, S. v. (93 Mo. 88) ii. 1, 4256 ——, 8S. v. (68 N. C.211) i. 585 v. Wheeler (127 U. S. 85) i. 981 Rudd, Rex v. (3 Cowp. 331; 1 Leach, 115) i. 1157, 1164, 1175 Ruden »v. S. (73 Ga. 567) i. 1856 Rudick, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 287) i, 220; ii. 721 Rudland, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 495) i. 975a Rudolph v. 8. (Riley, 298) i. 547 Rudy v. C. (128 Pa. 500) i. 931, 937, 1062, 1066 Rue, Reg. v. (138 Cox C. C. 209; 14 Eng. Rep. 646) i. 1286 Rufer v. 8. (25 Ohio St. 464) i. 1107, 1222, 1282; ii. 633 Ruff v. Phillips (50 Ga. 180) i. 1880 Ruffin v. C. (21 Grat. 790) i. 63 Ruffner, C. v. (28 Pa. 259) i, 405 Rugan, S. v. (68 Mo. 214) i, 1181 Rugg, P. v. (98 N. Y. 537) i, 428, 850; ii. 690, 593 ——, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 16) ii. 688 Ruhl, In re (6 Saw. 186) i. 1304 Ruisseau, C. v. (140 Mass. 863) 1.10154 Rule of Court, In re (3 Woods, 602) Sah 1, Rulloff, P. v. (8 Par. Cr. 401) i, 1057, 1058 —, P. v. (5 Par. Cr.77 i, 1270 Ruloff v. P. (18 N. Y. 179) i. 1057 — v. P, (45 N. Y. 213) 1. 980, 1182, 1186, 1198; fi. 683 671 RUS Run, 8. v. (35 N. H.222) i. 1816, 1817 i. 1085 ; Rumbo v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 30) ii. 740 Rumford Chemical Works, C. v. (16 Gray, 231) i. 872; ii. 875 Rumsey v. P. (19 N. Y.41) i. 1179; ii. 631 Rundlett, 8. v. (33 N. H. 70) i. 400 —., U.S. »v. (2 Curt.,C. C. 41) i, 226 Runkel, P. v. (6 Johns. 334) i, 1377 —, P. v. (9 Johns, 147) «ii, 878 Runnals, S. v. (49 N. H. 498) i. 441, 711 Runnels, C.v. (10 Mass. 518; 6 Am. D. 148) ii, 997 —v. S. (28 Ark. 121) i. 849, 860, 1161, 1220, 1228, 1236, 1269, 1279 Runyan v. Price (15 Ohio St. 1; 86 Am. D, 459) ii. 678 —, S. v. (26 Mo. 167) i. 825 Rusch v. Davenport (6 Iowa, 443) i. 980 —, 8. v. (44 Wis. 582) i, 1264 Rush, C. v. (14 Pa. 186) i. 1417 —,S. v. (95 Mo. 199) i. 1226, 1270 —, S. v. (18 R. I. 198) i. 636 Rushing, S. v. (17 Fla. 228) i. 1363 Rushton’s Case (2 Leon. 121) i. 546 Rushworth, Rex v. (1 Moody, 404) i. 597 — , Rex »v. (Russ. & Ry. 317; 1 Stark. 396) i. 504; ii, 422, 441 Russel, Rex v. (1 Leach, 8) ii, 429 — , Rex v. (2 Show. 310) i. 921 Russell v. C. (7S. & R. 489) i. 1310 v. C. (78 Va. 400) ii. 633 v. P. (44 Ill. 508) i. 994, 999 ——, P. v. (46 Cal. 121) i. 945 —, P. v. (81 Cal. 616) i. 611 — , Reg. v. (Car. & M. 247) i. 864, 873 —, Rex v. (6 B. & C. 566) i. 894; ii. 1050 —, Rex v. (6 Fast, 427) ii. 1050 — v.58. (33 Ala. 366) i. 872, 879, 1310, 1359 — v.§. (57 Ga. 420) i. 980; ii. a 835 v. S. (68 Ga. 785) 1003 — rv. S. (50 Ind. 174) i. 636; ii. 816 — v.S. (53 Missis. 867) i. 99; ii. 685, 687 —— v.§S. (10 Tex. 288) i, 1857 — v.5. (11 Tex. Ap. 288) i, 994 —, 8. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 122) i. 183 —, 8. v. (26 La. An. 68 i, 284 —, S. v. (83 La. An. 185) i, 126, 1169 — , S. v. (88 Mo. 648) i. 145 — , 8. v. (91 N. C. 624) ii. 63 —,S.v (a5 N. H. 83 ii. 992 — ,S. v. (24 Tex. 505) i, 284 b, 264.4 —,U.S.v. (19 Fed. Rep. 591) i. 1128; ii. 235 Russen v. Lucas (1 Car. & P. 158) i. 157 Rust, P. v. (1 Caines, 133) i. 825; ii. 358 — v.§. (14 Tex. Ap. 19) i. 1264 — , 8. v, (8 Blackf. 195) i. 405 —, 8. v. (81 Kan. 509) i. 1394 —, S. v. (85 N. H. 438) i. 430, 611 Ruston v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 432) i. 1060 672 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. RYE Ruston »v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 644) i. 980 — v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 824) i, 252 Rutan, P. v. (3 Mich. 42) i. 251 Ruth, C. v. (104 Pa. 294) i. 1310 v. P. (99 Il. 185) i. 975¢ Rutherford v. C. (138 Bush, 608) i. 1247; ii. 680 — v. C. (78 Ky. 639) i. 265, 278, 965 — v.C. (2 Met. Ky. 887) i. 979, 1228, 1224, 1226 —, C. v. (5 Rand. 646) i, 257 —— v. Evans (6 Bing. 451 ; 4 Moore & P. 163) ii. 123, 791 —— v. §. (11 Lea, 31) ii. 636 — v.S. (13 Tex. Ap. 92) i. 548 —— v.S8. (16 Tex. Ap. 649) 1. 975¢ Ruthven, Ex parte(17 Mo. 541) i, 821 —,S. v. (58 Iowa, 121) i. 878 Rutland v. Hathorn (36 Ga. 380) ii. 625 Rutledge, S. v. (87 La. An. 378) i. 1086 Rutter, In re (7 Abb. Pr. n.s. 67) i. 222, 223 ——, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 127) ii. 426 v. 8. (1 Iowa, 99) i. 316, 1264 Rutzell v. S. (15 Ark. 67) i. 849 Ryalls v. Reg. (13 Jur. 259; 18 Law J.w.s. M. C. 69) ii. 911 v. Reg. (11 Q. B. 781; 38 Cox C. C. 36 ii, 903: — uv. Reg. (11 Q. B. 795; 3 Cox C. C. 254) i. 1329; ii, 905 Ryan, Ex parte (44 Cal, 555) i. 261 ——, Ex parte (10 Nev. 261) i. 951d, 1310 — v. ©. (80 Va. 385) i. 314a —, C. v. (5 Mass. 90) i. 851 —, C. v. (152 Mass. 283) i, 447 —— v. Donnelly (71 Ill. 100) i. 163 v. P. (79 N. Y. 593) i. 814.4; ii, 67 —, Reg. v. (7 Cox C. C. 109) i. 1291, 1382 ——, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 213) ii. 645 ——, Rex »v. (7 Car. & P. 854; 2 Moody, 15) i. 618 ——, Rex », (Jebb, 5) i, 1166 v. 8. (52 Ind. 16!) ii. 65 —— uv. S. (83 Wis. 486) ii. 152, 153 —,, 8. v. (70 Iowa, 154) i. 1181, 1186 ——, 8. v. (80 La. An. 1176) i, 1212; ii. 621 ——, S. v. (4 McCord, 16; 17 Am. - D. 702 ii, 728 —, S. v. (18 Minn. 370) i. 940, 995, 1005 a, 1287; ii. 532 —, S. v. (12 Nev. 401; 28 Am. R. 802) ii, 148 Rycroft, Reg. v. (6 Cox C. C. 76) i, 644; ii. 209 Ryder v. P. (38 Mich. 269) i, 984 Rye v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 163) i. 686 ——, 8. vw. (35 N. H. 868) i. 1269 —,,S. v. (9 Yerg. 886) i. 264 a, 2646 Ryers, In re (72 N. Y. 1; 28 Am, R. 88) i, 814 Sr. P Ryland, P. v. (28 Hun, 568) i. 1170 —,, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1C. C. 99; 10 Cox C. C. 569) ii. 538, 538 a Rynders, P. v. (12 Wend. 425) i. 451, _ 457; ii. 418 Ryno, S. v. (20 Vroom, 603) i. 1264 §. A. L., 8. ». (77 Wis. 467) i. 870, 879 8. L., 8. +. (2 Tyler, 249) ii. 981 Saar v. Fuller (71 Iowa, 425) i. 1074 Sacheverell's Case (15 How. St. Tr. 1 i. 20 Sacheverell, Rex v. (10 How. St. Tr. 29) i. 973; ii. 992 Sacket, C. v. (22 Pick. 394) i. 1118, 1188, 1265 Sackett, S. v. (39 Minn. 69) i. 898 Saco v. Wentworth (37 Me. 165; 58 Am. D. 786) i. 894, 1264 v. Woodsum (39 Me. 258) i, 894 Sacramento, P. v. (6 Cal. 422) i. 1300 Saddler v. S. (20 Tex. Ap. 195) ii. 751 Sadi, Rex v. (1 Leach, 468) i. 478 “Sadler, P. v. (97 N. Y. 146) i. 1310 Saffold v. S. (60 Missis. 928 i. 264 m Safford v. P. (1 Par. Cr. 474) i. 275, 984, 12938, 13862 Sage v. S. (91 Ind. 141) ii. 679 — v. 8. (127 Ind. 15) i. 875, 975 c, 1196, 1204 Sahlinger v. P. (102 Ill. 241) i. 269, 1015, 1279; ii. 152 Sailer v. S. (1 Harrison, 357) i. 267, 269 Saine v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 144 i. 883 St. Andrews, Rex v. (I Mod. 112) ii. 1049 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. SAN St. Paul v. Marvin (16 Minn. 102) i. 1378 St. Weonard’s, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 582 i. 486 ; ii. 1045 Sainthill, Reg. v. (2 Ld. Raym. 1174 ii. 1043, 1047 Saintiff, Reg. v. (6 Mod. 255) ii. 1045 Sale v. Meggett (25 S. C. 72) i. 893 — v. §. (68 Ala. 630) i. 314, 713, 981 Salge, S, v. (1 Nev. 455) i. 922, 1265 —,S. v. (2 Nev. 821) i. 708, 814, 826, 1191, 1272 Saliba, S. v. (18 La. An. 35) i. 976 Salisbury’s Case (1 Plow. 100) i. 1030 Salisbury v. C. (79 Ky. 425) i, 951 —— v. Gillett (2 Scam. 290) i. 677 ——, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 155) |i. 1121 — v. §.(6 Conn. 101) i. 1188; ii. 735 Sallen, C. v. (11 Gray, 52) i, 1265 Sallie v. S. (89 Ala. 691) ii. 697, 703, 732 Sally, The, v. U.S. (5 Cranch, 372) i. 1264 Salm v. S. (89 Ala. 56) i. 68, 71, 711, 1107, 1391 Salmon, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 26) ii. 42, 47 Salt, Reg. v. (3 Fost. & F. 834) i. 1128; ii. 261, 428 Saltash, Rex v. (2 Show. 93) i, 254 Salter, Rex v. (5 Esp. 125) i. 1248 — v. Smith (55 Ga. 244) i. 264, 264c Saltmarsh v. Bower (84 Ala. 613) ii. 676 Salwick, Rex v. (2 B. & Ad. 186) i. 691 Salyer, C. v. (8 Bush, 461) i. 2344 v. 8. (5 Ind. 202) » 4, 1269 Sam, Ex parte (51 Ala. 34) i. 3l4a v. 8. (31 Missis. 480) i, 909, 949 b ——v. §. (83 Missis. 847) i. 1058, 1059, St. Asaph, Rex v. (21 How. St. Tr. 1228, 1228 847 i. 1001, 1004 | —— v. 8. (18 Sm. & M. 189) i. 817, 909 St. Charles v. O’Mailey (18 Ill. 407) v. 8. (1 Swan, Tenn. 61) i. 998 a 1.1174 | —, 8. v. (2 Dev. 567) i. 887, 622 St. Clair, C. ». (1 Grat. 556) i. 691 | —, S. v. (Winst. i. 800) i. 1006 —, P. v. (88 Cal. 187) ii. 188 | Samario, P. v. (84 Cal. 484) i. 966 6, 1212, —, Pv. (55 Cal. 524) i, 354 1356 — , P. v. (56 Cal. 406) i. 854 | Sammis, P. v. (6 Thomp. & C. 328; —— v. §. (11 Tex. Ap. 297) ii, 924] 3 Hun, 660) i. 68, 71 —— v. U.S. (154 U. S. 134) i. 1847; | Sammons, S. »v. (95 Ind. 22) i. 387 ii. 534 | Samora v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 508) ii, 722 St. Dominick Sisters, P. v. (34 Hun, Sample v. S. (104 Ind. 289) ii. 838 463 i. 1410 | Samples v. P. (121 Ill. 547) i, 1248 St. George, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. Sampson v. C. (6 Watts & S. 385) i. 13868; 483 i, 953, 966 ii. 9 St. John, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 40) i. ue —, C. v. (97 Mass. 407) i. 467; ii. we ii. —, Rex v. (6M. &S. 180) i, 1314 | ——v. S. (54 Ala. 241) i, 1242 St. Louis v. Bird (31 Mo. 88) i. 1264 i. 1417 —— v. Murphy (24 Mo. 41) i. 1264 — v. 8. (8 Neb. 405) i. 1856 ; ii. 629 St. Louis, &ec. Ry. v. Harper (50 Ark. 157; 7 Am. St. 86) 1, 119 St. Louis Street Foundry (6 Wal. 770) i, 885, 847 St. Mary, Rex v. (7 T. R. 785) i. 69, 70, 73 St. Pancras, Rex v. (Peake, 219) ii. 1044 VOL. II. — 43 — vv. Knapp, &c. Co. (104 U. S. 658) 5|——, S. v. (88 La. An. 457) Samschen ». S. (8 Tex. Ap. 45) i. 991, 992 Samsels, P. v. (66 Cal. 99) i. 946 Samuel v. Payne (1 Doug. 359) i. 181 Samuels v. Dubuque (13 Iowa, 536) i. ae — v. S. (3 Misso. 68) i, 931, 949 a ii. 68a San Benito v. Whitesides (51 Cal. 416) ii, 1058 ii 1 San Francisco v. Randall (54 Cal. 408) i. 264, 687 673 SAN San Martin, P. v. (2 Cal. 484) Sanabria v. P. (24 Hun, 270) Sanborn, C. v. (116 Mass, 61) v. Fellows (2 Fost. N. H. Sanchar’s Case (9 Co. 114) ii. 8 Sanchez v. P. (22 N. Y. 147; 4 Par. Cr. 535) i. 905, 909, 9666, 1202; ii. 525, i. 1264, ii. 687 ii. 415 i. 1245 HL 473) i. 314 674, 685 —, P. v. (24 Cal. 17), 1. 975c, 978 Sander, U.S. v. (6 McLean, 598) i. 436 Sanderlin v. S. (2 Humph. 315) i. a Sanders v. C. (117 Pa. 293) i, 622 —, C. v. (14 Gray, 394; 77 Am. D. 335) —, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C. 75; ii. 327 10 Cox C. C. 445) i. 189 v, S. (55 Ala. 42) i. 816 v. S. (55 Ala, 183) i, 611, 889 v. 8. (58 es ot i, 979 —— v. 8. (74 82) ii. 1, 817 — v.58. (85 Ga 318; 44 Am. R. 29) i. 1869, 1370 — vr. S. (2 Iowa, 230) i, 248, 1002 v. 8. (26 Tex. 119) i. 708 v, 8. (41 Tex. 306) i. 980 —— v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 222) i. 975¢ — v.§S. (18 Tex. Ap. 372) i. 795 ; ii. 590 — v. 8. (8L Tex. Cr. 525) i. 1170 —, S. v. (30 Iowa, 582) i. 419 —, S. v. (68 Mo. 202; 30 Am. R. 782) i. 1179 —, S. v. (76 Mo. 35) i. 1125; ii. 525 ——,, S. v. (106 Mo. 188) i. 884, 1066, 1181; ii. 661 —, S. v. (84 N. C. 728) i. 1119, 1233 Sanderson’s Case (2 Lewin, 187) _ ii. 414 Sandford, P. v. (48 Cal. 29) i. 931, 932 a v. 8. (6 Eng. 328) i. 988, 1133; ii. 943, 944 Sands v. Benedict (5 Thomp. & C. 19; 2 Hun, 479) — v. C. (20 Grat. 800) i. 48 —— v. C. (21 Grat. 871) i. 922, 1248, "1249 —- v. Robison (12 Sm. & M. 704; 51 Am. D. 132) i, 857, 858 — v. 8. (80 Ala. 201) ii. 48a Sandy, S. v. (3 Ire. 570) i. 605; ii. 38, 54 one Reg. v. (2 Moody, 227; Car. & M. 345 ii. 528, 529, 553 Sanford, C. v. (5 Litt. 289) i. 1264 —— v. Nichols (13 Mass, 286) i. 187, 242, 244 —, P. v. (48 Cal. 29) i. 532 —, S. v. (1 Nott & McC. 512) i. 204, 603, 604 i. 180 i. 922, 61 f Sanges, U. S. v. (144 U. 8.810) i. 1368 Sanner v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 458) ii. 68 Sansome, P. v. (84 Cal. F449) i. 966); ii. 1007 a ——, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 545; 4 Cox C. C. 208; 8 Car. & K. 332; 1 Eng. L, & Eq. 540) i, 1269, 1261 674 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. 6 | Sattler v. P. (59 Ill. 68) SAU Santo v. S. (2 Iowa, 165; 63 Am. D. ) i. 229 a, 245 Santos, U. S. v. (56 Blatch. 104) i. 264 Santry v. 8. (67 Wis. 65) 1. 982 a, 934 Santvoord, P. v. (9 Cow. 655) i, 405 Saracini v. Kilner (Comb. 244) i, 421 Sarah v. §. (28 Ga. 576) i. 898, 982, 1242, 1269, 1276, 1243 — v. S. (28 Missis. 267; 61 Am. D. 544) i. 40, 455, 519, 523; li. 645, 657 Sarchet, U.S. v. (Gilpin, 273) i. 979 Sargeant v. 8, (16 Ohio, 267) i. 264 a, 264 e Sargent, C. v. (129 Mass. 115) ii. 919, 984 —— v. P. (64 Ill. 327) i. 1275 —, Reg. v. (5 Cox C. C. 499) li. 753, 762 — v. 8. (96 Ind. 63) i. 269 ——v. S. (11 Ohio, 472) i. 1003 Sarsfield, Reg. v. (6 Cox C. C. 12) ii. 981, 99 la Sartain_v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 651; 38 Am. R. 649) i. 1810 Sartin v. S. (7 Lea, 679) i, 1125 - Sartor, 8. v. (2 Strob. 60) i. 1179 Sartorious v. 8S. (24 Missis. 602) i. 801, 966, 1192; ii. 745 Sartorius v. Dawson (18 La. ‘An. 111) i, 264 f Sass v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 426) i, 264 m Sasse v. 8. (68 Wis. 530) i. 975 b —, S. v. (72 Wis. 8) i. 68, 965 Sasser v. S. (13 Ohio, 453) ii. 469 Sater v. 8. (56 Ind. 378) i. 850, 875, 1062 —, S. v. (8 Iowa, 420) i. 909, 951 a, 1269 Satterlee, P. v. (6 Hun, 167) i, 457 Satterwhite v. S. (28 Ala. 65) i. 1093 —— v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 428) i. 801, 1347, 1354 — v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 609) i. 1085, 1274 i. 264 a, 1266 i. 860, 1855 a eens (Law Rep. 10 Ch. p. 6 i, 1414 Saulsbury, C. v. (152 Pa. 554) — , S. v. (20 8. C. 536) ii, 864 Saunders v. Baxter (6 Heisk. sae — v. C. (3 Grat. 214) i. 264 a —— v. C. (79 Va. 522) i, 1866 v. Freeman (1 Plow. 209'a) i. 1001 v. Fuller (4 Humph. 516) i. 1270 —— v. One Boat (4 Went. Pl. 514) i. 1002 —, P. v. (25 Mich. 119) i. 1126; ii, 229, 236, 245 ——, P. v. (29 Mich. 269) ii. 111, 121 ——, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 196) ii. 975 ——, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 277) ii, 558 —_, Rex v. pet P. C. 100) ii, 158 — v. 8. (6 Humph. 88) ii, 909 — v. §. (87 Tex. 710) ii. 631 — v. 8. (10 Tex. Ap. 336) i. 795 SCA INDEX TO THE Saunders, S. v. (3 Halst. 177) i. 264 A —, S. v. (68 Iowa, 370) ii, 428 —, 8. v. (58 Mo. 234) i. 733.0 —, S. v. (68 Mo. 482) ii. 175 — S. v. (90 N.C. 651) i, 1264 —) S. v. (14 Or. 300) i. 1181, 1182, 1208 Saurbaugh, S. v. (122 Ind. 208) ii. 817 Sauser v. P. (8 Hun, 302) i. 325 Sauvaine, S. v. (14 Ind. 21) i. 1817 Savage v. C. (84 Va. 582) i. 360 ——, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 75) i. 951, 951 a —, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 148) i. 951 a CASES CITED. SCH Scates, S. v. (5 Jones, N. C. 420) i. 1289 —,S. v. (8 Strob. 106) i. 1277 Scattergood v. Sylvester (15 Q. B. 506) ii, 758, 762 Scavage v. Tateham (Cro. Eliz. oY), 234 a Schaffer v. 8. (22 Neb. 557; 8 aan, St. 274) 1.975 c; ii. 685 ——, S. v. (74 Iowa, 704) ii. 112 Schall v. Nusbaum (56 Md. 512) i. 1417 Schaller v. S. (14 Mo. 502) i. 1112; ii. 985 a —? Rex v. (1 Moody, 51) i. 982 a, 984 | Schamberger, Ex parte (19 Tex. Ap. ——v. §. (18 Fla. 909) i. 652, 1082} 572 : i. 257 — , S. v. (89 Ala. 1) i, 882 v. §. (68 Ala, 543) i. 1357 ; ii. 783 ——, S. v. (69 Me. 112) i. 1155} Schantz v. S. (17 Wis. 251) ii. 780 —,S. v. (78 N. C. 520) i. 909 | Schaser v. S. (86 Wis. 429) i. 966 Savannah, &e. Rid. v. Shiels (83 ae Schatz, S. v. (71 Mo. 502) ii, 718 601) . 1417 | Schaw ». Dietrichs (1 Wils. Ind. 153) _ Savercool, P. v. (81 Cal. 650) i. 611; i. 185 ii. 68 Scheele, S. v. (67 Conn. 807; 14 Am. Savory, C. v. (10 Cush. 535) i.1170,| St. 106) i. 975 ¢ 1265; ii. 988 @ | Schenck, P. v. (2 Johns. 479) i. 223 Savoye, S. v. (48 Iowa, 562) ii. 244 | —— v. Stevenson (1 Penning. 387) Sawtelle, C. v. (11 Cush. 142) i, 495, i, 1270 553; ii. 821, 705, 714 Schenick, P. v. (65 Cal. 625) i. 1133 —., ©. v. (141 Mass. 140) ii. 829] Schenley v. C. (36 Pa. 29; 78 Am. Sawyer v. Joiner (16 Vt. 497) i273] D. 359) i. 123 — ». P. (3 Gilman, 58) ii. 985 | Schick, P. v. (75 Mich. 592) li. 482 ¢ —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 294; Car. Schieneman, 5S. v. (64 Mo. 386) ii. 294 Crim. Law, 2d ed. 108; 2 Car. & Schill, S. v. (27 Iowa, 263) ii. 911 K. 101) i. 381, 597 ; 3 li. 504, 638 | Schilling, S. v. (14 Iowa, 455) ii. 864, — v.S. (17 Ind. 435) i. 1859 866 v. §. (35 Ind. 80) ii. 675 | —— v. Territory (2 Wash. Ter. 288) —,S. v. (66 N. H. 175) i. 68 i. 878 an v. §. (15 Lea, 694) i. 1063 | Schimer, U. S. v. (5 Bis. 195) i 639 Saxby v. Easterbrook (3 C. P. D. Schindler v. S. (15 Tex. Ap. 894) ii. 740 339) i, 1416 | —, U.S. v. (18 Blatch. 227) 1.975 ¢ Saxon, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 157) ii. 915 | Schirmer v. P. (38 Ill. 276) i. 1858, 1356 Saxton, S. v. (14 Wis. 123) i. 71 | Schlagel, 8. v. (19 Iowa, 169) i, 1264, gayerss C. v. (8 Leigh, 722) i. 854 1269 . v. (58 Mo. 585) i, 978 | Schleagel, S. v. (50 Kan. 825) ii. 65 : Sayles v. S. (8 Tex. 120) i. 884, 931 | Schleisinger v. S. (11 Ohio St. 669) Saylor, S. v. (6 Lea, 586) ii. 655 ii. 173 Sayres v. C. (88 Pa. 291) 4.1107; ii. 625 | Schlemmer v. S. (22 Vroom, 23) _ i. 1085 —— v.S. (30 Ala. 15) i. 792, 1242 | Schlencker v. 8. (9 Neb. 800) 1. 966 8, Scaggs v. 8. (8 Sm. & M. 722) i 1087, 975 1258, 1853 | Schlesinger, Reg. v. (10 Q. B. 670) Sante ie v. (2 Den. C. C. 281 5 17 ii. 910, 911 i. 1201 | Schleter, Reg. v. (10 Cox C. C. 409) — Ray v. (9 Dowl. P. C. 553; 5 . : i. 783 a Jur. 700) i. 255, 260 | Schlicht v. S. (56 Ind. 178) i. 1818 —, Rex v, (2 Lewin, 150 ; 1 Moody Schlief v. S. (88 Ark. 522) i. 1808 & BR. 551) i,.1207 Schloss, 8. v. (93 Mo. 361) i. 499, 660, Scalbert, Rex v. (2 Leach, 620) i, 948 651, 975 c; ii. 97 Scammon, S. v. (2 Fost. N. H. 44) if 884 | Schlotter v. S. (127 Ind. 493) i. 975 Scannel, C. v. (11 Cush. 547) i. 502, | Schlottman, S. v. (52 Mo. 164) ii. 874 536; ii. 949, 954 Schmidt, Ex parte (71 Cal. 212) i. 857, Scannell, S. v. (39 Me. 68) ii. 660 ; 8694 Scarborough ». S. (46 Ga. 26) i, 980 a] —— v, New York Union Mutual —,, S. v. (28. C. 439) i. 946] Fire Ins. Co. (1 Gray, 529) i. 998 a Scarisbrick, Rex v. (6A. & E. 509; —,P. (63 Cal. 28) ii. 644 1 Nev. & P. 582) ii. 1044 | —— v. S. (78 Ind. 41) i. 628 Scarlett, Bi v, (88 Ark. 563) i, 636 | —, s. v. (73 Iowa, 469) — i, 1086, 1207, Scates, P. v. (8 Scam. 351) i. 68, 73 1212, 1216 675 SCH INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. sco Schmidt, S. v. (84 Kan. 899) i. 872 , Schweiter, S. v. (27 Kan. 499) i, 251 —, S. v, (18 La, An. 267) i. 264 4 | Schweitzer, P. v. (28 Mich. 801) i. 1120 Schnapper, 8. v. (22 La. An. 43) i. 909 | —, S. v. (57 Conn. 582) i, 1098 Schneider v. Haas (14 Or. 174; 58 Schwin, S. v. (65 Wis. 207) ii. 1054 Am. R. 296 i, 1190 Scofield, Rex v. (Cald. 397) i, 687 i. 639 i. 909 ; ii, 515 ii. 972 — v. §. (8 Ind. 410) Schnelle, S. v. (24 W. Va. 767) Schnicker v. P. (88 N. Y. 192) Schnier v. P. (23 Ill. 17) i, 984, 987 Schoeffler v. 8. (3 Wis. 828) i. 906, 909, 934, 340, 1257, 1268 Schoeneth, P. v. (44 Mich. 489) - ii. 149 Schvenewald, S. v. (26 Kan. 288) i. 1265 Schoenfeldt v. S. (30 Tex. Ap. 695) i. 1265 Schoenwald, S. v. (31 Mo. 147) i. 984, 1077, 1357 Schoeppe v. C. (65 Pa. 51) i. 1264, 1265 Schonberger v. C. (86 Va. 489) i, 966 Schoolcraft v. P. (117 Ill. 271) ii. 629 Schoole, Rex v. (Peake, 112) i. 485; ii. 910 Schoonover v. S. (17 Ohio St. 294) ii. 764, 766 Schoyer, U. S. v. (2 Blatch. 59) ii, 441 Schram v. P. (29 Ill. 162) i. 752, 755 Schreiber, S. v, (98 Ind. 184) i. 370, 383 Schricker, S. v. (29 Mo. 265) i. 97, 708 Schriedley v. 8. (23 Ohio, St, 130) if. 982 Schroder, S. v. (3 Hill, S.C. 61) i. aA 1 —, S. v. (Riley, 65} i. 547 Schroeder v. Harvey (75 Ill. 688) ii. 485 ——, U.S. v. (14 Blatch. 344) i. 1810 Schryver, P. v. (42 N.Y¥.1;1Am.R. 480) i. 1057, 1095 ; ‘i. 599, 670, 673 Schuermann, 8. v. (52 Mo. 165, 429) i. 814.4 Schuessler, S. v. (8 Ala. 419) i. 1269 Schultz v. S. (32 Ohio St. 276) i. 1152 — v.§. (15 Tex. Ap. 258; 49 Am. R. 194) i. 1400 —— v. 8. (20 Tex. Ap. 308) ii, 7520 —— v. §. (20 Tex. Ap. 315) i, 1094 ; ii. 740 —, S. v. (57 Ind. 19) ii, 911 Schultze v. 8. (43 Md. 295) i. 261, pees 264 m Schumaker v. S. (5 Wis. 824) i. 923, 948 Schumann, U. S. v. (2 Abb. U. : 523) 1388 ——, U.S. v. (7 Saw. 489) i, 867, ‘i254 Schumm, S. v. (47 Minn. 378) i, 931 Schusler v. 8. (29 Ind. 3894) i. 1077 Schuylkill v. Reifsnyder (46 Pa. 4a) 1821 Schwab v. Berggren (143 U. 8. 442) i, 269, 1293 —— v. P. (4 Hun, 520) i. 872 Schwamble v. Sheriff (22 Pa. 18) i. 1882 Schwartz v. C. (27 Grat. 1025; 21 Am. R. 365) ii. 931 —— v. Osthimer (4 Ind. 109) i, 13899 —., P. v, (82 Cal. 160) i. 682; ii. 6, 10, 46 a 676 Scofield Rolling Mill Co. v, 8. (54 Ga. 635) Scoggin, Ex parte (6 Tex. Ap. 546) i. 1279 i. 264.4 Scoggins, P. v. (87 Cal. 676) i. 981, 944; : ii. 625, 627 — v. S. (82 Ark. 205) i. 400 Scot v. Turner (1 Root, 163) i, 3l4a Scott’s Case (Kirby, 362) i. 1816, 1317 —— Case (2 Lewin, 36) i. 1162 Scott, Ex parte (9 B.& C. 446) i. 170 —, Ex parte (19 Ohio St. 581) i. 1306 ——'v. Brest (2 T. R. 238) i, 56 —v. Bye (2 Bing. 844; 9 Moore, 649) i, 1364 v. C. (14 Grat. 687) i. 445, 764 ; ii, 266 — v.C. (6S. & R. 224) ii, 858 — , C. v. (5 Grat. 697) i. 1012, 1016 —,, C. v. (10 Grat. 749) i, 124, 478 —, C. uv, (121 Mass. 33) i, 1394 — , C. v. (123 Mass. 222; 25 Am. R. 81) i. 281, 1060; ii. 158 —, C. v. (123 Mass. 239; 25 Am, R. 87) i, 1181, 1186 ——, C.v. (123 Mass. 418) i. 1265, 1268 — , C. ». (1 Rob. Va. 695) ii. 269 —— v. Curtis (27 Vt. 762) i, 2074 —— v. Jones (4 Taunt. 865) ii. 753 —— v. Kelly (22 Wal. 57) i. 123 v. P. (63 Ill. 608) i. 959 a, 1207, 1211, 1212, 1345 —, P.v. (74 Cal. 94) 4. 49, 1120, 1124 ——, P. v. (6 Mich. 287) i. 978, 1276 —, P. v. (56 Mich. 154) i. 922, 923, 982 —, Reg. v. (2Q. B.D. 415)” i. 1133; ii. 9386 —, Rex v. (3 Bur. 1262; 1 W. BL. 50 i, 1028 —, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 655; Rass, & Ry. 18) i. 725 — v. 8. (30 Ala. 508) i, 966 b, ‘1259; ii, 280 — v. 8. (87 Ala, 117) i. 78, 980 —— v. §. (48 Ala. 420) ii. 67, 963 —— v. 8. (63 Ala. 59) i, 850 v. 8. (26 Ark. 521) i. 1347 v. 8. c Ark. 78) ii. 718 —— v. S. (49 Ark, 156) ii. 661 — v. 8. (1 Head, 433) i, 264.a, 264d —— v. S. (64 Ind. 400) i. 975 c, 978 — v.58. (7 Lea, 232) i, 689 b, 975 8, 991, 92 —— v. 8. (31 Missis. 473) i. 1016, ‘1269 —— v. 8. (1 Root, 155) i. 1279 v. 8. (26 Tex. 116) i 1264 — v.S. (8 Tex. Ap. 103) ii. 892 —v.5. tf Tex. Ap. 434) i. 713 —— v.58. (10 Tex, e 112) i. 975 ¢, 978 —— v.S. (12 Tex. Ap. 594) i. 1277 SEA INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. SET Scott v. S. (19 Tex. Ap. 325) i. 1074 | Sears, U.S. v. (1 Gallis. 215) i. 1180; ——v. 8. (29 Tex. Ap. 217) i. 795 ii, 824, 891 — v. S. (81 Tex. Cr. 368) ii. 641 | Seaton, S. v. (8 Iowa, 188) ii. 982 —, S. v, (25 Ark. 107) i. 691, 693 | Seaward, Rex v. (2 Stra. 739) i. 714 —,S. v. (1 Bailey, 270) i. 1187 | Seawood, Rex v. (2 Ld. Raym. 1472) i. 714 —, 8. v. (2 Dev. & Bat. 85) ii. 838, 842 — , S. v. (1 Hawks, 24) i. 581, 909, 925 ; ii. 674 —, 8. v. (12 La. An. 386) — i. 984, 1212 —, 8. v. (38 La. An. 387) ii. 544 — , 8. v. (41 Minn. 365) i. 984, 945, 966 —, 8. v. (39 es a i, 1058; ii. 1002 ——, 8. v. (45 Mo. 302 ii, 432 b —, 8. v. (48 Mo. 422) i, 998, 1101; ii. 168, 182 —,, 8. ». (72 N. C. 461) i. 585 —§S.v. (158. C.434) i. 451, 10154, 1327 — v. Sandford (19 How. U.S. 393) i. 128, 891 —— v. Scott (5 Mich. 106) i. 1371 — v. Soans (3 East, 111) i, 681 —, Territory v. (2 Dak. 212) i. 639 —, U.S. v. (4 Bis. 29) i, 446, 453, 1896 ; ii. 541 — v. Watkinson (4 Moore & P. 287) i. Scougull ce. Campbell (1 Chit. 283) i. 1018 Scripture, 8. v. (42 N. H. 485) i. 1015a Scroggings v. 8. (55 Ga. 380) i. 663, 1880 —, U.S. v. (3 Woods, 529) i. 193 Scruggs v. 8. (7 Bax. 38) i, 442 Scudder v. 8. (62 Ind. 13) i, 584 Scull v. Briddle (2 Wash. C. C. 200) i, 1285 Scully, Rex xv. (Alcock & N.262) i. 276 — »v. 8. (39 Ala. 240) i. 1010; ii. 2 Scurry v. Freeman (2 B.& P. 881) i. 56 —, S. v. (3 Rich. 68) i. 4844 Sewartz, Ex parte (2 Tex. Ap. 74) i, 1410 Seaborn v. S. (20 Ala. 15) i. 128, 1244 —,, 8. v. (4 Dev. 305) i. 665, 724, 884, 886, 1850 Seacord v. P. (121 Ill. 623) i. 870, 372 Seal v. S. (13 Sm. & M. 286) marae v. 8. (1 Kelly, 213; 44 Am. D. 41 i, 923 i. 939, 951 Seaman v. Lee (10 Hun, 607) Seamons, S. v. (1 Greene, Iowa, 418) i, 1417 i, 845; ii. 64 Seams v. S, (84 Ala. 410 i. 68 Seany v.S. (6 Blackf. 403) ii. 360 Searcey, U. S. v. (26 Fed. Rep. 435) i. 1093 Searcy v. S. (4 Tex. 450) i. 375, 884 v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 513; 19 Am. St. 851) i. 1218, 1223 Searight v. C. (13 S. & R. 301) i. 1005 Searle, Rex v. (1 Moody & R. 75) ii. 685 Searls v. Viets (2 Thomp. & C. 224) i. 157 Sears rv. Cottrell (5 Mich. 251) i, 1004 — , S. v. (Phillips, N. C, 146) i. 706.4 Seay, S. v. (3 Stew. 123; 20 Am. D. 66) i. 826 Seborn v. S. (51 Ga. 164) i. 1038 Secor v. Babcock (2 Johns. 203) i, 283 Sedberry v. 8. (14 Tex. Ap. 283) i. 384 Sedgwick v. Dawkins (16 Fla. 198) 1. 1843 Seely, S. v. (30 Ark. 162) i. 685 Sefton, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 202) ii. 158, 188 88a Segars v. 8. (88 Ala. 144) i. 1084 Segee v. Thomas (3 Blatch.11) i. 1181 Segermond, 8. v. (40 Kan. 107; 10 Am. St. 169) i. 543 ; ii. 1002 Sego, C. v. (125 Mass.210) i. 400, 1223 Segura v. 8. (16 Tex. Ap. 221) i. 1081 Seibles v. Blackwell (1 McMul. 56) ii. 677 Seibright v. S. (2 W. Va. 591) i, 1050 Seifrath v. S. (85 Ark. 412) i. 1265, 1269 Self v. S. (6 Bax. 244) i. 1238 — v. §. (28 Tex. Ap. 398) i. 951, 975 c, 1079, 1276 Seling v. S. (18 Neb. 548) ii. 140 Sell, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 346) i. 747, 798 Sellers v. P. (8 Scam. 412) — i. 909, 949 b — , Rex v. (Car. Crim. Law, 3d ed. 233) i. 1211 —— v. S. (49 Ala. 357) ii, 981 —v. S. (52 Ala, 368) i. 981, 982, 975 b v. Till (4 B. & C. 655) ii. 794 Selph v. S. (22 Fla. 537) i. 966 Selvidge v. S. (80 Tex. 60) i. 1242 Semayne’s Case (5Co. 91a) i. 195, 201 Semler’s Petition (41 Wis. 517) i. 1410 Semmes, C. v. (11 Leigh, 665) i. 251, 256, 264 c Semple, Rex v. (1 Leach, 420; 2 East P. C.691) i, 681; ii. 754 Senn, 8. v. (32 S. C. 392) i. 966, 1254, 1255 ; ii. 629 Sennett v. 8. (17 Tex. 808) i. 1050; ii. 1048 Sennott’s Case (146 Mass. 489; 4 Am. St. 844) i. 1410 Sepulveda, P. v. (59 Cal. 342) i. 1005 Seran, 8S. v. (4 Dutcher, 519) ii. 9 Serjeant, Rex v. (Ryan & Moody, N. P. 352) ii. 69 Serpentine v. S. (1 How. Missis. 256) i. 890, 405 Serva, Reg.v. (1 Den. C.C. 104; 2 Car. & K. 53) i. 381, 597 Sessions v. Little (9 N. H. 271) ii. 626 ——, P. v. (10 Abb. N. Cas. 192; 62 How. Pr. 415) —, P. ». (58 Mich. 594) i, 461 Seton, Rex v. (7 T. R. 373) i. 1867, 1877 Setter, S. v. (67 Conn. 461; 14 Am. St. 121) ii, 204 677 i. 815 SHA Sevailles, Territory v. (1 New Mex. 19 ii. 63 1 Seveloff, U.S. v. (2 Saw. 311) i. 814a@ Seven Bishops, The, Rex v. (12 How. St. Tr. 183) i. 1001 Seventeen Empty Barrels, U.S. v. (8 Dil. 285) i. 611 Severn, Rex v, (Say. 278) i, 681 Sewall v. S. (Wright, 483) i. 629 — v. Sullivan (108 Mass. 355) —_ i. 706 Seward, Rex v. (1 A. & E. 706) ii. 205 ——, S. v. (42 Mo. 206) ii. 68a, 77 Sewel, Reg. v. (7 Mod. 118) i. 1138 Sewell v. S. (82 Ala. 57) i, 685 — »v. §. (76 Ga. 836) i. 1250 v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 56) i. 924 —, 8. v. (3 Jones, N. C. 245) ii. 674 Sexton, P. v, (24 Cal. 78) i. 68, 73 —, Rex »v. (3 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 445) i, 1228 ——, 8. v. (3 Hawks, 184; 14 Am. D. 584) i. 408 Seymour, C. v. (2 Brews. 567) i. 708, 1394 —, S. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 508) i. 1086 ——, 8. v. (86 Me. 225) ii. 131 Shaber, P. v. (32 Cal. 36) 1. 581; ii. 142 Shackelford v. S. (48 Tex. 138) "ii. 746 —, U.S. v. (3 Cranch, C. C. 178) ii. 311 Shackell, Rex c. (McClel. & Y. 514, 523 . ) i. 264 Shackleford v. S. (79 Ala. 26) i, 68, 74; ii. 645 v. S, (2 Tex. Ap. 885) i. 931; ii. 746 —-, U.S. vo. (18 How. U.S. 588) 1. 981 Shacklett v. Ransom (54 Ga. 350) i. 1276 Shadle v. 8. (34 ‘Tex. 572) i. 860 Shadley, S. v. (16 Ind. 230) ii. 840 Shaeffer, S. v. (89 Mo. 271) i. 1098; ii. 197 Shafer v. Mumma (17 Md. 831; 79 Am. D. 656) i, 2294 —, P. v. (1 Utah, 260) i. 995, 998 v. S. (26 Ind. 191) i. 443 — v. 8. (74 Ind. 90) i. 759, 1310 v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 239) i. 917 Shaffenburg, Ex parte (4 Dil. 271) ii. 245 Shaffer, Respublica v. (1 Dall. 236) i. 867 —— v. 8. (1 How. Missis, 238) i. 931 v. §. (82 Ind. 221) i, 510 v. S. (100 Ind. 365) i. 1291 ——, S. v. (59 Iowa, 290) i. 489; ii, 152 Shaffner v. C. (72 Pa. 60; 18 Am. R. 649) i. 1128; ii. 628 Shaft, S. v. (78 N. C. 464) i. 1817 Shaftesbury, Rex v. (8 How. St. Tr. 759) i, 856, 861, 866, 868 Shainwold, P. v. (51 Cal. 468) ii. 37, 58 Shakespeare, Rex v. (10 East, 88) i. 684, 688, 793 Shamokin Coal Co. v, Mitman (8 Pa. St. 379) i. 1001 Shank v. Batsch (28 Ind. 19) ii. 432 —, 8. v. (79 Iowa, 47) i. 1400 Shanks, C. v. (10 B. Monr. 304) i, 1012, 1342 — v. S, (51 Missis. 464) ii, 823 678 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. SHA Shanks, S. v. (66 Mo. 560) ii. 921 Shanley, P. v. (40 Hun, 477) i. 191 —— v. Wells (71 Ill. 78) i. 181, 188 Shannon v. P. (6 Mich. 71) i. 1265; ii. 4 —, Rex »v. (Jebb, 209) ii, 650 v. 8. (57 Ga. 482) i. 1278 v. S. (109 Ind. 407) ii. 401, 415 — v. 8. (7 Tex. 492) i, 1264 v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 474) i. 1181, 1185 — , S. v. (83 Mo. 596) i. 1226 Shapleigh v. Wentworth (13 Met. 358) i. 1018 Shapoonmash v. U.S. (1 Wash. Ter. Nn. 8. 188 i, 1358 —— v. U.S. (1 Wash. Ter. 219) i. 273, 1358 Sharff v. C. (2 Binn. 514) ii. 806 Sharley v. 8. (54 Ind. 168) i. 488 Sharp v. Jolinson (22 Ark. 79) i. 1276 —— v. Kirkendall (2 J. J. Mar. 150) i. 802 — »v. P. (29 Ill. 464) i, 1110 —, P. v. (107 N. Y. 427; 1 Am. St. 851) i. 1120 —,, Reg. v. (2 Cox C. C. 181) ii. 3821 —, Reg. v. (24 Law J.n. s. MC. 40; 29 Eng. L. & Eq. 532) i. 68 —— v. §. (51 Ark. 147; 14 Am. St. 27 i. 975, 979 v. 8. (17 Ga. 290) i, 611, 799 — v.§. (2 Iowa, 454) i. 68, 78, 814a — v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 650) i. 97 v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 171) i. 459, 460; ii. 970 ——, S. v. (106 Mo. 106) i. 975¢ —, S. v. (110 N.C. 604) i. 850, 852 —. U.S. v, (Pet. C. C. 118) i. 1018; ii. 687 4 —, U.S. v. (Pet. C. C. 131) i, 482 Sharpe, Reg. ». (8 Car. & P. 436) ii. 412 —, Reg. v. (Dears. 415) i, 63 ——, Reg. v. (Dears. & B. 160; 7 Cox C. C. 214) ii. 1010 —— v. S. (48 Ga. 16) i, 980.4 v. S. (17 Tex. Ap. 486) i. 975; ii. 584, 587, 588 Sharpless, C. v. (2S. & R.91; 7Am. ‘ - 632 ii. 794 ——,C.v. (28. & R. 100) i Sharpness, Rex r, (1 T. R. 228) —, Rex ». (2 T. R. 47) i. 1817 Shartzer v. §. (63 Md. 149; 52 Am. R. 601) . ii. 965 ii, 614 ii. Sharwin, Rex v. (1 East P. C. 341) Shattuck, C. v. (4 Cush. 141) ii. 872, oe 3 —— v. P. (4 Scam. 477) i. 264, 2644 —, P. v. (6 Abb. N. Cas. 83) i. 251, 874 —— v.§. (11 Ind. 478) i. 283, 861 —— v. §. (51 Missis. 575) i. 1101; ii. oe ——, S. v. (45 N. H. 205) i. 8140 Shaver, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 45) i. 189, 2644 —— v. Starrett (4 Ohio St. 494) i, 897 SHE Shaw, Ex parte (7 Ohio St. 81; 70 Am. D. 55) i, 1367, 1410 —, In re (81 Minn. 44) i. 1807 — wv. C. (1 Duv. 1) i. 8694 —— v. Macon (21 Ga. 280) i — v. P. (81 Ill. 150) — »v. P. (6 Thomp. & C. 439; 3 Hun, 272) i. 1211 —, P. v. (63 N.Y. 36) i. 814, sla, 1211 ——, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 56) ii. 9880 —, Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 579; 10 Cox C. C. 66) ii. 902 —, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 372) i. 1098, 1226 —, Rex v. (6 D. & R. 154) i, 264d v. S. (18 Ala, 547) i. 487, 1882, 1859 — v. 8. (40 Ga. 120) i. 1005 a; ii. 769 —— v. 8. (60 Ga. 246) i. 975¢, 1012 —— v. S. (83 Ga. 92) i. 1097 — v.58. (3 Sneed, 86) ii. 751, 754 — uv. 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 487) i. 10054 ——v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 225) i. 733 —, 8. v. (8 Humph. 82) i, 784 — ,S. v. (4 Ind. 428) i, 234 — , S. v. (23 Iowa, 816) i. 1264, 1373 —, 5S. v. (85 Iowa, 575) i. 370, 372, ae — , S. v. (3 Ire. 20) i. 185; ii. 892, aon —, S. u. (3 Ire. 582) i, 901, 931 — ,58. vu. (4 Jones, N.C. 440) i. 9804; ii. 742 —,S. v. (5 La. An. 342) i. 1265 —, S. v. (92 N. C. 768) — i. 682; ii. 460 —, S. v. (35 N. H. 217) i. 379, 639 —, S. v. (58 N. H. 74) i. 854 —, 8. v. (48 Ohio St. 824) i. 68, 71 ——, S.v. (1 Root, 134) i. 204, 207, 102i Shawbeck, S. v. (7 Iowa, 822) i. 859 Shawley, S. v. (6 Hayw. 256) it 5605 ii Shawnee v. Ballinger (20 Kan. 590) i. 1317 — v. Hanback (4 Kan. 282) i. 1316 —— v. Wabaunsee (4 Kan. 312) i, 68 v. Whiting (4 Kan, 278) i. 1316 Shay v. C. (36 Pa. 305) i, 9500, 1020, 1021, 1166 — v. P. (22N. Y. 317; 4 Par. Cr. 353) i. 854, 357 —, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 344) ii. 687 —, S. v. (80 La. An. 114) i. 946; ii. 514 Shea; C. v. (14 Gray, 386 i. 304, 402 —, C. v. (150 Mass. 314) ii. 105 —, P. v. (8 Cal. 538) ii. 633 —, P. v. (3 Par. Cr. 562) i. 1410 —, S. v. (95 Mo. 85) i. 1291 Sheals, Reg. v. (3 Crawf. & Dix C. C. 830) i. 780 Shear, P. v. (7 Cal. 189) i, 314, 1264 Sheard, S. v. (85 La, An, 543) i. 966 Shearman v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 215; 28 Am. R. 402) i. 1001 Sheazle (British Prisoners), In re a Woodb. & M. 66) i, 224 Sheckles v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 326) i. 951, 980 a Shed v. Hawthorne (8 Neb. 179) i. 1417 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. SHE Shedd, C. v. (7 Cush. 514) ii. 206, 218, 218 —, Cv. (140 Mass. 451) ii. 149 Sheehan’s Case (122 Mass. 445; 23 Am. R. 374) i. 316 Sheehan, C. v. (12 Gray, 28) i. 1264 —, C, v, (105 Mass. 174) i. 706.4 — v. P. (181 Ill. 22) i. 975 ¢ —,, Rex v. (Jebb, 54) i, 1109 Sheehy v. Professional Life Assur- ance Co, (2 C. B. n. s. 211) i. 1821 Sheeley, S. v. (15 Iowa, 404) i, 913 Sheen, Rex v. (2 Car. & P. 634) i. 811,817 Sheerin, S. v. (12 Mont. 589; 33 Am. St. 600) i. 909; ii. 77 Sheering, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 440) i. 1314 Sheets v. P. (63 Ill. 78) i. 264 —_, S. v. (89 N.C. 548) i, 1108, 1179 Sheffield, C. v. (11 Cush. 178) i. 898, 689 — v. O’Day (7 Bradw. 3839) i, 264m — v.58. (438 Tex. 378) i, 1250, 1252 — v.§. (1 Tex. Ap. 640) i. 1005 Shehane, S. v. (25 Mo. 565) i. 1264, 1265 Shelby v. Boenan (40 Ohio St. 253) i. 1871 — v. §. (10 Humph. 165) ii, 1054 6 | Sheldon, Ex parte (34 Ohio St. 319) i. 220 v. McKnight (84 Ohio St. 316) i. 228 —,, P.v. (68 Cal. 434), in, 838 ——) Pv. (189 N. Y. 251) ii, 242 Shell v. S. (88 Ala. 14) i. 1209 v. 8. (6 Humph. 283) ii, 841 Shellard, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 277) i, 1899 Shelledy, 8. v. (8 Iowa, 477) i. 817, 909, 931, 1015, 1269 Shellmire, U. 8. v. (Bald. 370) i. 1098; ii, 422 Sheliswell, Rex v. (8 Russ. Crimes, 6th as ed. 474) i. 1256 Shelly v. C. (19 Grat. 653) i. 239.4 peer vu. ‘Berry (19 Tex. ae, ig Am. D. 82! 231, 717 — v.S. (73 Ala. 5) i 931 — v.58. (1 Stew. & P. 208) i. 281, 405 — ¢.8. (80 Tex. 481) ii. 19 — vw.8. (384 Tex. 662) ii. 631 —— v.§. (11 Tex. Ap. 36) ii. 740 — v. 8. (12 Tex. a 618) i. 1094 —— v.§. (27 Tex. Ap. 443; 11 Am. St. 200) i. 360 —, 8. v. (7 Humph. 31) ii. 466 — , S. v. (64 Iowa, 333) li. 585, 631 —, 8. v. 2 Jones, N. C. 3860; 64 Am. D. 587) i. 1207 —, S. v. (3 Stew. 343) i. 1879 — 5S. v. (90 Tenn. 539) ii. 142, 146 Shenton, 8. v. (22 Minn. 311) i. 611 Shepard, C. v. (1 Allen, 575) ii. 827, 829 —— v. P. (40 Mich. 487) ii. 871 — , S. v. (10 Iowa, 126) i. 278, 3142, 699 ; ii. 63 a, 77, 78 —, U.S. v. (1 Abb. U.S. 481) i. 2238, 762 679 SHI INDEX TO THE Shepardson, P. v. (48 Cal. 189) ii. 18 —, P. uv. (49 Cal. 629) i. 1114, 1116 Shepherd v. C. (2 Met. 419) i. 18387, 1373 v. P, (72 Il. 480) i. 689 b, 1060 — v. P. (19 N. Y. 587) ii. 38, 50 v. P. (25 N. Y. 406) i. 815 — , Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 237) ii. 4828 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 579) i. 1227 —., Rex »v. (2 East P. C. 967) ii. 422, 424, 428 —— v. §. (34 Ark. 659 i. 1280 v. 8. (44 Ark. 89 ii. 740 v. S. (54 Ind. 25) i. 825, 516.a, 519 v. §. (64 Ind. 43) i. 1287 v. §. (42 Tex. 501 i. 439 —,S.v. (8 Ire. 195) i. 68, 354, 1132 ——, U.S. v. (1 Hughes, C. C. 520) i. 268 Shepler v. S. (114 Ind. 194) i. 899 Sheppard, Rex v. (1 Leach, 101) i. 1285 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 226; Russ. & Ry. 169) li, 422, 424, 428 —v. S. (42 Ala. 531). i. 541 — v.S8. (1 Tex. Ap. 522; 28 Am. R. 422) i. 541 v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 74) ii. 514 —, S. v. (83 La. An. 1216) ii. 733 —, 8. v. (97 N. C. 401) i, 882 —, S. v. (87 Wis. 395) i, 1367 Sherar v. S. (30 Tex. Ap. 349) i, 951 Sherban v. C. (8 Watts, 212; 84 Am. D. 460) Sherburne, 8S. v. (59 N. H. 99) i. 485; ii, 884 Sheridan, Rex v. (31 How. St. Tr. 643) i. 751, 884, 982.4 i. 320 —, S. v. (14 Vroom, 484) ii. 276 Sheriff, C. v. (1 Grant, Pa. 187) i, 163, 1382 —, C.v. (16S. & R. 304) i. 951d — ©. ». (7 Waits & S. 108) i. ——, Rex v. (Cas. temp. Hardw, 303) i, 1021 ——, S. v. (37 La. An. 617) i, 1410 Sherlock, Reg. v. (Law Rep.10C.C. 20; 10 Cox C. C. 170) ii. 896 Sherman v. C. (14 Grat. 677) i. 13871 —, C. v. (18 Allen, 248) i. 550 —, C. v. (105 Mass. 169) ii. 89 — v.58. (17 Fla. 888) i. 975c, 1277 Shermer, 8. v. (55 Mo. 83) i. 1069; ii. 764 Sherrill v. Nations (1 Ire. 825) ii. 887 —, S. v, (1 Jones, N. C. 508) ii. 287 Sherrington’s Case (2 Lewin, 128) i. 1239 Sherwood, Ex parte (29 Tex. Ap. 334) i. 168, 184 Shettleworth, S. v. (18 Minn. 209) i. 1094; ii, 963 Shideler, 8. v. (51 Ind. 64) i, 264A Shields, C. v. (2 Bush, 81) i. 991, 992, 999, 9994 —— v. 8. (45 Conn. 266) i, 1269 —— v. §. (95 Ind. 299) 1, 916 v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 427) — i. 909, 1189 — v. 8. (82 Tex. Cr. 498) ii. 65, 979 ——, 8. v. (8 Blackf. 151) ii. 880 680 CASES CITED. SHO Shields, 8. v. (45 Conn. 256) i. 1248; ti. 972 —, 8. v. (88 La. An. 991) i. 700, 917 ——, S. v. (83 La. An. 1410) i. 730; 926 — S. v. (89 Mo. 259) ii, 188 —, S. v. (110 N. C. 497) i. 975¢ Shifflet v. C. (14 Grat. 652) i. 78, 762, 1223, 1238 ; ii. 1029 Shiflett, S. v. (20 Mo. 415; 64 Am. D. 190 i. 639; ii. 816 Shilling, S. v. (10 Iowa, 106) i, 1264, 1395 Shillinger, S. v. (6 Md. 449) i, 68 Shinborn, S. v. (46 N. H. 497 ; 88 Am. D. 224) ii, 482, 677 Shines v. 8. (42 Missis. 331) ii. 764 Shinn v. C. (82 Grat. 899) i, 854 v. S. (57 Ind. 144) ii. 420, 422 v. §. (68 Ind. 428) ii. 58 Shinner, S. v. (76 Iowa, 147) i, 281 Shipley, Rex v. (4 Doug. 738) ii. 799 ——, Territory v. (4 Mont. 468) ii, 732 Shipman, S. v. (93 Mo. 147) i. 68, 71 Shipp v. S. (11 ‘Tex. Ap. 46) i. 270 Shippey, 8. v. (10 Minn. 225; 88 Am. D. 70) i. 700; ii. 601 Shippy, 8. v. (Brayt. 169) i. 994 Shircliff v. 8. (96 Ind. 369) i. 1018; ii. 127 Shirley v. S. (1 Or. 269) i. 488 Shirwin v. P. (69 Ill. 55) i. 951 a, 982; ii, 966, 967 Shitler v. Brewer (23 Pa. 418) ii. 482 4 Shive, U.S. v. (Bald. 510) i. 943 Shivers v. 8. (53 Ga. 149) i. 1138; ii. 327 Shock, S. v. (68 Mo. 552) i. 1270 Shoefercater v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 207) i. 403, 405 Shoemaker v. S. (12 Ohio, 43) i. 73, 1856 ——,, S. v. (4 Ind. 100) i. 641 ——, $8. v. (7 Misso. 177) ii, 258, 259 —,, S. v. (cited 11 Ohio, 286) ii. 889 —, U.S. v. (2 McLean, 114) i. 1394, 1395 Sholes, C.v. (13 Allen, 396) i. 264 a ——, C. v. (13 Allen, 554) i. 613, 946, 960 Shonhausen, S. v. (26 La. An. 421) ii. 703, 732 Shore v. S. (6 Misso. 640) i, 261, 2646 Shores, S. v. (81 W. Va. 491; 13 Am. St. 875) i, 313, 457, 461 Short v. S. (68 Ind. 876) i. 567; ii. 130, 6 753 v. S. (36 Tex. 644) ii. 700 — v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 370) i. 975 —— v.8. (16 Tex. Ap. 44) 264, 264 m, 1264 — v. S: (7 Yerg. 510) ii. 642 —, S. v. (54 Iowa, 892) i. 536; ii. 180 Shorter v. P. (2 Comst. 198; 51. Am. D. 286) i. 1265 Shortridge, C. v. (J. J. Mar. 638) ii. 835 Shotwell, P. v. (27 Cal. 894) i. 424, 442, 448, 1325, 1827 ——v. 8, (48 Ark 345) i. 618; ii. 142 Shoultz, 8. v. (25 Mo. 128) ii. 631 Shouse ». C. (5 Pa. 83) i, 1087 Shover v. 8. (5 Eng. 259) ii. 817, 818 SIL INDEX TO THE Showalter v. S. (84 Ind. 562) i. 1181, 1186 Showers v. C. (120 Pa. 578) i. 931 Shrader v. S. (80 Tex. 386) i. 264 m Shreeve v. S. (11 Ala. 676) i. 251, 264 m —, S. v. (3 Green, N. J. 57) i, 724 Shrewsbury’s Case (9 Co. 466) i. 1005a Shriedley v. S. (23 Ohio St. 180) ii. 99U Shrimpton, Reg. v. (2 Den. C. C.319; 8 Eng. L. & Eq. 587) i. 1117 Shrivers v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 450) —_ i. 1286 Shropshire v. 8. (7 Eng. 190) i. 814, 884 ——v. S. (69 Ga. 2738) ii, 152 Shroyer v. Lawrence (9 Ind. 322) i. 1264 —, S. v. (104 Mo. 441; 24 Am. 8t. 344) i. 966, 1066, 1181, 1185 Shryber, Respublica v. (1 Dall. 68) ii. 383 Shubert v. 8. (20 Tex. Ap. 820) i. 59, 423 Shubrick, P. v. (57 Cal. 565) i. 712 — v.8. (28.C, 21 i, 488 CASES CITED. SIM Sills, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 494) i, 1161- v. 8. (76 Ala. 92) i. 1087 Silver v. S. (17 Ohio, 365) i. 1898 —,S. v. (3 Dev. 382) i, 966, 1192 Silverlock, Reg. v. (1894, 2 Q. B. 766) ; ii. 175 ii. Silversides v. Reg. (2 Gale & D. 617) i. 1878 Silvey v. S. (71 Ga. 553) i. 1002 Silvus v. S. (22 Ohio St. 90) i, 1050; ii. 70 a, 599 Simco v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 338) i. 1254a Simien, S. v. (80 La. An. 296) i. 951 Simington v. S. (5 Ind. 479) i. 81l4a Simmerman »v. S. (16 Neb. 615) i. 68, 78, 975a Simmonds, Rex v. (1 Car. & P. 84) i. 966 ¢ — , Rex v. (1 Moody, 408) i. 59; ii. 770 Shufelt, P. v. (61 Mich. 287) i. 909, 951 a, | Simmons, Ex parte (62 Ala.416) i. 1410 951 f| —— v. C. (1 Rawle, 142) i. 889 Shufflebarger, S. v. (4 Ind. 582) i. 279 | —— v. Millingen (2 C. B. 524) i. 184, 214 Shuford, 8. v. (69 N. C. 486) i, 1120; | ——, Rex »v. (1 Wils. 829) i. 1270 ii. 628 | —— v. S. (82 Fla. 387) ii, 585 Shular v. S. (105 Ind. 289) i. 965 | —— v. S. (73 Ga. 609; 54 Am. R. Shule, S. v. (10 Ire. 153) i. 1004] 885) i. 984 Shuler, P. v. (28 Cal. 490) i. 71, 1077, | —— v. S. (61 Missis. 243) i. 1062, 1223 : 1269 | —— v. S. (12 Misso. 268; 49 Am. D. — , S.v. (198.C. 140) 1.612; ii. 788] 181) i. 611 Shull, S. v. (3 Head, 42) i. 8379 | —— v. S. (7 Ohio, 1st pt. 116) ii. 429, 480 Shultz v. S. (18 Tex. 401) i. 980, 1051 ; | ——, S. v. (6 Jones, N. C. 21) i. 9804 ii, 666, 668 | ——, S. v. (6 Jones, N. C. 309) i, 931, — v.§. (5 Tex. Ap. 390) i. 975c, 1279; 982 ii. 754 | ——, S. v. (66 N. C. 622) i. 465, 469 Shulze x. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 316) i. 1170 | ——, S. v. (4 S. C. 72) i. 3144 Shumaker v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 117) i. 1810, | —— v. U.S. (142 U.S. 148) i. 975, 981 1827 | ——, U.S. o. (14 Blatch. 473) i. 1268 Shumpert, S. v. (1S. C. 85) i. 3142, 891 | —, U.S. v. (46 Fed. Rep. 65 i. 861 Shurtliff, S. v. (18 Me. 368) ii. 429 |] ——, U.S. v. (47 Fed. Rep. 575) i. 2644 Shuster v. C. (38 Pa. 206) i, 943 | Simms v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 110) ii. 146 Shutte, C. v. (180 Pa. 272; 17 Am. — v8. fi Tex. Ap. 230) — i. 909, 1170 St. 778) i, 451 v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 131) i. 461 Sibley, S. v. (4 Lea, 738) i. 1317 | ——- v. S. (82 Tex. Cr. 277) i. 1265 Sickle, S. v. (Brayt. 182 i. 713 | —, S. v. (68 Mo. 805) ii, 675 ) Sidener v. Russell (34 Ill. Ap. 446) i, 870 Sides, S. v. (64 Mo. 383) i. 392, a tu ; ii. Sidney, Rex v. (9 How. St. Tr. 817) i, 120, 730, 799 —, Rex »v. (2 Stra. 1165) i. 13813 —, S. v. (74 Mo. 390) i. 1062 Sidwell». Roberts (1 Pa. (R. P. & «W.) 382) i, 79) Siebert v. P. (143 II. 571) ii. 629, 631, 633 — v. S. (95'Ind. 471) i, 433, 688 Siebold, Ex parte (100 U. S. 871) i. 1410 Sigler v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 283) ii. 754 Sigman, S. v. (106 N. C. 728) i. 161, 168 Sileox v. Lang (78 Cal. 118) i, 934 Silhoffer, S. v. (48 Iowa, 283) i, 708 Silk, C. v. (111 Mass. 431) ii. 67 Sill v. Reg. (1 Ellis & B. 553; Dears. 182; 16 Eng. L. & Eq. 875) ii. 178 Siller v. Cooper (4 Bibb, 90) i, 923 b| Simon v. S. (5 Fla, 285) TN s ~ ma = Ss a on o o ) i. 780.4; ii. 688. a i. 1220, 1234 — v.&. (36 Missis. 686) — i. 1288, 1239 3 | —— v. S. (87 Missis. 288) i. 1227, 1237 —,, S. v. (50 Mo. 370) i, 1212 ——, S. vu. (54 Mo. 182) i. 885 Simonds, C. «. (11 Gray, 306) i. 618; ii. 449, 457 Simons v. P. (150 Ill. 66) ii. 631 2|——, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 540) i. 280, 1156, 1226, 1245 —, Rex v. (Say. 84) i. 1008, 1269, 1275 —— v. §. (25 Ind. 331) i. 443 , 8. v. (70 N.C. 336) ii. 723 —, S. v. (2 Speers, 761) i, 891, 892, 1405 —, S. v. (4 Strob. 266) ii, 280, 284 —, S. v. (30 Vt. 620) ii, 1020 Simonton, Ex parte (9 Port. 390; 83 Am. D. 820) i. 951f Simpson v. C. (1 Dana, 523) i. 2646 681 SIN INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. SLA i .v. (2 Grant, Pa. 438) i. ne a Sinnott, S. v. (15 Neb. 472) i, 180 Bimprens 2 6 : 4| Sipe, S. v. (38 Kan. 201) i 414 —, C. «. (9 Met. 188) i. 59, 60, a; Sipult, S. v. (17 Iowa, 575) ii, 737 ii. 316, 317 | Sisk v. S, (28 Tex. Ap. 432) 1. 975c, 978: —,P.». (50 Cal. 304) i, 1278; ii. 87] ii. 934, 935 a — , P. v. (48 Mich. 474) }. 1086 | Sites, S. v. (20 W. Va. 18) i 269 — ., Reg. v. (Car. & M. 669) i. 9500) Sitman v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 461) ii. 188 — , Reg. v. (10 Mod. 248) i. 267, 276, | Sitterlee v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 587) _ ii. 740 306 Sively v. S. (44 Tex. 274) i, 264.4 ——, Rex v. (1 Moody, 410) i. 1223, 1283, Siverburg v. S. (80 Ark. 39) i, 1264 ~’ 1934] Sixth Dist. Judge, S. v. (81 La. Ap. — v. Rhinelanders (20 Wend. 103) 557) i. 1843 i. 722 | Sizemore, S. v. (7 Jones, N. C. 206) v. Robert (35 Ga. 180) i, 2346 1, 980 — v. 8. (59 Ala. 1; 31 Am. R. 1) Sizmore v. S. (3 Head, 26) ii. 266 ’ i. 127, 078 | Skaggs v. S. (31 Tex. Cr. 563) 1. 975; — v. S. (4 Humph. 456) ii. 745 _ di, 612 —— v.§. (31 Ind. 90) i. 1144, 1275 | Skains v. S. (21 Ala. 218) i. 612, 978, v. S, (56 Missis. 297) i, 276, 1853 f 980; ii. 27 — v.8. (38 Tex. Ap. 425) i. 1278 | Skaro v. S. (43 Tex. 88) i. 951 —— v. 8. (10 Tex. Ap. 681) ii. 751 | Skeen, Ex parte (41 Ind. 418) i, 314 v. S. (5 Yerg. 356) - ii. 17, 18 | Skeggs, C. v. (8 Bush, 19) i. 2644, 874 —, 8. v. (2 Hanks, 460) ii. 838, 840, | Skerit, Rex v. (2 Car. & P. 427) __ ii. 264 842 | Skidmore v. S. (48 Tex. 93) i. 163, 9896 —, S. v. (1 Jones, N. C. 80) i. 1805 v. 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 20) i. 159 —., S.v. (38 La. An, 23) i. 951a | —, S. v. (87 N. C. 509) ii. 67 —,, S. v. (67 Mo. 647) i. 1400 , 8. v: (109 N. C. 795) 771 — , 8. v. (73 N. C. 269) i. 528; ii. 845 | Skiff v. P. (2 Par. Cr. 139) 1.57; ii. 169, v. U.S. (9 How. U.S. 578) i. 814a, 197 816 |. Skinner v. Andrews (1 Saund. 168) i. 406 —, U.S. v. (8 Pa. (P. & W.) — v. §. (80 Ala. 524) i. 678, 977, 432.4 9806 Sims’s Case (7 Cush. 285) i. 1411 | ——». S. (53 Missis. 399) i, 1275 Sims v. S, (43 Ala. 33) i. 977 | —,, S. v. (84 Kan. 256) i. 793, 872, 931, v, ne (26 Fla. 97) i. 2644 943 S. (51 Ga. 495) i. 849 | Skipworth v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 185) i. 127, v. oe (87 Ga. 569) i. 1020 869 a; ii. 721 v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 144) i. 975.c | Skone, Rex v. (6 East, 514) i. 1264 v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 586) 1. 975 c | Skutt . eee (2 Rol. 248) ii. 794 — , S. v. (2 Bailey, 29) i. 909, 931, 934; ) Slack, C. v. (19 Pick. 304) ii. 1012 ii. 9, 12 —, 8 v. (1 Bailey, 830) i. 949 b, 1058, — 8. v. (Dudley, Ga. 213) i. 984, 987, 1087 ; it. 751 1275 | —, 8. v. (80 Tex. 354) i. 414 —,S. v. (16 8. C. 486) i. 183, 314.a; | Slade v. S. (29 Tex. Ap. 881) i. 951 ii. 992, 993, 997 | Slagel v. C. (81 Ky. 485) i. 975e —, S. v. (8 Strob. 137) i. 461] Slagle, S. v. (83 N. C. 630) ii. 514 — 5S. v. (48 Tex. 521) i. 652 | Slaney, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 218) ii. 4324, —— v. Sims (12 Hun, 231) i, 1182 791, 803 Sinclair v. Learned (51 Mich. 835) i. 1181] Slape v. S. (15 Vroom, 264) i, 264 m —— v. Roush (14 Ind. 450) ii. 677 | Slate, C. v. (11 Gray, 60) i, 454, 1266 ; Sindram v. P. (88 N. Y. 196) i. 975¢ ii. 982, 988 Sing Lun, P. v. (61 Cal. 538) i. 275 | Slaten 7. P. (21 Ill. 28) i, 264, 264° Singer v. P. (18 Hun, 418) ii. 954 | Slater, Ex parte (72 Mo. 102) i. 50 —,P. v. (18 Abb. N. Cas. 96) i, 861 v. P. (5 Hill, N. Y. 401) i. 871 , Rex v. (2 Keb. 154) i. 502 | ——, S. v. (22 Mo. 464) ii, 65 Singer Manuf. Co. v. Domestic Slatterly v. P. (68 N. Y. 354) i. 978, 980 Sewing Machine Co. (49 Ga. 70; Slattery, C. v. (147 Mass, 428) i: 1002 15 Am. R. 674) i. 1416 | —— v. P. (1 Hun, 311) i. 980 act v. Commissioners (2 Bay, Ms Slaughter v. P. (2 Doug. Mich. a 22 —— ». Ellison (1895, 1 Q. B. 607) ii. 115] ——, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 544, note) —— »v. Finley (1 Port. 144) ii. 886 il —— v. Madison (1 Bibb, 342) i, 893 | —— v. S. (6 Humph. 410) i. 1270 v. 8. (1 ‘Tex. Ap. 501) ii. 688 | —— v. §. (24 Tex. 410) i. 9984; i 584, Sinnott v. S. (11 Lea, 281) i, 981 595 682 SMA INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. SMI Slawson v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 63) i. 1018 | Smathers v. 8. (46 Ind. 447) i. 979 Slayton, P. v. (Breese, 257) i. 264a | Smedly v. S. (80 Tex. 214) ii. 1006 Sledd v. C. (19 Grat. 813) i. 1003 | Smiler, P. v. (125 N. Y. 717) i. 1179; Sleeman, Reg. v. (Dears. 249; 6 ii. 6870 Cox C.C. 245; 22 Eng. L. & Eq. Smiley v. S. (66 Ga. 754) ii. 740 606). i, 1233; ii. 58 | —, S. v. (98 Mo. 605) i. 50 Sleeper, S. v. (87 Vt. 122) ii. 911, 921, | —, S. v. (101 N. C. 709) i. 1015 922 Smily, 8. v. (387 Ohio St. 380; 41 Am. Sleight v. Ogle (4 E. D. Smith, 445) R. 487) ii. 794 i. 187 | Smith, Ex parte (23 Ala. 94) i. 1405 Slicker v. S. (18 Ark. 897) i. 586; ii. 888 | —, Ex parte (8 McLean, 121) i, 220, Sligh, P. v, (48 Mich. 54) i. 1196 222, 223 a. Sliney, C. v. (126 Mass. 49) ii. 116 | ——, In re (4 Colo. 532) i, 229 —, P. v. (1387 N. Y. 570) ii. 683 | ——, In re (3 H. & N. 227) i. 1887 Slingerland, S. v. (19 Nev. 185) i. 1276 | —— v. Adrian (1 Mich. 495) i. 452 Sloan, C. », (4 Cush. 52) i. 469, 641 | —— v. Burn (2 Kelly, 262) i. 1265 v. P. (47 IL. 76) ii. 742 | —— v. Butler (Comb. 326) i. 200 —— v. Rebman (66 Iowa, 81) ii. 871 | —— v. C. (6 B. Monr. 21) i. 1175; — v. 8. (8 Ind. 312) i. 1269 | - ii. 273, 279 —v. S. (9 Ind. 565) i. 1020 | —— v. C. (1 Duv. 224) i. 1265; ii. 600, v. 8. (42 Ind. 570) i. 612; ii. 63, 80 621 —— v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 225) i. 613 | —— v. C. (7 Grat. 593) i. 909 —, S. v. (55 Iowa, 217) i. 1094 | —— v. C. (10 Grat. 784) i, 1228, 1233 ——, 5. o. (47 Mo. 604) ii. 622, 625, 630 | —— v. C. (21 Grat. 809) i. 422, 449, 453, —, S. v. (67 N. C. 3857) i. 611 1058, 1059 —, 8. v. (97 N. C. 499) i. 930 | —— v. o (100 Pa, 324) i, 938 —, S. v. (65 Wis. 647) ii. 514 C. (2 Va. Cas. 6) i. 909 Slocovitch v. 8. (46 Ala, 227) i. 268, 272 | ——, © v. (11 Allen, 243) i. 58; ii. 915, Slocum, C. v. (14 Gray, 395) i. 1845 921, 928, 1019, 1020 —, 5S. v. (8 Blackf. 315) i. 880, 586; } —, C. v. (6 Bush, 263) i. 416 ii. 845 | ——, C. v. (6 Cush. 80) ii. 864, 874d Sloggett, Beg: v. (Dears. 656; 7 —, C. v. (1 Mass. 245) ii. 718, 763 Cox C. C. 139; 36 Eng. L. & Eq. —. C. v. (9 Mass. 107) i. 851, 877, 878, 620) i. 1256, 1256 883 Slomer v. P. (25 Ill. 70; 76 Am. D. —, C. v. (9 Mass. 531) i. 9500 786) i, 187 | ——, C. v. (98 Mass. 10) i. 1388 Sloper, P. v. (1 Idaho, 183) i. 264 a | ——, C. v. (102 Mass. 144) ii. 869 Slowman v. Dutton (10 Bing. 402; 4 —, C. v. (108 Mass. 486) i. 660, 665 Moore & 8. 174) ii. 794 | ——, C. v. (111 Mass. 429) ii. 779 Slymer v. S. (62 Md. 237) i. 603 | ——., C. v. (116 Mass. 40) i. 614; ii. 828 Small v. C. (91 Pa. 304) i. 1212| —, C. v. (119 Mass. 305) i. 1231 — v. Orne (79 Me. 78) i, 241 | ——, C. v. (188 Mass. 489) i. 81l4a — v. S. (20 Fla. 780) i. 1278 | ——, C. v. (151 Mass. 491) ii, 34 — ». 8. (61 Ga. 641) i. 1287 | ——, C. v. (153 Mass. 97) i, 845 v. §. (106 Ind. 94) i. 1898 | —-, C. v. (12 Met. 238) i. 1166 —, 8. v. (1 Fairf. 109) ii, 834 | ——, C. v. (10 Philad. 189) i. 975 —,S. v. (26 Kan. 209) . ii. 829 | —, €. v. (28. & R. 300) i. 931, 9494 —, S.u. tar Mo. 197) i. 816 | —, C. v. (6S.& R. 568) ii. 455, 456 ‘Smalley v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 202) i. 264a | ——, C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 327) i. 1016 — v. S, (11 Tex. Ap. 147) ii. 115 | —— v. Carey (3 Camp. 461) ii. 794 —, S. v. (50 Vt. 736) i. 461, 1120 v. Cooker (Cro. Car. 512) ij. 794 Smallman, Ex parte (54 Cal. 85) i. 264 a | —— v. Dedman (4 Bibb, 192) li 388 — , P. v. (55 Cal. 185) i, 314 a | —— v. Donelly (66 Ill. 464) i. 170 Smalls, S. v. (11 8. C. 262) i. 207 a, 315, | —— v. Fenner (1 Gallis. 170) _ ii. 482 b 931, 1170; ii. 126 v. Forbes (14 Bradw. 477) i. 1149 — , S. v. (17 8. C. 62) i. 1291 | —— v. Gaffard (33 Ala. 168) ii. 794 Smallwood, S. v. (68 Mo. 192) i. 1287; v. Hess (91 Ind. 424) i, 795 ii. 163, 182 | —— v. Hill (22 Barb. 656) ii. 751 —, S. v. (75 N. C. 104) i. 966 ¢, 977, 1147 | —v. Hunt (1 McCord, 449) i. 1244 —, S. v. (78 N. C. 560) i. 1270 | —— v. The Judge (17 Cal. 547) i. 68 Smart v. C. (27 Grat. 950) ii. 871 | —— v. Kiser (98 N. C. 379) i. 264 m -——, C.v. (6 Gray, 15) ii. 329 v. Kitchens (51 Ga. 158 ; 21 Am. — v. Howe (3 Mich. 590) i231] R. 232) i. 268 a ——, 8. v. (4 Rich. 856; 65 Am. D. — »v. Linn (55 Towa, 282) i. 286 683 ) ii. 782, 751, 764 '—— v. P, (1 Colo. 121) i. 1265 683 SMI Smith v. P. (8 Colo. 457) i, 272, 975 —— v. P. (25 Ill.17; 76 Am. D. 780) ii. 205, 244 v. P, (74 Ill. 144) i. 1094 — v. P. (98 Ill. 407) i. 1362 — v. P. (103 Ill. 82) ii. 740 — v. P. (47 N. Y. 380) i. 315 — ». P. (1 Par. Cr. 317) 1, 488 —, P.v. (1 Cal. 9) i, 229, 235, 236, 251 P. v.(15 Cal. 408) i. 590; ii. 697, 700 — , P. v. (57 Cal. 130) ii, 674 —, P. v. (59 Cal. 365) i. 1181 P. v. (59 Cal. 601) i. 975 c, 980, 1002 — , P. v. (86 Cal. 238) ii. 148 —, P. v. (28 Hun, 626; 92 N. Y. 665) i. 1169 — , P. v. (9 Mich. 193) i, 893 —, P. vu. (25 Mich. 497) i. 713 — , P. v. (94 Mich. 644) ii, 984 —, P. v. (45 N. Y. 772) i, 1381 ——, P. v. (1 Par. Cr. 329) i. 123, 730; ii. 188, 720 —, P. v. (4 Par. Cr, 255) i. 59 —v. Penny (44 Cal. 161) i. 1825 — v. Porter (5 Ind. 429) i, 1268 —— v. Prager (7 T. R. 60) ii. 429 —, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 207) i. 2840; ii. 746 —, Reg. v. (2 Cox C. C. 358) ii. 412 —, Reg. v. (4 Cox C. C. 42) i, 782, 783 —, Reg. v. (6 Cox C. C.314) ii. 188, 191 — , Reg. v. (11 Cox C.C.210) ii. 638 —, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 597; 8 Eng. Rep. 608) ii. 762 —, Reg. v. (Dears. 559) ii. 645 —, Reg. v. (2 Den. C. C. 449) ii. 264 ——,, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 98) i. 488 ¢; ii, 938 b — , Reg. v. (3 Fost. & F. 123) ii. 744 ——, Reg. »v. (4 Fost. & F. 1099) i. 686 —, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C.110; 11 Cox C.C. 10) ii, 93836 —,, Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 607) i. 1213 —, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R.109) i, 760 —, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R.115) ii. 779 —, Reg. v. (1 Salk. 342) ii. 407 —, Rex v. (8 B. & C. 341) ‘iL. 1841 — , Rexv. (2 B. & P.127; 2 Leach, 856 ; ; cited 2 Leach, 942, note; Russ. & Ry. 5; 1 East P. C. 183) i. 515; ii, 268, 271 —-, Rex v. (2 Car. & P. 638) ii. 428 —, Rex v. (3 Car.& P. 412) i, 445 ——, Rex v. (4 Car.& P.411) i, 188, 428 ——, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 569) li. 45 — Rex »v. (6 Car. & P. 136) i, 188 ——, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 151; 1 Moody, 402) i. 546, 686 ; ii, 507 ——, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 147) ii. 725 ——, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 783) ii. 1004 —, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 1000; 1 Leach, 333 n.) i, 429 —, Rex v. te How. St. Tr. 1225) ii 126 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 288) ii. 12 —, Rex »v. (1 Moody, 289) — i. 60, 1019 684 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. SMI Smith, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 267) ii, 886 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 389; 2 Stark. 208; Holt N. P. 614) i. 1195 —, Rex v. (1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 567) ii, 944 ——, Rex v. (8 Russ. Crimes, Eng. ed. 461) 1289 —, Rex v. (8 Russ. Crimes, th Eng. ed. 601, note): i, 1164 — ,, Rex v. (Ryan & Moody, N. P. 267) i, 460 —, Rex v. (1 Stark. 242) i. 1256 —— v. Rhodes (29 Me. 360) i. 1369 — v. §. (9 Ala, 990) i. an — v.§. (22 Ala. 54) S. (47 Ala.540) i. 19875 ii. a 8. (52 Ala. - v. §. (62 Ala. 407) i. 815, 1248, “DH — v. —v. —— v. §, (58 Ala. 486) i. 1086 ; ii. 624, 626 — v.58. (55 Ala, 1, 10) i. 912, 917, 925, 932 —v. §. (55 Ala. 59) ii. 729 —— v. §. (59 Ala. 104) i. 1170 —— v. S. (62 Ala. 29) i. 13438 —— v. §. (68 Ala. 55) ii. 290 — v. S. (68 Ala. 424) ii. 586 — v. §. (79 Ala. 21) i. 1181, 1182 — v.§, (81 Ala. 74) i. 612 —— v. S. (88 Ala. 73) i. 118 v. 8. (87 Ark. 274) ii. 1, 4 — v. §. (48 Ark. 148) i, 1264 — v.§. (55 Ark. 259) i. 980 — v. S. (19 Conn. 493) i, 886 — v. 8. (50 Conn. 1938) ii. 584 v, S. (20 Fla. 839) i. 1265 — v. S. (25 Fla. 517} ii, 621 ——v. 8. (17 Ga. 462) i, 264A —— v. §. (23 Ga. 297) i, 1149, 1150 —— v. S. (46 Ga. 298) ii. 13 — v. 8. (59 Ga. 51; 27 Am. R. 893) i. 272 —— v. 8. (60 Ga, 430) i. 1858 ; ii. 764 — v. S. (62 Ga. 663) i, 1057 ; ii, 134 — v. S. (63 Ga. 90) i. 1071, 1278 —— v. S. (63 Ga. 168) i, 898, 983 — v. 8. (64 Ga. 439) i, 1281 v. S. (64 Ga. 605) ii. 34 — v.S. (72 Ga. 114) i. 1265 —— uv. S. (73 Ga. on i. 975 ¢ — v.S. (78 Ga. 7 i. 975 c, 978 —v.8. (77 Ga, 705) ii, 962 — v. S. (78 Ga. 71) i, 998 a — v. §, (90 Ga. 133) i, 850 ——v.S. (6 Gill, 138} ii. 120 — v.58. (4 Greene, Iowa, 189) i. 940, 959 a, 1898, 1400 — v. §. (1 Humph. 396) i. 138 —— v. 8. (9 Humph. 9) i, 1212, 1851 — »v.§, (2 Ind. 251) i. 814 a, 1892 —— v. S. (4 Ind. 500) i. 314 a 8. s. (10 Ind. 106) i. 1058, 1237, 1248 (19 Ind. 197) i, 668 —— v. 8. (28 Ind. 321) — v. 8. (88 Ind. 159) nh. ii 752 ii. 178 SMI INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. SMI Smith v. S. (58 Ind. 340) ii. 740 | Smith, 8. v. (5 Harring. Del. 490) i. 370, — v5. (ss Ind. 250) i, 1843 878, 374 — v. S. (85 Ind. 553) i, 440 | —, 8.2. 2 Humph. 457) ii. 656 — v.S. (1 Kan. 365) ii. 649, 585 | ——, S. v. (72 Ind. 549) ii. 829 — v.58. (4 Lea, 428) i. 1193 | ——, S. v. (74 Ind. 557) ii, 66 — v.58. (8 Lea, 386) i, 461, 943 | ——, S. v. (7 Iowa, 244) i. 8144 — v. 8. (8 Lea, 744) i, 1810 | —, S. v. (28 Lowa, 565) ii. 62 v. S. (44 Md. 520) i. 1264 | ——, S. v. (48 Iowa, 596) ii. 751 — v. §. (45 Md. 49) i. 762, 772 | —, S. v. (78 Iowa, 82) i. 1277 v. §. (28 Missis. 728) i, 885 | —, S. v. (74 Iowa, 580) i, 861 — v. S. (55 Missis. 410) i. 918 | ——, S. v. (2 Ire. 402) i. 800, 1018; v. S. (57 Missis. 822) ii. 1032 0 ii 48 v. S. (58 Missis, 867) i. 951 | ——, S. v. (11 Ire. 83) i. 816 —— v. §. (61 Missis. 754) i, 984 | ——, 8. v. (138 Kan. 274) 1. 289 a, 975 c; v. 8. (4 Neb. 277) i. 981; ii. 634 ii. 821, 329 — v. §. (5 Neb. 181) i, 909 | —-, S. v. (88 Kan. 194) i. 718, 1265 —— v. 8. (12 Neb. 309) i, 2647 | ——, S.v. (44 Kan. 75; 21 Am. St. —- v. §. (17 Neb. 358) ii. 740| 266) i, 272 —— v. 8. (21 Neb. 562) i, 222 | ——, S. v. (60 Kan. 69) i. 975 ¢ —— v. S. (8 Ohio, 294) i. 478, 685 ; ii. 259 | —, S. v, (12 La. An. 349) i. 264 a — v.§. (2 Ohio St. 511) - ii. 68 | ——, S. v. (80 La. An. 457) i. 1254 —— v. S. (22 Ohio St. 539) ii. 871 | ——, S. v. (31 La. An. 406) i. 265, 981, — v. §. (34, Tex. 612) i. 611 1348, 1553 — v.§. (36 Tex. 317) i. 264.a | —, S. v. (83 La, An. 1414) i, 981, 1005 a —— v. S. (41 Tex. 352) ii. 960, 963 | ——, S. v. (88 La. An. 479) i. 1005a — v.S. (42 Tex. 444) i. 965 | ——, S. v. (89 La. An. 281) i. 1264 — v.§. (43 Tex. aaa} i. 981 | ——, S. v. (89 La. An. 320) i. 1264 —v. §. (438 Tex. 643 li. 520, 525 | —, S. v. (a La. An. 688 i, 946 — v.58. (1 Tex. Ap. 408) i. 783, 983, | ——, S. v. (41 La. An. 791) ii, 652 “ 1264, 1857 | ——, S. v. (7 Lea, 249) ii. 790 — v.§.(1 Tex. Ap. 516) i. 1264, 1357 | —, S. v. (82 Me. 869; 54 Am. D. — v.8. (1 Tex. Ap. 620) i. 611; ii. 926] 6578) i, 1179; ii. 514, 681 — ».8. (2 Tex. Ap. 477) ii. 754 | ——, S. v. (54 Me. 38) i. 281 — v8. (8 Tex. Ap. 549) i. 713 | —, 8. v. (65 Me. 257) i. 978; ii. 588 — v.S. (4 Tex. Ap. 626) i, 1265 | ——, S. v. (67 Me. 828) i. 943, 1388, 1390, — v.8. (7 Tex. Ap. 160) i. 264 a 1895 —— v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 315) i, 264 a | ——, S. v. (20 Minn. 376) i. 982a, 943 — v.8. (9 Tex. Ap. 475) i. 717 | ——, S. v. (29 Minn. 198) ii. 118, 115 v, 8. (10 Tex. Ap. 413) ii. 364 | ——, S. v. (16 Mo. 550) ii, ee — v. 8. (13 Tex. Ap. 507) i. 172, 1159 | ——, S. v. (31 Mo. 120) v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 139) i. 975 c | —, S. v. (87 Mo. 58) i. 1247; ii. 982, 988 ——v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 329) i. 793 | —, S. v. (42 Mo. 550) i. 1264 — vr. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 399) ii, 403 | ——, S. x. (68 Mo. 267) i. 981, 1050; — v.8. (19 Tex. Ap. 95) — i. 853, 854; ii. 672, 673 ii. 671 —, S. v. (65 Mo. 313) i. 1274, 1279 —— v. 8. (20 Tex. Ap. 134) i. 951 a | —, 8S. v. Ce Mo. 61) ii. 727 — vu. S. (27 Tex. Ap. 50) ii. 935 | ——, S. v. (66 Mo. 92) ii, 638, 688 a — v. 8. (28 Tex. Ap. 309) i. 975 c, } ——, S. v. (90 Mo. 87; 69 Am. R. 4) i. 266 1159, 1279 | —, S. uv. (119 Mo. 489) ii. 1008 — v.§. (12 Vroom, 370) i. 975 c| ——, S. v. (21 Mo. Ap. 595) i, 1094 — v. 8. (51 Wis. 615; 87 Am. R. —, S. v. (24 Mo. Ap. 413) i. 611 845) i, 265, 272; ii. 963 | ——, S. v. (1 Murph. 213) i. 773 —,S8. x (1 Bailey, 283 ; i9 Am. —, S. v. (63 N. C. 284) i. 706.4 D. 679) i. 1884 | ——, S. v. (66 N. C. 620 i, 264f, 2649 —,S. v. (2 Bay, 62) i, 1294 | —, S.v. 4 N.C. iat) i. 488 6, 1052; —_, 5S. v. (5 Blackf, 327) ii. 832 ii. 184 ——,S.v. (6 Blackf. 549) =i. 1817, 1874] ——, S. v. (75 N.C. 806) —s i. 97a, 9765 -—, S. v. (8 Blackf. 489) i, 455, 764;|-——, S. v. (77 N. C. 488) ii. 699, 601, 603, ii. 168, 169, 172, 186 606 —, S. v. (49 Conn. 376) i, 8314 | ——, S. v. (78 N. C. 462) ii. 406 —,S8. v. (5 Day, 175; 6 Am. D. —, 8. v. (80 N, C. 410) i. 852 132) i. 1014, 1810; ii. 456 | ——, S. v. (86 N. C. 705) i. 1181 —,S. v. (7 Eng. 622; 56 Am, D. —, S. v. (95 N. C. 680) i. 1264 287) i, 683 | —, S. v. (100 N. C. 550 ii. 1051 ——, 8. v, (2 Greenl, 62) i, 264, 264 a| ——, S. v. (1 N. H. 346) i. 204, 207 SNE INDEX TO THE Smith, S. v. (20 N. H. 399) i. 1285 mee 3 v. (49 N. H. 155; 6 Am. R. 480) i. 1388, 1394 — , S. v. (10 Nev. 106) i. 964, 979, 1310 —, 8. v. (11 Or. 205) i. 825, 955 —, S. v. (Peck, 165) i. 345, 801 —, 8. v. (Phillips, N. C. 802) ii. 953, 960 —, 5. v. (Philips, N. C. 340) ii. 505, 514 — , S. v. (6 R. I. 83) i, 982 a —, 8. v. (17 BR. 1. 371) 1.496, 523; ii. —, S. v. (8 Rich. 460) i. —, S. v. (10 Rich. 341) i. 980, 982 — , S. v. (12 Rich. 480) i. 981; ii. 611, 18, 618 —, S.o. (188. C. os i. 1015a —, S. v. (38 8. C. 270 i. 875 —, S. v. (2 Strob. 77; 47 Am. D. 589) i. 1098 —, S. v, (24 Tex. 285) ii. 9, 93 —, S. v. (43 Tex. 655) ii, 902 —, 8. v. (22 Vt. 74) i. 461, 816 —, S. v. (63 Vt. 201) ii, 922 —, 8. v, (24 W. Va. 814) i. 457, a 15 — , S.c. (3 Wash. 14) i, 925 —, 8. v. (65 Wis. 93) i. 1814 . Sainsbury (5 Car. & P. CASES CITED. SOM Sneed, S. v. (16 Lea, 450) ii. 866 Sneff, S. v. (22 Neb. 481) i. 1160 Snell, In re (58 Vt. 207) i, 279, 285 —, C. v. (3 Mass. 82) — v. 8. (50 Ga. 219) ii. 529, 730 —— v. §. (50 Ind. 516) ii, 669 —— v.§. (29 Tex. Ap. 286) i. 975, 1218 —, 8. v. (78 Mo. 240) i, 975 ¢; ii, 541 ii. 429, 433, 484 — 8. v. (9B. I 112) ii. 829 —) $1 vu. (46 Wis. 524) 4. 1265; ii. 740 1| Snelling, C. v. (15 Pick. 821) i. 480, 648, 645, 980 —, C. v. (15 Pick. 337) i. 1100 ——,, C. v. (Thacher Crim. Cas. 318) ii. 791 —— v. Dorrell (15 Ga. 507) i, 1269 Snider, C. v. (2 Leigh, 744) i. 1847, 1855 v. §. (59 Ala. 64) ii. 818 Snoddy v. S. (75 Ala. 23) i. 1170 Snodgrass v. S. (18 Ind. 292) i, 144 Snow »v. Benton (28 Ill. 3806) ii, 675 —, C. v. (14 Gray, 20) i. 897 —, C. v. (111 Mass. 411) i. 1170; ii. 1018 — v. §. (54 Ala. 138) ii. 148 —— v. 8, (58 Ala. 872) i. 1853 —v.S. (6 Tex. Ap. 284) i. 364 — v.58. (14 Wis. 479) ii, 413 — , 8. v. (80 La. ah 401) i. 711; ii. 487 i, 984 196) ii. 432 a | ——, S. v. (18 Me. 346) — v. Smith (1 R. I. 398; 53 Am. D. ——,,S.v. (74 Me. 354) i. "1385 652) ti. 407 | ——, S. v. (41Tex. 596) i, 646 — v. Smith (Wright, 648) i. 1196 | Snowde v. Anonymous (Cro. Car. — v. Strobach (50 Ala. 462) i.951f| 321) ii, 924 — »v. Taylor (1 New Rep. 196) ii. 804 | Snowden »v. S. (7 Bax. 482) i, 925 — v. U.S. (94 U.S. 97) i, 269 | —— v. S. (17 Fla. 386) ii. 825 —, U.S. v. (2 Bond, 323) ii. 922, 234 | —— v. S. (62 Missis. 100) ii, 740 — , U.S. v. (4 Day, 121) i, 220, 405 | —— v. S. (8 Misso. 483) i, 236, 251, —, U.S. v. (17 Fed. Rep. 610) i. 226 264m —, U.S. v. (2 Mason, 143) i. 896, 603 | Snyder, Ex parte (64 Mo. 68) i. 814a, — , U.S. v. (1 Saw. 277) i. 1279 316 — v. Villars (1 Salk. 3) i. 264c | ——, Ex parte (29 Mo. Ap. 256) i. 1410 Smitherman v. S. (40 Ala. 855) i. 1058 v. C. (85 Pa, 519) 4.1117 v. §. (63 Ala. 24) ii. 783 | —— v. Iowa City (40 Iowa, 646) i. 1818 Smithers, S. v. (14 Kan. 629) i. 1183 | —, P. v. (75 Cal. 828) it, 972 Smithies, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 382) i 969, |-——, P. v. (44 Hun, 193) i, 1264, 1272 1155 | ——, P.v. (1 Johns. 520) i, 1341 Smithson, Rex v. (4 B. & Ad. 861; — v. §. (5 Ind. 194) i. 384, 514 1 Nev. & M. 775) i. 141 | —— v.S. (59 Ind. 105) i. 975c, 12570; Smithwick v. Evans (24 Ga. 461) ii. 965 ii, 586 Smoke v. S. (87 Ala. 143) - 7 — v. §. (70 Ind. 349) i. 1179 Smouse, 8. v. (50 Lowa, 48) 440 | ——, S. 2. iD Kan. 306) i, 998 a Smurr v. S. (88 Ind. 504) i i. 688, 975, 276, Soens v. Racine (10 Wis. 271) i. 897 1276 | Sohn v. S. (18 Ind. 389) i. 1354 — v. 8. (105 Ind. 125) i, 316 | Solander v. P. (2 Colo. 48) i. 949, 1160, Smyth, C. v. (11 Cush. 473) i. 696, 700 1248 ; ii. 229 —, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 201) ii. 138 Bee Reg. v. (11 Mod. 100; 2 Salk. Smythe v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 244) i. 1068| 594 ii. 993, 995 —, S. v. (83 Tex. 546) ii, 858 | ——, Reg. v. (11 Mod.115) _ iii, 878, 999 Smythies, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C, 498; Solliday v. C, (28 Pa. 13) i 812 2 Car. & K. 878) i. 62, 881, 1005 | Solomon »v. P. (15 Ill. 291) i, 2644 Sneed v. P. (88 Mich. 248) i, 282; ii. 684 — v. 8. (47 Ark, 180) i. 909, 1195 —v.8. (6 Pike, 431; 41 Am. D. 102) i, 266, 269, 278 —v.8. (4 Tex. Ap. 514) ii, 752. —— v. S, (28 Tex. Ap. 56) i, 1086 686 ——, Rex v. (Ryan & Moody N. P. 252 i. 488 ¢; ii. 916 Solomons, S. v. (6 Yerg. 360; 27 Am. D. 469 i, 1264 Somerton, Rex v, (7 B. & C. 463) _ ii. 334, 72, 775, SOU Somervell v. Hunt (8 Har. & McH. 118) i, 227 Somerville v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 488) i. 354, 126 —,S. v. (21 Me. 14; 88 Am. D. 248) ) i, 69, 1265 —, S. ». (21 Me. 20) ii. 764, 767 Somnier, S. v, (83 La, An. 287) i’ 266, 276, 1212 Son v. P. (12 Wend. 344) i. 275, 1268, 1277 Sonnier, S. v. (88 La. An. 962) i, 502 Sontag, Ex parte (64 Cal. 525) i. 874 Soper C. v. (1383 Mass. 393) i. 488 ¢ .v. (16 Me. 293; 33 Am. D. es), i,1018; ii. 229, 754 Sn 8. v. (70 Iowa, 494) i. 975¢ —,S. v. (385 La. An. '975) i, 698, 946, 949 Soquet v. S. (72 Wis. 659) ii, 682 Soragan, 8S. v. (40 Vt. 450) i. 282; ii. 897 Sorenson v. North «rn Pac. Rid, (36 Fed. Rep. 166) i. 981 —, 8. v. (82 Minn. 118) i. 975 c 978 Soria v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 297) i. 998 a, ii. 700 Sotherton, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 155) ii. 906, 915 Soto, P. v. (49 Cal. 67) i. 488, 1232 —, P. v. (53 Cal. 415) ii. 147 Soudriette, S. v. (105 Ind. 306) i. 264 a Souey v. S. (18 Lea, 472) i, ae Soule’s Case (5 Greenl. 407) Soule, C. v. (2 Met. 21) ii. 840, 846, 9 —— v. Corning (11 Paige, 412) i. 1414 —»v.§. (71 Ga, 267) ii. 826 —, S. v. (20 Me. 19) i, 429 —, 8. v. (14 Nev. 453) i. 1262 Souter, Rex v. (2 Stark. 428) i. 762 South v. C. (79 Ky. 493) i. 888 — ». P. (98 Ill. 261) i. 1058 v. S. (86 Ala. 617) i. 1020 South Platte Land Co. v. Buffalo (7 Neb. 253) i.1004 Southampton, Rex v. (2 Chit. 215) i. 1291; ii. 1056 Souther v. C. (7 Grat. 673) i. 1265, 1817 Southern Express Co. v. Thornton (41 Missis. 216) ii, 4824 Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Wilkinson (58 Ga. 535) + ii. 677, 678 ec ae Pac. Rid., S. v. (24 et Southey, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 864)” i. 808, 307 ; 666 Southmayd, U.S. »v. (6 Bis. 321) i, 559 a Southwell’s Case (Popham, 93) i. 689 Southwell, P. v. (46 Cal.141) i. 849, ED. Southwick v. Stevens (10 Johns. 443) ii, 799, 800 Southwood, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F, 36) i, 488 ¢ —, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 356) Southworth v. S. (5 Conn. 825) . 1100; ii. 656 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. SPE Sovine v. 8. (85 Ind. 576) 1. 585 Sowder v. C. (8 Bush, 482) i. 1094 Sowerby, Reg. v. 1894 (2 Q. B. 173) ii. 86, 173 Sowers v. Duke (8 Minn. 23) ii. 676 Sowle, C. v. (9 Gray, 804; 69 Am. D. 289) ii, 846 v. S. (11 Ind. 492) ii. 490, 492 Sowls, S. v. (Phillips, N.C. 151) ii. 1007 Spaight v. S. (29 Ala. 32) i, 884 Spain v. 8. e Bax. 514) i. 991 Spainhour, S. v. (2 Dev. & Bat. ea) Spalding v. Preston (21 Vt. 9; 50 Am. D. 68 i. 170, 183, 212 — , Rex »v. (1 Leach, 218) i. 573 —,8. v. (19 Conn. 933 ; 48 Am. D. 158) i, 1249; ii. 428 —— v. Saxton (6 Watts, 338) i. 847 Spangler v. C. (3 Binn. 533) ii. 734 Sparks v. C. (9 Pa. 354) i. 699 —, C. v. (7 Allen, 534) il — , Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 388) i. 1169 —, Rex v. (3 Mod. 78) v. S. (59 Ala. 82) ——,, S. v. (78 Ind. 166) i. 587 Sparling, Rex ». (1 Stra. 497) ii. 123 Sparrenberger v. 8. (53 Ala. 481; 25 Am. R. 643) i 612, 865, 870 Sparrow, Reg. v. (Bell C. C. 298 ; 8 i. 707 : ii. 111, 112, 113 Cox C. C. 898) i, 1013, 1014 —, 8. v. (3 Murph. 487) i. 1193 —, 8. v. (N. C. Term R. 93) ii. 697 Spaulding, S. v, (24 Kan. 1) i. 289 a, 909 —, S. v. (84 Minn. 361) i. 190 —, 8. v. (60 Vt. 228) i. 943 Speaks, S. v. (94 N.C. 865) i. 975, 978, 1179 —, S. v. (95 N. C. 689) i. 118 Spear v. Richardson (37 N. H. =, i. 685 — v.§. (16 Tex. Ap. 98) i. 909, ‘975 c —, §. v. (13 RB. I. 324) ii. 786 —, S. v. (54 Vt. 508) i. 264% Spearman v. Wilson (44 Ga. 473) i. 314 Spears, Ex parte (88 Cal. 640; 22 ; Am. St. 341) i, 222 — v. 8. (2 Ohio St. 583) i. 1220, 1234, 1236; ii. 146 ——v.S. (8 Tex. Ap. 467) "i, 975e Special Sessions, P. v. (10 Hun, 158) i. 1124 —, P. ov. (10 Hun, 224) ii. 7944 —, P. v. (74 N. Y. 406) i. 950a Speck v. S. (7 Bax. 46) i. 60 Speckert v. Louisville (78 Ky. 287) i. 286 Speed, Rex v. (1 Salk. 379; 1 Ld. Raym. 583) i. 1803 — v. S. (62 Missis. 176) f de Speer, In re (54 Ga. 40) — vw. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 474) i. 1217, 1, 123) — v.S. (26 Tex. Ap. 173) i. 1274 Speers v. C, (17 rat 570) i. 439, 449, 1015a 687 INDEX TO THE SPI Speiden v. 8. (3 Tex. Ap. 156; 30 Am. R. 126 ii, 482 ¢ Speight, S. v. (69 N.C.72) i. 449, 1015¢ Speights v. 8. (1 Tex. Ap. 551) i. a Speirin, S. v. (1 Brev. 119) _ ii. 878, 383, 886, 387 Speke, Rex v. (3 Salk. 858; Comb. 144 i. 1298 Spell, S. v. (88 La. An. 20) ii. 619 Spence uv. S. (17 Ala. 192) i, 1138, 1236 v. §. (8 Blackf. 281) i, ae ii. — v. S. (15 Lea, 5389) i. 909; ii. 6874 —, S. v. (2 Harring. Del. 348) ii. 432a ——v. Thompson (11 Ala. 746) ii, a Spencer, Ex parte (83 Cal. 460) i. 1410 — v. C. (2 Leigh, 751) ii. 480 —— v. Galveston (56 Tex. 384) i, 286 —— v. Goter (1 H. BI. 78) i. 1018 —— v. Huson (1 Keb. 652) i. 502 —, P. v. (61 Cal. 128) i, 302 ——, Reg. v. (3 Fost. & F. 854) i. 181 —, Rex v. (Ryan & Moody, N. P. 97; 1 Car. & P. 260) i. 563 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 776) i. 1234; ii, 933 ¢ —, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 224) ii. 98, 103 — v. S. (20 Ala. 24) i, 1254 v. S. (50 Ala. 124) i. 1062 v. 8. (15 Ga, 562) i. 946 v. 8. (17 Ga. 155; 4 Am. St. 74) i. 975c v. 8. (5 Ind. 41) i. 8lda v. 8. (18 Ohio, 401) ii. 136, 146 — , S. v. (10 Humph. 431) i. 814 ——, S. v, (15 Ind. 249) i. 472, 1169, 1171 —, S. v. (43 Kan. 119) i. 713 —, S. v. (30 La. An. 362) i. 1212 —,S.v. (45 La. An, 1) ii, 922, 924 —, S. v. (38 Me. 80) i, 248 —, 8. »v. (81 N.C. 519) i. 1814 —, 8. v. (6 Or. 152) ii. 910 —,S. v. (1 Zab. 106) ii. 671, 687 a Spenlove, S. v. (Riley, 269) i. 1269 Spenser, Rex v. (1 Wils. 315) i. 2647 Spergen, S. v. (1 McCord, 563 i. 951f Sperry v. C. (9 Leigh, 623; 33 Am. D. 261) i Spicer v. P, (11 Bradw. 294) i. 733 — v. §. (69 Ala. 159) i, 1348 Spidle, 8. v. (42 Kan, 441) ii. 972 Spier, S. v. (86 N.C. 600) i. 1262 Spieres v. Parker (1 T, R. 141) i. 633 Spies v. Illinois (123 U. §. 181) i. 891, 909 —— v. P. (122 Tl. 1; 8 Am. St. 820) i. 906, 909, 948 a, 966.a, 975c, 984, 987, 1018, 1032, 1074, 1094, 1181, 1183, 1248; ii. 223, 227, 298 Spigener v. S. (62 Ala, 883) i, 699, 853 Spigner v. S. (58 Ala. a i. 1358 Spiller, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 888) ii. 617 —, Rex v. (2 Show, 207) i, 606 688 CASES CITED. STA Spiller, Rex v. (Style,108 ; 3 Salk. 77) i. 49; it. 1046 Spilman, C. v. (124 Mass. 327; 26 Am. R. 668) ii. 402, 404, 410 Spilsbury, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 187) i. 1212, 1229, 1259 Spintz, U.S. v. (18 Fed. Rep. 377) i. 688 Spittorff v. S. (108 Ind. 171) i. 9498; ii. 698 Spivey v. S. (26 Ala. 90) i. 1069, 1087 v. S. (58 Missis. 748) i. 1264; ii. 613 Sponsler, P. v. (1 Dak. 289) i. 314a Sponsonby, Rex v. (1 Leach, 3382; 2 East P. C. 996) ii. 429 Spoonemore v. S. (25 Tex. Ap. 358) i. 688 Spooner, P. v. (1 Denio, 348 ; 43 Am. D. 672 ii, 432 b, 432¢ Spores, S. v. (4 Or. 198) i, 272 Spradling v. S. (17 Ala. 440) i. 316 Spragg, Rex v. (2 Bur. 928, 930) i ae 1408 ——,, Rex v. (2 Bur. 993) ii, 206, 241 Spragge, Rex v. (1 W. Bl. 209) i, 277 Spraggins, C. v. (18 B. Monr. 512) i. 1319 v. Humphries (Cooke, 160) i. 1408 Sprague, P. v. (53 Cal. 422) i, 1265 —, P. v. (53 Cal. 491) i. 960 —, P. v. (54 Cal. 92) i. 275 Spratford, S. v. (14 Vroom, 376) — i. 722 Spratt, C. v. (14 Philad. 365) ii. 123 v. 8. (8 Misso. 247) ° i. 699, 872 Spring, C. v. (1 Am. Law Reg. 424) i. 931, 9493 Springer v. S. (84 Ga. 379) i. 902 —— v. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 591) ii. 276 — ,, 8. v. (48 Ark. 91) i. 711 Springfield, C. v. (7 Mass. 9) i. 878, 602; ii, 1043 —— v. Hampden (4 Pick. 68) i. 1403 Springhead Spinning Co. v. Riley (Law Rep. 6 Eq. 651) i. 1415, 1416 Sprinkle, S. v. (65 N.C. 468) i. 665, 7064 Sprinkles, C. v. (4 Leigh, 650) i. 1035 Sprouce v, C. (2 Va. Cas, 375) i, 909 Sprouse v. C. (81 Va. 374) ii. 486 Spry, Reg. v. (3 Cox C. C. 221) 1. 959d Spurbeck, 8. v. (44 Iowa, 667) i. 68,72 Spurgin, S. v..(1 McCord, 252) ii. 769 Spurtin, S. v. (80 N. C. 862) i, 1264 Squier v. Gale (1 Halst. 157) i. 1408 Squire, C. v. (1 Met, 258) ii, 45 —, 8. v. (10 N. H. 558) i, 700, 710 Squires, C. v. (97 Mass. 69) —i. 419, 438 —,, P. v. (99 Cal. 827) ii, 127 —, S. v. (48 N. H. 864) i, 1219 Staaden v. P. (82 Ill. 482; 25 Am. R. 338 ii, 45a Staats, U.S. v. (8 How. U.S.41) i. 685 Stacey, P. v. (34 Cal. 807) i, 1264 ——, Rex v. (3 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 464) i. 1288 — v. 8. (3 Tex. Ap. 121) i, 1847 Stack v. P. (80 Ill, 82) i, 1827 Stackhouse v. Horton (2 McCarter, 202) ii, 678 STA INDEX TO THE Stackhouse, S. v. (24 Kan. 445) — i. 996; ii. 631 Stacy, S. v. (103 Mo. 11) i, 429, 491; ii. 548 Staeger v. C. (108 Pa. 469) — i. 446, 687; ii. 3: Staff, In re (63 Wis. 285; 53 Am. R. 285) i, 893 Stafford’s Case’(T. Raym. 381, 407) i. 266, 782; ii. 1037 Stafford, C. v. (12 Cush. 619) i, 392 —, Rex v. (7 How. St. Tr. 1293) i. 732 — v, S. (65 Ga. 591) ii. 628, 631 —, S. v. (118 N. C. 685) ii, 24, 66 Staffordshire Justices, Rex v. (1 Chit. 217) i, 726 Stage Horse Cases (15 Abb. Pr. nw. s. 51 i. 170, 183 Staggs v. S. (8 Humph. 872) i. 279, 1264 Stagner v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 440) i. 909,1086 Stahl, C. v. (7 Allen, 304) ii. 488 Stain, S. v. (82 Me. 472) i, 1278, 1279 Stair, S. v. (87 Mo. 268; 56 Am. R. 449) ii. 633 Stakem, P. v. (40 Cal. 599) i. 60a Staker, S. v. (38 Ind. 570) i. 761; ii. 490 Stalcup v. S. (129 Ind. 619) i. 1279 —, 8. v. (2 Ire. 50) i. 163 Staley, S. v. (14 Minn. 105) i. 1228, 1233 Stalker v. S. (9 Conn. 341) i. 1128; ii. 261 Stallings v. 8. (83 Ala. 425) i, 1081, 1264 — v. 8. (47 Ga, 572) i. 1012, 1222, 1232, 124 — v. 8. (29 Tex. Ap. 220) i. 682, 1287 Stallion, Rex v. (1 Moody, 398) ii. 4/ Stalls v. S. (28 Ala. 25) i, 918 —,S. v. (87 Tex. 440) — i. 618; ii. 845 Stalmaker, S. v. (2 Brev. 1) i. 958 ; ii. 431 Stalnaker, S. v. (2 Brev. 44) i. 847, 1411 Staman v. 8. (14 Neb. 68) i. 1067 Stamper v. S. (11 Ga. 643) i. 1819 Stanbury, Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 128; 9 Cox C. C. 94) i. 60a Stancel v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 460) i. a Stancliffe, Reg. v. (11 Cox C. C. 318) ij. 198, 762 Standard Hill, Rex v. (4 M. & 8.378) i, 1378 Standen, Reg. v. (4 Jur. 702) i. 966 ¢ Standley, S. v. (76 Iowa, 215) i. 850 Stanet v. Pricket (1 Camp. 478) i, 461 Stanfield v. Boyer (6 Har. & J. 248) ii. 809 Stanford v. Murphy (68 Ga. 410) i. 1151 —, P. v. (64 Cal. 27) i. 1279 —, S. v. (20 Ark. 145) i. 691, 1800 Stanhope, S. v. (Brayt. 20) i, 798 Stanley, Ex parte (25 Tex. Ap. 372; i 8 Am. St. 440) , 222 — v. C. (86 Ky. 440; 9 Am. St. 305) i. 9750 —, P. ». (47 Cal. 113; 17 Am. R. 401) i, 1248, 1249, 1250 VOL. 11, —44 CASES CITED. STA Stanley v. §. (26 Ala. 26) i. 1179; ii. 677 v. 8. (88 Ala. 154) i. 869.4 — v. S. (23 Ohio St. 681) i. 1862 — v. 8. (16 Tex. 557) i, 851, 884 — v. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 392) i. 1280 4|——, S. v. (88 Iowa, 626) i, 615, 959a; ii. 506 —,S. v. (48 Iowa, 221) i. 1170 —,S. v. (42 La. An. 978) i. 486, 1011 Stanly v. Richmond, &c. Rd. (89 N. C. 831) i. 682 ——, S. v. (4 Jones, N. C. 290) ii. 25 Stannard, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 673) i. 968 ——, Rex »v. (4 T. R. 161) i. 1880 Stanton, P. v. (89 Cal. 698) ii. 266 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 431) ii, 762 — v.§. (18 Ark. 317) i. 980, 999, 1003, 1275, 1278 ——.,S. v. (1 Ire. 424) i, 611, 1138; ii. 429 Stape v. P. (21 Hun, 899) i, 1169 v. P. (865 N. Y. 390) j. 1117 Staples v. S. (89 Tenn. 231) i. 1181, 1186 v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 136) i. 172 — , S. v. (87 Me. 228) i. 248 —, S. v. (45 Me. 320) i. 479 —'S.v. (47 N. H. 118) i. 1251; ii. 754 Stapleton’s Case (‘T. Raym. 867) i. 981 ene Reg. v. (2 Crawf. & Dix ». C. 87 ii ii. 747 Stapp v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 734) ii. 627 — v.8. (38 Tex. Ap. 188) ii. 94 4| —, S. v. (29 Iowa, 551) i. 636, 639 Stapylton, Reg. v. (8 Cox C. C. 69) i. 644; ii, 209 Stark, P. v. (186 N. Y. 538) ii. 783 —, S. v. (72 Mo. 37) i. 288, 998 a Starkey v. P. (17 Ill. 17) i, 1212 Starks, S. v. (42 La. An. 315) i. 314a, 1264 Starling, S. v. (6 Jones, N. C. 366) ii. 671, 672 —, 8S. v. (15 Rich. 120) i. 890 Starnes, S. v. (94 N.C. 973) i. 1066; ii. 967 b| —, S. v. (97 N. C. 428) i. 1279 Starr v. C. (7 Dana, 248) i. 264, cate 2 —, C. v. (4 Allen, 301) ii. 427 a, 428 — Reg. v. (40 U. C. Q. B. 268) ii. 742, 764 v. §, (25 Ala. 49) i. 951, 951 a, 1086 — , S. v. (38 Mo. 270) i. 978 Startup, S. v. (10 Vroom, 423) i. 81, 86, 97, 98a; ii. 825 State Treasurer v. Rice (11 Vt. 339) | i, 226 Staten v. S, (80 Missis. 619) i, 1277 —, S. v. (6 Coldw. 283) i. 100a Statham, Rex v. (cited 1 Leach, 857) ii, 721 — v. 8. (42 Ark. 273) i. 951 — v.§. (41 Ga. 507) i. 278, 1888, 13889 Staton, S. v. (66 N.C. 640) i. 872; ii 845, 846 689 STE INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. STE Staton, S. v. (88 N. C. 654) i. 587 ; Stegman, S. v. (90 Mo. 486) i. 779 Statum v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 273) i. 486 | Steifel, S. v. (106 Mo. 129) 1. 8694; Staup v. C. (74 Pa. 458) i. 909 ii. 764 Stazey v. S. (58 Ind. 514) i. 360 | Stein, P. o. (1 Par. Cr. 202) i. 1832; Stead, Rex v. (8 T. R. 142) 1.893; ii. 866,871 ii. 981 Steadman v. S. (81 Ga. 736) i. 1074; | —— v. S. (87 Ala. 123) i. 524, 1111; ii, 147 ii, 865, 878 Steagald v. S. (22 Tex. Ap. 464) i. 909] ——, S. v. (1 Rich. 189) i, 950 d Stearns, C. v. (10 Met. 256) i. 1126;| Steinham v. U.S. (2 Paine, 168) i, 1169 ii, 251, 259, 266, 268 | Steinkraus v. Hurlbert (20 Neb. 519) — v. Janes (12 Allen, 582) i. 978 1, 1408 —, P. v. (21 Wend. 409 ; 23 Wend. Steinman v. Toliver (13 Mo. 590) i. 1269 634) i. 1364 ; ii. 455, 456 v. McWilliams (6 Pa. 170) ii. 935 Stears, Territory v. (2 Mont. 324) ii. 584] Steinston v. S. (6 Yerg. 531) ii, 924 Stebbins, C. v. (8 Gray, 492) ii. 732, 748, | Stell v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 59) i. 897 761, 764, 769 | Stener v. S. (59 Wis 472) ii. 808 — v. 8. (31 Tex. Cr. 294) i. 648 — , 8. v. (29 Conn. 463; 79 Am. D. 223) i. 714, 1015, 1169, 1332 Steck v. S. (28 Ark. 113) i. 815 Steckman v. Bedford (84 Pa. 811). i. 224 a Stedman’s Case (Cro. Eliz. 137) i, 529 Stedman, C. v. (12 Met. 444) i. 1394 — , Reg. v. (2 Ld. Raym, 1307) — i. 714 —,S8. v. (7 Port. 495) i. 478, 597, 611, 688, 849, 886, 931 Steedman v. S. (11 Ohio, 82) i, 870 Steel v. C. (7 Watts, 454) i, 251 —, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 837; 2 Moody, 246) ii, 225, 233 —, Reg. v. (1 Q. B. D. 482) i. 691 ——,, Rex »v. (1 Leach, 451) i, 733.0 —— v. Roach (1 Bay, 63) i, 1272 v. Smith (1 B. & Ald. 94) i, 632, 687, 639 v. Williams (13 Ind. 74) i, 234 Steele v. Brannan (Law Rep. 7 C. P. 261) ii. 7944 — v. C. (8 Dana, 84) i, 268, 944 v. Missouri Pac. Ry. (84 Mo. 57) i. 3144 —— v. P. (45 Il. 152) i. 951 a, 1128 ; ij, 428 —, P. v. (2 Barb, 397) i. 1403 ——, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 168; 2 Eng. Rep. 221) i. 1218 v. 8. (61 Ala, 218) i. 1086 uv. S. (83 Ala. 20) i. 946, 1223 —v.S8. ? Ind. 561) i. 229 v. S. (1 Tex. 142) i. 700, 959 a — , 8. v. (3 Heisk. 135) ii, 123 — , S. v. (83 La. An. 910) i. 279 —,S. v. (1 Yerg. 894) ii. 909 —— v. Thacher (Ware, 91) i. 51 Steeley, S. v. (65 Mo. 218; 27 Am. R. 271) ii. 580 Steelman v. Mattix (9 Vroom, 247; 20 Am. R. 889) i. 264/ Steen, S. v. (14 Tex. 396) i. 1804 Steerman v. S. (10 Misso. 503) i. 50, 63, 881, 382 Steffy v. P. (180 IH, 98) i, 1278 ii. 96 Stegar v. 8. (39 Ga. 583; 99 Am. D, 472) ii, 1002, 1006 690 Stennel v. Hogg (1 Saund. Wms. ed. 226 i. 70 Stenson, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 11) ii, 187 Stephanes v. S. (21 Tex. 206) ii. 105, 275 Stephen v. C. (2 Leigh, 759) i. 885; ii, 877 4 — , C. v. (4 Leigh, 679) i. 1856 v. 8. (11 Ga. 225) i. 447, 449, 1011, 1058, 12238, 1238, 1872; ii. 963 —,S. vw. (45 La. An. 702) ii. 419 Stephens v. Bradford (7 Watts & S. 438) i, 1315 — ». P. (13 Ill. 131) i, 1264 — v. P. (38 Mich. 739) i. 984 —v. P. (19 N. Y¥.549) i. 966, 995, 998, 1069, 1202, 1353 v. P. (4 Par. Cr. 896) i. 959, 966 bd, 981, 1079, 1116, 1179, 1358, 1380; ii, 630, 631, 685 — , P. v. (79 Cal. 428) i. 816 —, Reg. v. (11 Cox C. C. 669) i. 962 v. 8. (47 Ala. 696) 1.979 — v. &. (51 Ga. 236) i. 1005 a, 1012 — v. 8. (56 Ga. 604) i. 1005 v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 120) i. 975c, 981 — v. S. (20 Tex. Ap. 255) i. 975 a, 1086, 1275 ——v. 8. (31 Tex. Cr. 365) i. 951 v. 8. (Wright, 73) ii. 404 —, S. v. (71 Mo. 535) i. 795, 798 — , S. v. (96 Mo. 637) i, 975 ¢, 980 —, S. v. (18 8. C. 285) i. 1268 ——, S. v. (2 Swan. Tenn. 808) i. 2640 ——, S. v. (82 Tex. 155) ii, 730 Stephenson v. Brunson (83 Ala. 459) i. 1004 — , C. v. (8 Met. Ky. 226) i. 668 ; ii, 127 —— v. 8. (40 Ga. 291) i, 981, 986 —— v. §. (28 Ind. 272) 1. 965; ii, 818 —— v. 8. (110 Ind. 358; 59 Am. R. 216) i. 918, 975c, 976, 1086 ; ii. 630 —— v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 459) i, 264m —, S. v. (88 Ind. 246) ii, 1127 —,S. v, (20 Tex. 151) i. 1266 Stepney. Union, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 9 B. 883; 12 Cox C. C. 631) _ ii. 6874 Steptoe, Rex v. (4 Car.& P. 897) i, 1241 STE Steptoe, S.v. (1 Mo. Ap. 19) i. 1002, ere 101 Stereoscopic Slides, U. S. v. (1 Sprague, 467) i Sterling v. Drake (29 Ohio St. 487; . 1006 23 Am. R. 762) i, 1299 —, Rex v. (1 Lev. 125) i. 502, 1301 — v.§. (15 Tex. Ap. 249) i. 926, 931 a —,S. v. (84 Iowa, 448) i. 487; ii. 218, 226 Stern, S. v. (4 Mo. Ap. 385) i. 187 Sternack v. Brooks (7 Daly, 142) i. 183 Sternberg v. S. (42 Ark. 127) i. 250 —, S. x. (59 Mo. 410) i. 947 Sterne v. S. (20 Ala. 43) ii. 91 Sternes, Ex parte (77 Cal. 156; 11 Am. St. 251) i. 1346, 1411 Sterns, S. v. (28 Kan. 154) i. 97 Sterrett, S. v. (68 Iowa, 76) i, 1117 —, S. v. (71 lowa, 286) Stetson, P. v. (4-Barb. 151) —— v. Packer (7 Cush. 562) —,U.8. v. (3 Woodb. & M. 164) i. 424, 447, 549 i. 1117, 1181, 118% ii 177 i. 216 Steuart v. Baltimore (7 Md. 500) __ i. 898 —, S. v. (5 Strob. 29) i. 1878, 1281 Stevens v. C. (4 Leigh, 683) ii. 86 — v. C. (4 Met. 360) i, 1015, 1827, 1339 — v.C. (6 Met. 241) i. 436 — ,, C. v. (10 Cush. 483) i. 1265 —, Cv. (1 Mass. 203) i. 488, 559; ii. 407, 409 — v. Diamond (6 N. H. 330) i. 602 — v. Fuller (186 U.S. 468) i, 224 —— v. Hay (61 Ill. 399) i, 264 A — v. Joyal (48 Vt. 291) i, 123 ——v.P. (1 Hill, N. Y. 261) i 314 —— v. P. (67 Ill. 587) ii. 490 —, P. v. (47 Mich. 411) i, 1034 — , Rex v. (5 B. & C. 246) ii. 922 —, Rex v. (5 East, 244; 1 Smith, 7) i. 325, 385, 406, 491, 509, 510, 512 —, Rex v. (8 Smith, 366) i. 1309 — », 8. (18 Fla, 903) i. 612 —-v. §. (76 Ga. 96) i. 1153 — v. 8. (77 Ga. 310) ii. 740 — v. S. (31 Ind. 485; 99 Am. D 634) ii, 673 — v. S, (44 Ind. 469) ii. 726 — v. §. (66 Md. 202) ii. 975 — v. 8.’(3 Ohio St. 453) i. 8144 — v.§. (1 Tex. Ap. 591) ii. 65, 618 —, S. v. (30 Iowa, 391) ii, 216, 222 —, 8. v. (47 Iowa, 276) i, 1291 —, S. v. (67 Iowa, 557) i, 1181 —S. v. (40 Me. 659) ii. 864 — , S. v. (47 Me. 357) i. 241 —, S.v. (62 Me. 284) ii, 732 —S. v. (836 N.H. 69) 1. 289.4, ‘a —— v. Talcott (11 Vt. 25) i. 9) —, U.S. v. (4 Cranch C. C.341) ii. i INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. 3 | Stevenson, C. v. (127 Mass, 446) STE Stevens, U. S. v. (16 Fed. Rep. 101) i. 250 i. 764, 772; ii. 168 —— v. §.(5 Bax. 681) i. 403, 406; ii. 142 —— v. §. (69 Ga. 68) i. 1086 — v. §. (83 Ga. 575) i. 1276 —, S. v. (93 Mo. 91) i. 948 —, U.S. v. (1 Abb. U.S. 495) i.7 Steventon, P. v. (9 Cal. 273) ii. 514, 520, 528 , Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 55) ii. 1045 Stevick v. C. (78 Pa. 460) i. 446 Stevisiger, S. v. (61 Iowa, 623) i. 1898 Steward, Rex v. (2 B. & Ad. 12) i. 719 Stewart v. Bennett (1 Fla. 437) i. 1348 —— v. Burlington, &c. Rid. (11 Iowa, 62) i. 1270 — v. C. (117 Pa. 378) i. 318 — v.C. (4 8. & R. 194) ii. 732, 734 —— v. C. (10 Watts, 306) ii. 861 2/——, C.v. (1S. & R. 842) ii. 1138, 115, 116, 275 — v. Jessup (51 Ind.418; 19 Am. R. 739 ii, 197 —v. Tne (3 Harrison, 87) i. 1151 — v. P. (23 Mich. 68; 9 Am. R. 78 i. 909, 1002 —, P. v. (7 Cal. 140) i. 918, 949 —,, P. v. (28 Cal. 395) i. 1113 —,P. v. (64 Cal. 60) i. 948 ——, P. v. (85 Cal. 174) i, 1120 ——,, P. v. (4 Mich. 655) ii. 462, 463, 464 ——, P. v. (5 Mich, 248) ii. 428 —— v. Redditt (3 Md. 67) ii. 674 — v. S. (26 Ala. 44) i. 1248 — v. §. (63 Ala. 199) ii. 158 v. §. (78 Ala, 436) i. 1181, 1184 — v. §. (18 Ark. 720) i. 934, 945, 949, 951, 951 f, 1265, 1368 —v.8. (4 Blackf. 171) ii. 883 — v.§. (7 Coldw. 338) i, 272 — v. §. (58 Ga. 577) i. 1018 — v. §. (24 Ind. 142) i. 866, 869 a, 872, 1265 — v. 8. (44 Ind. 237) i. 1046, 1093 —— v.§. (111 Ind. 554) i. 440 —— v. §. (118 Ind. 505) ii, 415 —— v. 8. (2 Lea, 598) i. 1212 — v. §. (1 Md. 129) i. 68 —— v. S. (62 Md. 412) ii. 738 —— v.§. (50 Missis. 587) i. 68, 940, 976 —— v. 8. (1 Ohio St. 66) i. 926, 980, 1110 — v. §. (15 Ohio St. 155) i. 911 — »v. §, (22 Ohio St. 477) ii. 1020 — v.S. (4 Tex. Ap. 519) ii. 63, 77, 655 —— v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 184) ii. 910, 910 a, 914, 924 — v.§. (15 Tex. Ap. 598) i. 975 € — v.&, (18 Tex. Ap. 626) i. 983 —,, 8. v. (1 Car. Law Repos. 524) i. 1818 —, 8. v. (66 Ind. 555) ii. 1051 —,S8. v. (61 Iowa, 312) i. 1020 691 STO Stewart, S. v. (52 Iowa, 284)’ i. 1052 —, S. v. (9 Ire. 342) i. 1144 —)$. o. (24 Kan. 250) ii. 740 —, S. v. (84 La. An. 1037) i, 931, 931 a, 1197 — , S. v. (29 Mo. 419) ii. 80 —, S. v. (90 Mo. 507) ii. 1026, 1029 a — S$. v. (89 N. C. 563) i: 863 ——, S. v. (91 N. C. 566) i. 1006 —, 8. v. (11 Or. 62) i. 814 —, S. v. (26 S. C. 125) i. 407, 730 a, 975 c, 980 a —,S. v. (69 Vt. 273; 59 Am. R. 710 1 —_—_ &. v. (7 W. Va. 731; 23 Am. R. 623) i, 123, 239 a —, S. v. (60 Wis. 587; 50 Am. R. 388) i. 68, 224 5 —— v. Thompson (51 Pa. 158) i. 691 —, U.S. v. (2 Dall. 348) i. 256, 258 Stichtd v. S, (25 Tex. Ap. 420) i. 400; ii. 792 Stickley, S. v. (41 Iowa, 282) ii. 670, 677 Stickney v. Davis (17 Pick. 169) i. 1341, 1344 Stiefle, S. v. (18 Iowa, 603) i. 1298, 1358 Stien, U.S. v. (13 Blatch. 127) i. 264A Stiff, Ex parte (18 Ala. 464) i. 258 Stiles v. Danville (42 Vt. 282) — uv. S. (57 Ga, 183) i. 1083, 1085, i. 1111 1110; ii. 637 — , S. v. (40 Iowa, 148) i. 446 ii. 826 Stillman, P. v. (7 Cal. 117) i. 68, 72, 1264 ——, 8. v. (7 Coldw. 341) ii. 908, 909 Stimpson, Rex v. (2 Car. & P. 415) i. 966 —— v. Rogers (4 Blatch. 333) i. 284 a —, 8. v. (45 Me. 608) i. 449 Stimson, S. v. (4 Zab. 9) ii, 829 —, S. v. (4 Zab. 478) i. 629 Stingley, S. v. (10 Iowa, 488) i, 540 Stinnett v. S. (82 Tex. Cr. 526) ii, 142 Stinson v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 31) i, 854 —, S. v. (17 Me. 154) i. 814 a Stitt v.S. (91 Ala. 10; 24 Am. St. 853) i. 966 b, 1085, 1110; ii. 599 Stitz v. S. (104 Ind. 359) 1.975; ii. 50 Stock, P. v. (1 Idaho n. s. 218) ii. 613 —, Rex v. (2 Taunt. 339; 2 Leach, 1016; Russ. & Ry. 185) ii. 188, 138 a Stockbridge, C. v. (11 Mass. 279) i. 603 Stockdale’s Case (2 Lewin, 220) ii, 514 Stocken v. Carter (4 Car. & P. 477) i. 183 Stocker, Rex v. (5 Mod. 187; 1 Salk. 342 i. 685; ii. 488 Stockham, P. e. (1 Par. Cr. 424) i. 602, 611, 1018, 1265 Stocking v. §. (7 Ind. 826) i. 1057, 1169 Stockley v. C. (10 Leigh, 678) i. 931; ii. 902 —, Reg. v. (2 Gale & D, 728; 8 Q. B. 288) i, 445, 763 692 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. STO Stockman v. 8. (24 Tex. Ap. 887; 5 Am. St. 894) i. 975c, 981, 1086, 1241 ; ii, 152 Stockton, S. v. (61 Mo. 382) i. 978 Stockwell v. Silloway (113 Mass. 384) i. 1128 v. 8. (27 Ohio St. 563) i. 460, 461 — »v. White Lake (22 Mich. 341) i. 314 Stoddard, C. v. (9 Allen, 280) i, 650 — v. Sloan (65 Iowa, 680) i. 384 Stoddart, Rex v. (11 Cox C. C. 422, note) i. 962, 1082 Stoeckli, S. v. (71 Mo. 559) i. 980 Stoehr, C. v. (109 Mass. 365) i, 1247 Stofer v. 8. (8 W. Va. 689) ii. 921 Stokely, S. v. (16 Minn. 282) i. 49; ii. 584 Stokes v. P. (63 IIL. 489) i. 2640 ——v.P. (53 N. ¥. 164; 18 Am. R. 492) i. 909, 1275; ii. 608, 627 — , Reg. v. (8 Car. & K. 185) ii. 670 ——., Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 807; 2 Cox C. C. 498; 2 Car. & K. 536) i. 354; ii. 515 ——,, Reg. v. (17 Jur. 192) i, 1228 ——, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 151) i, 946 —, Rex v. (3 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 601 n) i. 1164 — v.S. (4 Bax. 47 i. 1265 72) i. 1097 — v. 8. (24 Missis. 621) i. 884 — v. 8. (58 Missis. 677) ii. 740 ——,S. v. (54 Vt. 179) i. 636 Stollenwerk x. S. (55 Ala. 142) ii. 700 Stoltz v, P. (4 Scam. 168) ii, 494 Stone, C. v. (3 Gray, 453) i. 660, 662 ——, C. v. (103 Mass. 421) i. 688, 6894; ii. 65 —, C. v. (105 Mass. 469) i. 702 —, C. v. (152 Mass. 498) i. 485; ii. 1020 ——, C. uv. (4 Met. 43) i. 1128; ii. 91, 183, 428 —— v. Dana (5 Met. 98) i. 187, 208, 209, 241; ii. 368 —— v. Oconomowoc (71 Wis. 155) i. 779 — vv. P. (13 Hun, 268) ii, 229 v. P. (2 Scam. 326) i. 707 a, 959, 1285; ii . 526 —, P. v. (382 Hun, 41) ii. 927 —, P. v. (117 N. Y. 480) i. 975 c, 980, 1066, 1274, 1277, 1278 —, P. v. (5 Wend. 39) i, 1268 —,, P. ». (9 Wend. 182) i 627, 761 ——, Rex v. (6 T. R. 527; 1 East P. C. 79; 25 How. St. Tr. 1155) i. 981, 956, 966 d; ii. 1038 —, Rex », (Trem. P. C. 148) ii. 906, 915 v, Riddell (5 Bush, 349) i, 286 —— v. Robinson (4 Eng. 469) i. 73 — v. 8. (4 Humph. 27) i. 998, 994, 1124, 1269 ; ii. 629 — v. S, (30 Ind. 115) i, 651, 552, 573, 676, 6865 —— v. S. (Spencer, 404) i. 449, 452, 9506, 1015 ; ii. 450, 456 STO INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. STR Stone v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 193) ii. 718 | Stracker v. Graham (4 M. & W. v, S. (12 Tex. Ap. 219) i. 1097| 721) i. 1270 — vw. 8. (27 Tex. Ap. 526) i. 884| Strader v. Mullane (17 Ohio St. ——, S. v. (72 Ala. 185) i. 286| 624) i. 1095 —, S. v. (3 Har. & McH. 115) i. 1877 | —— v. S. (92 Ind. 876) i. 147; ii. 949 ——,, S. v. (40 Iowa, 547) ii. 824 | Strady v. S. (5 Coldw. 300) i. 980, 1034, —, S. v. (15 Mo. 518) i. 641; ii. 816 1289 —, 8. v. (1 Vroom, 299) ii. 783 | Straesser, C. v. (153 Pa. 451) ii. 611 —, S. v. (87 Wis. 204) i, 1265 | Strafford v. Jackson (14 N. H. 16) i. 1804, — v. Segur (11 Allen, 568) i. 1087 1306 —— v. Stevens (12 Conn. 219; 30 Strahan, Reg. v. (7 Cox C.C. 85) __i. 749 Am. D. 611) i. 691 | Strain, C. v. (10 Met. 521) ii. 175, 176, 180 ——, Territory v. (2 Dak. 155) ii. 113 | Strait x. 8. (48 Tex. 486) i. 1242 —— v. Watson (27 Ala. 279) i. 1178 | Strang v. P. (24 Mich. 1) ii, 966 Stoneberger, In re (81 Kan. 638) i. 1317 | Strange v. Donohue (4 Ind. 827) _ i. 1085 Stonecifer, P. v. (6 Cal. 405) i. 909, 922, | ——, P. v. (61 Cal. 496) i. 975 c, 980 932, 989, 1050, 1248, 1249, 1265 ; ii. 699 | ——, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 172) i. 453 ; Stoneham v. C. (86 Va. 523) i. 728 ii. 656 Stonehouse v. Elliott (6 T. R. 315) i. 168 | ——, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 58) i. 488 ; Stoneman v. C. (25 Grat. 887) i. 980 a ii. 706 Stoner v. S. (80 Ind. 89) i. 718 v. §. (110 Ind. 354) i. 700 v. 8. (4 Misso. 368) i. 909, 932 | Stranger v. Searle (1 Esp. 14) _ ii. 482 a Stonum, S. v. (62 Mo. 596) i. 976 | Strathmann, S. v. (4 Mo. Ap. 583) i. 49 Stoops v. C. (7 8. & R. 491; 10 Am. Strattman, S. v. (100 Mo. 540) i. 95la D. 482) ii. 9| Stratton v. C. (84 Ky. 190) i. 1264 —, C. v. (Addison, 381) i. 1211 v. C. (10 Met. 217) i. 388, ay 723 Storey v. S. (71 Ala. 329) ii, 595 | —— v. P. (5 Colo. 276) 931 Storkey, S. v. (63 N. C. 7) ii. st 954 | —— v. P. (81 N. Y. 629) ii. "1020 Storr, Rex v. (3 Bur. 1698) i. 871 | ——, Rex v. (1 Doug. 239) i. 760, 1888 Storrs v. S. (3 Misso. 9) i. 449, 457, 458 | —— v. S. (18 Ark. 688) i. 484; ii. 286, Story v. 8. (99 Ind. 413) i, 965 287 Stott, Rex v. (2 East P C. 780) ii. 984} Strauder, S. v. (8 W. Va. 686) i. 239a; Stotts, S. v. (5 Blackf. 460) ii. 362 ii. 671, 678 —, 8%, (26 Mo. 307) i. 1166 | —, S. v. (11 W. Va. 745; 27 Am. Stoughton, Rex v. (2 Saund. Wms. R. 606) i. 815, 1856 ed. 157) ii. 1043 | —— v. West Virginia (100 U.S. 808) —, Rex v. (2 Stra. 900) i, 585 i, 850 v. §. (2 Ohio St. 503) i 1015 ; ii. 460 — v. 8. (138 Sm. & M. 255) i. 52; ii. 638 —, S. v. (51 Vt. 362) i. 1028 Stout, C. v. (7 B. Monr. 247) i. 522, 524 — v. P. (4 Par. Cr. 71) i. 906, 909, 1061, 1107, 1121; ii. 629 — v. P. (4 Par. Cr. 182) i, 1862 — v. S. (90 Ind. 1) i. 909, 975c¢ — v. §. (96 Ind. 407) i. 761, 984, 986 —, 8. v. (6 Halst. 124) i. 264 a, 2647 — ,, S. v. (112 Ind. 245) i. 486 —, S. v. (28 Tex. 327) i. 1264 Stovall v. Farmers’ and Merchants’, Bank (8. Sm. & M. 805; 47 Am. D. 85) i, 1087 Stover v. P. (56 N. Y. 315) i. 1115, 1186; ii. 741, 744, 745 Stow, C. v. (1 Mass. 54) ii. 482 Stowe, S. v. (8 Wash. 206) i. 1065, 1274, 1279 Stowell, C. v. (9 Met. 572) i. 372, 946; ii. 494 —, U.S. v. (2 Curt. C.C. 153) i. 627, 761, 1889; ii. 888, 884, 888 Stowers v. C. (12 Bush, 342) ii. 426 Stoyel v. Lawrence (3 Day, 1) i. 187 Stoyell, S. v. (70 Me. 360) i. 1265 Straughan v. S. (16 Ark. 87) i. 849, 1004 Strauss v. 8. (58 Missis. 53) i. 951 Straw, S. v. (42 N. H. 398) ii. 205 —, 8. v. (50.N. H. 460) i. 1152 Strawhern v. 8. (37 Missis. 422) i. 449, 761, 778, 1169, 1171 Strawn v. S. (14 Ark. 549) i. 403 Streek, Rex v. (2 Car. & P. 413) i. 274 Street v. Bushnell (24 Mo. 328) ii. 809 — v. Francis (8 Ohio, 277) i. 1264 — v.5S. (48 Missis.1) i. 251, 256, 257, 261, 262, — v. §. (7 Tex. Ap. 5) i. 1126 —,S8.v. (1 Marpi. 156; 3 Am. D. 682 ) ii. 910 — 8. v. (Taylor, 158; 1 Am. D. 689) i. 488 Streeter, S. v. (20 Nev. 403) i.975c, ie 9 Stretford, Reg. v. (2 Ld. Raym. eae i, 1047 Strickland v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 34) i. 379 — v.§, (138 Tex. Ap. 364) i. 951 — v.§. (19 Tex. Ap. 518) ii. 527 ——, 5S. v. (2 Nott & McC. 181) ii. aN, —, S. v, (10 S. C. 191) i. 428, 648 Stricklin v. C. (83 Ky. 566) ii. 629 693 STU Stringer v. Jacobs (4 Eng. 497; 50 Am. D. 221) i. 73 —— v. §. (138 Tex. Ap. 520) ii, 182 Stringfellow v.S. (26 Missis. 157; 59 Am. D. 247) i, 1058 Stripling v. S. (77 Ga. 108) i. 981, 949 Stripp, Reg. v. (Dears. 648; 7 Cox . C. C. 97; 86 Eng. L. & Eq. 587) i. 1259 Stroner, Reg. v. (1 Car. & K. 650) ii. 963 Strong, P. v. (46 Cal. 302) —_ i. 282, 1250, 1264, 1269; ii. 697 ——, Petitioner (20 Pick. 484) i. 1403 — v. §. (1 Blackf. 193) i. 606 — v. S. (57 Ind. 428) i. 1301 v. S. (86 Ind. 208; 44 Am. R. 292) i. 1127 v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 19) i. 1400; ii. 329 — , 8. v. (6 Iowa, 72) i. 1269 ——, S. v. (25 Me. 297) ii. 1045, 1054 Stroope, S. v. (20 Ark. 202) li, 824 Stropes v. 8. (120 Ind. 562) i. 611, 628 Strother, C. v. (1 Va. Cas. 186) i. 851 Stroud, Reg. v. (2 Moody, 270; 1 Car. & K. 187) i. 548, 549, 551; ii. 508 —, Rex »v. (6 Car. & P. 535) ii. 700 ——v.S. (55 Ala. 77) i. 1265, 1380 — »v. §. (33 Tex. 650) i. 2644 Stroup v. C. (1 Rob. Va. 754) ii. 769 Strout v. Gooch (8 Greenl. 126) i. 157 Struble, S. v. (71 Iowa, 11) i. 1589 Struckman v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 581) i.975c, 1077; ii. 143 Stuart v. C. (28 Grat. 950) i. 1004, 1270 v. Hines (33 Iowa, 60) i, 188 — v. P. (78 Ill. 20) i. 1052 ; ii. 754 — v.P. (42 Mich. 255) i. 2340, 1018, — , P. v. (4 Cal. 218) 1062; ii. 152 i, 278, 931, 1203, 1298, 1353 — v.8. (1 Bax. 178) i. 314; ii. 638, 674, 685 —, 5S. v. (61 Iowa, 203) ij. 403, —, S. v. (35 La. An. 1015) i, 1239 ——, S. v. (28 Me. 111) i. 761, 762, 1138 Stubblefield, S. v. (32 Mo. 563) ij. 285, 290, 296 Stubbs, Reg. v. (Dears. 555; 7 Cox C. C. 48; 83 Eng. L. & Eq. 551) i. 1169, 1170 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. SUL Sturge, Reg. v. (3 Ellis & B. 784) ii. 1045, 1051 Sturgeon v. Gray (96 Ind. 166) Sturges 7. Sherwood (15 Conn. 149) i. 2646 Sturm v. Potter (41 Ind. 181) i, 189 v. 8. (74 Ind. 278) i. 712, 718, 961 Sturney, Reg. v. (7 Mod. 99) i. 891 Sturtevant v. C. (158 Mass. 598) i. 614 Sturtivant, C. v. (117 Mass. 122; 19 Am. R. 401) i. 1179; ii. 681, 638, 677 Stutsman, S. v. (44 Iowa, 703) i, 850 Styles v. S. (28 Ga. 388) i. 1871 Sudbury, Rex v. (12 Mod. 262) i, 464, 1028 Sue, 8. v. (Conference, 54) i. 13879 Suess v. Noble (31 Fed. Rep. 855) i. 1414 Suffolk Justices, Rex v. (5 Nev. & M. 139) i. 1004 Sugg v. Pool (2 Stew. & P. 196) i. 168 Suggs, S. v. (89 N. C. 527) i, 1223 Sugland, C. v. (4 Gray, 7) ii. 960 Suhur, S. v. (88 Me. 539) —i, 264 a, 264¢ Suit v. S. (80 Tex. Ap. 819) i. 909, 93), 1265 Sullens, Rex v. (1 Moody, 129) ii. 776 Sullins v. S. (63 Ala. 474) i. 1220, 1228, ii. 783 Sullivan v. Adams (3 Gray, 476) i. 1264 —— v. C. (93 Pa. 284) i, 1212 ——, C. v. (6 Gray, 477) ii. 960 —, C, o. (11 Gray, 208) i, 1264 —, C. »v. (14 Gray, 97) i, 231 ——, C. v. (107 Mass. 218) ii. 848 —, C. v. (136 Mass. 170) ii, 984 —, C. v. (150 Mass. 315) i. 1181, 1185 —, C. v. (13 Philad. 410) i, 1212 v. P. (27 Hun, 35) ii. 94 v. P. (114 IIL. 24) i. 1181, 1182 —— v. P. (122 Ill. 385) i. 384 — v. P. (31 Mich. 1) i. 1063 , P.v. (115 N. Y. 185) i. 966 d —, oe v. (8 A. & E. 831; 1 Per. & D. 96) i. 911 ——, Reg. v. (16 Cox C. C. 847) i, 1244 v. Robinson (39 Ala. 618) ii. 762 — v.58. rs Ala. 48) i, 975, 1113 —— v. 8. (68 Ala. 525) i. 718 v. 8. (52 Ind. 309) i. 1093; ii. 1055 —— v. 8. (49 Missis. 716) i. 272, 1847 | —— v. S. (67 Missis. 846) i. 406, 625; — v. §. (53 Missis. 437) ii. 835 ii. 24 —, 8. v. (108 N. C. 774) i. 1247 | —— v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 819; 82 Am. Stubenvoll, P. v. (62 Mich. 829) i. 975c,| R. 580) i. 683, 1195 1094 | —— v. S. (13 Tex. Ap. 462) ii. 139, 145 Stuckey v. Bellah (41 Ala. 700) ii, 679 | —— v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 623) ii, 152 — v.58. (7 Tex. Ap. 174) i. 975 ¢ |—— v. S. (81 Tex. Cr. 486; 87 Am. Stuckmyer v. §. (29 Ind. 20) ii. 74,92) St. 826) ii, 661 Stucky, S. v. (2 Blackf. 289) i. 546 | —~ v. 8. (17 Vroom, 446) i. 313 Studstill ». S. (7 Ga. 2) i. 370, 374, 611, | — v. S. (18 Vroom, 151) i. 313 674, 698, 951a; ii. 12) —». S. (tt Wis, 595) i. 10064 Stukeley v. Butler (Hob. 168) i. 406 | —— v. 8. (75 Wis. 650) i. 1249; ii. 117 Stumbo, S. v. (26 Mo. 806) i. 887, 1279 , 8. v. (51 Iowa, 142) 1, 1218; ii. 618 Stupp, In re (12 Blatch. 501) i, 224 | —, S, v. (14 Kan. 170) i, 1268 Sturdivant, S. v, (18 Me. 66) ii, 1054 | —, S. ». (43 Kan. 563) i. 95a ——, S. v. (21 Me. 9) ii, 865, 866 '—, S. v. (85 La. An, 844) i, 711 694 SUT INDEX TO THE Sullivant v. S. (8 Eng. 400) i. 49, 870; , ii. 976 —,S. v. (8 Yerg. 281) i. 264 a, 2640 Sully, P. 0. (5 Par. Cr, 142) ii. 163 Summerfield v. C. (2 Rob. Va. 767) i, 256 Summers v. §. (70 Ala. 16) i, 1265 —»v. 3 (5 Tex. Ap. 865; 32 Am. R. 578 i. 975¢ —v. 8) (9 Tex. Ap. 396) ii. 180 —, 8. v. (38 Minn. 324) ii. 754 — , 8. v. (9 Nev. 899) i. 1264 Summons »v. 8. (5 Ohio St. 325) i. 1195, 1196, 1204 —, S. v. (19 Ohio, 139) i, 261, 262 Sumner »v. C. (3 Cush. 521) i, 1039, 1378 —— v. Cook (12 Kan. 162) i. 1845 v, 8. (5 Blackf, 579; 36 Am. D. 561) i. 72, 980.a, 1076, 1077, 1107 —, S. e. (5 Strob. 53) ii. 17 Sumpter v. S. (11 Fla. 247) i. 1167; ii. 645 Sumrall v. S. (29 Missis. 202) i. 931 Sunday v. S. (14 Mo. 417) i. 780, 747 Sundheimer, S. v. (93 Mo. 311) ii. 531 Supervisors, P. v. (70 N. Y. 228) i. 99 Surratt v. S. (45 Missis. 601) i, 614 Surrell v. S. (29 Tex. Ap. 821) i. 975, 1079 Surry, Rex v. (2 T. R. 504) i, 1264 Sutcliffe v. Eldred (2 Dowl. P. C. 184) i, 268 a ——, Rex v. (stated, Russ. & Ry. ~ 460 i. 1347 —— v. S. (18 Ohio St. 469; 51 Am. TD. 459) i. 268, 733 a —, S. v. (4 Stroh. 372) i. 1264 Sutfin, 8S. v. (22 W. Va. 771) i. 1857 Sutherland, In re (3 Bankr. Reg. 314) i. 1304 —, C. v. (109 Mass. 342) i. 814, 816 Sutherlin, Ex parte (56 Ind. 595) i. 2644 — v. §. (108 Ind. 389) i. 951 Suttle v. Batie (1 Iowa, 141) i. 931 Sutton v. Bishop (4 Bur. 2288) i. 1285 — v. C, (85 Va. 128) 1, 1181, 1241 v. Fox (55 Wis. 531; 42 Am. R. 744) i. 925, 946 — v. Johnson (62 Il. 209) i. 1128; ii. 970 — »v. P. (119 TI. 250) i. 951 —, P. v. (73 Cal. 243) i. 1179 v. Reagan (5 Blackf. 217; 33 Am. D. 466) ii, 679 —,, Rex v. (5 B. & Ad. 52; 2 Nev. & M. 57) i. 1272 — , Rex »v. (8 B. & C. 417) i. 923 —, Rex v. (4 Bur. 2116) i. 767, 769 —, Rex v. (4 M. & S. 5832) i, 486, 998 a; ii, 804 — 1.8. 9 Ohio, 133 ) i. 981; ii. 269 —v.S. (41 Tex. 515) i, 1275 — v. 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 40) i.975c¢ —— v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 518) ii, 175 —,S. v. (4 Gill, 494) i, 446, 1011 —, S. v. (70 Iowa, 268) i. 1066 CASES CITED. SWE Sutton, S v. (24 Mo. 377) i. 639; ii. 816 —,S.v. (64Mo. 107). i. 3144, 457 — S. v. (1 Murph. 281) i. 660, 665 — , 8. v. (100 N. C. 474) i. 612 —, 8. v. (10 R. I. 159) i, 1021 Swafford v. P. (1 Scam. 289) i. 1264 —, P. v. (65 Cal. 223) i. 959 —, 58. ce. (1 Lea, 274) i. 730 —, S. v. (8 Lea, 162) i. 611; ii. 1002 Swaggerty v. 8. (9 Yerg. 338) ii. pee 982 Swails v. §. (7 Blackf. 324) ii. 65 Swaim, S. v. (97 N. C. 462) i. 387 Swain, Ex parte (19 Tex. Ap. 823) i. 854 —— v. P. (4 Scam. 178) ii 451 —— v. Ransom (18 Johns. 107) i. 792 —. Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 112; 2 Lewin, 116) i, 919 ——, S. v. (68 Mo. 605) i. 1094 Swainson v. eR (52 Mo. 227) i. 1818 ewaloy v. 8. (20 Ala. 30) i. 982 —. 8. (22 Ala. 20) i. 978, 980 Swalm, P. v. (80 Cal. 46; 18 Am. St. 96) ii. 726 Swan’s Case (Foster, od i. 789, 1080 - Swan, In re (150 U. S. 637) i. 1410 — v. C. (104 Pa. 218) ii. 153 —— v. 0’Fallon (7 Misso. 281) ii. 482¢ —— v. P. (98 Ill. 610) i. 1091 Swank, C. v. (79 Pa. 154) i. 314a — v.58. (8 Ohio St. 429) i. 264 a, 264 f Swann v. Broome (3 Bur. 1595) i. 1001 — v. 8. (64 Md. 423) i. 975 c, 984, 986.4 987 —, 8. v. (65 N. C. 330) ii. 64 Swanson »v. P. (89 Ill. 589) i. 68 Swart v. Kimball (43 Mich. 448) i. 49, 50 Swarts v. S. (9 Ind. 293) i. 1269 Swartzbaugh v. P. (85 Ill. 457) =i. 1847; ? ii. 846 Swartzwelderv. United States Bank (1 J. J. Mar. 38) ii. 388 Swatkins, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 548) i. 969, 1232 Swayze, S. v. (80 La. An. 1323) i. 121, 975 c, 976, ii. 604 Swearengen, S. v. (43 Towa, 336) i. 1264 Swearingen, Ex parte, (18 S.C. 74). i. 222 Sweat v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 617) i 276 8. v. (16 S. C. 624) i. 50, 52 Sweatman, In re (1 Cow. 144) i. 1297 Sweeden v. S. (19 Ark. 205) i. 270, 1264, : 1853 Sweeney, Ex parte (126 Ind. 583) i. 1264 —, C. v. (181 Mass. 579) ii. 862 ——, P. v. (41 Hun, 332) i. 1207, 1214 —,, P. v. (55 Mich. 586) i. 423 — , P.v. (133 N. Y. 609) i. 1116 v. §. (35 Ark. 585) i. 984 — v. §. (16 Ga. 467) i. 611 —,S. v. (37 La. An. 1) i. 1264 —, S. v. (33 Minn. 23) ii. 1053 —, 8. v. (68 Mo. 96) i. 1265 695 TAB INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. TAR Sweeney, S. v. (93 Mo. 38) i. 279, 1012| Taber, C. v. (123 Mass. 253) i. 316 Sweet v. Clinton (3 Johns. 23) i. 14a | Tabor v. P. (90 N. Y. 248) i. 1366 —— v. Negus (30 Mich. 406) i. 187 | ——, S. v. (95 Mo. 585) i, 975c, 1049; —,S. v. (2 Or. 127) ii, 318 ii. 603 Sweetapple v. Jesse (5 B, & Ad. 27; Tackett v.S. (8 Yerg. 892; 24 Am. 2 Nev. & M. 36 ii. 794] D. 582) i, 227 Sweetman, P. v. (3 Par. Cr. 358) _ ii. 902 | -—,, S. v. (1 Hawks, 210) ii. 615 Sweetser v. Lowell (88 Me. 446) ii. 482) Taffe v. S. (28 Ark. 34) i. 950 Sweetsir, S. v. (53 Me. 488) i. 777 | Taggart v. C. (21 Pa. 527) _ di, 871 Swendsen, Reg. v. (14 How. St. Tr. —, P. v. (43 Cal. 81) . i. 188 559) i. 1116, 1117 | ——, Rex». (1 Car. & P. 201) i, 1036 Sweney, C. v. (10 S. & R. 173) i. 560; | ——, S. v. (88 Me. 298) i. 698 ii. 789 Taing, P. v. (58 Cal. 602) ii. 621 Swenson, P. v. (49 Cal. 388) i. 706 a| Taintor v. Taylor (86 Conn. 242; 4 707 a, 1287; ii. 68a, 77, 683 Am. R. 58) i, 229, 2642 Swepson, S. v. (81 N.C. 571) i. 789, 811 | ——, U.S. v. (11 Blatch. 374) ii. 327, 329, —, S. v. (82 N.C. 541) i. 1264 _ 8380 —, S. v. (83 N. C. 584) i. 1345) Tait v. Hall (71 Cal. 149) 3.1101 Swetland, P. v. (77 Mich. 58) i. 1059, | —— v. S. (3 Yerg. 449) ii, 459 ii, 428 | ——, S. v. (22 Iowa, 140) i. 1264 Swift, P. ». (59 Mich. 529) i. 283, 761, | Talbot, C.v. (2 Allen, 161) ii. 436 1402, 1403 | ——, Rex v. (Mich. 4 Geo, 2) i, 239 —, S. v. (57 Conn. 496) i, 1212, 1247, | Talbott, S. v. (73 Mo. 347) i, 1084 1264 | Talcott, Stevens v. (11 Vt. 25) i, 981 —, 8S. v. (14 La. An. 827) i, 854, 887 | Taliaferro v. C. (77 Va. 411) ii. 152 Swigar v. P. (109 Lil. 272) i, 1074 | —— v. S. (40 Tex. 523) i. 978 ; ii. 67 Swigart v. S. (67 Ind. 287) i, 906 | —— v. Steelé (14 La. An. 656) i. 264.a Swinford, P. v. (57 Cal. 86) ii. 740 | Tall, S. v. (48 Minn. 273) i. 685 Swink, S.v. (2 Dev. & Bat. 9) i, 1254 Tallman, U.S. v, (10 Blatch. 21) i. 931 Swinnerton, Reg. ». (Car. & M. 593) Tally, S. v. (23 La. An. 677) i. 985, 986 a i. 1019a | ——, S. v. (74 N. C. 322) i. 612 Swinney, C. ». (1 Va. Cas. 150) ii. 465 | Talmage, S. v. (107 Mo. 548) i. 975¢; — v. S. (22 Ark. 215) i. 1276 ii. 602 v. S. (8 Sm. & M. 576) i. 1052 | Tamkin, P. v. (62 Cal. 468) ii. 544 —, 8. v. (25 Mo. Ap. 347) 1.279 Tandy, Rex v. (2 Leach, 833) ii. 271 Swinstead v. Lyddal (1 Salk. 408) i. 1838 | ——, S. v. (41 Tex. 291) i. 390 Swisher v. C. (26 Grat. 963; 21 Am. Tankersly, S. v. (6 Lea, 582) i, 865 R. 330) i. 1212 | Tannahill, S. v. (4 Kan. 117) i. 7038 Switzer, S. v. (63 Vt. 604; 25 Am. Tannan, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 514) ii: 517 St. 789) i. 777; ii. 165, 175, 182 | Tanner, C. v. (5 Bush, 316) ii. 84, 1008 —, U.S. v. (Morris, 302) i, 1387 | ——, P. v. (2 Cal. 257) i, 918 Swofford v. 8. (3 Tex. Ap. 76) i. 931 , Rex v. (1 Esp. 804) i, 488 Swope, S. v. (72 Mo. 399) i. 223 | ——, S. v. (88 La. An. mae i. 982 a Sword v. S. (6 Humph. 102) i. 641 | Tappan, S. x. (1 Fost. N. H. 56) ii. 916 Sydleman v. Beckwith (43 Conn. 9) i. 1178 | ——, S. v. (58 N. H. ‘63) ii. 75 Sy dserff v. Reg. (11 Q. B. 245) ii. 207 | Tarble’s Case (138 Wal. 397) i, 1411 Sykes, Rex v. (T. Ray m. 202) ii. 938 6 | Tarborough v. Blount (4 Hawks, 384) —,S. v. (79 N.C. 618) i. 979 1, 1417 ——, S. v. (104 N. C. 700) i. 230 | Tarbox, C. v. (1 Cush. 66) i. 496, 560, Sylvester v. S. (72 Ala. 201) i, 850, 851 561; ii. 454, 789, 790, 794.4 v. 8. (42 Tex. 496) ii, 112 | —— v. S. (38 Ohio St. 581) 1. 1248 Symmons v. Knox (3 T. R. 65) i. 406 | Tardif ». Baudoin (9 La. An. 127) i. 1140 Symonds, C. v. (2 Mass. 163) i. 432, 441, | Tardiff v. S. (28 Tex. 169) i. 1264 443 Tardy v. 8. (4 Blackf. 162) i. 685 —, P. uv. (22 Cal. 348) i, 909, 999 | Tarin v. S. (19 Tex. Ap. 359) i. 1278 ——, S.v. (86 Me. 128) i, 854 | —— v. S. (25 Tex. Ap. 360) ii. 740 —,S.v. Al Me. 148) i, 1124] Tarlton, a parte (2 Ala. 35) i. 1364 .v. (278. C. 29; 13 Am. i. 984, 987, 1285 Seniigeetes Rex v. (1 Moody, 429) i, 564; ii. 402 Syphrett 8 Tabart v. Tipper (1 Camp. 350) 696 ii. 123, 783, 792 -v, (4 Cranch C. C. 682) i. 3144 Tarm Poi, P. v. (86 Cal. 225) i. 975e Tarpey, P. v. (59 Cal, 371) i. 360° Tarrant, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 182) i, 1259 Tarver v. 8. (48 Ala. 354) ii. 68, 680 v. S. (438 Tex. 564) 4, 966 Tarvers v. S. (90 Tenn. 485) i. 172, 219 TAY INDEX TO THE Tasborough, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 169) ii. 1020 Tate v. Missouri, &c. Ry. (64 Mo. 149) ii. 677 — v. S. (6 Blackf. 110) ii. 1010 — v. 8, (48 Ga. 37) i, 1268 —, 8. v. (6 Humph. 424) ii. 181 —, 8. v. (12 Mo. Ap. 827) i. 975¢ — v. Wellings (8 ‘I’. R. 531) i, 591 Tatlock, Reg. v. (2 Q. B. D. 157) ii. 780 Tatlow, S. v. (84 Kan. 80) i, 999 ‘Tatman, S. v. (59 Iowa, 471) i. 1181 Tatro, 8. v. (50 Vt. 483) i, 1228, 1247; ii. 634 Tattersall, Rex v. (cited 1 New Rep. 93) i, 1126 Tatum v. Mohr (21 Ark. 349) ii. 682, 680 — v. S. (66 Ala. 465) i, 714 — v. 8. (58 Ga. 408) ii. 158 — v. 8. (69 Ga. 638) ii. 67, 661 Taulman v. S. (37 Ind. 353) i. 232 Taunt, S. v. (16 Minn. 109) ii. 705 Taunton, Reg. v. (8M. & 8S. 465) i. 691 Taunton St. Mary, Rex v. (3 M.& 8. 465) ii. 1049 Taverner, Rex v. (Car. Crim. Law, 3d ed. 195; 4 Car. & P. 418, note) ii. 189, 428 Tawell’s Case (Wills Cir. Ev. 3d ed. 181 i. 1057 Taws, Ex parte (2 Wash. C.C. 358) i. 214 Taydler, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 94) ii. 158 Tayler, Rex v. (1 Show. 190) i. 618 ; ii. 922 Tayloe, Ex parte (5 Cow. 39) i. 251, poe 2 Taylor, Ex parte (4 Ind. 479) i. 68, as 13817 v. C. (8 Bush, 508) —ii. 63a, 1008 — v.C. (1 Duy. 160) ii. 105, 275 — v. C. (20 Grat. 825) i. 615, 681, 686 ii. 952 il. — v. C. (29 Grat. 780) i. 1398 — v. C. (109 Pa. 262) ii. 664 v. C. (77 Va. 692) i. 961 — v.C. (2 Va. Cas. 94) i. 375, 665 — v.C. (44 Pa. 131) i. 1344, 1347, 1349, 1352, 1868 ii. 371, 372, 373 —, C. v. (5 Binn. 277) i. 1220, 1223; —, C. uv. (5 Cush. 605) ii. 407, 431 ——., C. v. (105 Mass. 172) ii. 197 —, C. v. (129 Pa. 584). i. 909 —-, C. v. (10 Philad. 184) i, 1276 —— v.Grand Trunk Ry. (48 N. H. 304; 2 Am. R, 229) i. 1180 —— »v. Griffith (7 Mod, 115) ii. 383 —— v. Monroe (48 Conn. 36) i, 1179 —— v. Moran (4 Met. Ky. 127) ii, 128 — ». P, (12 Hun, 212) i, 422 — v. P. (6 Par. Cr. 347) ii. 866 — , P. v. (36 Cal. 255) i, 980, 1277 —, P. v. (3 Denio, 91) i. 784 —, P. v. (8 Denio, 98, note) i, 275 —, P. v. (98 Mich. 688) ii, 740 CASES CITED. TAY Taylor, P. v. (96 Mich. 576) ii, 24 —, P.v, (138 N.Y. 398) ii. 679 —— v. Porter (4 Hill, N. Y. 140; 40 Am. D. 274) i. 891 ——, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 726) i. 1199, 1202 —, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 788) i. 1288, 4; ii, 63 —, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. a i, 229) ——, Reg. v. (18 Cox C. C. 77; 18 Eng. Rep. 427) i. 1179 —, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 535) i. 962, 964 ——, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C. 194) ii. 57 ——, Reg. v. (2 Ld. Raym. 879) i, 521 —_, Keg. v. (7 Mod. 123) ii. 883 —, Rex v. (3 Bur. 1679) i. 2074 ——, Rex v. (1 Camp. 404) i. 488; ii. 915, 916 —, Rex ». (5 Car. & P. 301) i. 1818 —, Rex». (6D. & R. 422; 3B. & C. 602) i. 649, 749, 754, 755, 782, 783, 814, 817; ii. 488 —, Rex ». (Holt, 534) i. 871 ——, Rex v. (1 Leach, 214; 2 East P. C. 960) ii, 429 ——, Rex v. (1 Leach, 356) ii. 721 —, Rex ». (1 Leach, 360) ii. 3 —, Rex v. (2 Leach, 974; Russ. & Ry. 68; 3B. & P. 596) ~—i. 61; ii. 326 —, Rex ». (2 Stra. 849) i. 530 ——, Rex »v. (Trem. P. C. 226) i. 1801 —— v. §, (42 Ala. 529) i. 1293, 1858; ii. 746 — v. S. (48 Ala. 157) i. 488 ¢ v. S. (48 Ala. 180) i. 68, 978, 980; ii, 934 — v. §. (389 Ark. 291) i, 1895 — v.58. (4 Ga. 14) i. 1099; ii. 784, 785, 800 — v. §S. (44 Ga, 263) ii. 700 —— v. 8, (83 Ga. 647) —i. 1047; ii. 688 — v.§. (3 Heisk. 460) i. 1014 — v. 8. (6 Humph. 285) _— i. 878, 502; ii. 845, 849 — v.§. (4 Ind. 540) i. 1275 v. S. (82 Ind. 153) i. 230 —— v. §. (118 Ind, 471) i, 1264 v. S. (11 Lea, 708) i. 981, 951, 959.a ; ii, 584 — v.S. (52 Missis. 84) i. 998 a —— v. §. (86 Ohio St. 212) i. 920 v. S. (85 Tex. 97) i. 1057, 1059 — v.S. (42 Tex. 504) i. 1000 —— v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 169) i. 931, 1249 —— v. §. (3 Tex. Ap. 387) i. 269, 975, 1248 — v.8. (4 Tex. Ap. 29) i. 816 — »v.8. {5 Tex. Ap. 1) i. 1054; ii. 718 —v. 8. (5 Tex. Ap. 569) i. 1005 a — 7. §. (13 Tex. Ap. 184) i. 1049; ii. 94 —— v, S. (14 Tex. Ap. 340 i. 1004 — v.§&. (15 Tex. Ap. 356 ii. 740 — v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 46) i. 975c¢ — ». 8. (27 Tex. Ap. 463) i, 969 — v. §. (35 Wis. 298) ii. 875 697 i, 851 . v. (8 Blackf. 178) ii, 309 . (3 Brev. 243) — S. v. (3 Dutcher, 117; 72 Am. 1). 347) : ii. 707 —, S. v. (1 Hawks, 462) i, 1272 —,S. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 486) i. 1049, 1077 —, S. v. (25 Iowa, 273) ii. 739 — , S. v. (15 Kan. 420) i, 488 b, 685 —, S. v. (36 Kan. 329) i, 1255 — , S. o. (34 La. An. 978) i. 1264, 1272 — 8. ». (35 La. An. 835) i. 440 — , S. v. (48 La. An. 1131) i, 882 — , S. v. (44 La. An. 967) ii. 127 —, S. v. (45 Me. 322) ii. 87, 47 — , S. v. (21 Mo. 477) i. 9804; ii. d — , S. v. (64 Mo. 358) i. 9498; ii, 620 — , S. v. (98 Mo. 240) i. 283 —— §. v. (111 Mo. 538) ii. 740 ——, S. v. (118 Mo. 153) ii. 972 — , S. v. (83 N. C. 601) ii. 64 —, S. v. (16 N. H. 477) i. 314a —, S. v. (Phillips, N. C. 508) i. 1195 — , S. v. (17 Vroom, 133) i. 1878 —— v. Sheppard (1 Y. & Col. 280) ii. 483 —— v. Strong (3 Wend. 384) i. 183 —— v. Sutherland (24 Pa. 383) ii. 432a@ — v. Taintor (16 Wal. 366) i, 2244, 2642 —, U.S. v. (9 Bis. 472) i. 612 —., U.S. v. (1 Hughes, C. C. 514) ii. 776.4 v. Van Epps (58 Ga. 139) i, 1319 v. Whitehead (2 Doug. 745) i. 1284 Tazwell, S. v. (80 La. An. 884) i. 401; ii. 161 Teachout, In re (15 Mich. 346) i, 231 v. P. (41 N.Y. 7) i, 1255 Teague v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 147) i. 1005a, 1012 Teahan, S. v. (50 Conn. 92) i, 486 Teal, Rex v. (11 East, 307) —i. 278, 1038 —, Rex v. (18 East, 4) i, 264 v. 8. (22 Ga. 75; 68 Am. D. 482) i, 123, 799, 1279 v. Walker (111 U.S. 242) i, 123 Teas v. S. (7 Humph. 174) i, 708 Teasdale, Rex v. (3 Esp. 68) i. 1138 Teat v. S. (53 Missis. 489; 24 Am. R. 708) i, 424, 453, 458 Teel », S. (8 Tex. Ap. 326) i. 2644 Teeter, S. v. (69 Iowa, 717) i. 1181, 1182 Tefft v. C. (8 Leigh, 721) i. 877, 436 v. Marsh (1 W. Va. 38) i. 1277 Teideman, S. v. (4 Strob. 300) ii. 982, 983 Teipner, S. v. (86 Minn. 535) i. 1317, 1318 Teissedre, S. v. (30 Kan. 210) i, 1264 Telford, P. v. (56 Mich. 641) i, 636 — », Wilson (71 Ind. 555) i, 931 Telicote, Rex v. (2 Stark. 483) i. 1260 Tempest, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 381) i. 966 d Temple ». C. (14 Bush, 769; 29 Am. R. 442) 698 i, 272 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. THA ‘Temple v. C. (1 Va. Cas. 163) i. 1272, 1862 i, 502, 648 ) i. 887, 388 (1 Salk. 55) i. 275, 1302 Templeton v. P. (27 Mich. 501) _i. 288; ii, 628, 629 —— v. P. (6 Thomp. & C. 81; 3 Hun, 357) ii. 685 — v. 8. (5 Tex. Ap. 398) i. 975, 1054, 1098 ; ii. 586 Tennant, S. v. (80 La. An. 852) i. 2644, 264d Tennery, S. v. (9 Iowa, 486) ii. 38 Tenney v. Evans (13 N. H. 462; 40 Am. D. 166) i. 1270 Tennison, S. v. (42 Kan. 330) i. 9760 Tenorio v. Territory (1 New Mex. — , S. v. (3 Fairf. 214) —,, S. v. (88 Vt. 87 Templeman, Reg. v. 279) i. 665; ii. 585 Ternan, In re (9 Cox C. O. 522) i. 224 Terrel, Rex ». (Comb. 312) ii, 1049 Terrell v. C. (13 Bush, 246) i. 949, 1264, 1272 ; ii. 629 —— v.S. (9 Ga. 58) i. 1285 v. §. (41 Tex. 468) i, 869a —,, S. wv. (29 Kan. 563) i. 264 a —, S. v. (12 Rich. 821) i, 1215, 1248; ii, 632, 686 Territory v. Paul (2 Mont. 314) i. 980 Terry, Ex parte (20 Tex. Ap. 486) i. 261 —,C. v. (114 Mass. 263) i. 488, 689 —— v. Hazlewood (1 Duv. 104) ii. 409 —— v. 8. (17 Ga. 204) i, 976, 1276; ii. 703 — »v.§. (13 Ind. 70) ii. 1006 v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 236) i, 1269, 1279 v. S. (15 Tex. Ap. 66) i. 870 ze. S. (1 Wash. 277) ii. 823.4 —, S. v. (80 Mo. 368) i, 864, 922 —, 8. v. (106 Mo. 209) i. 975 c, 980 — , U.S. v. (39 Fed. Rep. 355) i. pe 867 Tesh v. C. (4 Dana, 522) i. 280, 282, 3144 Testard 7. S. (26 Tex. Ap. 260) i. 951 Testerman, S. v. (68 Mo. 408) ii, 532, 602, 618, 633, 638 Testick, Rex v. (2 East P. C.925; 1 East, 181 n.) ii. 402, 411 —, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 1000) ii. 429 Tevis v. S. (8 Blackf. 303) i, 605 Tew, Reg. vs (Dears. 429; 29 Eng. L. & Eq. 537) ii. 914, 983¢ Texas, &. Rid. v. S. (41 Ark. 488) i. 718 Thanet, Rex ». (27 How. St. Tr. 821) i. 293, 1021, 1391; ii. 882 Tharp v. 8. (15 Ala. 749) i. 1199, 1265, —— v.S. (3 Tex. Ap. 90) Tharpe v. Gisburne (2 Car. & P. 21) ii, 482 4 Thatcher v. S. (48 Ark. 60) ji. 273 —,, 8. v. (6 Vroom, 445) i. 611 —— v. Weeks (79 Me. 547) i, 212 THO Thawley, S. v. (4 Harring. Del. 562) i, 1216; ii. 613, 627 Thayer v. C. (12 Met. 9) i. 1364 —, C. v. (5 Met. 246) i. 641 —v Chesley (55 Me. 893) ii. 482 ¢ —— v. P. (2 Doug. Mich. 417) i. 877, 882 —, P. v. (1 Par. Cr. 595) i. 984, 1032, 1075, 1093, 1255 — v. §. (11 Ind. 287) i. 413; ii, 998 — , S. v. (4 Strob. 286) ii. 910 Thetge v. S. (83 Ind. 126) i, 1005 Thibeau, S. v. (80 Vt. 100) i. 662, 665, 1285 ; ii. 230 Thigpen v. Mississippi Cent. Rid. (82 Missis. 347) i. 1090 Thirkell, Rex v. & Bur. 1696) i, 1012 Thistlethwaite, $ ~ vu. (83 Ind. 317) i. 264 f es Rex v. (83 How. St. Tr 681) Thoman, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 54) i. 982 a me 840 —, S. v. (10 Kan. 191) Thomas’s Case (1 Dy. 998, pl. 68) ii. 1037 Thomas v. Axworth (Hob. 2/) ii. 793 — »v. C. (22 Grat. 912) i. 799 —v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 479) i. 999 — , C. v. (10 Gray, 483) i. 436, 467 — v. Croswell (7 Johns. 264; " Am. D. 269) i. 794 -— v. Dunaway (30 III. 373) i. 1049 ; ii, 327 —— v. Kinkead (55 Ark. 502) i. 161 — v. P. (18 Ill. 696) i, 264 f —r. P. (113 Il. 531) ii. 208, 218 —- v. P. (39 Mich. 309) i. 931, 966 ¢ P. ler N. Y. 218) i. 909, 1117, 1334; ii. 602, 615, 617 —, P. v. (638 Cal. 482) ~ ii. 1020 —,P. v. (3 Hill, N. Y. 169) i. 627 —, P. v. (9 Mich. 314) i. 1181 —, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 2 C.C. 141) ii. 271 —, Reg. v. (3 Nev. & P. 288) i. 1180 ——, Reg. v. (12 W.R. 108; 33 Law J.n.s. M. C. 22; 9 Law T. yn. 8. 488) i. 808 i, 296 —-, Rex v. (2 Bulst. 147) ii. 912 —, Rex v. (1 Car. & P. 472) —, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 353) i, 1223, 1234 — , Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 345) i, 1224, 1226 —, Rex. (7 Car. & P. 817) i. 234) —,, Rex v. (Cas. temp. Hardw. 278) i. 1036 ——, Rex v. (3 D. & R. 621) i. 763, 769, 172, 791 —, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 605; 2 Leach, 634) i. 60 —, Rex v, (2 East P.C.781) ii. 982 —, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 934) ii. mi INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. 814a|— THO Thomas, Rex v. (2 Leach, 637) i. 1259 —, Rex v. (4M.&S8. 449) i. 1877, 13879 v. 8. (41 Ark. 408) i. 1264 —— v. 8. (27 Ga. 287) i. 909, 925, 926, 931, 982 a, 951 b, 965, 966, 980, 1086, 1088, 1190, 1276 — v. 8. (52 Ga. 509) i. 1280 — v.S. (59 Ga. 784) ii. 487 — v. S. (67 Ga. 460 ii. 625, 633 —v.S. (71 Ga. 44) i. 879; ii, 581 —— v. 8. (5 How. Missis. 20) i. 314, 665, 981, 982 a, 1385; ii. 595 — v. §. (103 Ind. 419) i. 1181 — v. §. (6 Misso. 457) i. 702, 785 v. 8. (10 Misso. 235) i, 1264 v. §. (86 Tex. 315) i. 9600 ——v. 8. (40 Tex. 60) i. 256, 980; li. 678 — uv. §, (48 Tex. 658) i. 1169; ii. 745 —v.S. (1 Tex. Ap. 289) i. 966 —— v.S. (2 Tex. Ap. 298) i. 854 —v.S. (11 Tex. Ap. 815) i. 1207; ii, 621 v. 8. (12 Tex. Ap. 2273 i, 825 v. 8. (18 Tex. vs 493) i. 975c, 978 — v.58. (18 Tex. Ap. 496) i. 264 a, 264 b, 264 d —v.§. (14 Tex. Ap. 70) i. 865 ——v.8. (17 Tex. a 437) i. 951 —vS. Gig Tex. Ap. 213) i. 499, 590; ii. 408 —,S. v. (47 Conn. 546; 36 Am. R. 98) i. 987 — , S. v. (7 Ire. 381) i. 1147 —, S. v. (28 La. An. 170) i. 975 ¢ — , 8. uv. (29 La. An. 601) ii. 655 —, 8. v. (84 La. An. 1084) i. 975 c, 978 —, 8. v. (35 La, An. 24) i, 946, 949 — , S. v. (89 La. An. 318) i. 1400 —, 8. v. (2 McCord, 527) ii. 735 —,S. v. (56 Me. 490) i. 314 —, 8. v. (19 Minn. 484) i. 982. a, 949a@ — , S. v, (99 Mo. 235) i. 966 , 8. v. (64 N.C. 74) i, 1182, 1184 ——, S. v. (98 N. C. 599; 2 Am. St. 351) i. 1181, 1183 —,, 8. v. (7 Rich, 481) i. 611 —, 8. v. (8 Rich. 295) i. 951, 1288 ——, S. v. (8 Strob. 269) i. 612 Thomason v. S. (2 Tex. Ap 550) i. 1857 —, 58. v. (1 Jones, N. C, 274) i, 1209 —, S.v. (71 N. C. 146) ii. 782 Thomasson »v. 8. (22 Ga. 499) i. 762, 966, 1278; ii. 721 Thomm »v. §. (385 Ark. 827) i, 285 Thompkins, Rex v. (2 B. & Ad. 287) is 1 Thompson’s Case (1 Leach, 338) i 573 Thompson v, C. (8 Grat. 637) i. 982, ee 7 —— v. C. (20 Grat. 724) i, 648, 869a, 1223, 1232, 1233, 1239 —— v. C. (1 Met. Ky. 13) i. 1019; ii. 4, 230 —— v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 135) ii. 698 699° THO ae, C. v. (8 Dana 801) ii. 677 —_, 2 Gray, 82) i, 264 m —, C. v. (9 Gray, 108) ii, 138 —, C. »v. (8 Litt. 284) i, 2647 ' — ~, C. xv. (116 Mass. 346) ii. 63, 976 — v. Carr (138 Bush, 215) i, 279 — v. Church (1 Root, 312) i. 1112 v. Elliott (5 Misso. 118) i. 677 — v. Fellows (1 Fost. N. H. 425) i, 227 — v. Hatch (3 Pick. 512) i.9 —— v. Lyon (14 Cal. 39) i. 827 — v. P. (96 Ill. 158) ii. 86, 87, 88 v. P. (125 Ill. 256) —s i. 1084; ‘ii, 764 — v. P. (4 Neb. 524) i. 449, 976 P. (3 Par. Cr. 208) i. 511 ——v». P. (3 Par. Cr. 467) i. 90 ——, P. ev. (4 Cal. 288) 1. 268, 612, 869 a, 951 a, 1298 —, P. v. (50 Cal. 480) i. 1170 -—, P. v. (84 Cal. 598) i, 228, 1223 —, P. v. (87 Mich. 118) ii. 53, 74, 92 —, P.v. (41 N.Y. 1) i, 1267 —, Reg. v. (2 Cox C. C. 445) ii. ee —, Reg. v. (13 Cox C.C.181) i. 268, 12 —, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C.377; 12 Cox C. C. 202; 2 Eng. Rep. 252) i. 1019 —, Tee v, (1898, 2 Q. B. 12; 17 Cox C C. 641) i. 1218, 1220, 1266 —, Reg. v. (16 Q. B. 832; 4 Eng. L.& Eq. 287) i. 552; ii. 234 —, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 515; 2 Leach, 1105 n.) ii, 150 —,, Rex v. (1 Leach, 291) i, 1223, 1233 ii, 411 —— Rex v. (2 Leach, 910) ii. 402, 415 —, Rex v. (2 Lev. 208; 8 Keb. 674) ii. 810 ——, Rex v. (1 Moody, 189) — Rex». (2 Russ. Crimes, 3d Eng. ed. 116) i, 59 Richardson (96 Ala. 488) ii. 740 . S. (20 Ala. 64) ii. 1050, 1052, fe v. §. (21 Ala. 48) 984 . S. (25 Ala. 41) i. 106, 386, ‘018, ii. 514 —v. —vU aaa YU, 1025 — v. 8. (30 Ala. 28) i. 978; ii. 434 — v. 8. (48 Ala. 165) i. 488, 685 — v. 8. (26 Ark. 323) i, 999; ii. 595 —v. S. (37 Ark. 408) i. 585, 636, 641 — v. 8. (9 Ga. 210) i, 863, 882 — u. . 8. (24 Ga. 297) i. 909, at 1207 —— v. S. (54 Ga. 577) 1065 — v. 8. (55 Ga. 47) i. 1107, 1109, 1269, 1278 — v. S. (60 Ga. 619) 1279 —v.8. (6 Humph. 188) i. 378, 1064; ii. 2 —— v. §. (16 Ind. 516) i. 1317, 1821 — v.58. (38 Ind. 89) ii. 963 —— v. S, (51 Missis. 358) i. 860, 1355; ii, 846 700 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. THO Thompson v. S. (54 Missis. 740) i. 405, 636, 638, 799, 1400 —— v. S. (58 Missis. 62) i, 931, 944 — »v. S. (9 Ohio St. es ii. 408 — v.S. (80 Tex. 356) i. 440 —— ».§. (381 Tex. 166) i, 2642 v. §. (86 Tex. 326) ii. 543 — v. §. (37 Tex. 121) i, 906 —— v. §. (48 Tex. 268) ii. 714, 740, 741d, 745 — v. S, (48 Tex. 583) ii. 94, 970 — v. 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 82) ii, 105 —— v.§. (2 Tex. Ap. 289) i, 1279 —— v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 93) i. 1354 — v.§8. (9 Tex. Ap. 810) ii. 718 —— v. §. (9 Tex. Ap. 649 i. 314, 1265 — v.§. (11 Tex. Ap. 51) i. 1085 —— v.§. (15 Tex. Ap. 39, 168) i. 651, 1847 v. 8. (16 Tex. Ap. 159) ii, 285 — v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 318) i. 264m — v.§. (19 Tex. Ap. 598) i. 918, 931, 1236 —— v.§. (26 Tex. Ap. 466) ii. 754 — v. §. (29 Tex. Ap. 208) i. 975¢ — v. §. (80 Tex. Ap. 325) i. 966¢ —— v.S. (82 Tex. Cr. 265) i, 1265 — v.8. (25 Tex. Supp. 395) i. 261 v. S. (89 Wis. 253) ii. 1020 —,S. v. (42 Ark. 517) ii, 820 — , 8. v. (Cheves, 31) i. 1285 —, 5S. ov. (3 Hawks, 618) i. 1889, 1395 ——, 8. v. (62 Ind. 367) i. 264a ——. S. v. (9 Iowa, 188; 74 Am. D. 842) i. 909 —, S. v. (19 Iowa, 299) i, 884 —, S. v. (31 Iowa, 393) ii. 585 —, S. v. (10 La. An. 122) i. 1140 — , S.v. (13 La. An. 515) i. 472; ii. 3 —, S. v. (82 La. An. 796) ii. 821 —, S. v. (82 La. An. 879) i. 981 —, S. v. (80 Me. 194; 6 Am. St. 172) ii. 482}, 432c ——, S. v. (82 Minn. 144) i, 951 —, S. v. (80 Mo. 470) i 856 —, S. v. (89 Mo. 427) 286 —, S. v. (83 Mo. 257) i. 975, 978, 082 a —, S. v. (10 Mont. 549) i. 8390, 688 —, 8. v. (83 N. C. 595) i. 1264 —, S. v. (93 N. C. 537) ii. 733 —, S. v. (95 N. C. 596) i, 1894 —, 8. v. (97 N.C. 496) — i. 1125; ii. 63 —,S8. v. (113 N.C. 638) ii, 921 —, 8. v. (20 N. H. 250) i, 2348, 2394, 686 —, 8. v. (12 Nev. 140) i. 98a; ii. 574, 584 —, 8. v. (2 Strob. 12; 47 Am. D. i. 452 . (18 Tex. 526) i. 264 6 264m ——, S. v. (21 W. Va. 741) i, 975c, 981, 1274 —, 8. v. (26 W. Va. 149) i, 400 —, S. v. (Wright, 617) i, 854 —— v. Territory (1 Wash. Ter, n. s. 647) i, 951f a e THU Thompson, U.S. v. (6 McLean, 56) i, 661, 662 ——, U.S. v, (12 Saw. 488; 31 Fed. Rep. 331) ii. 1020, 1022 —, U.S. v. (1 Sumner, 168) i. 65 Thoms, P. v. (8 Abb. Ap. 571; 3 Par. Cr. 256) i, 1223, 1241, 1248; ii. 428 Thomson v. P. (24 Ill. 60; 76 Am. D. 733) i. 909; ii. 174 Thon v. C. (77 Va. 289) i, 286 Thorington v. Montgomery (147 U.S. 490) i. 1004 Thorley’s Cattle Food Co. v. Massam (6 Ch. D. 582) i. 1416 Thorn v. Couchman (28 How. Pr. 95) ii. 677 — v. Reed (1 Pike, 480) ii. 377 —, 8. v. (66 N.C. 644) ii. 402, 418 4 Thornberry v. S. (3 Tex. Ap. 36) i. 718 D. 67 ii. 426 Thorndike v. Boston (1 Met. 242) i. 1276 Thornell v. P. (11 Colo. 805) i. 860, 869a Thorney’s Case (Cro. Jac. 276) i. 875 ‘Thornhill, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 575) Sah S. e. (6 Ire. 79; 44 Am. ii. 9336 Thornton’s Case (2 Leach, 684) ii. 429 Thornton, Ex parte (9 Tex. 6385) i. 222 —, C. v. (14 Gray, 41) i, 546, 552 i. 264A —— v. Campton (18 N. H. 20) ii. 751 —, Reg. v. (4 Exch. 820) i. 264d —, Rex vz. (1 Moody, 27) i, 1231 — v. S. (25 Ga. 301) i. 1166 —, 8. v. (26 Iowa, 79) i. 1169, 1170 —, S. v. (13 Ire. 256) i. 229, 1295 —; 8. v. (66 Vt. 35) ii, 34 Thorowgood’s Case (1 Mod. 107) ii. 864 Thorp v. Fowle (2 Mod. 58) i. 1318 — v. P. (3 Utah, 441) i. 850 Thrall, P. v. (50 Cal. 415) i. 1058; ii. 9, 10 Thrash v. Bennett (57 Ala. 156) i. 242 v. 8. (16 Tex. Ap. 271) i. 264 m Thrasher, C. v. (11 Gray, 57) i. 909 —v. 5S. (6 Blackf. 460) i, 620 — v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 281) i. 975c, 1110; ii. 622, 1029 ——, S. v. (79 Me. 17) i, 405 Thrift, S. v. (30 Ind. 211) ii, 921 Thruston, S. v. (83 Mo. 271) i. 761 Thurman v. S. (25 Ga. 220) i. 855 — v. §. (27 Neb. 628) i. 948.4 — v.58. (83 Tex. 684) ii. 754 —, S. v. (66 Iowa, 693) ii. 544 Thurmond ». S. (55 Ga. 600) i. Oh, a ii — v. S. (27 Tex. Ap. 347) i. 68, 1098, — v. S. (30 Tex. Ap. 539) i, 682 Thursfield, Reg. v. (8 Gay, & P, 269) i. 298 Thurston v. C. (8 Dana, 225) i. 2645 —, P. v. (5 Cal. 69) i, 864 ——, P. v. (2 Par. Cr. 49) i, 665, 981, eae ao 1124; ii. 685 ii. 649 —, Rex v. (Trem. P. i, 1268, 1288 —e.§. (3 Coldw. iis) INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. TIN Thurston, S. v. (7 Blackf. 148) i, 1817 —,, S. v. (8 Heisk. 67) i. 815 —, 8. v. (2 MceMul. 382) ii. 482 Thuston v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 26) i. 975c, 981 Thymolby’s Case (2 Dy. 152 b) i. 1028 Tibbals v. S. (6 Wis. 596) ii, 828 Tibbets v. Kiah (2 N. H. 557) i. 688 Tice, P. v. (181 N. ¥. 651) i. 1181, 1188; ii. 687 a Tichborne, Reg. v. i, 13827 Tickel, 8. v. (13 Nev. 502) i. 1255 Tickle v. 8. (6 ‘Tex. Ap. 628) ii. na 53) Tiddeman, Reg. v. (4 Cox C. C. 887) li. 858 Tidwell, P. v. (4 Utah, 506) i. 1050 — v. S. (70 Ala, 33) i, 484 a, 959 a —, S. v. (48 Ark, 71) ii. 63 Tiedke v. Saginaw (43 Mich. 64) i. 461 Tiernan, C. v. (4 Grat. 545) i, 869 a Se P. v. (67 Cal. 54) ii. 963 — v. S. (81 Tex. 40) i, 264 a Tiffany v. C. (121 Pa. 165; 6 Am. St. 775) i. 1049, "1093 ; ii. 608, 604, 608 — v. Lord (65 N. Y. 310) ii. 677 Tifft v. S. (23 Missis. 567) i. 481 Tilden v. Johnson (6 Cush. 354) — i, 1844 Tilghman, C. v. (48.&R.127) 4.1817 —-, S. v. (6 Iowa, 296) i. 951 a —, §. v. (11 Ire. 513) i, 948, 999, 1208, 1212 Tillery v. S. (24 Tex Ap. 251; 5 Am. St. 882) i. 978, 975 ¢, 1248 Tilley, Rex v. (2 Leach, 662) ii. 945 — v.5. (21 Tex. 200) i. 1166 Tillman v. Ailles (6 Sm. & M. 873; 43 Am. D. 520) i. 897 —— v. Wood (58 Ala. 578) i. 1317 Tillson v. 8. (29 Kan. 452) i. 264 a; ii, 82 Tilly v. S. (21 Fla, 242) i. 685; ii. 152 —,5S. v. (8 Bax. 881) i, 188 —, S. v. (8 Ire. 424) i. 1086; ii. 607, 613 Tilney, S. v. (88 Kan. 714) ii. 732 Tilton, C. v. (8 Met. 232) i, 802 —— v. 8. (62 Ga, 478) i. 1008 —, S. v. (63 Iowa, 117) ii. 162 Timbrook v. S. (18 Tex. Ap.1) i. 1278 Timmens, S. v. (4 Minn. 825) i. 68 Timmerman v. Territory (3 Wash. Ter. 445) i, 1057, 1310 5| Timmins, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 499) ii. 636 Timmons v. S. (56 Missis. 786) i. 1005 a ii. 7 Timms v. 8. (4 Coldw. 138) i. 683 Timothy v. Simpson (1 Cromp. M. & R. 767) i. 188 —— v. Simpson (5 Tyr. 244) i 170 Tims v. S. (26 Ala. 165) i. 892, 951e Tinckler, Rex v. (1 East P. C. 854} i. 1160, 1212, 1276 701 TOL Tindal, S. v. (5 Harring. Del. 488) i. a 13: Tindall v. S. (71 Ind. 314) i, 1364 — ,S. v. (10 Rich, 212) i, 1270, 1276 Tinder, P. v. (19 Cal. 539; 81 Am. D. 77) i, 254, 256, 262, 857 Tindle v. Nichols (20 Mo. 326) i. 857 Tiner v. 8. (44 Tex. 128) i. 160 Tingler, S. v. (82 W. Va. 546; 25 Am. St. 830) i, 1880; ii. 420, 4256 Tinkham, C. v. (14 Gray, 12) i. 1070, 1264 Tinney, S. v. (26 La. An. 460) i. 698 Tippecanoe, S. v. (45 Ind. 501) i. 1403 Tipper v. C. (1 Met. Ky. 6) i. 1086, 1264, 1265, 1278, 1287 Tippet, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 509) i. 1058 Tippin, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 545) ii. 725 Tippins v. 8. (14 Ga, 422) i. 50, 59 Tipton, P. v. (73 Cal. 405) ii. 753 v. S. (Peck, 308) i. 665, 1241 Tisdale, Reg. v. (20 U. C. Q. B. 272) li, 858 — v. S. (17 Tex. Ap. 444) i. 1169 — , S.v. (39 La. An. 476) ii. 401 —, S. v. (Phillips, N. C. 220) i, 1015 Tissing, S. v. (74 Mo. 72) i. 400 Tissington, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 48) ii. 964, 965 Titherington, P. v. (59 Cal. 598) ii. 740 Titlow v. Titlow (54 Pa. 216; 98 Am. D. 691) ii. 682 Titus, In re (8 Ben. 411) i 224 —, C. v. (3 Brews. 165) i. 966 d —v.§. (7 Bax. 182) ii. 966 — v. 8. (20 Vroom, 36) i. 610; ii, 588 Tivnon, C. v. (8 Gray, 375; 69 Am. D. 248 1, 1248; ii. 180 a, 229 Toadvine, S. v. (1 Brev. 16) i. 608 Toakley, Reg. v. (10 Cox C. C. 406) i. 964 Tobin, C. v. (7 Cent. L. J. 265; 125 Mass. 203 ; 28 Am. R. 220) i. 1001, 1002, 1265 —,C. v. (108 Mass. 426) i. 183, 191, 214; ii. 881, 892 —».P. cH Ill. 121) i. 1269 v. P. (104 Ill. 565) i, 1275 Tock Chew, P. v. (6 Cal. 636) i. 813 Tod, U.S. v. (25 Fed. Rep. 815) i. 145 Todd, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 653) ii. 721 — v.§. (31 Ind. 514) i. 1120; ii, 163, 184, 189 — v. 8. (1 Misso. 566) —, S. v. (4 Ohio, 351) Toland, C. v. (11 Philad. 488) i. 1275 —, S. v. (86S. C. 515) i. 850, 926 “ Toledo, &c. Rid. v. Shuckman (50 Ind. 42) i. 980 a —— v. Smith (25 Ind, 288) ii. 677 ee &e. Ry. v. Craft (62 Ind. Toler v. S. (16 Ohio St. 583) Tolever, S. v. (5 Ire. 452) 702 i. 264 4 i. 1265 i. 879; ii. 872, 373, 379 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. TOP Tolison v. 8. (39 Ala. 103) i. 264 a 5 | Toliver v. 8. (85 Ark. 3895) ii, 144 Tolliver, C. v. (8 Gray, 386; 69 Am. D. 252 i. 871 — , C. v. (119 Mass. 312) i. 1183; ii. 1007 a Tolls, S. v. (5 Yerg. 368) i, 1264, 1272 Tolson, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 103) i. 1097 Tom, S. v. (2 Jones, N. C, 414) ii. 80 Tom Tong, Ex parte (108 U.S. 556) i. 1411 Tomb, Rex v. (10 Mod. 278) i Tomkies v. Reynolds (17 Ala, 109) ii. 625 Tomkins v. Hill (Holt, 704) i. 1268, 1281 — v. S. (33 Tex. 228) i. 523; ii, 182 Tomlin v. 8. (19 Ala. 9) i, 229, 1264, 1817, 1364 Tomlinson v. Brittelbank (1 Nev. & M. 455) ii. 794 —— v. Brittlebank (4 B. & Ad. 630) ii. 794 —— v. Driver (55 Ga. 9) i. 1276 —, P. ». (85 Cal. 503) i. 585; ii. 418 a ——, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 370) ii. 518- — , S. »v. (11 Iowa, 401) i. 1278 —, S. v. (77 N. C. 528) ii. 1050 Tompkins v. S. (82 Ala. 569) i. 980, 1076 —v. 8. (17 Ga. 356) i. 468, 1252; i. 68 — v.8. (4 Tex. Ap. 161) i. 585; ii. 106 —,S.v. (71 Mo. 613) i. 982 a; ii. 433 Tompson, C. v. (2 Cush. 551) i, 551, 552 Toney, In re (11 Misso. 661) i, 1348, 1410 —,S. v. (13 Tex. 74) i, 688 Tong’s Case (J. Kel. 17) i. 1034; ii. 1087 Tongate, Ex parte (31 Ind. 370) i. 1800, 1306 Tonge, Rex v. (6 How. St. Tr. 225) i. 729 Tonielli, P. v. (81 Cal. 275) i. 385, 966 b Tooel v. C. (11 Leigh, 714) i. 947, 994 Tooke, Rex v. (See Horne Tooke.) Tool, S. v. (4 Ohio St. 558) ii, 824 Toole, Reg. v. (7 Cox C. C. 244) = i. 1288 —, Reg »v. (Dears. & B. 194; 7 Cox C. C. 266; 40 Eng. L. & Eq. 583) i. 689 v, S. (88 Ala. 158) i. 1181 ae S. v. (29 Conn. 342; 76 Am. D. 2). ii, 86, 38 —, S. v. (106 N, C. 736) i, 1015 a, 1382 Tooley, S. v. (1 Head, 9) i, 229 Toombs, S. v. (79 Iowa, 741) ii, 116 Toomer, S. v. (Cheves, 106) i. 62 Toomes v. Etherington (1 Saund. Wms. ed. 353 c) i. 385 Tooney v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 452) i, 949, 1085 i. 878 Tootle, S. v. (2 Harring. Del. 541) Topham, Rex v. (4 T. R. 126) ii. 800 Topolanck v. S. (40 Tex. 160) i. 1275; ii, 963, 968 TRA Toptclif v. Waller (3 Dy. 846 d) i. 603, 605 Torbert v. Lynch (67 Ind. 474) i. 1310 Torrence v. C. (9 Pa. 184) ii, 382, 883 Toshack, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 492; 4 Cox C. C. 38) ii, 402 Tosney, S. v. (26 Minn. 262) i. 885, 1174 Touchet, S. v. (83 La. An. 1154) i. 893 Tower, C. v. (8 Met. 527) i, 895 Towey, Reg. v. (8 Cox C. C. 828) ii. 942 Towle, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 814; 2 Marshall, 466) ii. 656 v. 8. (8 Fla. 202) i, 692 —, S. v. (48 N. H. 97) i. 8144, 727 Towler, S. v. (13 R. I. 661) i. 966 b ; i1. 105 ee C. v. (5 Leigh, 743) i. 188 Town, P. v. (53 Mich. 488) ii. 698 b —=, Pit “3 Scam. 19) i. 251 — ,S. v. (Wright, 75) ii, 603 Townley’s Case (18 How. St. Tr. 829) i, 397 Townley v. 8. (3 Harrison, 311) i. 605 Townly’s Case (Foster, 7) i. 897 Townmaker, U. 8. r. (Hemp. 299) i. 229 Townsell, S. v. (3 Heisk. 6) ii, 290 Townsend’s Case (1 Plow.111) i.1005a, 1007 Townsend v. P. (3 Scam. 326) i. 1015; ii. 463 — , P.v. (3 Hill, N. Y.479) ii. 118, 878 — , P. v. (1 Johns. Cas. 104; Col. Cas. 68) iL 1208, 1278 —v.§. (2 Blackf. 151) i. 989, 13859 — v. §. (13 Ind. 357) i. 1269 — vr. 8. (41 Tex. 134) i. 95la — v.§. (6 Tex. Ap. 574) L711, 1343 — v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 74) i, 264.4 — 8. v. (6 Harring. Del. 487) i. 191 — ,S. «. (66 Iowa, 741) li. 585, 674 —, S. v. (86 N. C. 676) ii. 789 Townshend v. Townshend (7 Gill, 10) ii. 679 Townsley, Ex parte (25 Vt. 93) i, 268, 8l4a —, P. v. (39 Cal. 405) i. 641; ii. 718 Towsey v. Shook (3 Blackf. 267 ; 25 Am. D. 108) i. 1048 Tozier, S. c. (49 Me. 404) i. 1119 Tracy, C. v. (5 Met. 586) i. 228; ii. 894 — vt. P. (97 Ill. 101) i. 1209 —,, P. v. (9 Wend. 265) i. 814a —, Reg. v. (6 Mod. 30) i. 264 9, 332, 333; ii. 858, 362 — v, Williams (4 Conn. 107; 10 Am. D. 102) i, 179, 187 Trafton v. S, (5 Tex. Ap. 480) ii, 698, » 1024 Trahan, S. v. (81 La. An. 715) i, 260 Train, Reg. v. (2 B. & S. 640) ii. 1050 Trammell v. S. (26 Ark. 534) ii, 595 ‘——, S. v. (2 Ire. 379) ii, 243 Tranchon, S. v, (41 La. An, 619) i. 314a Trant, Rex v. (1 MacN. Ev. 885) i. 1216 ii, 138 Trapp, S. v. (17S. C. 467; 43 Am. R. 614) ii, 188 ‘Trapshaw, Rex v. (1 Leach, 427) INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. TRI Trask v. P. (104 Ill, 569) i. 975¢ v. Payne (48 Barb. 569) i. 170 —, S. v. (42 Vt. 152) ii. 921 Traube v. S. (56 Missis. 153) i. 10054 Travers, P. v. (73 Cal. 580) ii, 180 —, P. v. (88 Cal. 233) i. 981 , Rex v. (1 Stra. 700) - ii. 960 Traverse, C. v. (11 Allen, 260) i. 402 Travis, P. v. (56 Cal. 251) ii. 621 —, 8. v. (39 La. An. 356) ii. 53 Traviss v. C, (106 Pa. 597) i. 860, 901, 909 Traylor v. §. (101 Ind. 65) ii. 548 Treadaway v. 8. (37 Ark 443) ii. 173 Treadway v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 668) i. 980 Treadwell, P. v. (69 Cal. 226) ii, 8234 —, Rex v. (1 Russ. Crimes, Sth Eng. ed. 604) ij, 943 — v. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 560) ii. 687 Treasurer v. Brooks (23 Vt. 698) i. 2644 v, Burr (1 Root, 302) i 2640 —— v. Cook (6 Vt. 282) i. 264 —— v. Pierce (2D. Chip. 106) — i. 264.4 —— v. Rice (11 Vt. 339) i. 285 —— v. Woodward (7 Vt. 529) i. 2644 Treat v. Browning (4 Conn. 408; 10 Am. D, 156) ii. 809 —, P. v. (77 Mich. 848) i. 9756 Trebilcock, Reg. v. (Dears. & B. 453) i. 1266 Treble, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 164) _ ii. 429 ——., Rex »v. (2 Taunt, 328) i, 1188 Tredway, P. v. (38 Barb. 470) ii. 911 Trefethen, C. v. (157 Mass. 180) ii. 633 Treharne, Rex v. (1 Moody, 298) — i. 404 Trelawney v. Coleman (1 B. & Ald. 0) ii. 626 ——, Rex ». (1 T. R. 222) i. 618 Tremaine, Rex v. (7 D. & R. 684) i. 931 —, Rex v. (8D. & R. 590) i, 1814 Tremayne, P. v. (3 Utah, 331) i, 269 Trembly v. 8. (20 Kan. 116) i. 931 Tremearne, Rex v. (6 B. & C. 254) 1.931 —, Rex v. (6D. & RK. 413; 5B. & C. 761; Ryan & Moody, N.P. 147) i. 759, 1814 Trenfield, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 284) i. 9506 ——, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 43) ii. 4255 Trent v. 8. (81 Tex. Cr. 251) ii, 162 Trevenner, Reg. v. (2 Moody & Kh. 476) ii. 730 Trevilian, Rex v. (2 Stra. 1268) —_ i. 768, 773 Trevinio v. 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 90) i. 1264 — v. 8. (27 Tex. Ap. 872) ‘ a Trexler v. S. (19 Ala. 21) Trezevant, S. v. (20 S. C. 363; ar Am. R. 840) i. 1298 Trezza, P. v. (128 N. Y. 529) i, 1264, 1810, 1311 Tribatt, 8. v. (10 Ire. 151) i. 603 Tribble v. S. (2 Tex. Ap. 424) i. 806 Trice, Ex parte (63 Ala. 546) ii, 687 5 v. 8. (2 Head, 591) ii, 455, 456 703 INDEX TO THE TUB Trice, S. v. (88 N. C. 627) ii. 244 —v. Yarborough (4 Ire. 11) i, 1379 Trickey, C. v. (13 Allen, 559) i. me ii Trigally v. Memphis (6 Coldw. bia ‘Tubby, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 530) CASES CITED. TUK i. 1255 Tuberson v. 8. (26 Fla. 472) i. 975¢ Tuberville v. S. (4 Tex. 128) i. 1277 Tuck, C. v. (20 Pick. 356) i. 440, 448, 480, 1264, 1390, 1891, 1394, 1896; ii, 136, 148 Trim, P. v. (87 Cal. 274) i. 269; ii. A, 9, v. 8. (8 Ala. 664) i. 1814 10 50 Tucker’s Case (8 Mass. 286) i. 852, 881 Trimble v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 148) i. 608, 711 | Tucker, C. v. (110 Mass. 408) ii, 61 -—, P. v. (181 N. Y. 118) i, 977 P. (122 Ill. 588) i. 68, 966 — v. S. (2 Greene, Iowa, 404) i, 909 ; ——, Rex v. (2 Car. & P. 500) ii. 984 —— v. §. (8 Ind. 151) i, 264. a | ——, Rex v. (Comb, 257) ii. 1034 — v8. 0 2 Tex. Ap. 803) i. 1264, 1296 | ——, Rex v. (1 Ld. Raym. 1) i. 508 — v. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 115) ii. 1002 v. S.(16 Ala. 670) i. 488 ——, S. v. (83 Md. 468) i. 750 | —— v. 8. (24 Ala. 77) i. 1081 Trimmer, C. v. (1 Mass. 476) ii, 723 | —— v. S. (71 Ala. 342) i. 1153 Triplett v. C. (84 Ky. 198) i, 811 | —— v. 8. (67 Ga. 508) i, 977; ii. 740 Trisler v. S. (39 Ind. 437) i. 1018 ; —— v. S. (2 Head, 555) i. 1317 —, S. v. (49 Ohio St. 588) ii, 168 | —— »v. S. (13 Ind. 332) i, 2644 Trivas, S. v. (82 La. An. 1086; 86 — v. 8. (11 Md.,822) i. 2644 Am. R. 298) i. 1218; ii, 604 | —— v. 8, (55 Missis. 452) i, 264 m Troax, U.S. v. (8 McLean, 224) 1.1169, | —— v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 251) i. 443 1170 | ——». S. (16 Tex. Ap. 471) ii. 740 Trogdon v. C. (81 Grat. 862) i, 1127; v. §. (25 Tex. Ap. 653) i. 360 ii. 189 —_—, OT v. (20 Iowa, 508) i, 872 Troia, In re (64 Cal, 152) i, 265 | —, S. v. (76 Iowa, 232) ii. 740 Trol!op, Rex v. (J. Kel. 39) ii, 720 | ——, S. v. (84 Mo. 23) i. 682 Trombley, P. v. (62 Mich. 278) i. 279 | Tuckerman, C. v. (10 Gray, 173) ii. 827, Trott, S. v. (36 Mo. Ap. 29) i. 961 829 ‘Trotter, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 146) Tucket, Reg. v. (1 Cox C.C. 103) ii. 675 ii. 906, 915 | Tuell, S. v. (6 Blackf. 344) ii, 888 Trout v. S. (107 Ind. 578) i. 887 | Tuey, C. v. (8 Cush 1) i. 982 —, S. v. (74 Iowa, 545; 7 Am. St. Tuffs, Rex v. (5 Car. & P. 167) —_ i. 1060, 499 ) ii. 671 1247 , U.S. v. (4 Bis. 105) i. 605; ii. 414 | Tufts, S. v. (566 N. H. 187) i, 287, 1388 ‘Troutman, Inre (4 Zab. 634) i. 222, 2244) Tuicher, Ex parte (69 Iowa, 393) i. 1801 v, S. (20 Vroom, 38) ii. 1, 119 Trowbridge v. S. (74 Ga. 431) i. 1276 Trowter, Rex v. (1 East P. C. 356) i, 1213 Troxdale v. S. (9 Humph. 411) i. 909, 949 b, 1273 Troy’s Case (1 Mod. 5) i. 141 Troy v. 8. (10.Tex. Ap. 819) i, 816 Truax v. S. (12 Tex. ce ee ii. 740 True v. Sanborn (7 Fost. N. H. 383) i. 1120 Trueblood v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 650) 1, 949 a, 9496 Truelove, Reg. v. (6 Q. B. D. 336 ; 14 Cox C. C. 408) ii. 794 a Trueman, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 727) i, 459 Trulock v. S. (1 Iowa, 515) i aoe —, S. v. (46 Ind. 289) i. 66 Truluck v. Peeples (1 Kelly, 1) i, ‘1265 Truss v. S. (18 Lea, 311) i. 1169 Tryer, Respublica v. (8 Yeates, al 179 Tryon, P. v. (4 Mich. 665) ii, "308 a Tubbee, Reg. v. (1 Rob. Prac. Rep. U. C. 98) i, 219 Tubbs, P. v. (87 N. Y. 586) i, 2647 —— v. Tukey (3 Cush. 438; 60 Am. D, 744) i. 187 704 me aoaue v, Weisheimer (15 La. An. 276 i. 170, 183 Tuley, S. v. (20 Mo. 422) ii, 835 Tuller v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 601) i. 536 ; ii. 36, 39 —, S. v. (84 Conn. 280) i. 118, 845, 889, 890, 451, 458, 909, 1014, 10150, 1327, 1834 Tulley v. Corrie (10 Cox C.C. 640) i. 168 Tullis v. Fleming (69 Ind. 15) i, 222 — v. Kidd (12 Ala. 648) ii. 632, 687 Tully v. C. (11 Bush, 164) i. 1287; ii. 4, 9, 10 — ».C. (18 Bush, 142) i, 68 — v. C. (4 Met. 857) i, 385, 1878; ii. "130 v. P. (6 Mich. 273) ii. 595 — v. P. (67 N. Y. 15) i. 612; ii. 865, 857 Tunnell, Territory v. (4 Mont. 148) i, 1095 Tuomey, S. v. (5 How. Missis. 50) i. 1264, 1864 Turbaville v, S. (68 Ga. 545) i, 1005 a Turberfield, Hen, v, (Leigh & C. 496 ; 10 Cox C. C1 i, 18 Turbeville v. S. (40 Ala. 715) i. 1094 — v. S, (42 Ind. 490) ii, 746 — v. §. (56 Missis. 793) i, 814 Tureaud, U.S. v. (20 Fed. Rep. 621) i, TUR INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. TWE Turk v. S. (7 Ohio, pt. 2, 240) i, 872, | Turner v. S. (88 Tex 166) i. 1278 885, 1015 | —— v. S. (41 Tex. 549) i. 264.4 Turley, P. v. (50 Cal. 469) ii, 618, 620 | -—— v. S. (3 Tex. Ap. 551) i. 718 z. S. (3 Humph. 328) i. 620 | —v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 596) i. 1400 Turlington, S. v. (102 Mo. 642) i. 68, 72, v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 168) i, 2644 354, 863 | —— v. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 318) i. 1264 Turnage, S. v. (2 Nott & McC. 158) i. 604 | —— v. S. (16 Tex. Ap. 378) i. 975¢ Turnbull v. C. (1 Binn. 45) i, 950 b | —~ v. S. (17 Tex. Ap. 587) i. 795 —— v. C. (79 Ky. 495) i. 1151] —— v. S. (20 Tex. Ap. 56) i, 951; ii. 596 Turner, Ex ares (45 Mo. 881) i. 1827 | —— v. S. (80 Tex. Ap. 691) ii, 919 — , In re (5 Ohio, 542) i. 733.a, 1403 | —, S. v. (6 Bax. 201) i. 998 a —— v. Barnaby (2 Salk. 566) i. 1298 | ——, S. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 76) ii. 965 — v. Blount (49 Ark. 361) ii. .329 | ——, S. v. (19 Iowa, 144) ii. 989 —— v. C. (89 Ky. 78) i, 1268 | —, S. v. (25 La. An, 578) i. 999 —v, C. (2 Met. Ky. 619) i, 314 | —, S. v. (2 MeMul. 399) i, 1015 —— v. C. (86 Pa. 54; 27 Am. R. 683) —, S. v. (63 Mo. 436) ! i. 449 i. 1049, 1063 ; ii. 630 | ——, S. v. (76 Mo. 350) i, 1181, 1182 —,C.v.(8 Bush, 1) i. 612; ii. 842, 845 | ——, S. v. (21 Mo. Ap. 824) ii. 1050 —, C. v. (3 Met. 19) i. 1276; ii. 690, 692 | ——, S. v. (65 N. C. 592) ii. 741 —— v. Davies (2 Saund. Wnns. ed. —, 8S. v. (66 N. C. 618) i. 488; ii. 706 1489) i. 458 | ——, S. v. (106 N. C. 691) i, 689 —— v. Lewis (1 Chit. 265) i. 1276 | ——, S. v. (29S. C. 84; 13 Am. St. ——v. Muskegon Cir. Judge (95 706) i. 975c; ii. 618 Mich. 1) ii, 825 | ——, S. v. (Wright, 20) i. 1100; ii. 608 i. 676 i. 239, 966 b; v. P. (33 Mich. 368) ii. 974 —, P. v. (1 Cal. 152) i. 1878 — , P. «. (39 Cal. 370) i. 999 — , P. v. (65 Cal. 540) ii. 63 — , P. v. (85 Cal. 482) i. 704 —, P. v. (117 N. Y. 227) i. 1004 —, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 782) _ ii. 933 8, 933 c, 935 a —, Reg. v. (2 Moody, 42) ii. 249 — , Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 214) i. 478 ——, Rex v. (15 East, 570) i, 691 —, Rex v. (6 How. St. Tr. 565) i. 729 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 805) ii, 138 — , Rex v. (1 Leach, 536) i, 687 a; ii. 726 —, Rex v. (1 Lewin, 177) ii, 518 —, Rex v. (1 Moody, 47) ii. 271 —, Rex v. (1 Moody, 239) ii. 43 —, Rex v. (1 Moody 347) ii. 13 ——, Rex v. (1 Sid. 171) i. 1087 -—, Rex v. (1 Stra. 189) i, 516, 1294 — v. §. (40 Ala. 21) i. 779 v. S. (25 Ga, 146) i. 951 v. 8. (57 Ga. 107) i. 1268 v. 8. (70 Ga. 765) i, 952 a, 1107; ii. 629 — v. 8. (78 Ga. 174) i. 850 — v &. (8 Heisk. 452) i. 486, 1012 ; ii. 702 —v. S. (9 Humph. 119) i. 665 ii. 700 — +. S. (102 Ind. 425) i. 298, 975, 975 b, 109 —— uv, S. (4 Lea, 206) — v. S. (28 Missis. 684) i. 1868 — v. S. (60 Missis, 351, 354; 45 Am. R. 412) i. 1158 — v. 8. (1 Ohio St. 422) i. 524; ‘i 736 —— v. §. (89 Tenn. 547) i. 118, 704, 965, 975, 1218, 1214 VOL. 11.— 45 Turney v. 8. (8 Sm. & M. 104; 47 Am. D. 74) i. 1269; ii. 968, 964, 972 Turnipseed v. S. (6 Ala. 664) 1.486 ; ii, 846 Turns v. C. (6 Met. 224) i. 699, 1350, 1359, 1568 ; ii. 515 Turpen v. Booth (56 Cal. 65; 38 Am. R. 48) i. 8706 Turpin v. S. (4 Blackf. 72) i. 97,571, 706, 789 b, 1005 a, 1023 —— v. 8. (80 Ind. 148) i. 408, 733 —— v. 8. (55 Md. 462) i. 948, 1152; ii, 620 — v. §, (19 Ohio St. 540) ii. 460 , S.v. (77 N. C. 473) ii. 610, 618, 615, 616, 622 Turton, Reg. v. (6 Cox C. C. 385) ii. 666, 668 Turweston, Reg. v. (16 Q. B. 109) ii. 1048, 1045 Tuska, U.S. v. (14 Blatch. 5) Tustian v. Roper (T. Jones, 27) i. 10054 Tutchin, Reg. v. (14 How. St. Tr. 1095 ; 6 Harg. St. Tr. 682) i. 1001; ii. 794 —, Reg. v. (6 Mod. 164) i. 728 ——., Reg. v. (6 Mod, 268) i. 707, 708 Tutt, S. v. (2 Bailey, 44; 21 Am. 1D. i. 850, 851 508) ii, 431 Tuttle, C. v. (12 Cush. 502) — i. 314, 639, 10938, 1094 —, C. v. (12 Cush. 505) i. 452, 1827 — v. P. (86 N. Y. 431) ii. 912 —— v. Rainey (98 N. C. 518) ii. 4820 —v.8. (1 Tex. Ap. 864) i. 3l4a — v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 556) i. 278 4 | Tweed’s Case (60 N. Y¥. 559) is also cited P. v. Liscomb. (See Liscomb, P. v.) Tweed, P. v. (18 Abb. Pr. n. 8. 25) i. 287 —, P. v, (67 Barb, 496) i, 1862 Tweedy v. C. (2 Met. Ky. 378) i, 1265 —— v. Jarvis (27 Conn. 42) i. 686 705 UND Tweedy v. S. (5 Iowa, 433) i. 1049, 1093 ; ii. 600, 606 —, S. v. (115 N. C. 704) ii, 842 Twenty-second Dist. Judge, S. v. (33 La. An. 1227) i. 1264 Twiggs, S. v. (Winst. i. 142) i. 74 Twitchell v. C. (9 Pa. 211) ii, 206 v. C. (7 Wal. 821) i. 64, 88, 145, 1865 _ C. v. (4 Cush. 74) ii. 865, 867 Twitty, S. v. (2 Hawks, 248) i. 561; ii. 403 , 8. v. (2 Hawks, 449) i. 1170; ii. 460 Two Calf, ix parte (11 Neb. 221) i. 8704 Twogood, 8. v. (7 Iowa, 252) ii. 63 Twohig, Ex parte (13 Nev. 302) i. 1410 Twombly, C. v. (119 Mass. 104) ii. 869 a — , C. v. (10 Pick. 480, note) i. 947 Twyn, Rex v. (6 How. St. Tr. 513) i. a Tye, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 345) ii. 514, 541 Tyers, Rex v. (Russ & Ry. 402) ii, 821 Tyler, In re (64 Cal. 484) i, 1801 v. Greenlaw (5 Rand. 711) i. 256 v. P. (8 Mich. 320) i. 1265, 1269 —, P. v. (35 Cal. 553) ii, 975 —, P. v. (386 Cal. 522) ii. 970 ——) Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 616) i. 832; ii. 3, 552 —, Rex v. (1 Car. & P. 129) i. 1234 v. S. (13 Tex. Ap. 205) ii, 750 — , S. v. (46 La. An. 1269) ii. 63 — , S. v. (85 N. C. 569) i. 286 Tylney, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 319) ii, 420, 427, 433 Tyner v. S. (5 Humph. 883) i. 1059 Tynes v. S. (17 Tex. Ap. 123) i. 613; ii. 1026 Tyra v. C. (2 Met. Ky. 1) i. 898 Tyson v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 388) i.1276, 1342 Tyte v. Glode (7 T. R. 267) i, 1313 Tytus, S. v. (98 N. C. 705) ii, 142 Udderzook v. C. (76 Pa. 340) i, 1060, 1097 Uecker v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 234) i. 1264 Uhrig, S. v. (14 Mo. Ap. 413) i, 1412 Ullery v. C. (8 B. Monr. 3) i. 261 Ullman v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 220; 28 Am. R, 405) i. 1310 , . (5 Minn, 18) i. 523, 611 Ulmer v. 8. (14 Ind. 52) i, 814.4, 405, 1169; ii 9, 1927 Ulrich v, P. (89 Mich. 245) i. 281, 975 ¢, 1234 Ulrici, U.S. uv. (8 Dil. 582) ii. 88, 206, 208, 245 Unfried, S. v. (76 Mo. 404) i. 975c, 1087 Underwood v. Clements (16 Gray, 169) — v. P. (32 Mich. 1; —, $8. 1 a 20 Am. R. 633) ii. 687 b ——». §. (72 Ala. 220) i. 688 —, $.v. (2 Ala. 744) i. 1004 —, 5S. v. (6 Ire, 96) —, S. v. (37 Mo. 225) 706 i. 932, 1142 ii. 848 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. VAL Underwood, S. v. (57 Mo. 40) i. 1021; ii. 608 — , 8. v. (75 Mo. 280) 1. 68, 181, 1241 ——) §. v. (76 Mo. 630) i. 951. a, 9660 —, S. v. (77 N.C. 502) i, 9756 —, S. v. (2 Tenn. 92) i, 952 Unger v. S. (42 Missis. 642) i. 488d, 677 ; ii. 741, 764 Ungericht v. S. (119 Ind. 879; 12 Am. St. 419) ii. 818 Union Quarter Sessions, S. v. (16 Vroom, .528) ii, 925 Union Rid., S. v. (70 Md. 69) i. 1147 Union Trust Co. v. Rockford, &c. Rid. (6 Bis. 197) Unknown, C. v. (6 Gray, 489) i. 482 Unruh v. S. (105 Ind. 117) i. 975, 978, 1140 Unwin, Reg. v. (7 Dowl. P. C. 578) i. 1877 Upchurch, Rex v. (1 Moody, 465) i. 1233 ——, 8. v. (9 Ire. 454) i. 1264 Updegraff v. C. (6 S. & R. 5) i. 612 Updike, S. v. (4 Harring. Del. 581) i. 815 i, 1270 Upham, S. v. (88 Me. 261) i. 1119 —, U.S. v. (2 Mont. 170) i. 665; ii. 210 Upstone v. P. (109 Ill. 169) i. 955; ii. 679 Upthegrove v. S. (37 Ohio St. 662) ii. 65 Upton v. 8. (5 Iowa, 465) i. 1170 —, 8. v. (1 Dev. 513) i, 688; ii. 640 —,S. v. (6 La. An. 438) i. 1265, 1272 ——, S. v. (20 Mo. 397) i. 999; ii. 505 Upton-on-Severn, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 138) 1, 825, 372; ii. 1046, 1047 Upton St. Leonard’s, Reg. v. (10 Q. B. 827) i. 1194 Urias, P. v. (12 Cal. 325) i. 335; ii. 79,544 Urlyn, Rex v. (2 Saund. Wms. ed. 308) 3.1005 a; ii. 99, 200, 201 Urton v. S. (37 Ind. 339) i. 264 @ Useful Manufactures Soc., S. v. (15 Vroom, 504) i. 661 Usher v. C. (2 Duy. 394) ii. 94, 653 ——, Rex v. (1 Leach, 48; 2 East P. C. 999) ii. 429 v. Severance (20 Me. 9; 37 Am. D. 33) ii. 801 Usselton v. P. (149 Til. 612) ii. 4 Uterburgh v. S. (8 Blackf. 202) 4. 799 Utica, P. v. (65 Barb. 9 ; 45 How. Pr. 289) i. 1880 Vadnais, 8. v. (21 Minn, 382) Vahl, 8S. v. (20 Tex. 779) Vaiden v. C. (12 Grat. 717) Vaigneur, S. v. (5 Rich. 391) i. 419 i. 887, 888 i. 1265, 1268 i, 1236, 1242, 1255 Vail v. McKernan (21 Ind. 421) i, 68 ——, P.v. (6 Abb. N. Cas. 206; 57 How. Pr. 81) 1. 269 Vaise v. Delaval (1 Tr. 11) 1. 1270 — Valdez, Territory v. (1 New Mex. 548) i. 814a VAN Valencia, P. v. (48 Cal. 552) i. 980.a ; ii. 9 ——, Territory v. (2 New Mex. 108) i, 860 Valentine v. 8. (77 Ga. 470) i. 975, 978, 1012, 1265 — v.58. (6 Tex. Ap. 489) i. 68 —, 8. v. (7 Ire. 141) i. 1264 —, S. v. (7 Ire. 225) i. 1199 —) 8. v. (6 Yerg. 533) i. 1011 Valle v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 57; 85 Am. R. 719) i, 1274 Van Aernam, Ex parte (3 Blatch. 160) i, 224a Van Alstine, P. v. (67 Mich. 69) i, 482, 686, 1018, 1020 ; ii. 418 a, 425 d, 428, 481 Van Alstyne, P. v. (82 Barb. 181) i. 1881 Van Blarcum, P. v. (2 Johns. 105) ii. 188 Van Blaricum »v. P. (16 Ill. 864; 63 Am. D. 316) i. 932 Van Buren v. 8. (24 Missis. 512) i. 12238, 1238, 1265 Van Buskirk v. Daugherty (44 Iowa, 42) i. 999 — v. Newark (26 Ohio St. 37) i. 1265, 1267 —, S. v. (59 Ind. 384) i. 857, 858 Van Butchell, Rex v. (3 Car. & P. 629) i. 1212 Van Campen, In re (2 Ben. 419) i. 285 Van Doran, S. x. (109 N. C. 864) i. 586, 590 Van Dusen v. P. (78 Ill. 645) i. 384, ii. 933 ¢ — v. Van Dusen (5 Johns. 144) ii. 432 a, 670 Van Dyke v. S. (22 Ala. 57) i. 1842 Van Eps, P. v. (4 Wend. 887) i. 264, 264.4 264 e, 264 m Van Fossen, U.S. v. (1 Dil. 406) i. 2642 Van Gaasbeck, P. v. (9 Abb. Pr. Nn. s. 828) 1. 83; ii, 180 Van Hagan, Ex parte (25 Ohio St. 426 i. 1867, 1410 Van Hart, S. v. (2 Harrison, 327) ii, 457 Van Henbeck’s Case (2 Leon. 38) i. 577 Van Horne, P. v. (8 Barb. 158) i. 251, 255, 256, 445 — v.S. (5 Pike, 349) ii. 426 Van Houten, S. v. (2 Penning. 672; 4 Am. D. 407) i, 1126 —, S. v. (87 Mo. 357) i. 772 Van Hoven, Ex parte (4 Dil. 411) i. 224 Van Huss v. Rainbolt (2 Coldw. 139) ii. 682 Van Keuren, P. v. (5 Par. Cr. 66) ii. Van Matre, S. v. (49 Mo. 268) i, 893, 347, 1368 Van Meter v. P. (60 Ill. 168) i Van Musgrave v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 57) ii, 750 Van Nostrand, P. v. (9 Wend. 60) ii. INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. 4|— v. S. (12 Tex. 252) VAN Van Pelt v. McGraw (4 Comst. 110) i. 1101 Van Sickle v. P. (29 Mich. 61) i. 453 ; ii. 486, 815 Van Tuyl, C.v. (1 Met. Ky. 1; 71 Am. D, 455) i. 984, 1264 Van Valkenburg, S. c. (60 Ind. 802) i, 1269 Van Vechten v. Hopkins (5 Johns. 211; 4 Am. D. 339) ii. 798 Van Walker v. S. (88 Tex. Cr. 359) Van Winkle, S. v. (80 Iowa, 15) — , S. uv. (6 Nev. 340) i. 1079, 1094 Van Wyck v. McIntosh (4 Kern. 439) ii, 4320 , P. v. (2 Caines, 33:3) i. 277 Van Zant,S. v. (71 Mo. 541) i. 484 Vanard, P. v. (6 Cal. 562) ii. 660 Vanauken, In re (2 Stock. 186) ii. 688, 685 Vance v. C. (2 Va, Cas, 132) li. 674 — »v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 162) i. 68, 78, 74, 951 — v. Gray (9 Bush, 656) i. 590 — »v. Haslett (4 Bibb, 191) i. 874, 1270 —, P.v. (21 Cal. 400) 1.981; ii. 544, 584 v. S. (65 Ind. 460) i. 688 — v.58. (82 Tex. 396) i. 360 ——, S. v. (17 Iowa, 138) i. 982 —, 8. v. (81 La. An. 398) i. 981 —,S.v. (82 La. An. 1177) ii. 627 —,, 8. v. (1 Tenn. 481) i. 1264 Vancie v. P. (16 Ill. 120) i. 2644 Vanderbilt, S. v. (3 Dutcher, 828) ii. 178 Vandercom, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 519) i. 459, 814 Vandercomh, Rex v. (2 Leach, 708) i. 459, 789, 810, 811, 814, 816, 817 Vandergraff, S. v. (23 La. An. 96) i. 2346 Vanderhoof, P. v. (71 Mich. 158) i. 1179 Vanderkarr v. S. (51 Ind. 91) i. 68, 71, 708, 948, 966 d Vandermark v. P. (47 Ill. 122) i. 685 Vanderpool, P. v. (1 Mich. N. P. 157) i. 1268 — v.§. (84 Ark. 174) i, 226 —, S. v. (89 Ohio St.273; 48 Am. R. 431) i, 2246 Vandervelpen, In re (14 Blatch. 157) i, 224 i. Vanderwerker v. P. (5 Wend. 580) i. 378, 1268 Vanderworker v. S (13 Ark. 700) i. 601; ii. 275 Vandeveer v. Mattocks (3 Ind. 479) | is i. Vane’s Case (18 East, 172, note) i. 1158 — Case (J. Kel. 14; T. Raym. 486; 6 How. St. Tr. 119) i. 400, 1265 Vanhook v. 8. (5 Blackf. 450) ii, 833 i, 876, 884 707 VEA INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. VIN Vanhook, S. v. (88 Mo. 105) i. 733 | Vedder, P. v. (98 N. Y. 630) i. 1169. Vanloan, S. v. (8 Ind. 182) ii. 17, 20 | Velarde, P. v. (59 Cal. 457) i. 884; Vann, Reg. v. (2 Den. C. C. 325; 5 Cox C. C. 879) ii. 1009 v. 8. (83 Ga. 44) 1. 909, 975, 1094 ; ii, 599, 601, 604 —, S. v. (82 N. C. 631) i. 938, 1220 Vannatta v. 8. (31 Ind. 210) i. 825 Vanpool v. C. (18 Pa. 891) i. 1269; ii. 332 Vansant, S. v. (80 Mo. 67) — i. 1208, 1216 Vantandillo, Rex v. (4 M. & S. 73) ii. 861 Vanwey v. S. (41 Tex. 639) i. 95la — v.§, (44 Tex. 112) i. 264 a Vari, 8. v. (85 S. C. 175) i, 1274 Varnadoe v. 8. (67 Ga. 768) i. 951 a4 Varnedoe v. 8. (75 Ga. 181; 58 Am. R. 465) i. 966 a, 1212 Varnell v. 8. (26 Tex. Ap. 56) i. 975¢ Varner, C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 62) i. 148 Varney, C. v. (10 Cush. 402) i. 486 ; ii. 784, 802 Vasquez, P. v.(49 Cal. 560) i. 905, 978 — S. v. (16 Nev. 42) i. 975 c¢, 1012, 1181 Vass v. C. (3 Leigh, 786; 24 Am. D. 695) i. 1213 Vasser v. 8. (32 Ala. 586) i. 2644 v. S. (55 Ala. 264) ii. 954 Vastine v. Voullaire (45 Mo. 504) i. 286 Vatter, S. v. (71 Iowa, 557) i. 909; ii. 53 Vattier v. S. (4 Blackf 73) i. 884 Vaughan’s Case (Holt, 689) i. 1188 — Case (2 Salk. 634) ii. 1032 Vaughan, Ex parte (44 Ala.17) — i. 262 —,, Ex parte (44 Ala. 417) i, 254 v. C. (17 Grat. 576) i. 707 a, 1227; 7. 14! v. C. (86 Ky. 481) i. 1207 v. C. (85 Va. 671) i. 975c, 980, 1107 —v.C. (3 Va. Cas. 273) i. 488 ——,, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 276) ii. 412,415 v. §. (83 Ala. 55) i. 1276 ——v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 563) ii. 945 —, S. v. (1 Bay, 282) i. 1138 —, S. v. (91 N. C. 532) i. 721 ‘Vaughn ». S, (88 Ga. 731) v. 8. (4 Misso. 530) ii. 627 i. 612, 665, 1265 vu. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 562) i. 975¢; ii. 740 —, S.v. (Harper, 313) i, 227 —, S. v. (26 Mo. 29) i, 618, 1269 v. Scade (30 Mo. 600) i. 893, 897 Vaul v. S. (40 Ala. 44) ii, 728 Vaux’s Case (4 Co. 44a) i554, 1288; ii. 556. Vaux v. Brook (4 Co. 39 6) ii. 129 ——, Rex v. (Comb. 18) i. 759 Vavasour v. Ormrod (6 B. & C. 480) i. 689 Vaws, Rex v. (1 Mod. 24) i. 666 Vawter, C. v. (1 Va. Cas. 127) i, 1264 Veal v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 474) i. 975c Veatch v. S. (66 Ind. 684; 26 Am. R. 44) i. 1285; ii. 516, 564 ——v. 8. (60 Ind. 291) i, 1012 708 3| Vice, P. v. (21 Cal. 344) = ii, Veneman v. Jones (118 Ind. 41; 10 Am. St. 100) ; i, 181 Venters v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 198) i. 951 f, ; 1888 Verden, S. v. (24 Iowa, 126) _ i. 871, 872 Verdjuice, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 672) i. 1006 Vermilyea, Ex parte (6 Cow. 555) i. 1265 —, P. v. (7 Cow. 108) i. 68, 69, 3144, 909, 1265 —, P. v. (7 Cow. 369) i. 931, 951, 1276, 1279 Vermington, S. v. (71 N. C. 264) i. 8144 Vermont Cent. Rid., S. v. (27 Vt. 103) . ii. 1050 ——, 5S. v. (28 Vt. 583) i. 588, 591, 682 Vernon, P. v. (85 Cal. 49; 95 Am, D. 49) i. 1086, 1212, 1214; ii. 625 —, Reg. v. (12 Cox C.C. 153; 2 Eng. Rep. 206) i, 1228 Verona Cent. Cheese Fact. v. Mur- taugh (4 Lans. 17) i, 522 Verrill, S. v. (54 Me. 408) ii. 578, 579, 584, 594 Verwayne, S. v. (44 Iowa, 621) =i. 1317 Vest, S. v. (21 W. Va. 796) i. 534 Vestal v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 648) i. 1843 ——, 8. v. (82 N. C. 5638) i, 938 Vester, S. v. (23 La. An. 620) i, 126 Vezain v. P. (40 Ill. 397) i, 612 Viall, C. v. (2 Allen, 512) ii. 1011 Vianna, S. v. (387 La. An. 606) i. 307 Vicaro v. C. (5 Dana, 504) i. 981, 966 Vickery v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 401) —— U.S. v. (1 Har. & J. 427) i, 127, 611 Victor v. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 90) i. 676 Videto, P.v. (1 Par. Cr. 603) i. 984, 1059, 1078, 1074 Vierra, P. v. (52 Cal. 451) ii. 68 , P. v. (67 Cal. 231) i, 718 Viers, C. v. (2 Duv. 377) i. 951 Vigoreux, S. v, (18 La. An. 809) i. 951 Vill, S. v. (2 Brev. 262) i. 612 Villarino, P. v, (66 Cal. 228) i, 733 Villere, S. v. (41 La. An. 572) i. 258 Vilmont v. Bentley (18 Q. B. D. 822) 188 ii. Vincent v. Duncan (2 Misso. 214) i 1246 — v. P. (25 Ill. 500) i, 2644 v. P. (6 Par. Cr. 88) ii. 418 a —, P. v. (95 Cal. 425) i. 981 ——,, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 275) ii, 232 —, Reg. v. (9 Car. & P.463n.) i. 958, ‘ 959 a, 966 —, Reg. v. (2 Den. C. C. 464; 5 » Cox C.C. 587; 9 Eng. L. & Eq. 548) ii, 721 — v.§. (8 Heisk. 120) i, 1847; ii. 751 —- v. §. (3 Tex. Ap. 678) i, 1110 — v.8. (9 Tex. Ap. 303) i. 978 — v, S. (10 Tex. Ap. 830) ii, 988 WAC Vincent, S. v. (1 Car. Law Repos. 493) i. 702 —, 8. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 11) i. 1262 —, S. v. (24 Iowa, 570; 95 Am. D. 753) i. 1050, 1082; ii, 623, 625 —, S. v. (91 Mo. 662) i. 770 Vines v. 8. (81 Tex. Cr. 31) i. 1265 —, S. v. (84 La. An. 1079) i. 1125 Vinson, S. v. (87 La. An. 792) i. 975c, 983, 984, 987, 1077 —, S. v. (63 N.C. 385) i, 1249; ii. 754 Vinton, P. v. (82 Mich. 39) i, 285 v. Peck (14 Mich. 287) ii. 452 ¢ Vion, S. v. (12 La. An. 688) i. 253 Vipond v. Hurlburt (22 Ill. 226) i. 264a Virgil v. 8. (63 Missis. 317) 1. 975¢ Virginia, Ex parte (100 U.S. 339) | i, 980 — »v. Rives (100 U.S. 313) : Virrier, Reg. v. (12 A. & EB. 317; 4 Per. & D. 161) i. 1018, 1014; ii. 911, 917 Vise v. Hamilton (19 IN. 78) i. 805, 306 Viser v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 86) i. 2644 Vitan, P. v. (20 Abb. N. Cas. 298) i. 1264 Vittum, S. v. (9 N. H. 519) i. 687 Vivian, S. v. (16 Tex. Ap. 262) i. 264 a, 264 b Vodden, Reg. v. (Dears. 229; 6 Cox C. C, 226; 22 Eng. L. & Eq. 596) 1.1001 Vogel v. S. (81 Ind. 64) i. 538 —, S. v. (22 Wis. 471) i, 923 Voght, 8. v. (27 Iowa, 117) ii. 981 Voight v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 21) i. 1279 Vojta v. Pelikan (15 Mo. Ap. 471) i. 934 Voke, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 531) _ ii. 848 Voll, Ex parte (41 Cal. 29) i. 261, 262 , P. v. (43 Cal. 166) / i, 905 Volz, U.S. v. (14 Blatch. 15) i. 251 Von Haltschuherr, S. v. (72 Iowa, 541) i. 458 Von Pollnitz v. S. (92 Ga. 16; 44 Am. St. 72) ii. 625 Von Sachs, S. v. (30 La, An. 942) i. 1223 Voorhees, In re (8 Vroom, 141) i. 220 Voorhis v. Terhune (21 Vroom, 147; 7 Am. St. 781) i. 1368 Voshall, 8. v. (4 Ind. 589) i. 845; ii. 996 Votaw v. S. (12 Ind. 497) i. 264.4 Vowchurch, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 393 i, 691 Vowels, S. v. (4 Or. 324) ii. 855 Vreones, Reg. v. (1891, 1 Q. B. 360) | 8 il. Vyse, Reg. v. (3 Fost. & F. 247) ii. 675, 687 a Wabash, &c. Ry. v. P. (12 Bradw. 448) ii. 1050 —, P. v. (12 Bradw. 263) i. 287 Wacaser v. P. (134 Ill. 488; 23 Am. St. 683) i, 975 c, 1094 Wachstetter v. S. (42 Ind. 166) =i. 1264 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. WAL Wacker, S. v. (16 Mo. Ap. 417) ii. 41 Waddell v. 8. (1 Tex. Ap. 720) i. 452 Waddill v. S, (83 Tex. 348) i. 1006 Waddington, Rex v. (1 East, 148) i. 252, 1288 ; ii. 396 —. Rex cv. (2 East P. C. 518) ii, 182 Wade, C. v. (17 Pick. 395) — v.S. (50 Ala. 164) i, 982, 1394; ii. 36 i. 1144, 1359; ii, 960, 968 — v. 8. (7 Bax. 80) i. 1196 — v. 8. (12 Ga. 25) i. 909, 949 d, 1000 —— v. 5S. (65 Ga. 756) i, 975, 986 v. S. (71 Ind. 585) i. 1098; ii. 8,9 — v. 8. (12 Tex. Ap. 358) i. 909 —, 8. v. (7 Bax. 22) ii. 732 , S. v. (84 N. H. 495) i. 636, 639 Wadge, In re (21 Blatch. 300) i. 224 Wadleigh, Ex parte (82 Cal. 518) i. 1810 Wadlin’s Case (11 Mass. 142) i. 853 Wadsworth, Rex v. (5 Mod. 18) i. 769 —, S. v. (80 Conn. 55) i. 471 Wafford v. 8. (44 Tex. 439) ii. 746 Waggoner v. 8. (80 Ohio St. 575) i. 801 Wagner v. P. (4 Abb. Ap. 509) i, 884 v. S. (107 Ind. 71; 57 Am. R. 79) ii. 740 — v.§. (116 Ind. 181) ii. 674, 684 ——, S. v. (61 Me. 178) i, 384, 1083, 1085, 1087 ; ii. 626 ——,,S. v. (23 Minn. 544) i. 964 ——,S. v. (78 Mo. 644; 47 Am. R. ‘ 131) i. 118, 120. —, S. v. (118 Mo. 626) ii. 698 6, 713 Wagoner v. S. (90 Ind. 504) ii. 168 Wagstaff, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 398) ii. 1025 Wahl v. Walton (30 Minn. 506) i. 166 Wainwright, Reg. v. (13 Cox C. C. 171; 14 Eng. Rep. 623) ii. 625 Wair v. S. (51 Ga. 303) i. 1012 Wait, C. v. (181 Mass. 417) i. 1264 —— v. Green (5 Par. Cr. 185) ii. 368 ——, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 505; 7 Moore, 473; 1 Bing. 121 ; 11 Price, 518) ii. 429, 436 Waite, C. v. (5 Mass. 261) ii, 429 — , Rex v. (1 Leach, 28; 2 East P. C. 570) i. 731, 955 —, Rex v. (4 Mod. 248) i. 666 ——, Rex v. (4 Mod. 249) ii. 387 — v.§. (18 Tex. Ap. 169) i. 1236, 1250 Wakefield ». S. (5 Ind. 195) i, 814 — v.S. (41 Tex. 556) i. 999 — v.58. (3 Tex. Ap. 39) i. 1265 —, S. v. (738 Mo. 549) ii. 924 —, S. v. (9 Mo. Ap. 326) ii. 921 Wakely v. Hart (6 Binn. 316) i. 168 — , P. v, (62 Mich. 297) ii. 171, 187 Wakeman, Rex v. (7 How. St. Tr. 591) i, 729 Wakker, In re (8 Barb. 162) i. 3144 Walbridge v. S. (13 Neb. 286) i. 1079 709 WAL Walcot, Rex v. (Comb. 869 ; 2 a 632) 1298 —, Rex v. (9 How. St. Tr. 519) ‘ 733 b Waliegrave, Reg. v. (1 Gale & D. 615) i. 1819 —, Reg. v. (2 Q. B. 341) i. 691 Walden, C. v. (3 Cush. 558) ii. 846 v. Holman (6 Mod. 115; 1 Salk. 6) i. 681, 688, 792 Waldo v. Spencer (4 Conn. 71) i. 264a, 264 m Waldrup v. Maxwell (84 Ga. 118) i. 951 a Walford, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 767) i. 1182; ii. 980 Walker’s Case (4 Co. 41) ii. 522 Walker, Ex parte (3 Tex. Ap. 668) i. 951, v. Brogden (19 C. B.w.s.65) ii. 791 — ». C. (28 Grat. 969) ii. 152 v. C. (79 Ky. 292) i. 264 f v. C. (1 Leigh, 574) ii. 750 —_, C. v. (13 Allen, 570) i, 1254 —, C. v. (108 Mass. 309) ‘ — vv. Cruikshank (2 Hill, N. Y. 296) i. 230 — v. Dewing (8 Pick. 520) i, 1013 v. Fox (2 Dana, 404) i, 204 v. Kearney (2 Stra. 1148) i. 232 — v. London (11 Cox C. C. 280) ii. 755, 762 — v. P. (88 N. Y. 81) ii. 673 — vv. Reg. (8 Ellis & B. 489) ii. 914 —, Reg. v. (Dears. 280; 6 Cox C. C. 310; 25 Eng. L. & Eq. 568) ii. 754 —, Reg. v. (Dears. 358; 6 Cox C. C. 871; 25 Eng. L. & Eq. 589) i. 188 —, Reg. v. (2 Moody & &. 212) ii. 963, 978 —, Reg. v. (10 U. C. Q. B. 465) i. 581; ii, 164, 173 ——, Rex v. (3 Camp. 264) i, 549 ——, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 657) ii. 180 ae S. (6 Ala. 350) i. 264 0 ,v. S. (49 Ala. 369) i. 1357 — v.8. (49 Ala. 348) i, 1262 v. 8. (52 Ala, 192) i, 1207, 1212, 1359 — v. §. (58 Ala. 393) i. 1179; ii, 152 — ». 8. (73 Ala. 17) i. 488 c — v. S. (85 Ala. 7; 7 Am. St. 17) i. 975 c, 1107; ii. 661 — v.§. (91 Ala. 76) i. 95la — v. S. (35 Ark. 386) i. 314 a, 360 — v.§. (89 Ark. 221) i. 1207, 1279 — v. §, (28 Ga. 254) ii. 746 —— v.8. (102 Ind. 502) i. 909, 1113; ii. 687 a —— v, 8. (87 Tex. 366) i. 999, 1062, 1207, 1216 —— v.S. (42 Tex. 860) i. 68, 72, 981, 1216 — v5. ( Tex. Ap. 326) i. 1242, v. 8. (3 Tex. Ap. 70) ii. 754 —v 8. Tex. An 576) i. 1279; ii. 683 — v.8. (7 Tex. Ap. 52) i, 882 710 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. WAL Walker v. a (7 Tex. Ap. 245; 32 Am. R. 595 i. "ou, 1283 — v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 38) i. 1238 — v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 200) i. 1265 v. §. (18 Tex. Ap. 618; 44 Am. R. 716, note) i. 951 c, 1005 a —— v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 609) i. 1069 — v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 16) i. 1191 —— v. 8. (19 Tex. Ap. 176 i. 869 a —— v.§. (28 Tex. Ap. 112) i. 1288 v, §. (28 Tex. Ap. 603) i. 975 ¢, 1118 ; ii. 618 —, S. v. (2 Brev. 255) ii, 882 — , 8. v. (41 Iowa, 217) ii, 745 —, S. v. (10 Ire. 334) ii. 891, 395 —, 8. v. (22 La. An. 425) ii. 708 —, § v. (39 La. An. 19) i. 1274 —, S. v. (32 Me. 195) ii. 234 —,S. v. (77 Me. 488) i. 1086 —, 8. v. (1 Misso. 546) i, 251 —, 8. v. (69 Mo. 274) i, 951 —, 8. v. (78 Mo. 380) i. 108¢ —, 8. v. (82 Mo. 489) ii. 827 —, S. v. (98 Mo. 95) i. 635, 1059, 1170, 1250 —, S. v. (119 Mo. 467) ii. 751 —,S. v. (24 Mo. Ap. 679) i. 611, 1005 a —, S. v. (87 N. C. 541) i, 1285 —, 8. v. (94 Me C. 857) i. 264.4 —, 8. v. (N. C. Term R. 229) i. 601 ——, S. v. (N.C. Term R. 230) i. 980 —, S. v. (56 N.H. 176) =i. 264 e, 264 f 264 m ——, S. v. (14 Rich. 36) 1.3144 —, S. v. (5 Sneed, 259) ii. ses —, S. v. (40 Tex. "485) v. Sauvinet (92 U.S. 90) i. 1004, a0 —— v. Shepardson (2 Wis. 384; 60 Am. D. 423) i. 1417 —— v. Walker (34 Ala. 469) ii. 681, 685 Walkley, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 182) ii. 980 » Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 175) i. 1284 Walkling, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 248) i, 962 Wall, Ex parte (107 U.S. 265) i. 1004 —— v, Cloud (3 Humph. 181) i, 1417 —— v. Hunt (4 Halst. 387) ii. 888 v. 8. (75 Ga. 474) i, 1169 —— v. §. (23 Ind. 150) i, 698; ii. 642 v. 8. (51 Ind, 453) i. 424, 458 v. S. (51 Missis. 396; 24 Am. R. i. 1018, 1038, 1039 8. (18 Tex. 682; 70 Am. D. i. 610, 951, 951 a, 951c; ii. es 59 640) —!. 302) ——, 8. v. (15 Mo. 208) i. —, 8. v. (39 Mo. 532) Wallace, C. v. (14 Gray, 382) ; —, C. v. (16 Gray, 221 ii. 214, 217 ——, C. v. (108 Mass. 12 i. 1896 —, ©. v. (114 Pa. 405; 60 Am. R.. 353) i, 761, 1368 —— v. Loomis (97 U. S. 146) i. 8144 —v.P. (27 11.45) 1, 647, 558; ii. 404 — ov. P. (68 Ill. 451) i. 682 WAL INDEX TO THE Wallace, P. v. (9 Cal. 30) — v. S. (28 Ark. 531) i. 1264, 1286 ; ii. 533, 534, 584 i. 966, 989, 1220, 1276, 1279, 13859 — v. §. (2 Lea, 29) i. 28, 1005 a — v.S. (4 Lea, 309) i. 9383 — v. §. (11 Lea, 542)- ii, 183 — v. 8. (80 Tex. 758) i. 1100; ii. 848 v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 570) i. 1077 — v.8. (9 Tex. Ap. 299) i, 1004 v. §. (10 Tex. Ap. 407) i. 795 — 8. v. (41 Ind. 445) i. 1264, 1317 —, S. v. (47 Iowa, 660) ii, 989, 991 Wallen v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 414) i. 264.4 Wallenweber v. C. (3 Bush, 68) i, 2644, 264 b, 264 f Waller v. C, (84 Va. 492) i. 1060 —, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 678) i, 1006 — »v. S. (40 Ala. 325) — v. §. (89 Ala. 79) i. 266, 271, 314, 918, 1001, 1012 i. 975 c, 980 « v. 8. (4 Pike, 87) i. 1269 —., S. v. (88 Mo. 402) ii, 525 —, U.S. v. (1 Saw. 701) i, 145 Wallin, P. v. (65 Mich. 497) i. 975 c, 980, 1060 —, S. v. (89 N. C. 578) i. 1814 Walling v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 625) — i. 1189; ii. 959 Wallis, Reg. v. (1 Salk. 334) ii. 3 —, Rex vr. (1 Moody, 344) ii. 37, 39, 45 Wallman, S. v. (31 La. An. 146) i. 9984; ii. 531 Walls v. S. (125 Ind. 400) i. 1248 ; ii. 1007 a —, S. v. (64 Ind. 407) ii. 910, 911 ——, 8. v. (54 Ind. 561) ii, 127 Walne, Reg. v. (11 Cox C. C. 647) ii. 166, . 187, 188 Walpole, Ex parte (85 Cal. 362) i. 228 Walrath v.-S. (8 Neb. 80) i. 975¢; ii. 1, 9, 685 Walsh, Ex parte (89 Cal. 705) i, 234 b —, C. v. (124 Mass. 32) i. 934 —, C. v. (182 Mass. 8) ii. 659 —— v. P. (12 Ill. 77) i, 1264 v. P. (65 Ill. 58; 16 Am. R. 569) i, 1114, 1279 ve. P. (88 N. Y. 458) i. 969; ii. 674 —., Rex v. (1 A. & E. 481) ii, 882 —. Rex v. (2 Leach, 1054; Russ. & Ry. 215) ii. 730 —, 8. v. (44 La. An, 1122) ii. 627 —, S. v. (5 Nev. 315) i. 978 ; ii. 629 —, S. v. (14 R. I. 607) i. 641 —,S. v. (15 Vroom, 470) i. 1817 —— rv. Smyth (3 Bland, 9) i, 706 — , U.S. v. (22 Fed. Rep. 644) ii. 924 Walston v. C. (16 B. Monr. 15) i. 940, 1208, 1212, 1287 — v.S. (54 Ga, 242 i, 1012 ) Walter v. P. (82 N. Y. 147) i. 892, 940; ii. 672, 673 —, P. v. (1 Idaho, n. 8. 386) ii, 670 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 267) i. 1259, 1261 CASES CITED. WAR Walter, Rex v. (8 Mod. 5). i. 951 f v. S. (105 Ind. 589) i..354, 689 —— v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 254) i. 264 m —, S. v. (14 Kan. 375) i. 888 | Walters, C. v. (6 Dana, 290) i. 700; ii. 1050 —, P. v. (76 Mich. 195) ii. 740 ——, P. v. (6 Par. Cr, 661) i. 762 —— v. S. (5 Iowa, 507) i. 3144, 449 v. §. (89 Ohio St. 215) i, 1066 —— v.§. (17 Tex. Ap. 226; 50 Am. R. 128) i. 1250 —,S. v. (45 Iowa, 389) ii. 970 —,, S. v. (97 N. C. 489) i. 1880 —, 8. v. (7 Wash. 246) ii. 740 Waltham, S. v. (48 Mo. 55) i. 964 Walton v. C. (82 Grat. 855) i. 961 —,, C. v. (11 Allen, 238) i. 112, 114, 115 —, C. v. (17 Pick. 408) i. 959 a —,C. v. (1 Va. Cas. 142) i. 264m v. 8. (62 Ala. 197) i, 1801 — v. 8. (79 Ga. 446) i, 1212 v. S. (57 Missis. 533) i. 975c¢ —— v. S. (64 Missis. 207) ii. 123 —— v. S. (3 Sneed, 687) i. 1894 — v. §. (12 Tex. Ap. 117) i. 498, 519 —— v. §. (29 Tex. Ap. 163) i. 975c¢; ii, 147 ——, 8. v. (62 Me. 106) i. 614; ii. 320, 328 —,, S. v. (74 Mo. 270) i. 901, 909 —, 8.v. (114 N. C. 783) ii, 189 Wambold, S. v. (72 Iowa, 468) i. 400 Wamire, S. v. (16 Ind. 357) i. 269, 1884 Wammack, S. v. (70 Mo. 410) i. 688 Wampler v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 352) i. 677, 951 Wandell, P. v. (21 Hun, 515) i. 814a Wanklyn, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 290) i. 1044 Wannop, Rex »v. (Say. 142) ii. 883 Wanzer »v. Bright (52 Ill. 85) i. 2246 War, P. v. (20 Cal.117) i. 1264; ii. 68.4 Ward, C. v. (1 Mass. 473) ii, 215 —, C. v. (2 Mass. 397) ii. 410 —, C. v. (4 Mass. 497) i. 228, 229, 234 b, 235, 236 — v. Levi (2 D. & R. 421; 1B. & C. 268) i, 2684 —— v. Lewis (1 Stew. 26) ii. 382, 383 v. Macauley (4 T. R. 489) ii. 721 v. P. (8 Hill, N.Y. 395; 6 Hill, N. Y. 144) i. 1228, 1238, 1239; ii. 721 v. P. (18 Ill. 685) i, 1264 —— v. P. (25 Ill. Ap, 510) i. 611, 1074 v. P. (30 Mich. 116) i. 898 ——, P. v. (85 Cal. 585) ii, 825 —, P. v. (105 Cal. 385) ii. 671 —, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 516 i. 1195 —,P. v. (15 Wend. 231 ii, 482 —, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 759) — i. 1202 — , Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 101) ii, 183 —, Reg. v. (7 Cox C. C. 421) ii. 718 —, Reg. v. (10 Cox C. C. 42) i. 459 — , Reg. v. (2 Fost.& F.19) © ii. 980 ——, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 366) i, 1841 711 WAR INDEX TO THE Ward, Rex v. (2 Ld. Raym. 1461) ye 29: —, Rex ». (2 Stra. 747) i. 585 —— v. Reynolds (82 Ala. 884) ii. 677 — v. S, (22 Ala. 16) i, 702 — v. S. (28 Ala. 52) i. 78, 688 — v. S. (50 Ala. 120) i. 854, 589, 1223 zv. S. (78 Ala. 441) i, 1212 — v. §. (78 Ala. 455) i. 1400 —v.S. (8 Blackf. 101) —_i. 966, 1218, . 1270; ii. 515 — v. S. (56 Ga. 408) i. 977 — v. §. (1 Humph. 258) i. 932 v. S. (48 Ind. 289) —_ i. 622, 745, 849 v. S. (12 Lea, 469) ii. 1044 —— v.S. (41 Tex. 611) ii. 746 — v.§. (10 Tex. Ap. 298) i. 1079 — v.58. (19 Tex. Ap. 664) i. 909 ; ii. 674 —,S. v. (48 Ark. 36; 3 Am. St. 213) i. 820, 998 ; ii. 320 ——, S. v. (49 Conn. 429) i. 750 —, 8. v. (5 Harring. Del. 496) i. 162; , ti. 600 —, 8. v. (2 Hawks, 443) =i. 258, 932; ii, 455 —, 8. v. (73 Towa, 532) ii, 965 ——, 8. v. (1 Jones, N. C. 290) ii. 388 —, 8. v. (14 La. An. 673) i. 909, 9814, 951, 1264 —, 8. v. (63 Me. 225) i. 849 —,, S. v. (64 Me. 545) i. 745, 849 . v. (85 Minn, 182) —, S. v. (74 Mo. 253) ii, 82 i. 946, 949 , 975; ii. 531 —, S. v. (9 Mo. Ap. 587) ii. 531 ——, S. v. (108 N. C. 419) i. 1262 —, 8. v. (9 Tex. Ap. 462) i. 264 m —, 8. v. (89 Vt. 226) i, 918, 926, 1266 ; ii. 4325 ——, S. v. (61 Vt. 158) — i. 282, 940, 965, 975 c, 978, 1063, 1066, 1181, 1186, 11938 ; ii. 53 —— v. Tyler (1 Nott & McC. 22) i. 141 —— v. Valentine (7 La. An. 183) i. 1140 v. White (86 Va. 212; 19 Am. St. 883) i. 1086 Wardell v. Hughes (8 Wend. 418) i. 1276 Warden, C. wv. (11 Met. 406) ii. 911, 912, 933 c — , 8. v. (94 Mo. 648) i. 975; ii. 740 Wardle, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 144) —i. 966 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 9) i. 618. Ware v. Boydell (3 M. & S. 148) i, 369 —— v. Cartledge (24 Ala. 622; 60 Am. D. 489) ii. 123 — v. 8. (33 Ark. 567) i, 540 v. S, (67 Ga. 349) i. 1067 ——v.8. (2 Tex. Ap. 547) ii. 705, 714, 726 v. 8. (21 Tex. Ap. 328) i. 264 in —— v. 8. (6 Vroom, 553) i. 1151 —, §. v. (10 Ala, 814) i. 68, 72 ——, S. v.'(62 Mo. 597) i. 612, 978, 1085, 111 712 6° Wart, S. v. (51 Iowa, 587) CASES CITED. WAR Ware, S. 7. (69 Mo. 332) i, 59 2| —— v. Ware (8 Greenl. 42) ii, 682 Warfield v. S. (84 Ala. 261) i. 1800 Warford, S. v. (106 Mo. 55; 27 Am. St. 822) i. 975.4; ii. 158, 740 Warickshall, Rex v. (1 Leach, 268 ; 2 East P. C. 658) i. 1242 Waring, In re (50 Cal. 30) i, 814 Warman, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 183; 2 Car. & K. 195) ii, 514, 517, 525 Warmock v. S. (56 Ga. 503) i. 986 Warne, S. v. (27 Mo. 418) i. 1012 Warner's Case (Cro. Eliz. 461*) _ ii. 380 Warner v. Brooks (14 Gray, 107) i. 1081 — v.C. (1 Pa. St. 154; 44 Am. D. 114) i, 595, 602 ; ii. 731 —— v. Grace (14 Minn. 487) i, 214 — , P. ». (6 Wend. 271) ii. 909, 911, 912 v. S. (54 Ark. 660) ii. 952 — v. §. (114 Ind, 137) i, 483, 951 — vv. S. (18 Lea, 52) i, 865 ——., S. v. (4 Ind. 604) i. 870, 3874 — , S. v. (25 lowa, 200) i. 980 ——, S. v. (74 Mo. 88) ii. 952 —, U.S. v. (26 Fed. Rep. 616) ii. 158 Warnke, S. v. (48 Mo. 451) i, 780 Warnock v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 450) i. 264a Warren v. Anderson (8 Scott, 384) ii. 482a v. C. (37 Pa. 45) — i. 988, 940, 1155; ii. 605 —,, C. v. (6 Mass. 74) ii. 235 —, C. », (148 Mass. 668) i, 688 —— v. Nichols (6 Met. 261) i. 1196 —— v. P. (3 Par. Cr. 544) i. 892 —, P. v. (14 Bradw. 296) i, 281 ——,, Rex »v. (1 Sid. 247; 1 Keb. 885) i. 123, 676a — v. 8. (19 Ark. 214; 68 Am. D. 214) i. 2647, 268 —— v. §&. (4 Blackf. 150) i, 984 — v.§. (4 Coldw. 130) i, 981 —— v. S. (1 Greene, Iowa, 106) i. 478, ‘ 1268; ii. 742, 769 v. 8. (3 Heisk. 269) ii. 286a, 290 v. 8. (29 Tex. 3869) i, 1120, 1242 ——v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 619; 35 Am. R. 745) i. 998 a, 1086 —— v. §. (138 Tex. Ap. 348) i, 733 —— v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 207) i, 478 —— v. 8. (31 Tex. Cr. 573) ii. 6384 ——, S. v. (77 Md. 121; 39 Am. St. 401) ii, 6983 ——, S. v. (109 Mo. 480; 32 Am. St. 681) ii. 4255 —, S.v. (92 N. C. 825) i. 1298 — , 8. «. (95 N. C. 674) i. 1343 —, S. e. (113 N. C. 683) Hi. 123 ——, 8. v. (13 Tex. 45) i. 881 —, 8. v. (14 Tex. 406) i. 875; ii. 807 — v. (17 Tex. 283) i, 264/, 264m Warriner v. P. (74 Ill. 346) i. 822; fi, 824 Warrington v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 168) i. 485; ii, 165, 168 Warshaner, Rex v. (1 Moody, 466) i. 544 i, 9984 WAT INDEX TO Wartena v. §. (106 Ind. 445) i, 980 Wartnaby, Rex v. (2 A. & Ki. 435) i. 1380 Wartner v. 8. (102 Ind. 51) i. 893 Warwick v. 8. (73 Ala. 486; 49 Am. R. 59) i, 269 — v.8. (47 Ark. 568) i. 848 Wasden v. S. (18 Ga, 264) i. 1093 —,S.v. (N.C. Term R.163) _ i. 660, 662, 664 Wash uv. 8. (3 Coldw. 91) i. 264 v. S. (14 Sm. & M.120) i. 449, 581, 1332 Washburn, In re (4 Johns. Ch. 106) i. 223 — v. Belknap (3 Conn. 502) i. 1808 — , C. v. (128 Mass. 421) i. 612 v. P. (10 Mich. 372) i. 144, 146, 713, 788, 1109, 1144 —, 8. v. (91 Mo. 571) i, 998a Washington v. C. (86 Va. 405) i. 909 — v. Hammond (76 N. C. 88) i. 8l4a i. 989, 1220 i. 1170; ii. 700 —t.. S. (53 Ala. 29) v. S. (58 Ala. 355) — v. 8. (63 Ala. 185; 85 Am. R. 8) i. 984 —— v. S. (63 Ala. 189) i. 865 —— v. §. (68 Ala. 85) i. 684 v. S. (72 Ala. 272) ii. 823.4 v. §. (81 Ala. 35) i. 1859 v. S. (86 Ga. 222) i, 978, 980 zv. S. (41 Tex. 583) i, 581; ii. 178 v. §. (1 Tex. Ap. 647) i. 978, 980 v. §. (8 Tex. Ap. 377) i, 1125 —— v. 8. (16 Tex. Ap. 376) i. 1277 v. S. (17 Tex. Ap. 197) ii. 142 —— v.S. (19 Tex. Ap. 521; 58 Am. R. 387) i. 1086 v. §. (28 Tex. Ap. 411) i, 1012 —— v. S. (31 Tex. Cr. 84) ii. 1264, 1310 v. §. (17 Wis. 147) i. 1028 — ,S.v. (1 Bay, 120; 1 Am. D. 601) i. 650 —,S. v. (28 La, An. 129) i. 806 — , S. v. (80 La. An. 49) =i. 975, 979 —, S. v. (83 La. An, 896) i, 887 —, S. v. (86 La. An. 341) i. 1274 —, S. v. (40 La. An. 669) i, 1240 —, S. uv. (41 La. An. 778) ii. 828.4 ——, S.v. (2 Murph. 100) i. 1264, 1878 —, §. v. (90-N. C. 664) i. 938 —}$.v. (15 Rich. 39) i. 714; ii. 722 —,S. v. (18 8. C. 453) 1. 9668; ii. 521 — ,S. v. (19 Tex. 128; 70 Am. D. 823) ii, 17 — , S. v. (15 Vroom, 605) i, 13878 Washoe v. Humboldt (14 Nev. 123) i. 1816 Wassels v. S. (26 Ind. 30) i. 685, 951, ‘ 91a Wassissimi v. Territory, 1 Wash. Ter. 6) i. 1366 Wasson, P. v. (65 Cal. 538) i. 1207 —, Rex v. (1 Crawf. & Dix C. C. 197) ii. 649 —r. 58. (3 Tex. Ap. 474) i. 975¢ Waterborough, C. v. (5 Mass. 257) i. 141, 144 THE CASES CITED. WAT Waterford and Whitehall Turnpike v. P, (9 Barb. 161) 1. 939, 948 Waterhouse v. Saltmarsh (Hob. 263 a) i, 199, 201 Waseem, Ex parte (83 Fed. Rep. i, 269 — v.58. (18 Fla. 683) ii. 367 v, S. (116 Ind. 51) i. 861 —, 8. v. (1 Nev. 543) i, 922, 980, 1019 Waters v. P. (104 Ill. 544) ii, 698 —, P. uv. (1 Idaho, n. s. 560) i. 1854 ——, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 356; Temp. & M. 57; 2 Car. & K. 864; 3 Cox C. C. 800) ii. 510 —, Rex v. (1 Moody, 457; 7 Car. & P. 250) ii. 608, 514, 617 — v. §. (53 Ga. 567) ii, 134 — v.§. (51 Md. 430) i. 909 —— v. S. (30 Tex. Ap. 284) i. 490 —., 8S. v. (3 Brev. 507; 2 Tread. 669) i. 682 —, 8. «. (89 Me. 54) i. 9591; ii. 641,642 —, S. v. (62 Mo. 196) i. 118, 931, 931 a, 944 —, S. v. (1 Mo. Ap. 7) i. 651, 652a, 981 a, 944 v. U.S. (21 Ct. Cl. 30) i. 286 —, U.S. v. (183 U. 8. 208) i. 286 Waterson v. Seat (10 Fla. 326) ii. 751 Watkins, P. v. (19 Ill. 117) i, 2644 ——,, Reg. rv. (Car. & M. 264) ii. 142, 976 v. 8. (89 Ala. 82) i. 966 0; ii. 683 — v.§. (37 Ark. 370) i, 451, 10154 — »v. §. (14 Ma. 412) i. 1944 —— r. S. (60 Missis. 823) i. 975 c, 980 v. 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 73) ii. 740, 741 — «.§. (16 Tex. Ap. 646) i. 264 m —, S. v. (9 Conn. 47; 21 Am. D. 712) ii. 680 —, 8S. ». (4 Humph. 256) ii. 891 —, 8. v. (27 Iowa, 415) ii. 685 ——,S.v. (21 La. An. 240) i. 1264 —, S. v. (25 Mo. Ap 21) i. 1264 —S. v. (L1 Nev. 80) ii. 180 —— v. Turner (34 Ark. 663) i, 1151 Watrous v. Cunningham (71 Cal. 30) 1. 1196 ——,, S. v. (18 Iowa, 489) i. 118, 325, 370, 1269 Watson’s Case (1 Salk. 106) i. 256 Watson, Ex parte (2 Cal. 59) i. 223 a —— v. Anderson (11 Ala. 48) ii. 674 -—— rv. Anderson (13 Ala. 202) ii. 684 v. Blaine (12 8. & R. 131; 14 Am. D. 669) i. 792 —v. C. (95 Pa. 418) i. 1062, 1170 -—, C. v. (109 Mass. 354) ii. 1007 a v. Cresap (1 B. Monr. 195; 36 Am. D. 572) ii, 459 @ v. Musick (2 Misso. 29) ii. 128 — uv. P. (134 Il. 3874 i. 421, 426 — _, P. v. (72 Cal. 402) i, 681 —, Rex v. (1 Camp. 215) i. 61; ii. 805 — , Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 653) i, 962 — , Rex r. (82 How. St. Tr. 1) i. 858, 9824 713 WAY Watson, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 468) i. 1847 —, Rex v. (2 T. R. 199) ii. 797 — v. S. (82 Ala. 10) i. 975 c, 980 a — v. 8. (83 Ala. 60) i. 185 — v. 8. (29 Ark. 299) i. 314, ae 718 — v.S. (64 Ga. 61) 761 — v. S. (63 Ind. 548) i. 1212 — v. S. (16 Lea, 604) i. 1018 — v.S. (36 Missis. 593) ii. 728 v. 8. (39 Ohio St. 123) ii. 127 — v.58. (5 Tex. Ap. 11) ii. 75, 901, 921, 1020, 1022 — v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 237) i. 1170 —v.S8. (20 Tex. Ap. 382) i. 1264 v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 34) i. 471, 1061 —, S. v. (5 Blackf. 155) i. 641 —, 8. ». {30 Kan. 281) i. 2394 — , S. v. (31 La. An. 379) i. 887 —, S. v. (86 La. An. 148) ii, 613 —, S. v. (41 La. An. 598) — i. 534, 612, 795 —, S. v. (63 Me. 128) i. 975 a, 975 4, 1334; ii. 50 —, 8. v. (65 Me. 74) i. 1185 —, S. v. (31 Mo. 361) i, 1332 —, S. v. (65 Mo. 115) ii, 443 —, S. v. (95 Mo. 411) i. 1291 —, 8. v. (104 N. C. 735) i. 850, 884.4 —,S.v. (3 R. 1 114) ii. 985 —, S. v. (7 8. C. 63) i. 975, 1066 —, 8. v. (78. C. 67) ii. 754 — U.S. v. (7 Blatch. 60) i. 1388, 1389 —, U.S. v. (17 Fed. Rep. 145) ii. 790 —— v. Walker (1 Moore & 8. 487) i. 231 Watt v. P. (126 Ill. 9) i. 1247; ii. 608 Wattles v. Marsh (5 Cow. 176) i. 1409 — »v. P. (13 Mich. 446) i. 146, 1265 Watton, Reg. v. (6 Mod. 95) i. 666 —, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 229) i. 691 Watts’s Case (3 Salk. 172) ii. 429 Watts v. Brains (Cro. Eliz. 778) i, 1003 —, C. v. (84 Ky. 537) i, 241 —, Rex v. (2 Car. & P. 486) ii. 865 ——, Rex v. (6 Moore, 442; 3 Brod. & B. 197) i, 488 v. 8. (26 Ga. 231) i. 950 6, 951, "951 f — v». S. (33 Ind. 237) i. 1276 —, S. v. (82 N. C. 656) i. 421, 537 —, U.S. vo. (8 Saw. 370; 14 Fed. Rep. 130) i, 224, 2245 — v. White (13 Cal. 321) i, 123 —— v. Womack (44 Ala. 605) i. 231 Waugh ». P. (17 Ill. 561) i. 2644 Waughhop »v. 8. (6 Tex. 887) i. 264 m Wau-kon-chaw-neek-kaw 2x. U. S. (Morris, 332) i. 700, 859, 909 Wavell, Rex v. (1 Moody, 224) ii. 188 Waverton, Reg. v. (17 Q. B. 562; 2 Den. C.C. 340; 5 Cox C.C. 400 ; 8 Eng. L. & Bq. 344) ii. 1048, 1047 Way, In re (41 Mich, 299) ii 230 — v. 8. (85 Ind. 409) ii. 740 — v. Wright (5 Met. 380} i. 2647 Waybright v. S, (56 Ind, 122) ii, 629: 714 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. WEB Wayne v. C. (26 Pa.:154) i, 446, 1316, 1317 Wayne Sessions, P. v. (1 Par. Cr. 369) i. 814a Weare, S. x. (88 N. H, 314) i. 687, 714 Weatherford v. C. (10 Bush, 196) i. 465, 1036; ii. 975 — v.58. (438 Ala. 319) i. 1012; ii. 595 Weathers v. 8. (2 Blackf 278) ii. 921 —, S. v. (98 N. C. 685) i. 1810 Weathersby uv. 8. (1 Tex. Ap. 643) i, 482, 445, 449 —— v. 8. (29 Tex. Ap. 278) i. 931, 9758, 1086, 1249 Weatherwax v. S. (17 Kan. 427) i. 264¢ —,, §. v. (12 Kan. 463) i. 264, 264 Weaver v. C. (29 Pa. 445) i. 1269, 1287; ii. 941 — ». P. (132 Ill. 636) i. 1100, 1101 —v. P. (33 Mich. 296) i. 1291, 1299 —, P. v. (47 Cal. 106) i. 442, 443; ii. 539 —'v. 8. (77 Ala, 26) i. 1262 v. §. (24 Ohio St. 584) i. 313, 1050; ii. 70 a, 599 v. S. (43 Tex. 386) i, 264 f v. 8. (13 Tex. Ap. 191) i. 264 a —— vv. S. (19 Tex. Ap. 547; 53 cae R. 389) 931 — v. (18 Ala, 293) i. 264, 264.4, Cade S. v. (83 Ind. 542) i. 872 s i. 1110 —, S.v. ie Towa, 730) ——, 8. v. (18 Ire. 491) i, 966; ii. 419 ——, S. v. (98 N. C. 595) ii, 27 ——, S. v. (94 N. C. 8386; 55 Am. R. 647) ii. 415. ——, S. v. (104 N.C. 758) i. 869, 1125, 1126; ii. 740, 760 Webb’s Case (Palmer, 39) i. 847 Webb v. Baird (6 Ind. 18) i, 305 —— v. C. (2 Leigh, 721) i. 727 —, C. v. {6 Rand. 726) ii. 865 v. Nickerson (11 Or. 382) i. 625 , P.v. (1 Hill, N. Y. 179) i. 68, 69, 73 —! Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 838; 2 Car. & K. 938; 3 Cox C. C. 183) i. 336, 1266 ; ii. 352 ——, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 862) i. 298, § 964 — v. Reinhard (73 Pa. 370) i. 891 ——. Rex »v. (3 Bur. 1468; 1. W. BI. 460) ‘ i. 760, 1388 —, Rex »v. (4 Car. & P. 564) i. 1256 —, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 595) i. 1170 ——, Rex v. (3 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 622) i. 1019 v. 8. (62 Ala..422) i, 488 D; ii. 130, 136, 138 —— v. 8. (21 Ind. 236) i, 281 v, S. (4 Tex. Ap. 167) i, 257 — v.8. (5 Tex. Ap. 596) i. 951; ii. a 67 — v. 8. (8 Tex. Ap. 115) ii. 750 — v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 490) i. 966 d, 1098 ——, S. v. (26 Iowa, 262) ii. 166, 168 ——, S. v. (87 Mo. 366) i. 772 —, 8. v. (74 Mo. 3338) i. 770 WEI INDEX TO THE Webb, S. v. (47 Mo. Ap. 599) i, 713 —,5. v. (41 Tex. 67) i. 611, 1274, 1278 —, Territory v. (2 New Mex. 147 i, 1274, 1858 Webber v. C. (119 Pa. 228; 4 Am. St. 634) ii, 666, 687 a — v. Merrill (34 N. H. 202) i. 1001 — v.58. (10 Misso. 4) i. 1016; ii. 806 —,S. v. (107 N. C. 962; 22 Am. St. 920) ii. 115 Weber, 8. v. (22 Mo. 821) i. 1002, 1265, 1269 Webster’s Case (5 Greenl. 432) i. 696, 700 Webster v. C. (5 Cush. 386) i. 214 a, 1310, 1862, 1379 — v. C. (80 Va. 598) ii. 189 —, C. v. (5 Cush. 295; 52 Am. D. 711) i. 553, 909, 918, 945, 965, 1054; 1071, 1079, 1114, 1179; ii. 482 c, 541, 599, 606 v. P, (92 N. Y. 422) i. 488 —, Reg. v. (Bell C. C. 154; 8 Cox C. C. 187) ii. 902 —, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 515) ii. 932 —— v. §. (48 Ohio St. 646) i, 1299 — v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 75) ii. 142 —, S. v. (80 Ark. 166) i. 685 —, 8. e. (138 N. H. 491) i. 909 — , 5S. v. (89 N. H. 96) i. 239 a, 478; ii. 68, 895 — »v. Watts (11 Q. B. 311) i. 170 Weddington v. C. (79 Ky. 582) i, 2647 —, 8. v. (103 N. C. 3864) i. 68, 488 c Wedge v. S. (7 Lea, 687) ii. 697 — v.§. (12 Md. 232) i, 1287 —, 8. v. (24 Minn. 150) ii. 822 Weed v. P, (31 N. ¥. 465) i. 1887, 1838 — v. P. (38 Thomp. & C. 50) i. 1108; ii. 607 » S. v, (1 Fost. N. H. 262; 53 Am. 188) D. i. 187 v. Weed (25 Conn. 387) i. 1341 Weeden v. S. (41 Tex. 84) ii. 637 Weeks, Reg. v. (Leigh & C. 18; 8 Cox C. C. 455) ii. 270 v. 8. (79 Ga. 36) i. 966 8; ii. 631 —v.§. (31 Missis. 490) i. 72, 951 a CASES CITED. WEL Weil, P. v. (40 Cal. 268) i. 909, 949 —,'S. v. (89 Ind. 286) i, 432 Weimer v. Bunbury (30 Mich. 201) i. 100 a ——, 5. uv. (64 Iowa, 243) ii. 1054 Weinzorpfiin v. 8. (7 Blackf. 186) i. 454, 465, 665, 1394 Weir’s Appeal (74 Pa. 230) i. 1417 Weir v. Hoss (6 Ala, 881) ii, 791 Weis v, 8. (22 Ohio St. 486) i. 999 Weiskittle, S. ». (61 Md. 48) i, 314 Weiss v. P. (104 Ill. 90) i, 314a Weitzel v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 528; 19 Am. St. 855) i. 688 Welborn v. P. (76 Ill. 516) i. 264 Welbourn, Rex v. (1 Leach, 5038, note; 1 East P. C. 358) i, 1212 Welch v. Barber (52 Conn. 147) i. 265 —, C. v. (148 Mass. 296) li. 416, 472 —— v. Gould (2 Root, 287) ii, 4825 —— v. Jugenheimer (56 Iowa, 11;- 47 Am. BR. 77) i. 1095 —,, P. v. (49 Cal. 174) i. 981, 932 a, 979, 980 a, 981, 1012 ——, P. v. (47 How. Pr. 420) i, 2644 — , Rex v. (Car. Crim. Law, 3d ed. 56) ; i, 811 —,S. v. (83 Mo. 38) i, 878 —-,8. v. (7 Port. 463) i, 1244 —, S. v. (87 Wis. 196) i. 478 — v. Scott (5 Ire. 72) i. 187, 227 — v. Stiles (47 Iowa, 171) i, 269 v. Stowell (2 Doug Mich. 332) ii. 871 Welcome v. Batchelder (23 Me. 85) i. 1145 Welden v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 400) i. 1170 Weldon, P »v. (111 N. Y. 569) ii. 740, 981 — v. 8. (82 Ind. 81) ii. 960, 961, 968 —, 8. v. (70 Mo. 572) i. 585 Weleker v. Le Pelletier (1 Camp. 479) i. 681, 683 Welhousen v. 8. (80 Tex. Ap. 628) i. 1190 Welker, S. v. (14 Mo. 398) i. 375 Wellar v. P. (80 Mich. 16) i. 959 a, 966, 980 ; ii. 680, 631 Wellborn v. Davies (40 Ark. 88) i. 1417 Weller, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 223) i. 1259 — v.S. (16 Tex. Ap. 200) i. 49, 1242 Wellings, Reg. v. (38 Q. B. D. 426) i. 1200 —, S. v. (1 Dev.- 135) i, 1134; ii 68) ——, Rex v. (1 Car. & P. 454) ii. 828 a — _, 5S. v. (80 Me. 182) i, 483; ii. 850) Wellington, C. v. (7 Allen, 299) ii. 866, — , S. v. (77 Mo. 496) i. 772 1011 —, 8. v. (14 S. C. 400) i. 314a| Wellman »v. S. (5 Blackf. 843) i. 2644 Weems v. Weems (19 Md. 334) ii. 679 | ——, S. v. (8 Ohio, 14) i. 2644 Weese, S. v. (53 Iowa, 92) ii. 590, 593 | Wells’s Case (2 Green]. 322) i. 1401 Wegener, Rex v. (2 Stark. 245) i. et Wells v. C. (12 Gray, 3826) i. 388, Pe ii, 784 t Wegner v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 419) i. 264 a, vw. C, (2 Va. Cas. 383) i. 1285 264 m v. Iggulden (3 B. & C. 186) i. 632, Weiderhold, C. v. (112 Pa. 584) i. 1015 6389 Weidman v. Kohr (4 8. & R. 174) i. 1398 uv. Jackson (3 Munf. 458) i. 188 Weighorst v. S. (7 Md. 442) i, 1005a, v. McCullock (18 IIl. 606) i. 1317 1341, 1342; ii. 584, 591} ——, P. v. (8 Mich. 104) i. 1018 * Weight, Respublica v. (1 Yeates, —,, Rex v. (2 East P.C. 1000) ii. 429 401 ii. 429 | ——, Rex v. (Moody & M. 326) i. 1169 Weikman v. Charleston (2 Speers, —— v. 8. (88 Ala. 239) i. 791 871) i, 1005} —— v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 20) i, 688 715 WES Wells, S. v. (31 Conn. 210) ii. 976 —, 8. v. (Coxe, 424; 1 Am. D. 211) i, 1112, 1116 —, S. v. (86 Iowa, 258) i, 2644 —, S. v. (46 Iowa, 662) i. 68, 73, 891; ii. 118 —, S. v. (28 Kan. 321) i. 909 —, S. v. (33 La. An. 1407) i. 931 Welman, Reg. v. (Dears. 188) i, 897 Welsch, S. v. (384 La. An. 991) i. war Welsh, C. v. (1 Allen, 1) ii. 276 a —, C.v. (7 Gray, 824) ii. 24, 61, 63a v. Dusar (3 Binn. 329) i. 798 — v. Langfield (16 M. & W. 497) i, 1276 v. P. (17 Ill. 889) i. 1265 —, P. v. (63 Cal. 167) i, 1250 —, Reg. v. (3 Fost. & F. 275) i. 1226 — v.§, (126 Ind. 71) i. 1817, 1348, 1353 — v. S. (11 Tex. 368) ii, 848 v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 413) i. 931 — v.58. (8 Tex. Ap. 422) ii. 752a ——, S. v. (73 Iowa, 106) i. 975¢ , S. v. (29 S. C. 4) i. 1049, 1095 Weltje, Rex v. (2 Camp. 142) ii. 807 Wenborn, Reg. v. (6 Jur. 267) i, 966 a Wendell v. Troy (89 Barb. 329) _ ii. 681 Wenham, Reg. v. (10 Cox C. C. 222) ii. 187, 191 Wenmouth, Reg. v. (8 Cox C. C. 348) ii. 180 Wentworth v. Alexander (66 Ind. 39) i. 1410 — ©. v. (Brightly, 318) ii, 1050 —, S. v. (65 Me. 234) i. 1183 —, S. v. (85 N. H. 442) i. 832 — ,5S. v. (87 N. H. 196) i. 879, 388, 664, 1125, 1223, 1252; ii. 1050 —, 8. v. (56 Wis. 531 i. 1265 Wentz, C. v. (1 Ashm, 269) i. 509 ——, P. v. (87 N. Y. 3808) i. 1228, 1224, 1226, 1228 Wenz v. S. (1 Tex. Ap. 36) i. 1001 Werbin, P. v. (27 Hun, 311) i. 1891 Werbiski v. 8. (20 Tex. Ap. 182) i. 264m Werfel v. C. (5 Binn. 65) i. 1800, 1847 Werneke v. S. (49 Ind. 202) i. 872 Werner »v. C. (80 Ky. 887) i, 1086 — v. Galveston (72 Tex. 22) i. 100 2 v. 8. (44 Ark. 122) i, 946 — v.§. (61 Ga. 426) i. 399 Wertz v. S. (42 Ind. 161) i. 486; ii. 866 Wesley v. P. (87 Mich. 384) i. 1810 v. 8. (52 Ala. 182) i. 698, 869 a, 1359 — v.S. (61 Ala. 282) i. 585, 981 ; ii. 1002 — v. S. (65 Ga. 731) i. 1057 v. §. (11 Humph. 602) i, 998 — v. S. (87 Missis. 327; 75 Am. D. 62) i. 978, 1116; ii. 613 Wessells v. Territory (McCahon, 100) i. 1287 716 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. WES West, P. v. (49 Cal. 610) i. 1049; ii. 599, 600, 606 —, P. v. (73 Cal. 345) i. 10054 ——, Reg. v. (Dears. & B. 109; 7 Cox C. C. 183; 40 Eng. L. & Eq. 564) ii. 736 — ., Rex v. (Owen, 134) i. 606 — v. S. (76 Ala. 98) i. 975 c, 978, 1207 — ». S. (79 Ga. 778) i. 909 —— v. 8. (9 Humph. 66) — v.§, (48 Ind. 483) —— v., S. (35 Tex. 89) i. 1100; fi, 292 i683, 1067 ; ii, 520, 527, 528 i. 611; ii. 142 — v. 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 460) ii. 625 v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 485) i. 1287 —— v. §. (7 Tex. Ap. 150) i, 966 8, 998 a, 1214 — v.S. (8 Tex. Ap. 119) ii. 902 v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 640) ii. 621 —— v8. (27 Tex. Ap. 472) ii. 12 — v. 8. (1 Wis. 209) i. 1106 — v. S. (2 Zab, 212) i. 1015, 1046, 1298, 1351, 1356, 1358; ii. 432 c, 441 —, S. v. (1 Houst. Crim. 371) ii. 58, 687 a ——, S. v. (35 La. An. 28) i, 931 —} 8. v. (46 La. An. 1009) ii, 118 -—, S. v. (39 Minn. 321) i. 1005a ——, S. v. (69 Mo. 401; 33 Am. R, 508) i. 884, 999, 1161 —, S. v. (84 Mo. 440) i. 733 —} 8. v. (95 Mo. 139) i. 1181 —, §. v. (3 Ohio St. 509) i. 264 4 — 8. v. (10 Tex. 553) i. 524 West Riding of Yorkshire, Rex v. (7 T. RB. 377) i.18 West Riding of Yorkshire Justices, 16 Rex v. (7 T. R. 467) i, 1867, 1877; ii. 871 Westbrook v. S. (52 Missis. 777) i. 1005 Westby, Rex v. (10 East, 85,n.) i. 798 Westcott v. 8. (81 Fla. 458) ii, 596 Western, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 1 C. C. 122 ii. 910 Western N. C. Rid., S. v. (89 N. C. 584) i, 9504 —, 8. v. (95 N. C. 602) i. 682 Westervelt, C. v. (11 Philad. 461) i. a ‘ ii, 692 Westfall, S. v. (87 Iowa, 575) i. 1264 ——, S. v. (49 Towa, 828) i. 1207 Westmoreland v. 8. (45 Ga. 225) _ i. 909, 931, 999, 1050; ii. 678, 685 Weston v. C, (111 Pa. 251) i. 909 —— v. Carr (71 Me. 356) i, 214 — v. P. (6 Hun, 140) i. 892, 906 ——, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 226) ii, 822 —, Rex v. (4 Bur. 2507) i, 53 —, Rex v. (2 How. St. Tr. 911) ii. 552 ——, Rex v. (1 Leach, 247) ii. 66 —, Rex v. (1 Stra. 623) i. 773 —, S. v. (9 Conn. 527; 25 Am. D. 46) ii. 741 —, S. v. (28 Minn. 866) i, 1376 WHE Westwood, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 547) i, 1120 Wetherford, S. v. (25 Mo. 489) i. 75 Wetherill, Rex v. (Cald. 482) i. 494, 768, 769 Wettenhall, Reg. v. (2 Moody & R. 291) i. 951 Wetter v. Campbell (60 Ga. 266) i. 3l4a Wettstein, S. v. (64 Wis. 234) i. 264 a, 264 m Weymouth, C. v, (2 Allen, 144; 79 Am. D. 776) i, 1298, 1841, 1842 1343, 1844 Weyrich v. P. (89 Ill. 90) i. 922, 975c, 1087 Whalen, C. v. (16 Gray, 25) 1. 982 —,, C. v. 186 Mass. 419) ii, 156 — , C. v. (147 Mass. 376) i, 1264 —, S. v. (98 Mo. 222) i. 1188; ii. 948, 944 Whaley, P. v. (6 Cow. 661) ii. 358, 362 v. S. (11 Ga. 128) i. 905, 1182, 1220, 1250 — v. S. (11 Ga. 128) i, 1321 — v.58. (9 Tex. Ap. 305) 1.978 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. WHI Whelan v. Reg. (28 U. C. Q. B. 2) ii. 523 Whelchell v. S. (28 Ind. 89) i. 999, 1189; ii, 524 Whetston v. 8, (31 Fla. 240) ii. 53 Whider, Rex v. (2 Bulst. 817) ii. 849 Whilden v. S. (25 Ga. 396; 71 Am. D. 181) ii. 660, 662 Whiley, Reg. v. (2 Moody, 186; 1 Car. & K. 150) i. 62, 381 —,, Rex v. (2 Leach, 988) i. 1126; ii, 261 Whipp v.S. (84 Ohio St. 87 ; 82 Am. R. 359) i. 1153 Whipple, P. v. (9 Cow. 707) i. 1161, 1162, 1164, 1165, 1167 Whiskey Cases (99 U. 8S. 594) i. 1156, 1164 Whiskey, &e., S. v. (54 N. H. 164) i. 241, 245 Whisner, S. v. (85 Kan. 271) i. 100 a Whit, S. v. (4 Jones, N. C. 349) ii, 184 —S8. v. (5 Jones, N. C. 224; 72 Am. D. 533) i. 966 a, 975, 982, 1180 Whitaker v. Freeman (1 Dev. 271) , 8. u. (2 Harring. Del. 588) i. 59, ii. 789 60 ; ii. 698 v. Gautier (3 Gilman, 448) _ ii. 883 Whalley, Reg. v. (2 Cox C. C. 231; — v. 8. (79 Ga. 87) i. 1167, 1207 2 Car. & K. 376) i. 965 | —— v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 436) i. 975 ¢ v. Williamson (7 Car. & P. 294) —,S. v. (8 Harring. Del. 549) _ ii. 695 i, 194 | ——, 8. v. (85 Kan. 731) i. 975 c, 978 Wharton v. S. (45 Tex. 2) i. 998 a, 1146 | —, S. v. (89 N.C. 472) i. 1005 Whatley v. S. (21 Ala. 108) i. 1094 | ——, U. S. v. (6 McLean, 342) i. 1116 Wheat v. S. (6 Misso. 455) —i. 611, 1049 | —— v. Wisbey (6 Cox C.C. 109) i. 1852 Wheater, Reg. v. (2 Moody, 45; 2 Lewin, 157) i, 1255, 1256 Wheatland, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 288) ii. 918, 931 Wheatley, Reg. v. (1 W. Bl. 278) i. 768 —, S. v. (4 Lea, 230) ii. 120 Wheatly, Rex ». (2 Bur. 1125) i. 326 Wheeler v. C. (86 Va. 658) i. 1279 —, C. v. (2 Mass. 172) “i. 1888 —— v. Nesbitt (24 How. U. S. 544) i, 214 —, P. «. (65 Cal. 77) i. 975 b — , P. v. (73 Cal. 252) i, 230 ——, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 170) ii. 980 —— v.S. (21 Ga. 153) i. 264 b —— v. S. (23 Ga. 292) i. 276; ii. 695 — v. S. (42 Ga. 306) i. 68, 71 — vz. 8. (8 Ind. 113) i. 951 a, 1265 Whitby, S. v. (15 Kan. 402) ii. 140 Whitcomb, Rex v. (1 Car. & P. 124) ii, 822 v. §. (14 Ohio, 282) i, 1268 —— v.S. (30 Tex. Ap. 269) i. 975 c, 978 White, Ex parte (49 Cal. 433) i. 228 —-, Ex parte (5 Colo. 521) i. 3144 —, Ex parte (4 Eng, 222) i. 262 — , Ex parte (15 Nev. 146; 87 Am. R. 466) i. 1001 —, In re (17 Fed. Rep. 723) i. 3144 , In re (60 Kan. 299) i. 1810 — v. Bailey (10 Mich. 155) ii. 678 —v. Berry (28 Ark. 198) i. 286 —— v.C, (6 Binn. 179; 6 Am. D. 443) i. 187, 882, 931; ii. 516, 565, 569, 572, 679, 580 ——v.C. (9 Bush, 178) — i. 825; ii. 559 —— v.S. (14 Ind. 573) i. 269 | —— v. C, (29 Grat. 824) i. 700 —r.8 (42 Md. 563) i. 779, 984, 986 « ». C. (80 Ky. 480) i. 961 a, 1118 r, S. (88 Tex. 178) i. 264 1] ——, C. v. (147 Mass. 76) i. 994, 1270, — v5. (a Tex. Ap. 698) i, 1265 / 1277 — v.8. (15 Tex. Ap. 607) i. 975 c| ——, C. v. (148 Mass. 429) 1. 949B, 994 — v.§. (24 Wis. 52) i, 50 |-——, C. v. (10 Met. 14) i, 984 — , S. v. (19 Minn. 98) ii. 402, 414, 415 | —, C. v. (133 Pa. 182; 19 Am. St. — 8. v. (79 Mo. 366) 7360} 628) i. 975c; ii. 1001, 1006, 1007 —,S.v. (85 Vt. 261) i. 688, 977 ; | —— v. Carlton (52 Ind. 871) i. 964 ii. 407, 460 | —— v. Concord Rld. (10 Fost. N. H. — vv. Whiting (9 Car. & P. 262) i.170| 188) ii, 751 Wheeley, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 250) —— v. Edmunds (Peake, 89) i, 185 i, 1266 | —— v. Elkin (6 Blackf. 123) i. 816 717 WHI INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. WHI White v. Green (5 Jones, N. C. 47) ii. 429 | White w. S. (832 Tex. Cr. 625) i, 1265 — v. Kent (11 Ohio St. 550) i.170 | ——v. S. (5 Yerg. 183) i, 264 f —— v. Moses (11 Cal. 68) i. 909 | ——, S. v. (82 Iowa, 17) i. 677 — v.P. (81 Ill. 388) i. 1019 a | ——, S. v. (41 Iowa, 316) i. 1005; ii. 94, — v. P. (90 Ill. 117; 82 Am. R. 12) i. 318 7 97 v. P. (82 N.Y. 465) i, 469, 551, 1037 | ——, S. v. (45 Iowa, 325) ii. 642, 657 —, P.v. (55 Barb. 608) i. 1018; ii. 62) ——, S.v. (47 Towa, 555) i, 264 f —, P.v. (14 Wend. 111) i. 969, 1112 , S. v. (6 Ire. 418) ii. 788, 799 ——, P. v. (22 Wend. 167) i. 314, 814, | —, 8. v. (14 Kan. 588) ii. 63 a, 80, 634 478, 1198 | —, S. v. (17 Kan. 487) i, 1228 —, P. v. (24 Wend. 520) ii. 614 | ——,, S. v. (383 La. An. 1218) i. 893 v. Polk (17 Iowa, 413) i. 280 | —, S. v. (85 La. An, 96) i, 946, 949 v. Reg. (18 Cox C. C, 318; 15 —, S.v. (37 La. An. 172) i. 863 Eng. Rep. 353) ii, 207, 210 | ——, 8. v. (85 Mo. 500) ii, 94 — , Reg. v. (2 Cox C, C. 192) i, 963 | ——, S. v. (68 N. C, 158) i, 1248 —, Reg. »v. (2 Fost. & F. 554) ii, 436 | ——, S. v. (88 N. C. 698) i. 868 —, Rex v. (1 Bur. 333) i. 1268; ii. 865, | ——, 8. v. (41 N. H. 194) i, 1264 866, 870) ——, S. v. a 8. C. 381) i. 854 — , Rex v. (Cald. 183) ii. 892 | —, S. «. (84S. C. 59; 27 Am. St. ——. Rex v. (1 Camp. 359) ii.797] 788) i. 1264 ——, Rex v. (3 Camp. 98) i, 962 | ——, S. v. (17 Tex. 242) i. 878 — , Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 46) ii, 841 | ——, S. v. (41 Tex. 64) ii, 36, 41 — , Rex v. (17 How. St. Tr. 1079) — 5S. v. (25 Wis. 359) ii. 764 i. 729, 979, 1292, 1293 | —~v. Sayward (83 Me. 322) ii. 801 ——, Rex ». (1 Leach, 252 ; 2 East —, U.S. v. (4 Utah, 499) i. 1151 P. C.513, 780) i. 513; ii. 137, 778 | ——, U.S. v. (2 Wash. C.C.29) =i. 288 —, Rex rv. (Russ. & Ry. 508) i. 1058 | — v. Whitshire (Palmer, 52) i. 206 v, S. (30 Ala, 518) i, 1309 | —— v. Wilson (2 B. & P. 116) i. 406 v. 8. (44 Ala. 409) i. 611, 856.4 ; | —— v. Wiltshire (Cro. Jac. 555) i, 202 ii. 825 | Whitehead v. Brown (T. Raym. 75) i. 663 — .8, (49 Ala. 344) ii, 138 | —— v. C. (19 Grat. 640) i, 3144, 728, 729 —— »v, 8. (72 Ala. 195) ii. 138, 740 v. Reg. (7 Q. B. 582) i. 1347 — v.S. (74 Ala. 31) i. 1097 | —, , Reg. v. (9 Car. & P. 429) ii, 721 — v. S. (86 Ala. 69) i. 951; ii. 182| ——, Rex v. (1 Car. & P. 67; D.& v. S. (17 Ark. 404) i.1279| RB. NLP. 61) ii, 232 v. S, (8 Heisk. 338) i, 1242 | ——, Rex v. (1 Salk. 371) i. 554, 555 —— v.§. (81 Ind. 262) i. 951 ec, 1023 a, | —— »v. S. (20 Fla. 841) i. 540, 761 1063, 1067 | —v.S. (10 Ohio St. 449) i. 931, 9508, — v. §. (69 Ind. 273) ‘i. 682 1018 v. 8. (4 Iowa, 449)° i. 314a] Whitehouse, Reg. v. (8 Cox C. C. — v. S. (52 Missis. 216) i909, 1169} 86) ii, 919 v. §. (28 Neb. 341) i. 230 | ——,:Reg. v. (Dears. 1; 6 Cox C. C. — v. §.18 Ohio St. 569) i. 671 129; 18 Eng. L. & Eq. 105) i. 1280, — v.§. (11 Tex. 769) i, 1094, 1128; 1317 ii. 754 | Whitehurst v. C. (79 Va. 556) i, 1278 — v. §, (18 Tex. 133) i. 977 | Whitely, P. v. (64 Cal. 211) i. 1005a —v.S. (16 Tex. 206) i. 918; ii. 584,; Whiteman, Reg. v. (Dears. 858; 25 595) Eng. L. & Eq. 590) ii. 846 — v.§. (386 Tex. 347) i. 1093 | Whiteside v. st (4 Coldw. 175) i. 590, —v.S. (1 Tex. Ap. 211) i. 1264, 1269 1278 ; ii. 34 — v. §. (3 Tex. Ap. 605) i. 611; ii. a Whitesides v. P. (Breese, 4) i. 889, 652; ii. 996 — v.S. (6 Tex. Ap. 476) i, 951 | ——, S. v. (1 Swan, Tenn. 88) ii. 997 — v.S. (9 Tex. Ap. 41) i. 951 | Whitfield v. Greer (8 Bax. 78) i. 1366 — vv. 8. (10 Tex. Ap. 167) i. 1268 | ——, Reg. v. (8 Car. & K. 121) ii. 666 — v. 5. (10 Tex. ao 881) i. 1276, 1810 | —— v.S. (25 Fla. 289) i, 1074 — v.S. (11 Tex. Ap. 38) i, 1269 | —, S. ». (8 Ire. 315) ii. 380 ——v.S. (17 Tex. re 188) 1.975c, 981] ——, S. x. (70 N. C. 356) i, 1228 ——v. §. (18 Tex. Ap. 57) i. 960 | ——,, S. v. (92 N. C, 831) i, 920 —— v.58. (19 Tex. Ap. 3438) i. 966 b | ——, S. v. (109 N. C. 876) i, 1288 ——»v, S. (24 Tex. Ap. 281; 5 Am. —— v. Whitfield (40 Missis. 862) ii. 677 i, 682 i.975¢ i. 975 ¢, 1086, 1181 St. 879) v, S. (28 Tex. Ap. 71) — v.§. (80 Tex. Ap. 652) 718 Whitham, S. v. (47 Me. 165) i. 560; ii. 408 Whithead ». Keyes (8 Allen, 495) i. 167 Whithed, S. v. (8 Murph. 223) i, 1817 Whiting v. Beebe (7 Eng. 421) i, 706 WIC Whiting, Rex v. (7 Car. & P.771) — i.974 ——, Rex v. (1 Salk. 283; 1 Ld. Raym, 396) ii. 192, 429 — v. 8. (14 Conn. 487; 36 Am. D. 499) i. 611, 628 — v. 8. (48 Ohio St. 220) i. 831, a 70 Whitley v. 8. (88 Ga. 50) i. 977, 1211 —, S. v. (88 N. C. 691) i, 921 ‘Whitman, C. v. (121 Mass. 361) ii. 752 —v. 8. (17 Neb. 224) i. 614; ii, 652 —, §. v. (14 Rich. 113) i. 926 Whitmore v. 8. (43 Ark. 271) i. 911 ——. S. v. (6 Pike, 247) i. 445, 770 Whitney v. Board of Delegates (14 Cal. 479) i. 1881 —, C. v. (108 Mass. 5) i. 890, 893 —, C. v. (10 Pick. 434) i, 1410 — v. Lynde (16 Vt. 579) i. 978 —,, P. ». (47 Cal. 584) i. 1405 — P. v. (53 Cal. 420) i. 1094 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 208) ii. 1054 — v.8. (10 Ind. 404) i. 144 v. S. (85 Ind. 503) ii, 968, 969 — v. 8. (6 Lea, 247) i. 1296 — v. 8. (8 Misso. 165) i, 994, 1229 — , S. v. (88 La. An. 579) i. 1398 —, 8. v. (7 Or. 386) i, 799, 861, 975c¢ —, 8. v. (15 Vt. 298) i. 814.a, 854, 357 Whitsell, S. v. (65 Mo. 430) i. 951 c¢ Whitson, P. v. (74 Ill. 20) i. 13827, 1343 —,, P. v. (43 Mich. 419) ii. 1007 a — S »v. (8 Blackf. 178) i. 264) — S. v. (111 N.C. 695) 1. 981; ii. 599 Whitt, S. v. (113 N. C. 716) ii4 Whitted, S. v. (3 Ala. 102) i. 436 Whitten v. S. (47 Ga. 297) i. 989.a, 1147 —, S. v. (1 Hill, S. C. 100) ii, 429 Whittier v. Franklin (46 N. H. 23) ii. 676 21 Me. 341; 38 Am. D. 272) i. 999, 1001, 1014, 1144, 1391, 1396 ; ii. 848 —, U.S. ce. (11 Bis. 356) i. 1865 Whittington v. Ross (8 Bradw. 234) , i. 264 m Whittle v. Frankland (2 B. & S. 49) 1, 6895 Whitton, S. v. (68 Mo. 91) i. 68, 72, 1011 Whitwicke v. Osbaston (1 Lev. 26) i. 632, 633 Whitworth, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 382) i. 1207, 1212 Whizenant v. S. (71 Ala. 383) i. 962 Wholford v. C. (4 Grat. 558) —, 58. v. ( i, 1280 Whybrow, Reg. wv. (8 Cox C. C. 438) . oe ii. 983 b Whyte v. Gibbes (20 How. U. S. 541) i. 12 Wickersham v. P.*(1 Scam. 128) i. 982, 1270; ii. 885 Wickham v. Reg. (2 Per. & D. 333) ii, 183 —,, Reg. v. (10 A. & E. 34) ii, 183 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. WIL Wickham v. S. (7 Coldw. 525) i. 106, 870, 385, 1012 Wicks v. C. (2 Va. Cas. 387) fi. 584 — v. S. (44 Ala. 398) ii. 4, 142 —— v. 8. (28 Tex. Ap. 448) i. 975¢ —, 8. v. (R. M. Charl. 189) i, 257 Wickwire v. 8. (19 Conn. 477) i, 747, 758, 763, 784, 1264 Widdop, Reg. v. (Law Rep. 2C. C. 3 i. 1255 Widdup, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 251) i. 1255 Widner v. S. (25 Ind. 284) i. 724 —— v. §. (28 Ind. 394) i. 976 Wiegand, In re (14 Blatch. 870) i, 224 Wieners, S. v. (66 Mo. 13) ii. 688 a Wier, S. v. (1 Dev. 368) i. 1166 Wigan, Rex v. (1 W. BI. 47) i. 166 Wigg, Reg. v. (2 Ld. Raym. 1168) i. 601, 769; ii. 872, 875 Wiggins v. P. (4 Hun, 540) i, 1253 v. P. (98 U.S. 465) i. 1865; ii. 625, 62 7 —, P. v. (92 N. Y. 656) ii. 780 ——~v. 8. (238 Fla. 180) i. 1282; ii. 585 v. 8. (80 Ga. 468) i. 685, 792, 966 v. S. (84 Ga. 488) i. 95la —— v.58. (1 Lea, 738) i, 1082 ; ii. 436 Wigglesworth, Rex v. (2 Deac. Crim. Law, Supp. 1583) i, 461 Wight, In re (134 U.S. 186) i. 1348, 1410 Wightman v. Mullens (2 Stra. 1226) i. 529 — v. P. (67 Barb. 44) i. 125, 1205 v. S. (10 Ohio, 452) i. 814 —, S. v. (26 Mo. 515) ii. 660 — , S. v. (27 Mo. 121) i, 1280 Wikoff, 8. v. (28 La, An. 654) i. 1264 Wilbanks v. 8. (10 Tex. Ap. 642) i. 979 Wilber, P. v. (4 Par. Cr. 19) i. 627 Wilbor, S. v. (1 R. I. 199; 36 Am. D. 245) i. 605 Wilborn v. S. (8 Sm. & M. 345) ii, 764 Wilbourne, S. v. (87 N. C. 529) i. 1049 Wilburn v. 8. (41 Tex. 237) ii. 81, 142 —., 5S. v. (25 Tex. 738) i. 100 Wilburne, 8S. v. (2 Brev. 296) i. 701 Wilcox, C. v. (1 Cush. 503) i, 216 — v. Moon (U4 Vt. 450; 383 Am. St. 936) ii. 784 — v. Nolze (34 Ohio St. 520) i, 220 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 50) ii. 418, 415 —, Rex v. (2 Salk. 458) ii. 871 —v.§. (3 Heisk. 110) i. 980; ii. oe 745 — v. S. (24 Tex. 544) i, 264 a — v. §. (81 Tex. 686) i. 487, 489, 677 v. S. (45 Tex. 146) ii, 697 — , §. v. (111 Mo. 569) ii. 947 —'S. v. (104 N. C. 847) i, 850, 882 3|—, U.S. v. (4 Blatch. 391) ii. 910, 9104 —, U.S. ». (4 Blatch. 898) ii. 1020, 1021 — v, Williamson (61 Missis. 810) i. 718 Wilcoxen, S, v. (88 Mo. 870) i, 887 719 WIL INDEX TO THE Wild’s Case (2 East P. C.783) i. 1160 Wild, Rex v. (1 Moody, 452) i. 1281 Wilde v. C. (2 Met. 408) i. 1364 Wilder v. 8. (29 Ark. 293) i. 384 v, S. (47 Ga. 522) i. 762 —, S. v. (138 S. C. 344) i. 264.a, 264e S. v. (4 Woods, 475; 14 i. 1206 'y + Fed. Rep. 393) Wildey, Rex v. (1 M. & S. 183) i, 814, 1368 Wildy, C. v. (2 Va. Cas. 69) i, 68 Wile v. S. (60 Missis. 260) i. 585; ii. 922 Wileman, P. v. (44 Hun, 187) i. AD ¢, 16 Wiley, P. v. (8 Hill, N. ¥. 194) i. 4884; ii. 982 — v. 8. (5 Bax. 662) i. 975 c, 980 — v. 8. (4 Blackf. 458) i, 940 —— v. §. (3 Coldw. 362) i. 488, 1126, 1223, 1238; ii. 700, 750 — v. 8. (52 Ind. 475) i, 1269 —— v. S. (1 Swan, Tenn. 256) i. 995, 998 Wilford, Rex v. (Russ, & Ry. 517) ii. 138 Wilgus, S. v. (82 Kan. 126) i, 975¢ Wilhelm v. P. (72 Ill. 468) i, 994 Wilhite, S. v. (11 Humph. 602) i. 701 Wilke v. P. (53 N.Y. 525) i. 966, 1151, 1152, 1268 Wilkerson v. Branham (5 Ala. 608) i. 1899 v. 8. (18 Mo. 91; 53 Am. D. * 187) i. 689 v. 8. (2 Tex. Ap. 255) ii, 524 —— v. 8, (81 Tex. Cr. 86) i. 1265 —_, 5S. v. (72 N. C. 376) ii, 746 —, 8S. v. (103 N. C. 387) i. 966 b Wilkes v. Rex (4 Bro. P. C. 360) i. 140, 1310 —, Rex v. (4 Bur. 2527) i, 292 —} Rex v. (7 Car. & P, 272) i. 1170 ——, Rex v. (19 How. St. Tr. 981; 4 Bur. 2527) i. 207 a, 502, 702, 714, 1362 —, Rex v. (19 How. St. Tr. 1075) i. 1327 Wilkins v. Earle (44 N. Y. 172; 4 Am. R. 655) i. 978 —— v. Malone (14 Ind. 153) i. 1090 —, Reg. v. (10 Cox C. C. 868) ii. 780 —, Rex »v. (1 Leach, 520) ii. 721 — v.58. (15 Tex. Ap. 420) i. 960 —, 8. v, (17 Vt. 161) i. 784; ii. 449, 450, 460 Wilkinson v. Pearson (23 Pa. 117) ii. 674, 678, 681 —, Reg. v. (8 Car, & P. 662) i, 1259 ——, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 470) ii, 721 —— v. S. (10 Ind. 872) ii, 447, 452, 460 —, S. uv. (76 Me. 317) i, 8694 Wilks v. 8. (3 Tex. Ap. 84) ii. 68 —— v.§. (27 Tex. Ap. 881) i. 688 Willard v. S. (26 Tex. Ap. 126) i. 1243 — v. 8. (27 Tex. Ap. 886; 11 Am. St. 197) i, 1058 — , 8. v. (79 N. C. 660) i, 926 Willers, S. v. (27 La. An. 246) i. 664 720 CASES CITED. WIL Willets v. Ridgway (9 Ind. 367) i. 898, 976 Willett v. P. (27 Hun, 469) i. 1182, 1288 —, P. v. (36 Hun, 500) 4. 909, 1093 ——) P. v. (92. N. Y. 29) i. 1257 a — Rex v. (6 T. R. 294) i. 713 —— v. Rich (142 Mass. 356; 56 Am, R. 684) i. 1048 Willey v. S. (46 Ind. 363) i. 665, 8694; ii. 614 — v.§. (52 Ind. 246) ii, 92 — v. 8. (52 Ind, 421) i. 964 — v. S. (105 Ind. 453) i. 1274 William v. S. (89 Ala. 532) i, 1241 Williams, Ex parte (McClel. 493; 13 Price, 6738) i. 264¢ ——., Ex parte (18 Tex. Ap. 653) i. 256 ——,, Ex parte (J Wash. Ter. 240) i. 1410 ——, In re (82 Cal. 183) i, 268 —— v. Augusta (4 Ga. 509) i. 892 — v. Breedon (1 B. & P. 829) =i. 1014 — v. C. (9 Bush, 274) i. 978 —v. C. (2 Grat. 567; 44 Am. D. 403) . i, 821 — v.C. (80 Ky. 313) i. 975 c, 1265 — v. C. (82 Ky. 640) i, 813 —— v. C. (29 Pa. 102) ii. 747 — v.C. (91 Pa. 493) i. 648, 646, 931; ii. 927, 982 — v.C. (85 Va. 607) i. 965, 975c, 980, 1250 i. 1212, 1279 ii, 426 i, 282; ii. 133, 139, 146, 151 . v, (2 Ashm. 69) . (13 Bush, 267) — , C. v, (2 Cush. 582) aa 3s —, C. v. (5 Grat. 702) i. 882 C. v. (7 Gray, 337) ii, 726, 752 —, C. v. (13 Mass. 501) i. 1317 —, ©. v. (105 Mass. 62) i. 1061, 1068, 1218 —, Cv. ae Mass. 401) ii, 846 ——. C. v. (161 Mass. 442) ii. 752 —, C. v. (1 Va. Cas. 14) ii. 738 —— v. Drewe (Willes, 892) i. 1813 —— v. Drexel (14 Md. 566) ii, 432 6 —— v. East India Co. (8 East, 192) i. 1048, 1082 —— v. Gardiner (1M. & W. 245) ii. 794 —— v. Jefferson (2 Mont. 26) i, 286 v. Jones (Cas. temp. Hardw. i. 167 —— v. McDaniel (77 Ga. 4) i, 264 f —— v. Northumberland (110 Pa. 48) i, 1816, 1317 —— v. P. (44 Ill. 478) i. 1001, 1002. 1013 v, P. (64 Ill. 422) i. 1859; ii. 621, 626 —— v. P, (101 Ill. 382) i. 486, 1058 — v. P. (118 Ill. 444) i, 1264 —— v. P. (24. N.Y. 405) i, 4883; ii. 761 —, P.v. (38 Abb. Ap. 596) i. 1087; ii, 625 —, P. v. (6 Cal. 206) i, 909 —, P. v. (17 Cal. 142) i. 909, 1125; ii, 610, 613 ——, P. v, (18 Cal. 187) i, 1170, 1276 —, P. v. (24 Cal. 31) i. 71 —, P. vu. (385 Cal. 671) — i. 825; ii. 738 WIL Williams, P. v. (45 Cal. 25) i. 1269 —, P. v. (57 Cal. 108) ii. 739, 740 ——, P. v. (59 Cal. 897) i. 975 ¢ —, P. v. (59 Cal, 674) i. 9524 —, P. x. (4 Hill, N.Y.9; 40 Am. D. 258) i. 627 —, P. v. (29 Hun, 520) i, 1060, 1265 —, P. v. (1 Idaho, wn. s. 85) i. 899 —, P. v. (24 Mich. 166) i. 931, 949.4; ii. 754 —, P. vo. (3 Par. Cr. 84) ii. 625, 630, 631, 632 —, P. v. (19 Wend. 377) i. 1020 —, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 51) i. 588 ; ii. 415, 489 —, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 259) ii. 264, 268 —, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 484) i. 1019; ii. 482 —, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 363) i, 962 —, Reg. v. (12 Cox C.C.101) i. 1197 — , Reg. v. (2 Den. C. C. 61; 4 Cox C. C. 856; 2 Eng. L. & Eq. 533) ii, 414, 415, 489 ——, Reg. v. (14 Law J.n.s. M. C. 164) i. 597 —, Reg. v. (6 Q. B. 273) i. 691 —, Reg. v. (1 Salk. 384) ii. 109 —, Rex v. (9 B. & C. 549; 4 Man. & R. 471) i. 1188; ii. 885, 387 —, Rex v. (1 Bur. 385) i, 772 —, Rex v. (2 Camp. 606) i. 61; ii. a 3 —, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 626) i. 460 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 298) i, 686 —, Rex v. (7 Car. & P. 354) ii. 182, 190 —, Rex v. (1 Hale P. C. 522) ii, 188 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 529) i. 409, 412, ‘ 1827 —, Rex v. (1 Moody, 387) i. 178 —, Rex v. (1 Moody & R. 503) i. 951 — v.8. (15 Ala. 259) ii, 728, 780 — v. S. (20 Ala. 63) i, 264k — v.S. (44 Ala. 41) i. 184 — 2.8. (44 Ala. 396) i, 541, 715 v. 8. (45 Ala. 57) i. 999 — v.S. (47 Ala. 659) i. 977, 1062 — v.58. (48 Ala. 85) i. 68, 73, 995, 999, 1275 — v.58. (52 Ala. 26) i. 978 uv. 8. (52 Ala. 411) i. 1082, 1094, 1115, 1116 —— v. S, (55 Ala. 71) i. 2644 — v. S. (55 Ala. 166) i. 1317 — v.§. (61 Ala. 33) i. 621, 522; ii. 482 ¢ — v.S. (67 Ala. 183) i. 926 — v.S8. (74 Ala. 18) i, 962 ; ii. 618 — vr. 8. (83 Ala. 16) i. 1273 — v.58. (83 Ala. 68) i, 986 — ».§. (41 Ark. 173) ii, 4 — v. 8. (42 Ark. 35) i. 826 — v. S. (42 Ark. 380) i. 1264 — v. §. (47 Ark. 280) i. 648 i. 1179; ii. 671 i, 1278, 1862 — Dv. 8. (50 Ark. 611) . §. (20 Fla. 891) 2. VOL. 11, — 46 —v INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. WIL Williams v. S. hong Fla. 734) i, 264, 264 a —— v. 8. (19 Ga. 402) i. 1195 — v. 8. (46 Ga. 212) ii. 180, 1884 v. S. (46 Ga. 647) i. 1004 — v. S. (51 Ga. 535) ii. 4184 — v. 8. (62 Ga: 580 ii. 140 — v.8. (55 Ga. 391) i. 869 a, 911, 1159 —— v. 8. (57 Ga. 478) i. 1889 — v. 8. (59 Ga. 400) i. 459 —— v. S. (60 Ga. 88) i. 489 — v. 8. (60 Ga. 367; 27 Am. R. 412) i, 813 —— v. 8. (63 Ga. 306) i. 1003 ——v. §. (69 Ga. 11) i. 1107, 1151 —— v. 8. (3 Heisk. 37) —_—i. 885; ii. 570, 584 — v. S. (3 Heisk. 376) i. 338, 536, 665 —v.8. (7 Humph. 47) i. 488; ii. 912 — v. 8. (8 Humph. 585) i. 536; ii. 970 — v. §. (9 Humph. 80) ii, 455, 460 —— v. 8. (10 Ind. 503) i. 984, 987 —— v. S. (16 Ind. 461) ii. 462 — v5. (28 Ind. 150) ii. 700 —— v. S, (45 Ind. 157) : i. 1278 v. S. (47 Ind. 568) i, 1248 ; ii. 77 — v. 8. (86 Ind. 400) i, 850 — v. §. (8 Kelly, 453) i. 906, oN) 918 —— v. §. (12 Lea,.211) 1229 — v8. (15 Lea, 129; 54 Am. R. 404) i. 998 a v. S. (60 Md. 402) i. 1008 —— v. S. (64 Md. 384). ii. 608, 631 —v. 8. (32 Missis. 889; 66 Am. D. 615) 4, 905, 918, 976, 984 — v.S. (87 Missis. 407) i. 926, 949 a — v.58. (42 Missis. 828) i. 611; ii. si 8 —— v. S. (47 Missis. 609) ii. 954 —— v. S, (4 Misso. 480) i. 180, 727 —— v. §. (9 Misso. 270) i, 694 —— v. S. (6 Neb. 334) i. 951 a, 1005; ii, 595, 606 — v. §. (12 Ohio St. 622) i. 125 —— v. 8. (18 Ohio St. 46) i. 1827 — v. §. (85 Ohio St. 175) ii. 589 — v. S. (30 Tex, 404) i. 665, 667 — v. §. (42 Tex. 892) i. 764, 772 — v. S. (43 Tex. 382) i. 980 — v.58. (44 Tex. 34) i, 931 — v.S. (1 Tex. Ap. 90; 28 Am. R. 99) i. 419; ii. 949, 951, 953 — v.S. (1 Tex. Ap. 465) ii, 526 v. S, (2 Tex. Ap. 271) i, 978, 980; ii. 620 v, S. (8 Tex, Ap. 123) ii. 624, 637 — v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 316) ii. 638 @ — v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 6) i. 1020, 1087 ; ii. 752, 1265 — v.58. (4 Tex. Ap. 178) ii. 741 — v.§. (4 Tex. Ap. 255) i. 1279 —— v.8, (65 Tex. Ap. 116) ii. 699, 703 — v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 226 i, 688 — v5. (5 Tex. Ap. P15) i. 975 c, 1002 721 WIL INDEX Williams v. 8. (7 Tex. Ap. 163) i. 1279 — v.58. (7 Tex. Ap. 396) i, 975 —-v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 867) i. 975c v, S. (10 ‘Tex. Ap. 8 ii. 1002 —— v. S. (10 Tex. Ap. 114) i. 95la v. 8. (10 Tex. Ap. 526) i, 1238 — v. §. (10 Tex. Ap. 528) i. 9514 —v.S. (11 Tex. Ap. 275) i. 384; ii. 740 —v. 8, (12 Tex. Ap. 127) i. 1144 v. §. (12 Tex. Ap. 226) i. 408 — v.§. (12 Tex. Ap. 395) i, 98a v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 285) i. 814 v. S. (14 Tex. Ap. 102; 46 Am. ae 237) ii. 613 — v. S. (15 Tex. Ap. 104) i. 1125 —. 8. (15 Tex. Ap. 401) i, 1170 v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 521) i, 622 — v. §. (18 Tex. Ap. 409) i. 975 — v. §. (19 Tex. Ap. 265) i. 854 v. S. (19 Tex. Ap. 276) i, 1220 v. S. (19 Tex. Ap. 409) ii. 718 v. §. (20 Tex. Ap. 357) i. 1287 —v. 8. (25 Tex. Ap. 76) 1. 975c —v. S. (26 Tex. Ap. 181) ii, 752 v. 8. (27 Tex. Ap. 466) i. 989 v. 8. (23 Tex. Ap. 301) i. 1181, 1185 v. S. (29 Tex. Ap. 89) i. 1247, 1264 — ».§. (29 Tex. Ap. 167) i. 975c, 980 — v.S. (30 Tex. Ap. 354) i. 975 a, : 976c¢ — v. §. (30 Tex. Ap. 429) i. 975 ¢ —v. S. (27 Wis. 402) i. 652 a v. 8. (6L Wis. 281) i. 1208, 1278 v. 8. (Wright, 42) ii. 83 —, 8. v. (19 Ala. 15; 54 Am. D. 184) ii. 782 —, 8S. v, (17 Ark. 371) i, 264 a —, S. v. (3 Fost. N. H. 321) ii. 657 — , S. v. (2 Hill, S. C. 381) i. 931 — S. v. (4 Ind. 234; 68 Am. D. 627) i. 875 —, S. v. (21 Ind. 206) ii, 846 —, S. v. (108 Ind. 235) ii, 163 —, S. v. (8 Iowa, 533) i. 951 a; ii. 266 —, 8. v. (20 Iowa, 98) i. 683 —, S. v. (61 Iowa, 517) ii. 763 —, S. v. (63 Iowa, 135) i. 68, 72, 293 —, S. v. (70 Iowa, 52) i, 826 —,S. v. (9 Ire. 140) i. 1015 a; ii. 742 —,5S. v. (2 Jones, N.C. 194) —, i. 979, 1149; ii. 745 —, 5S. v. C Jones, N. C. 446; 78 Am. D, 248) i. 563, 1057, 1059 —,S.». "08 La. An. 310) i, 1342 ——, S. v. (28 La. An. 604) 966 b —, S. v. (80 La. An. 842) i, 386 —, S. v. (30 La. An. 1028) i, 981 —,S. v. (30 La. An. 1162) i. 1310 —, S. v, (82 La. An. 885; 86 Am. R, 272) ii, 949 —, S. v. (37 La. An. 200) i. 264 m ——,, 8. v. (87 La, An. 776) i. 618; ii, 546 —, S. v. (38 La. An. 361) i. 949 722 TO THE CASES CITED. WIL Williams, S. v. (2 McCord, 301) i. 452, 662 665 —, S.v. (2 McCord, 883) 71 —, S. v. (80 Me. 484) i. 907, 1247 —, S. v. (80 Mo. 364) i. 535, 989 b ; ii, 922, 931, 932, 985 —,S8. v. (54 Mo.170) i. 1250 ; ii. 741 —, S. v. (69 Mo. 110) i. 68, 73, 951 —, 5S. v. (44 Mo. Ap. 302) i. 1074 —-—, 8. v. (65 N.C. 505) i. 975 a, 975 b —,S.v. (67 N.C.12) i. 1212; ii. 624 —, 8. v. (68 N. C. 60) ii. 628 —, S. v. (109 N. C. 846) i. 975 € —, S. v. (5 Port. 130) i. 849, 884 —,S. v. (6 R. I. 207) i. 1265 — , 8. v. (2 Rich. 418; 45 Am. D. 741) : i. 1126; ii. 428 —, S. v. (13 8, C, 546) i 3144 —, 8. v. (81 S. C. 238) ii. 975 c, 981 —, 8. v. (85 8. C. 160) i. 951 f —, S. v. (35 S. C. 344) i. 851, 854 —, S. v. (3 Stew. 454) i. 73, 849, 860, : 909, 1355 —, 8. v. (2 Strob, 229) ii. 983 —, S. v. (2 Strob. 474) i. 611 —,S. v. (8 Tex. 255) i. 147; ii. 179 —, S. v. (36 Tex. 852) —i. 886; ii. 514 ——,, S. v. (41 Tex. 98) ii, 82, 142 —-, S. rv, (43 Tex. 182) i. 1250 —, S. v. (27 Vt. 724) i. 1280, 1281 ; ii. 428 —, S. v. (14 W. Va. 851) i. 946 — v. Shelby (2 Or. 144) i. 264 4 — , U.S. v. (4 Bis. 302) —, U.S. v. (1 Clif. 5) ii. 414, 448, “ABB i. 668, 1057, 1257 —, U.S. v. (1 Dil. 485) i. 851 —, U.S. v. (57 Fed. Rep. 201) ii. 180 v. Williams (Cro. Eliz. 557) i. 1368 Williamson v. Allison (2 East, 446) i. 504 —— v. C. (4 Grat. 647) i. oe —, C. v. (4 Grat. 564) —— v. Carnan (1 Gill & J. 184) 7 uit v. Lewis (39 Pa. 9) i. 1407 —, Rex », (7 T. R. 82) i. 691 v. §. (16 Ala. 431) i. 1175; ii. 278 —— v. §. (59 Missis. 235) i. 1181 —— v. 8. (64 Missis. 229) i. 68, 73 v, S. (5 Tex. Ap. 485) i. 390; ii. 68 — v. §. (12 Tex. Ap. 169) i, 264 a, f 264 b v. §. (18 Tex. Ap. 514) i. 649 ——,S. v. (42 Conn. 261) i. 951, 966 a, 989 a, 1169; ii. 52 —, S. v. (8 Heisk. 483) i, 528, 627; ii, 142 —, S.v. (16 Mo. 394) i. 979 ——, S. v. (21 Mo. 496) i, 614 —, 5. v. (106 Mo. 162) i, 884 a, 949; ii. 671 — , S. v. (81 N. C, 540) i, 360 —, S. v. (48 Tex. 500) i, 354 Williamstown Turnpike, S. v. (4 Zab. 547) i, 1850 “WIL INDEX TO THE Williford v. = hy Tex. 653) i, 264 a —, S. v. (91 N. C. 529) i. 315 Willingham v. 8. (14 Ala. 589) i. 1366, 1389 —— v, §. (21 Fla. 761) i, 981, 975 b —, S. v. (33 La. An. 587) i. 1094 Willis’s Case (15 How. St. Tr. 618) i. 912 Willis v. Bullitt (22 Tex. 330) i. 978 —— v. C. (82 Grat. 929) ii, 603 — v. Havemeyer (5 Duer, 447) i. 722 —— v. P. (19 Hun, 84 ii. 183 ——v. P. (82 N. ¥. 715) i. 1268; ii, 675 —— v. P. (1 Seam, 399) ii. 718 —— v. Quimby (11 Fost. N. H. 485) i, 1178; Ne 677 —, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C, 164; Eng. Rep. 218) ii. bBo, 935 —, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 80; 1 Cox C. C. 186; 1 Car. & K. 723) ii. 509 — v. 8. (12 Ga. 444) i. 909 — v. 8. (9 Tex. Ap. 297) i. 920 — v.8. (10 Tex. Ap. 493) i, 63 —, S. v. (Busbee, 223) ii. 869 a —, S. v. (8 Head, 157) i. 869 a — , 8. v. (78 Me. 70) i. 408 ——, S. v. (66 Mo. 181) i, 1264 —, 8S. v. (63 N. C. 26) ii. 599, 600 —— v. Warren (1 Hilton, 590) i. 183 Willison v. S. (7 Tex: Ap. 400) i. 951 a ‘Willman v. Worrill (8 Car. & P. 380) ii. 482 a Willot, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 68) ii. 188 Wills v. P. (3 Par. Cr. 473) i. 60 a, 1082, 1218; ii. 989, 991 — v, S. (4 Blackf. 457) ii, 595, 698 — v. S. (69 Ind. 286) i. 921 — v.S. (8 Misso. 52) i. 1391 — v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 613) i, 264 a, 264 b, 1264 ——, S. v. (11 Humph. 222) i. 885 Willson, C. v. (2 Leigh, 789) i, 851 —, 8. v. (2 McCord, 393) i. 861 Wilmot v. Tyler (1 Ld. Raym. 671; 1 Salk. 63) i. 128 Wilmoth, S. v, (63 Iowa, 380) i 702 Wilner v. Hold (Cro. Car. 489) ii. 794 —, S. v. (40 Wis. 204) ii. 674 ‘Wilshaw, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 145) i. Be 199 Wilson, Ex parte (20 Tex. Ap. 498) i. a 264 a , Ex parte (114 U. S. 417) i. 145 in re (18 Fed. Rep. 83) i. 145, 1810 —, , In re (140 U.S. 575) i. 3l4a, = —— v. Boerem (15 Johns. 286) » i. 1207, 1209 = v. C. (10 Bush, 526; 19 Am. R. i, 269 ) —, C. v. (1 Gray, 387) ii. 682, 686 —) 0. ». (2 Gray, 70) ii, 409 —}C. v. (99 Mass. 427) i. 1265 —)G. v. (152 Mass. 12) i. 975c, 1114, 1116, 1169 — v. Hamer (8 Bing. 54; 1 Moore & 8. 120; 1 Dowl. P. C. 248) i. 2634 CASES CITED. WIL Wilson v. Hamilton (9 Rich. 382) ii. 785, 786, 788 — v. Law (Skin. 443, 558; Carth. 331 ii. 622 — v. McClean (1 Cranch C. C. 465) i. 1178 — v. P..(10 Bradw. 357) i. 264 —— v. P. (8 Colo, 825) i. 279 — v. P. (94 Ill. 299) i. 948 a, 1086 —-v. P, (94 IIL. 426) i, 3l4a@ —— v. P. (24 Mich. 410) ii. 684 —— v. P. (4 Par. Cr. 619) i. 998 a, 1270 —, P. v. (49 Cal. 13) ii. 671 ——, P. v. (66 Cal. 370) i. 1254 ——, P. v. (30 Mich. 486) ii. 740 — , P. v. (85 Mich, 516) i, 966 — _, P. v. (3 Par. Cr.199) i. 918, 9514, 1057 —, P. v. (2 Scam. 225) i. 980 ——, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 622) i. 1208 ——., Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 284; 2 Car. & K. 527) i, 688, 6896 —, Reg. v. (1 Ellis & B. 597; Dears. 79; 16 Eng. L. & Eq. 889) i. 1814 ——, Reg. v. (2 Moody, 52) ii. 981 ——, Reg. v. (6 Q. B. 620) i. 758, 762 —, Rex v. (8 A. & E. 817; 6 Nev. & M. 625) | ij. 877 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 115) ii. 138 ——, Rex v. (4 T. R. 487) i. 1294 —, Rex v. (8 T. R. 857) ii. 871, 872, 878, — v.§. (31 Ala. 871) i, 981, 938, 940, 360 8. (52 Ala. 299) i. 8140 sar Uh —— v.58, (61 Ala. 151) ii. 945 — v. S. (16 Ark. 601) i. 824, 893 —— v, S, (83 Ark. 657; 34 Am. R. 52) i. 689, 1086 — v.S. (6 Bax. 206) i. 9984 —— v. §. (1 Blackf. 428) i. 3144 — v.$. (6 Blackf. 212) i, 2647 —— v. S. (80 Fla, 284) ii, 627 v, S. (53 Ga. 205) i. 1005 v. S. (62 Ga. 167) ii. 660 —— v. S. (66 Ga, 591) i. 526; ii. 780 —— v. S. (67 Ga. 658) i. 10154 —— v. S. (69 Ga. 224) i. 686 ; ii. 603 —v. §. (80 Ga. 357) i. 1279 —— v. 8. (87 Ga. 583) i. 278 —— v. S. (3 Heisk. 232) i. 962, 1238 v. 8. (16 Ind. 392) i, 282 v. §. (42 Ind. 224) i. 931 —— v. §. (11 Lea, 310) i. 172 — v. 8. (42 Missis. 639) i. 126 —— v. §. (18 Ohio, 148) ii. 640, 656 — 1. §. (20 Ohio, 26) i. 1011, 10154 ~— v. 8. (34 Ohio St. 199) i, 584 v. S. (1 Port. 118) ii. 718, 736 — v. S. (25 Tex. 169) i, 416, 478 —— v. S. (88 Tex. 548) i. 712 v. §. (41 Tex. 820 i. 1179 —— v. S. (43 Tex. 472 ii. 687 v. 8. (45 Tex. 76, 79; 23 Am. R. 602) i. 814, 816 — v.S. (8 Tex. Ap. 63) i. 981; ii. ‘1002 723 WIL Wilson v. S. (3 Tex. Ap. 206) ii. 726 —v. 8. (4 Tex. Ap. 687) i, 975¢ — v.§. (6 Tex. Ap. 154) i. 711 — v.S. (7 Tex. Ap. 88) i, 264 a — v. §. (12 Tex. Ap. 481) i, 1005 a —v.S. (14 Tex. Ap. 205) i, 1350 —— v.§. (14 Tex. Ap. 524) i. 975, 180 — v. §. (15 Tex. Ap. 160) 1. 975¢ —— v.§. (17 Tex. Ap. 525) i. 1854; 11.965 — v. 8. (18 Tex. Ap. 576) i. 118, 998 — v. §. (27 Tex. Ap. 47; 11 Am. St. 180) i, 975c; ii. 924, 927, 935 —— 7». S. (82 Tex. Cr. 22) i. 1265 —v. 8S. (1 Wis. 184) ii. 259 —, S. v. (80 Conn. 500) i. 495, oe ; i ii. —, S. v. (38 Conn. 126) i. 905, 1408 — , S. v. (7 Ind. 516) ii, 657 —, S. v. (50 Ind. 487) i, 272 —, S. v. (51 Ind. 96) i, 1269 ——? 8. v. (8 Iowa, 407) 4. 909, 919, 934, 966 6, 980; i 764 —, S. v. (1 Ire. 82) i. 386 —, S. v. (24 Kan. 189; 36 Am. R. 257) i, 281, 1195, 1212 —, S. v. (42 Kan. 587) i. 788, 959 a — , S. v. (12 La. An. 189) © i. 251 —, S. v. (14 La. An. 446) i, 264,f —,S. v. (23 La. An. 558) i. 1215 —, S. v. (83 La. An. 261) i. 313 —, S. v. (86 La. An. 864) i. 949 6 — , S. v. (40 La, An. 751) i. 999 —, S. v. (3 McCord, 187) ii. 769 — , 8. v. (65 Me. 74) i. 1179 —, 8. v. (2 Mill, 135) i. 519; ii. 172 —,S. v. (3 Misso. 125) i. 13859; ii. 844 —, S. v. (85 Mo. 134) i. 909, 951 — , S. v. (86 Mo. 520) i. 975¢ — , S. v. (88 Mo. 13) i. 975 —., S. v. (91 Mo. 410) ii. 963 —, S. v. (67 N.C. 456) 1.825; ii. 10084 —, S. v. (84 N. C. 777) i. 3l4a —, S. v. (90 N. C. 736) i. 9750 —, S. v. (93 N. C. 608) ii. 276 —, 8. v. (94 N. C. 1015) ii. 1011 — , S. v. (104 N. C. 868) i. 975 — , S. v. (106 N. C. 718) i. 480 —, S.v. (7.N. H. 548) i. 814 —, S. v. (48 N. H. 415; 82 Am. D. 163) ii. 875 — , 8. v. (48 N. H. 398) i. 893, 940 —, S. v. (69 N. H. 139) ii, 144 —, 5S. v. (5 Nev. 43) i, 1264 — , S. v. (6 Or. 428) ii, 722 —, S. v. (Phillips, N. C. 287) ii. 20, 24, 26 ——, S. v. (2 Vroom, 77) i. 1151 —— v. Simonton (1 Hawks, 482) i, 893 Thornbury (Law Rep. fae 517) ii. 4826 —, U.S. v. (Bald. 78) —_ i. 65, 375, 611, 668, 905, 909, 918, 9384, 1018, 1024, 1138, 1170, 1241, 1248 — , U.S. v. (7 Pet. 150) i, 882, 838 — v. Weller (1 Brod. & B. 57) i. 718 724 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. 52;| Wincroft, S. v. (76 N. C. 38) WIN WHERE U.S. v. (8 Wash. C. C. 516 i. 1100; ii. 600, 621 —, U.S. v. (5 Wheat. 76) i. 8144 Wilton, Reg. v. (1 Fost. & F. 391) ii. 4826 Wilts, Reg. v. (6 Mod. 307) i, 68, 1275 Wimberly, S.v. (8 McCord, 190) i. 354, 527, 601 ; ii. 528 Wimbush, S. v. (9 S.C. 309) i. 187 Wimple, S. v. (8 Blackf. 214) ii. 57 Wims v. 8. (90 Ala, 623) i, 1108 Winchell, P. v. (7 Cow. 160) i. 264 o 2d £ —, P. v. (7 Cow. 525) Winchester v. Hinsdale (12 Conn. 88)” i. 3 14 ii, 188, 726 9| Windham v. Clere (Cro. Eliz. 180) i. 280 ——, Rex v. (Cowp. 377) i. 1403 — v. 8. (19 Tex. Ap. 413) ii, 740 Windman, S. v. (Cheves, 75) ii. 768 Windover v. Robbins (2 Tyler, 1) _ ii. 229 Windsor, Ex parte (10 Cox C. C. 118; 6 B. & S. 522) i, 224 v. Gover (2 Saund. Wms. ed. 302) i, 227 ——, Reg. v. (4 Fost. & F. 360) i, 1238 —, 8. v. (6 Harring. Del. 512) i. 71; ii, 674, 675, 685 Windus, Rex v. (1 Camp. 406, note) i, 488c; ii, 912 Winebrenner, S. v. (67 Iowa, 230) i. 850 Winemiller v. S. (11 Ind. 516) ii. 490 Winfield v. S. (3 Greene, Towa, 839) i, 345, 1278 Winford v. Powell (2 Ld. Raym., 1310) i, Wing, S. v. (82 Me. 581) Wingard v. 8. (18 Ga. 896) Wingate, C. v. (6 Gray, 485) i, 236 i 1265 i. 870, 400, 686 i. 982 a, 1264 Wingfield’s Case (Cro. Eliz. 739) i. 408 Wingfield, Rex v. (1 W. Bl. 602) i. 691 Wingo vz. 8S. (99 Ind. 343) i, 12544 v, §. (62 Missis. 311) i, 313 —, 8. v. (66 Mo. 181; 27 Am. R. 829) i. 1049, 1095 Wininger v. S. (18 Ind. 540) ii. 1000 Wink, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 397) _ i. 1082, 1086, 1111; ii. 1007 a Winkle v. S. (20 Ga. 666) i. 1018 Winkler, P. v. (9 Cal. 284) ii. 700, ee 71 Winkworth, Rex v. (4 Car. & P. 444) ii. 1007 Winn v. Hobson (22 J. & S. 830) i. 188 —v. Peckham (42 Wis. 493) i. 2840; 2 ii, 985.4 — v.§. (55 Ark. 360) i. 554 —— v. §. (10 Ohio, 845) i. 1875 v. §. (6 Tex. Ap. 621) i. 665, 975¢ — v. §. (15 Tex. Ap. 169) i. 1264 — v.§. (17 Tex. Fis 284) i. 1275 Winner, S. v. (17 Kan. 298) i, 1057, 1086 Winninger, S. v. (81 Ind. 51) i, 251 WIT INDEX TO THE Winningham, S. v. (10 Rich. 257) i, 959 a, 1269, 1277 Winright, S. v. (12 Misso. 410) i, 611 Winsett v. S. (64 Ind. 487) i, 1264 Winship v. P. (51 Il. 296) i, 756 Winslow's Case (10 Am. Law Rev. CASES CITED. WON Witham, S. v. (72 Me. 581) i. 1060, 1181, 1182, 1255 ——,, S. v. (6 Or. 366) ii. 911 Withee v. Rowe (45 Me. 571) ii. 482 ¢ Witherby v. S. (89 Ala. 702) ii. 82, 976 Withers v. Buckley (20 How. U.S. 617) . i.224b| 84) i, 64 Winslow, P. v. (89 Mich. 505) i, 9756 v. C. (5 S. & R. 59) i. 1042 ——, Reg. v. (8 Cox C.C. 897) i. 1128; | ——, Reg. v. (4 Cox C.C.17) i. 760, 764 ii, 628 | ——, Rex v. (3 T. R. 428) i. 1294; —— v.S. (76 Ala. 42) i. 1057 ii. 799 v. §. (92 Ala. 78) i, 966 b | —— v. 8. (30 Tex. Ap. 883) i. 909 — , U.S. v. (3 Saw. 337) i. 890 | Withipole’s Case (Cro. Car. 147) i. 296 Winsmore v. Greenbank (Willes, Withrow, S. v. (47 Ark. 551) ii, 1051 577) : ii. 76 | Witt, P. v. (19 IIL. 169) i. 264 f Winsor v. Reg. (Law Rep. 1 Q. B. —, Rex v. (1 Moody, 248) ii. 188, 289 i, 825, 827 1384 — _, Reg. v. (10 Cox C. C. 276; v. 8. (5 Coldw. 11) i. 1000 Law Rep. 1 Q. B. 390) i. 1020 v. 8. (6 Coldw. 5) i. 488 .¢; ii. 514, Winstead, U. S. v. (4 Hughes, 464) 544, 584, 608 i. 264 m | ——, S. o. (84 Kan. 488) i. 688, 975 c, Winston, Ex parte (62 Ala. 419) i. 123, 982 756 | Witten v. S. (4 Tex. Ap. 70) i, 354 ——, Ex parte (6 Nev. 71) i. 1410 | ——, S. v. (100 Mo. 525) i. 9984; ii. 963 Winter v. Donovan (8 Gill, 370) _—_—ii. 789 Wittington, S. v. (88 La. An. 1403) i. 887 —, Rex v. (13 East, 258) i. 140 | Wixson v. P. (5 Par. Cr. 119) i. 1020 v. §. (20 Ala. 39) i. 1094 | Wofford, S. v. (10 Sm. & M. 626) i. 229 —, S. v. (72 Iowa, 627) i. 943 a, 1180] Wohlmaan, S. v. (84 Mo. 482; 86 Am. —, U.S. v. (18 Blatch. 276) i. 685;| D. 117) ii. 746 ii, 776a| Wolcoit, C. v. (10 Cush. 61) _ ii. 167, 898 Winterbottom, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. —,C. rv. (110 Mass. 67) i. 189 C. 41; 2 Car. & K. 87) ii. 472 | ——, P. v. (51 Mich. 612) i. 1233 Winteringham, Rex v. (1 Stra.2) i. 580} ——, S. v. (21 Conn. 272) i. 861, 865, Wintermute, P.v. (1 Dak. 63) i, 878 886, 1169 Winters, P. v. (29 Cal. 658) ii. 151] Wolf v. C. (80 Grat. 838) i. 1236; ii. 34 —, P. v. (93 Cal. 277) i. 1101) —-, C. v. (38 8. & R. 48) ii. 817 Wintzingerode, S. v. (9 Or. 158) i, 1227 | ——, P. v. (95 Mich. 625 ii. 606 Wiscart v. Dauchy (3 Dall. 821) i. 1264; —— v. Rodifer (1 Har. & J. 409) ii. 809 Wisdom, S. v. (8 Port. 511) i. 51, 58,| —— ev. S. (49 Ala. 359) i. 439 959 c, 1083, 1253; ii. 721, 746 Wise, C. v. (110 Mass. 181) ii. 276.a — v. 8. (24 Ga. 31) i. 786, 1265, ae 1287 — v. 8. (34 Ga. 348) i. 95la —v. S. (2. Kan. 419; 85 Am. D. 595) i. 1085, 1093 ; ii. 518, 522, 525, 616, 631 — v.S. (41 Tex. 139) ii, 329 — , S. v. (3 Lea, 38) ii. 909, 910 a —, S. v. (66 N. C. 120) i. 40 ——, 8. v. (67 N. C. 280) i, 605, 612 —, S. v. (7 Rich. 412) i, 472, 988, 1008, 1018 Wisehart v. S. (104 Ind. 407) i, 1264 Wiseman, Rex v. (Fort. 91) ii. 1013 — v. S, (14 Tex. Ap. 74) i. 626 ~— v. §. (82 Tex. Cr. 454) i. 1265 ——, S. v, (63 N. C. 536) i. 1264 Wishon, S. v. (15 Mo. 503) i. 761, 764 Wissig, P. v. (7 Daly, 23) i. 264 m Wissmark, S. v. (36 Mo. 592) i. 980 Wister, S. v. (62 Mo. 592) i. 3144, 315, 386, 814 Withal, Rex v. (1 Leach, 88) i. 1009, 10164 '. v. 8. (68 Ind. 30) ii. 39 — v. §. (19 Ohio St. 248) i. 106, 181, 183, 192; ii. 589 v. §. (4 Tex. Ap. 332) i. 95la Wolfe v. Martin (1 How. Missis. 80) i. 897 — v S&S. (25 Tex. Ap. 698) ii. 740 Wolff, Ex parte (57 Cal. 94) i. 2644 —, S. v. (84 La. An. 1163) ii. 322 ——,, S. v. (15 Mo. 168) ii, 742 4} ——, S. v. (46 Mo. 584) i, 488 Wolfington v. S. (53 Ind. 348) i. 1269 Womack v. S. (7 Coldw. 508) — i. 482, 442, 461 — vu. S. (6 Lea, 146) ii. 142 — v.§&. (16 Tex. Ap. 178) i. 1243 — v. S. (31 Tex. Cr. 41) i. 1287 —, S. v. (17 Tex. 287) i. 1842, 1845 Wong »v. Astoria (18 Or. 538) i. 892 Wong Ah Foo, P. v. (69 Cal. 180) ii. 625 Wong Ah Ngow, P. v. (54 Cal. 151; 35 Am. R, 69) i, 1250 Wong Ah You, P. v. (67 Cal. 31) i. 1181 Wong Wang, P. v. (92 Cal. 277) i. 875 Wong Yung Quy, In re (6 Saw. 237) i. 725 woo Wonson v. Sayward (18 Pick. 402; 23 Am. D. 691) ii, 725 Wood, Ex parte (19 Tex. Ap. 46) i. 2644 — in re'(140 U. 8. 278, 370) i. 930, —— v. Brown (6 Taunt. 169) i. 530; ii. 789 i. 1817, 1318 , C. v. (3 Binn. 414) Cc — ©. v. (2 Cush. 149) i. 854 —C.v. (4 Gray, 11)" i. 101, 394, 402, 643, 645 —,C.v. (11 Gray, 85) i. 1159, 1173 —c i. 1011, 1036 . v, (12 Mass. 313 C. v. (97 Mass. 225 ii, 108 —— »v. Kinsman (5 Vt. 688) i. 162; ii. 368 — v. London (Holt, 396) i. 314 — v. P. (16 Ill. 171) i. 264 b —v. P. (69 N. Y. 117) i. 1014, 1015; ii, 921, 935 —— v. P. (8 Thomp. & C. 506; 1 Hun, 381) i. 878, 1265; ii. 911 , P. v. (99 Mich. 620) ii. 152 —, P. v. (126 N. Y. 249) i. 1264; ii. 687 a — , P. v. (131 N. Y. 617) i, 378, 934 —, P. v. (8 Par. Cr. 681) ii, 428 v. Phillips (43 N. Y. 152) ii, 878 v. Porter (56 Iowa, 161) i. 1095 ——, Reg. v. (14 Cox C. C. 46) ii. 963 ——, Reg. v. (5 Jur. 225) i. 63 —, Rex »v. (8 B. & Ad. 657) i. 278 —, Rex v. (2 Russ. Crimes, 3d Eng. ed. 632) ii. 914 — v. 8. (50 Ala. 144) ii. 63.4, 77 — v. S. (84 Ark. 841; 36 Am. R. 13 i. 1277 — v.S. (47 Ark. 488) ii, 829 — v. §, (18 Fla. 967) ii. 146 — v.§_ (31 Fla. 221) i. 975 ¢ — v.S. (46 Ga. 822) i. 623; ii, 130, 188 a, 148 ii. 866, 1050, 1052 —. = (5 Ind. 433) v. §. (92 Ind. 269) i, 281; ii. 621 —— v. S. (58 Missis. 741) ii. 679 — v.§. (62 Missis. 220) i. 934 v. 8. (64 Missis. 761) ii. 77 v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 185; 44.Am. R. 701 i, 998 a —— v. 8. (27 Tex. Ap. 893) _ ili, 96, 602 — v. S. (28 Tex. Ap. 61) ii. 970 v. §. (31 Tex. Cr. 571) ii. 631 — v. 8. (18 Vroom, 180) ii, 204 —— v. 8. (18 Vroom, 461) ii. 204 ——,S. v. (17 Iowa, 18) i. 1853; ii. 920, 929 ——, S. v. (46 Iowa, 116) ii. 751 —,S. v. (1 Mill, 29) i, 1054 ; ii. 769 —, S.v. (18 Minn. 121) "i, 441, 1396 —, 8. v. (68 Mo. 444) i. 951 —, 8. vu. (58 N. H. 484) i. 495, 553, 857, 858, 1179; ii. 564 —, S. v. (14 R. I. 151) i. 586 ——, S. v. (53 Vt. 560) i. 1207, 1214 — v. Steamboat Fleetwood (27 Mo. 159 i. 63 726 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. woo Wood, U.S. v. (1 MacAr. 241) i. 1284, 1268 —, U.S. v. (14 Pet. 430) ii. 927, 931, 982 —, U.S. v. (3 Wash. C. C. 440) i. 9594, 1196, 1196 ;|—— v. Wood (2 Cow. 819 n.) i, 891 — v. Wood (78 Ky, 624) i. 2246 Woodall v. S. (25 Tex. Ap. 617) i. 9594 — v. Smith (51 Ga. 171) i, 264 9 Woodard v. S. (9 Tex. Ap. 412) i, 931 —,S. v. (38 8. C. 358) ii, 143 —— v. Spiller (1 Dana, 179; 25 Am. D. 189) ii, 4382 Woodburn v. Miller (Cheves, 194) ii. 800 Woodburne, Rex »v. (16 How. St. Tr. 53) ii. 855 Woodbury, S. v. (85 N. H. 230) ii, 822 Woodcock, Rex v. (1 Leach, 500: 1 - East P. C. 354) i. 1195, 1207, 1212 Woodfall, Rex v. (5 Bur. 2661) i, 1001, 10138; ii. 799, 806 —, Rex v. (20 How. St. Tr. 895) i. 501 Woodford v. Ashley (11 East, 508) i. 612 —— vv. McClenahan (4 Gilman, 85) ii. 4824 — v. P. (62 N. Y.117; 20 Am. R. 464) 1, 980, 1220; ii. 86, 39, 40, 484, 48 b — v. 8. (1 Ohio St.427) i. 1827, 1331, 1834 Woodhead, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 520) 1.966¢ Woodin v. P. (1 Par. Cr. 464) i. 979; ii. 962, 968, 967, 978 Woodley, C. v. (166 Pa. 463) ii. 671 ——, S. v. (25 Ga, 235) ii, 718, 725 Woodly, S. v. (2 Jones, N. C. 276) i. 1049 Woodman v. Ranger (80 Me. 180) ii. 383 , S. v. (8 Hawks, 384) i. 388 Woodruff v. S. (8 Ind. 521) i. 1025, 1317 i.11 Woods v. C. (86 Va. 929) 66 —, C. v. (9 Gray, 131) i, 894 ——, C. v. (10 Gray, 477) i. 870 —— v. P. (65 N. Y. 515; 14 Am. R. 809: 1 Thomp.& C. 610) iii. 965, 966 —, P. v. (65 Cal. 121) i, 686 ——, Reg. v. (6 Cox C. C, 224) i, 1040 —, Rex v. (Jebb, 115) ii. 406- ——v. S. (76 Ala. 85; 62 Am. R. 4) i. 1019, 1170 ——v.§.(6 Bax. 426) i. 279: —— v. §. (68 Ind. 358) i. 1181, 1185 v. S. (14 Lea, 460) ii, 921 —— v. 8. (48 Missis. 364) i. 996, 998, 999 —— v. 8. (67 Missis. 575) i, 612, 1181 — v. S. (3 Tex. Ap. 204) ii. 367 — vu. S. (27 Tex. Ap. 586) i. 1077 —_S. v. (81 La. An. 267) ii. 148 Woodside, C. v. (105 Mass. 594) i. rer ——, Reg. v. (7 Cox C. C. 288) i, 1297 —— v. Wagg (71 Me. 207) i. 814 Woodsides v. S. (2 How. Missis. 655) i. 981, 931 a, 982, 12, 180F ii. WOR Woodson, C. v. (9 Leigh, 669) — ve. 8. (19 Fla, 549) i, 269 ——, 8. ve. (6 Humph. 55) ii. 169 Woodward, C, v. (102 Mass. 155) i. 127; ii. 512, 520, 521, 638 —, C. v. (157 Mass. 516) i. 852 —— v. Gates (38 Ga. 205) ii. 677 —, Rex v. (2 East P. C. 653) ii. 721, 843 ——, Rex v. (1 Leach, 253 n) i, 578; ii. 57 ii. 778 —, Rex v. (1 Moody, 328) i, 866 — v, 8. (4 Bax. 322) i. 1060; ii. 677 — , S. v. (123 Ind. 30) i. 1131 —, 8. v. (84 Me. 293) i, 1138 —, 8. v. (21 Mo. 265) i. 454, 764 —, S. v. (23 Vt. 92) i. 897, 984; ii. 869 b —, S. v. (25 Vt. 616) i, 825 Wovodworth v. S. (20 Tex. Ap. 375) i. 481 Woody, P. v. (45 Cal. 289) —, P. v. (48 Cal. 80) i. 989, 1087 ——. §. v. (2 Jones, ‘N. C. 385) i, 627 Woodyear v. Schaefer (57 Md. 1; i. 1093 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. WRI Worden, S. «. (46 Conn. 349; 383 Am. R. 27) i, 893 Work, C. v. (8 Pittsb. 493) i. 909 —— v. Corrington (34 Ohio St. 64; 82 Am. R, 345) i, 228, 228.4 -—— v. 8. (2 Ohio St. 296; 59 Am. D. 671) i. 892, 897 — v. 8. (3 Tex. Ap. 233) i. 1872 —v. Wapello (73 Iowa, 357) i, 285 Worker, Rex v. (1 Moody, 165) i. 1078 Workman ». S. (4 Sneed, 425) i. 1019 —, 8. v. (15 S. C. 540) i. 1019 Worley v. S. (11 Humph. 172) i. 639, : 1100 —, S. v. (11 Ire. 242) i, 227 Wormeley v. C. (10 Grat. 658) i. 71, 229, 931, 951a, 1202 Wormersly’s Case (2 Lewin, 162) i. 691 Wormick, S. v. (1 Lea, 559) i. 1814, 1817 Wormley, C. v. (8 Grat. 712; 56 Am. D. 162) i, 999 Worrall, U.S. v. (2 Dall. 384) i. 61 Worrell, Rex v. (‘Trem. P. C. 106) ii. 158 40 Am. R. 419) i, 1417 | —, S. v. (25 Mo. 205) i. 73 Woolaver, S. v. (77 Mo. 103) i. 975¢} Worth, S. v. (R. M. Charl. 5) ii, 278 Wooldridge v. S. (18 Tex. Ap. 443; Wortham v. C. (5 Rand. 669) i. 691, 44 Am. R. 708) i. 951, 10054 814, 1395 Wooler, Rex v. (6 M. & S. 366) i. 1270 | Worthing, S. v. (31 Me. 62) i. 1019 Wooley, P. v. (44 Cal. 494) ii. 86 | Worthington, In re (16 Bankr. Reg. Woolf, Rex v. (2 B. & Ald. 609; 1 52) i. 1001 Chit. 428) i, 1803 | ——, S. «. (64 N. C. 594) i. 1247; ii. 746 —, Rex ». (1 Chit. 401) i. 996, 998 | Worthy v. S. (44 Ga. 449). i, 1277 Woolfe, Rex v. (1 Chit. 583) i. 1803 | Woulfe, S. v. (58 Ind. 17) i. 1893 Woolfolk v. S. (81 Ga. 551) i. 211] Wray, Ex parte (30 Missis. 673) i. 261 — v. S. (85 Ga. 69) i. 900, 951 a, | —— ». P. (70 Ill. 664) i. 2644 951 b, 966 6, 975 c, 1247, 1277 | —— ve. P. (78 Ill. 212) i, 1277, 1281 — v. 8. (10 Ind. 532) i. 2647 v. Wray (83 Ala. 187) li. 674 Woolford, Rex v. (1 Moody & R. Wreden, P. v. (59 Cal. 392) ii. 679 384) i. 483; ii. 982) Wreidt v. S. (48 Ind. 579) i. 424, 1015a Wooller, Rex z. (2 Stark. 111) i. 1003] Wren v. S. (70 Ala. 1) i. 792 Woolley, Reg. v. (4 Cox C. C. 251) Wrexford v. Smith (2 Root, 171) i. 168 i. 481, 482] Wright, In re (8 Wy. 478; 31 Am. — v.S. (8 Ind. 377) i. 1265) St. 94 i. 1089 Woolmer, Rex v. (1 Moody, 384) i. 181, |] —— v. C. (19 Grat. 626) i. 2394 192 | —— v, C. (82 Grat. 941) i. 909 Woolnoth v. Meadows (5 East, 463) — v. C. (83 Grat. 880) i. 68 ; ii. 794 | —— v. C. (85 Ky. 128) i. 1020 Woolsey v. S. (14 Tex.. Ap. 57) i. 613 | —— v. C. (2 Rob. Va. 800) i. 235 —, S. v. (30, Iowa, 251) i. 1065 | —— v. C. (82 Va. 183) ii. 148, 152, 7382 ——, Territory v. (3 Utah, 470) i. 852 | ——, C. v. (12 Allen, 187) i. 399; ii. 813, Wooster, P. v. (16 Cal. 435) i. 780 815 —v. §. (55 Ala. 217) ii. 106, 277 Wooten, Ex parte (62 Missis. 174) i. 892 — »v. Wilkins (39 Ga. 223; 99 Am. D. 456) i. 1207 Woppner, P. x. (14 Cal. 437) i. 976, 1265 Worcester, C. v. (141 Mass. 68) i. 1181, 1186 —,, C. v. (3 Pick. 462) i. 314, 602, 1114 — v. Georgia (6 Pet. 615) i. 1365 Word v. C. (3 Leigh, 7438) i. 138, 204, 313, 959a — v.S. (12 Tex. Ap. 174) ii, 952 Wordell, Rex v. (Trem. P. C. 182) 1. 1810 —,C.v. (1 Cush. 46) i. 838, 496, 560, 661, 9984; ii. 454, 789 —, C.v. (79 Ky. 22; 42 Am. R. 203) i. 850, 875 —, C. v. (107 Mass. 403) i. 1185 —,C. v. (139 Maas. 382) ii. 7944 —, C. v. (158 Mass. 149) i, 2246 —— v. Clements (3 B. & Ald. 508) ii. peu 9: —— ». Court (6 D.& R. 623; 4B. & C. 596) i. 214 — v. Dressel (140 Mass. 147) i. 241, —— ». Keith (24 Me. 158) i. 207 727 . WYA i. 1264 i. 1817, 1318 i. 1005, 1010 i. 1050; ii. 673 i. 976, 978 R. ) i. 1160 —, P. v. (89 Mich. 70) i. 282, 9756, 1125 —) P. v. (9 Wend. 193) i. 432, 441, 443 v. Reg. (14 Q. B. 148) i. 1366 ; ii, 206 Wright v. P. (92 Tl. 596) © — v. P. (112 Ill. 640) v. P. (33 Mich. 300) — v. P. (4 Neb. 407) —, P. v. (98 Cal. 564) —, P. v. (88 Mich. 744; 31 Am. 331 —— v. Rex (3 Nev. & M. 892) i. 612 —, Rex v. (1 A. & E. 484) ii. 1050 —, Rex v. (1 Bur. 543) i, 180 —, Rex v. (12 Mod. 47) ii. 349 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 456) ii. 685 v. S. (35 Ark. 639) i. 998 a, 1241 v. S. (42 Ark. 94) i. 8840 — v. S. (18 Ga. 383) i. 909, 951 B, 1179, 1285 ; ‘ii. 506 — v.S (3 Heisk. 256) i. 304 : v. 8. (4 Humph. 194) i. 1285 — ve. S. (7 Ind. 324) i. 821 v. S. (11 Ind. 569) i. 1002 — v.8. (69 Ind. 163; 85 Am. R. 212) i. 984, 1093 —— v. 8. (50 Missis. 332) i. 234 6 — v.§. (21 Neb. 496) i. 1278 v, S. (41 Tex. 246) i. 978, 980 b, 1207 —— v. 8. (43 Tex. 170) i. 1169, 1248 ; ii. 617 ——v.S. (44 Tex. 645) i. 161 — v.58. (7 Tex. Ap. 574) i. 1159 v. §, (10 Tex. Ap. 476) i. 1247 — v.S. (12 Tex. Ap. 163) i. 925, 948 a — v. 8. (17 Tex. Ap. 152) i. 998 a — v.S. (27 Tex. Ap. 447) i. 798, 975c uv. S. (9 Yerg. 342) i. 1100 —, S. v. (3 Brev. 421 i. 1272 —, S. v. (87 Iowa, 522) i, 264 —, S. v. (41 La. An. 600) i. 1019 — , S. v. (53 Me. 328) i. 853, 984, 1005 a —, S. v. (13 Mo. 243) i. 1317 —, S. v. (Phillips, N.C. 486) i, 1240 —) S. v. (5 R. 1. 287) i. 1004 v. Shelby (9 Bax. 145) i, 286 — v. Tatham (7 A. & E. 313) i. 1276 — , U. S.v. (1 McLean, 509) i. 981 — v. Wright (74 Wis. 489) i. 1410 Wrightson, Reg. v. (2 Salk. 698) - ii. 807 Wrocklege v. S. (1 Iowa, 167) i, 514, 668, 1357 Wroe v. S. (8 Md. 416) ii. 866 — 1. S. (29 Ohio St. 460) i. 1118, 1209, 1211 Wrote v. Wigges (4 Co. 455) ii, 549 Wunsch, C. v. (129 Mass, 477) i. 9660 Wuppermaan, S. v. (18 Tex. 38) i. 624 Wusthoff v. Dracourt (3 Watts, 240) i. 798 Wyat, Reg. v. (1. Salk. 380) i. 648 Wyatt, Reg. v. (2 Ld. Raym. 1189) i. 217, 555 ; ii. 905 — v. S. (25 Ala. 9) i, 1228, 1262 v. 8. (1 Blackf. 257) i. 999 728 INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. YAT Wyatt, S. v. (50 Mo. 309) 7. 905, 909, 9496, 976, 980 Wycherley, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 262) i. 1822, 1323 Wyckoff, S. v. (2 Vroom, 65) i. 58; ii.9 Wyers v. S. (13 Tex. Ap. 57) i. 978 Wylde, Rex v. (6 Car. & P. 380) i. 1192; ii, 984 Wylie, Rex v. (1 New Rep. 92) i. 1126 ; ii. 100 Wyman, C. v. (8 Met. 247) ii, 821, 329 —, P. v. (15 Cal. 70) i. 1087, 1270 Wymer, Rexv. (4 Car. & P. 391) ii. 721 Wyndham, Rex v. (1 Stra. 2) 1.228, 285, 256, 258, 259 Wynehamer v. P. (18 N. ¥. 378) i. 891, 892 v. P. (2 Par. Cr. 377) i. 934 Wynhamer v. P. (20 Barb. 567; 2 Par. Cr. 377) i. 1265 Wynn, Rex v. (2 East, 226) i. 760, 762 — v. S. (1 Blacktf. 28) . i. 1005, 1012 —, U.S. v. (8 McCrary, 266) i. 145 Wynne v. S (5 Coldw. 319) i. 1275 ——v.8. (56 Ga. 113) i. 978, 980; ii. 631, 683, 677 —— v. Taylor (5 Heisk. 691) i. 13850 Wyse, S. v. (32S. C. 45) i. 909, 943, 975 ¢, 979, 1003, 1212 Wysor v. C. (6 Grat. 711) i. 851 Yancey, S. v. (3 Brev. 142) i. 1018 ——, 8. v. (3 Brev. 306) i. 1018 Yancy v. S. (63 Ala. 141) i. 850 —, S. v. (1 Tread. 237) i, 650, 665, 1013 —— S. v. (1 Tread. 241) i. 1018 Yaner v. P. (84 Mich. 286) _i. 238, 239a Yanez v. S. (20 Tex. 656) —_i. 1279, 1280 v. 8. (6 Tex. Ap. 429; 82 Am. R. 691) i. 946 Yanke v. S. (51 Wis. 464) _ ii. 661, 6874 Yarberry, Territory v. (2 New Mex. 391 ii, 593 Yarborough z. S. (41 Ala. 405) 1. 1125; ii. 750, 751 —, Siz, es Kan. 581) i. 975.¢ —, S. v. (77 N.C. 524) ii, 92, 648 —, S. v. (19 Tex. 161) ii. 298 Yarbrough »v. C. (89 Ky. 151; 25 - Am, St, 624) _ i, 2647 —— v. §. (2 Tex. 519) i. 8lda Yater v. S. (58 Ind. 299) i. 68, 72 Yates x. P. (38 Ill. 627) i. 982a —— v. P. (82 N. Y. 509) i. 191 —, Reg. v. (Car. & M. 132) ii. 982, 933 a — , Reg. v. (6 Cox C.C. 441) ii, 205 ——, Reg. v. (12 Cox C. C. 288; 4 Eng. Rep. 523) ii. 783 ——, Rex »v. (1 Moody, 170) ii..188 ——, Rex v. (1 Show. 190) i. 256 —— v. §. (47 Ark. 172) i, 1242 —— v. S. (67 Ga. 770) ii, 697 ——v. 8. (87 Tex. 202) ii. 740, 742 —— rv. Johnson (123 N, Y. 226) ii. 971, 973 —— v.P. (6 Bradw. 434) i. 1005 — v. P. (18 Ill. 566) i. 2645 — _, P. v. (31 Cal. 563) i. 1264 — , P. v. (65 Cal. 225) ii, 185 ——., P. v. (7 Hill, N. ¥. 44) i. 264.4 —,, Reg. v. (8 Car. & P. 644) di. 308 —, Reg. v. (2 Cox C. C. 291) i, 1154 — v. Rex (3 T.R. 98) i. 448, 449, 468, 478, 474; ii. 8, 193 —, Rex v. (1 Leach, 505; i, 449 —, Rex v. (Peake Add. Cas. 228) i. 457 —, Rex v. (Russ. & Ry. 281, note) i, "457; ii, 429 -—, Rex v. (1 Russ. Crimes, 5th Eng. ed. 589, note) i, 522; ii. 945 — v.58. (39 Ala. 357) i. 1264, 1291 You INDEX TO THE CASES CITED. ZAN Yates v. S. (10 Yerg. 549) —i. 384, 1265, | Young v. S. (68 Ala. 569) — i. 1097, 1288 1855; ii. 721 |—— v. S. (60 Ark. 501) i. 1236 —, S. v, (21 W. Va. 761) ji, 655 | —— v. S. (24 Fla. 147) ii, 740° Ybarra, P. v. (17 Cal. 166) ii. 541, 624 | —— v. S. (56 Ga. 408) i. 1279 Yeadon, een v. (Leigh & C. 81; 9 —— v.S. (82 Ga. 752) i, 1264 Cox 6. C.9 1) i. 1004 v. S. (2 How. Missis. 865) i. 814 Yeaton v. U. S. (6 Cranch, 281) i. 1264 | —— v. S. (10 Lea, 165) ii. 123 Yend, Rex v. (6 Car, & P.. 176) ii. 789 | —— v. S. (6 Ohio, 485) i. 665 Yerger, e parte (8 ‘Wal. 85) i. 1411 | —— v. S. (28 Ohio St. 577) i. 886 —, 86 Mo. 33) ii. 477 | —— v. S. (44 Tex. 98) i. 479 Yiek Wov. Crowley (26 Fed. Rep. —— v.§. (1 Tex. Ap. 64) i, 1264 207) i. 1414 v. S. (3 Tex. Ap. 884) i. 269 Yoakum, P. v. (53 Cal. 566) i, 68,72 | —— v. S. (7 Tex. Ap. 461) i. 1269 Yoe v. P. (49 Ill. 410) i. 975, 1179; ii.4, 10 | —— v. S. (8 Tex. Ap. 81) i. 1264 Yoes v. 8. (4 Eng. 42) ii. 68 | —— v. S. (12 Tex. Ap. 614) i. 98a Yong’s Case (4 Co. 40) ii. 522} —— vr. S. (19 Tex. Ap. 536) i. 975b Yordi, S. v. (80 Kan, 221) ii. 525 | —— v. S. (80 Tex. Ap. 308) i. 1277 York v. C. (82 Ky. 360) i. 159 | ——, S. v. (6 Kan. 87) i. 1264 —, C. ov, (9 Met. 98) —_ ii. 608, 606, 617, | ——, S. «. (20 La. An. 397) i. 264 f 620 , S. v. (84 La. An. 346) i. 1279 — v. Crafton (100 Pa. 619) i. 1816 | —,, S. v. (41 La. An. 94) ii. 740 —— v, Dalhousen (45 Pa. 372) i. 1317 | ——, S. v. (56 Me. 219) i, 234 b —— »v. Jacobs (3 Pa. (P. & W.) 365) i. 691 | —, S. v. (99 Mo. 284) i. 384, 1125 —, P. v. (9 Cal. 421) i. 1269 | —, S. v. (99 Mo. 666) i. 9754, 975c — v. Pilkinton (9 Mod. 278; 2 —., S. v. (77 N. C. 498) i, 1008 Atk. 302) i. 1414 | ——, S. v. (89 N. H. 283) i. 1020 —, Reg. v. (1 Den. C. C. 385) i. 1002, / ——, S. vu. (26 Ohio, 122) ii. 653, 1025, 1005, 1013 1026 —, Rex v. (5 T. R. 66) i. 406 | ——, S. v. (7 Rich. 1) ii, 63a — v. §. (3 Tex. Ap. 15) i, 403 | ——, S. v. (85 S. C. 590) i. 1279 —v.S. (17 Tex. aa 441). ii. 740 | ——, S. v. (8 Vroom, 184) ii, 208, 216 — , S. v. (22 Mo. 462) i, 1287 v. Slaughterford (11 Mod. 228) —,S. v. (87 N. H. 175) ii. 9 i. 911, 914, 1108, 1144 — v. Texas (187 U.S. 15) i. 100 a] ——, Territory v. (5 Mont. 242) ii. 515 . Yorke, Reg. v. (2 Car. & K. 841) i. 1005, | ——, Territory v. (2 New Mex. 98) i. 921, 1013 43 a, 975 ¢ Young v. C. (6 Bush, 312) i. 1112, 1218 | ——, U. S. v. (94 U. S. 258) i. 1879 v. C. (8 Bush, 366) i, 1233, 1234 | —— v, Wise (45 Ga. 81) i, 264 m — v.C. (12 Bush, 243) i. 9804; ii. 39] —— v. Young (18 Minn. 90) ii. 911 — »v. C. (28 Pa. 501) i. 1086 | Younger v. 8. (87 Ark. 116) i. 1291 — v.C. (4 Grat. 550) i, 1276, 1281 | —— v. 8. (2 W. Va. 579; 98 Am. D. — v. C. (1 Rob. Va. 744) i, 228, 229] 791) i, 268, 273 —, C. v. (7 B. Monr. 1) i. 639, 652} Youngman, Rex v. (Comb. 358) i. 1349 —, C. v. (15 Grat. 664) i, 612 | Youngs, P. v. (1 Caines, 37) i. 3144 —, C. r. (Y Leigh, 638) i. 3144 v, Vredenbergh (1 Johns. 159) v. Dearborn (2 Fost. N. H. 372) i. 1207 i, 1196] Yount v. S. (64 Ind. 448) i. 677, 1011 — v. Harris (2 Cromp. & J. 14) i. 1276| —, S. v. (110 N. C. 597) i. 1006 Yrisarri v. Clement (3 Bing. 482 ; i Moore, 308) Yecuado, Reg. v. (6 Cox C.C. 386). i. 308, 307 Yundt v. P. (65 Ill. 372) i. 1854 Yut Ling, P..v. (74 Cal. 569) i. 965 Zabriskie v. New Jersey City, &e. Rid. (2 Beasley, 314) i. 1417 —— v. S. (14 Vroom, 640; 39 in, R. 610) i. 1310 ——, 5S. v. (14 Vroom, 369) i. 1880 Zachary v. S. (7 Bax. 1) i. 806 Zane, P. v. (105 Ill. 662) i. 68 Zantzinger v. Weightman (2 Cranch C. C. 478) ii, 676 729 ZIM INDEX TO THE Zarresseller v. P. (17 Ill. 101) i. 514, 652 Zeibart, S. v. (40 Iowa, 169) i. 1180; ii, 4, 600, 891 Zeig v. Ort (3 Chand. 26) ii. 123 Zeigert, Reg. v. (10 Cox C. C. 555) - i, 1228 Zeigler, S. v. (17 Vroom, 307) i. 763 — ». South & North Ala. Rld. (68 Ala. 694) i. 10) Zell v. C. (94 Pa. 268) i. 988, 966 a, 975 ¢ Zellers v. S. (7 Ind. 659) i. 488 ——, S. v. (2 Halst. 220) i, 934, 1188 Zembrod v. 8, (25 Tex. 519) i, 254 Zenobio v. Axtell (6 T. R. 162) —_i. 564; ‘ii. 789, 792 Ziebold, In re (23 Fed. Rep. 791) i. 100a@ Zimmerman v. S. (56 Md. 636) i. 909 730 CASES CITED. ZWI Zimmerman, S. v. (53 Ind. 860) ii. 286 —, 8. v. (47 Kan. 242) =i. 451; ii. 481 Zingsem, S. v. (7 Or. 137) i. 1264 Ziord, S. v, (30 La. An. 867) ii. 732 - | Zollicoffer v. S. (16 Tex, Ap. 812) 1.1169, 1170 Zorn, S. v. (71 Mo. 415) i, 1181, 1182 Zule, S. v. (5 Halst. 348) i. 665 Zulueta, Reg. v. (1 Cox C. C. 20) i. 953 Zumbunson, S. v. (86 Mo. 111) i. 975 —, S. v. (7 Mo. Ap. 526) i. 9755 Zumhoff v, S. (4 Greene, lowa, 526) i. 603 Zumwalt v. S. (6 Tex. Ap. 521) i, 951, 1938 Zwicker v. S. (27 Tex. Ap. 589) i, 1229; ii, 590, 595 Zwifle, S. v. (22 Mo. 467) i, 261 INDEX OF SUBJECTS TO BOTH VOLUMES. Tuer Ficures — indicate the section and paragraph, the letters (i. and ii.) the volume. Tur Iratic Lines — and the word “ full’? denote that the reader is to turn to the body of the book and look along the section-heads for the minuter contents. Tars ARRANGEMENT — makes the index compact and convenient; and the labor of turn- ing to the body of the book is many times compensated by the greater help afforded to the search. ABATE, (See Nursancr.) indictment does not, on death of indorser, i. 693 (4); on judgment to, nuisance, defendant to be present, i. 275 (38). ABATEMENT, (See PLEa IN.) Plea in, full, i. 791-793. what certainty in plea, i. 327, 328 ; when plead in, i. 730 ; how, i. 749, 750; no arrest of judgment for matter in, i. 1285 (2). how allege nuisance in indictment for, ii. 866; voluntary, mitigates pun- ishment, ii. 870; sentence to abate, ii. 871. ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE, (See ABATE — NUISANCE.) how allegation for, i. 372 (4). ABBREVIATIONS, in indictment and record, i. 343, 345 (3). ABDUCTION, locality of prosecution for, i. 54 (2); alleging age in, i. 557 (1). ABORTION, woman as witness to, on self, i. 1173 (4). “ ABOUT,” hour, in burglary, alleged under word, ii. 181 (2). ABROAD, offence may be committed, by one here, i. 58, 57 (4); stealing, indict here, i. 59 (2). ABSCONDING, (See Escare ). Of prisoner serving sentence, full, i. 1382-1385. ABSENCE, at crime, presumption from, i. 1061 (2). ABSENCE OF MOTIVE, (See IntEnt.) The presumptions from, full, i. 1107. ABSENT, how, when prisoner is, i. 269 (3) ; when prosecuting officer is, i. 280, ABSENT WITNESS, (See WiTNxss.) Using former testimony of, full, i. 1194-1206. ABSTRACT LAW, not lay down the, to jury, i. 978 (4). ABSTRACT PROPOSITION, though correct, not permissible in charge to jury, i. 978 (4), ii. 604 (1); whether fatal, i. 980 5 (2). ABSURD, allegation of time, i. 404. ABUSE, (See CaRNAL.) not permitted to counsel, i. 975 a (1). 731 ACT INDEX OF SUBJECTS, ABUSE OF FEMALE. (See Raz.) ACCESSORIAL RECEIVING, of stolen goods, ii. 980. ACCESSORIES, in mayhem, ii. 854. ACCESSORY AFTER, where indict, i. 58 (8). ACCESSORY BEFORE, where indict, i. 58-(1) ; how charge, i. 382 (6). ACCESSORY AND THE LIKE, ~- Procedure against, full, ii. 1-15; namely, pleading, 2-11; evidence, 12-15. ACCESSORY AND PRINCIPAL, (See PRINCIPAL.) joining, in indictment, i. 467 (2). ACCOMPLICE, ACCOMPLICES, (See AccessoRY AND THE LIKE.) As witnesses, full, i. 1156-1172. as complainant before inferior magistrate, i. 719 (2). as witness on trial of accessory, ii. 15 (1, 2). ACCOMPLICE’S WIFE, whether testimony of, corroborative, i. 1170 (1). ACCURATE AND FULL, should be judge’s charge to jury, i. 980. ACCUSATION, Proofs to cover entire, full, i. 127-129. The, before inferior magistrate, full, i. 716-727. no punishment without, i. 79, 80; constitutional right to know nature and cause of, i. 88; no constitutional trial without — what, i. 100 a:(4); on what, officer arrest without warrant, i. 182 (2). ACCUSED, Right of one, as to counsel, full, i. 309-313. ACQUIESCENCE, Defects in indictment cured by, full, i. 705-707 a. in defective complaint before magistrate, i. 721 (2). ACQUITTAL, prisoner entitled to, if evidence for prosecution fails, i. 961 (2); whether and when judge may direct, i. 977 (1); when ordered of joint defendant, to make him witness, i. 1020 (3), 1021; not impair rights of accomplice witness, i. 1164. ACQUITTED DEFENDANTS, whether, pay costs, i. 1817 (1). ACQUITTED AS INSANE, proceedings on, ii. 687 5. ACT, ACTS, (See CriminaLt — Many — Overt.) in locality other than personal presence, i. 53; part in each of two coun- ties, i. 54 (1), 56; nature of, as to allegation of intent, i. 524; of the res gestz, i. 1085 (2). done with criminal intent, when attempt, ii. 71 (1). averring the, in attempt, ii. 86 (2), 88, 91 (1), 92. of one conspirator as proof against another, ii. 229. how set out the, in indictment for nuisance, ii. 865. ACT OF CONSPIRACY, How allege, in indictment, full, ii. 205, 206. ACT OF COURT, not prejudice party, i. 120 (2) ; how state, in record, i. 1349. ACT OF OBSTRUCTION, averring, in resisting officer, ii. 889 ACTING IN OFFICE, (See OFFICER.) as proof of official character, i. 1130, 1181. ayerment that officer was, in resisting or assaulting him, ii. 886, 732 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. AFF ACTION, more than one needless, not permitted, i. 458 (2), note. ' ACTS OF BAWDRY, in proof of bawdy-house, ii. 115, 116 (1). ACTS NOT CHARGED, proof of, in disorderly house, ii. 281 (1). ACTS OF PARTIES, how state, in record, i. 1349. ACTS IN A SERIES, repetitions of time and place in alleging, i. 412. ACTS OF THIRD PERSONS, in evidence, i. 1249. ADDITION, Doctrine of, full, 1. 671-675 a. no proof of, needed, i. 687 (2) ; how object to wrong, or want of, i. 740 (2), 791 (4). ADDRESS, ADDRESSES, what the, of warrant, i. 187 (2), 188; order of the, to jury, and how, i. 962-964, 967-982 a. ADDRESSING PRISONER, at sentence, i. 1295. ADEQUACY, of evidence of accomplice, i. 1169, 1170. ADEQUATE PRESUMPTIONS, distinguished from conclusive, i. 1099, 1100 (2). ADJECTIVE. (See NEEDLESS ADJECTIVE.) ADJOINING COUNTY, how allege offence in, i. 382 (2). ADJOURNMENT, ADJOURNMENTS, of trial, i. 966 d; care of jury dur- ing, i. 993; permitting separations at, i. 995, 996; verdict during, i 1001 (4); how record as to, i. 1852. ‘“ ADMINISTER,” in indictment for poisoning, ii. 645 (3). other instances, ii. 645 (5). ADMISSION, ADMISSIONS, (See Conression.) Conduct and extrajudicial, as evidence, full, i. 1247-1254. Judicial, as evidence, full, i. 1254 a-1262. by plea of guilty, i. 795 (2); contradict alibi by, i. 1068; otherwise rebut- ‘ting, i. 1069 ; contrary to dying declarations, i. 1209 (8); distinguished from confessions, i. 1217 (1). ADMISSIONS OF COUNSEL, evidence by, in perjury, ii. 933 6 (1), note. ADOPTION, English by, i. 347 (1). - “« ADULTERATED,” in indictment for passing counterfeit coin, ii. 259 (6). ADULTERY, wife refusing to complain of, i. 232 (2); whether conviction for, on indictment for rape, i. 419, ii. 956; bill of particulars in, i. 645 (3), conspiracy falsely to charge with, ii. 241 (2). ADULTERY OR FORNICATION, how indictment for living in, i. 587 (2). ADVANTAGE, How take, of duplicity in indictment, full, 1. 442, 443, of misjoinder, i. 449 (8). ADVERB, in averring offence, i. 556 (8), 558 (2). what the, in perjury, ii. 922. AFFECTION, testimony to manifestation of, i. 1178. AFFIDAVIT, AFFIDAVITS, Setting out charge, before inferior magistrate, full, i. 716-727. for change of venue, i. 73 (8); for fugitive from justice, i. 222 (2); false, to defraud, indictment for, i. 585 (8); for continuance, i. 951 a (2). how aver, in perjury, li. 911 (8), 912 (8), 915, note, 921; how prove, ii. 933 c, and note. ‘ 733 AGE INDEX OF SUBJECTS. AFFINITY, when ceases, i. 314 (2), 901; disqualifying petit juror, i. 901 (2-5). AFFIRMATIVE AVERMENT, may sufficiently contain a negative, i. 641 (6). ° AFFRAY, Procedure in, full, ii. 16-30. how interfere in, i. 166 (2, 3), 170 (2), note; how officer suppress, i. 183 (4); breaking doors to arrest for, i. 197,198; how keep person arrested for, i. 218, 214 (1); allege only county in indictment for, i. 374; how specie the indictment for, i. 527 (2) ; whether separate trial for, 1.1023. in fighting duel, ii. 303. “ AFORESAID,” in alleging county, i. 879; in indictment, refers to what, i. 512. « AFORETHOUGHT,” word, in indictments for murder, ii. 499, 540-547, 564, 574, 575. AFTER SWORN, Objecting to jurors, full, i, 946-949 b. AFTER VERDICT, (See Verpict.) correcting errors as to jury, i. 949 5. AGAINST EVIDENCE, new trial where verdict is, i. 1278. “AGAINST FORM OF STATUTE,” (See Conciusion.) Where conclusion must be, or not, full, i. 602-607. must be repeated in each count, i. 429; what words equivalent to, i. 603 ; colonial or. British, i. 604. whether necessary in indictments for champerty and maintenance, ii, 155. not where new punishment provided for old offence, ii. 499 (2). not, in indictment for murder in first degree, ii. 565. where statute prescribes a value, ii. 717. whether in indictment for rape, ii. 950. whether indictment for sodomy concludes, ii. 1014. “ AGAINST THE PEACE,” Whether and when indictment must conclude, full, i. 648-652 a. repeated in each count, i. 429; indictment omitting, quash, i. 772 (4), note. essential in indictment for barratry, fi. 99 (2). “ AGAINST HER WILL,” in indictment for rape, ii, 951. “AGAINST HIS WILL,” whether, in indictment for forcible trespass, ii. 890 (2). in indictment for larceny, ii. 752 a. in robbery, ii. 1006 (2). AGE, (See IMMATURE.) alleging, with participle, i. 527 (1); exempting from jury service not disqualifies, i. 926 (2). in violating Lord’s day, ii. 818 (1). how aver, in indictment for rape, &c., ii. 954. whether aver, in attempt to rape, ii. 976 (8). AGE OF FEMALE, not necessary in laying assault with intent to ravish, ii. 82. whether aver and prove, in rape, ii. 954 (1). AGE OF MALE, whether aver, in rape, ii. 954 (2). 734 , INDEX OF SUBJECTS. ALL AGENT, no arrest by, i. 186 (2); for returning fugitive from justice, i. 221 (1), 222 (3, 5) 3 how allege oe done through, i. 332 (3); offence by, as to variance, i. 488 d (2). AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS AND BATTERIES, Indictment for, full, ii. 63-64. AGGRAVATING MATTER, in indictment, i. 417-420, 479 (1); defectively laid, how treat at sentence, i. 1333. AGGRAVATION, of assaults, ii. 658; of homicides, ii. 541, 563, 564, &c. AGREEMENT, AGREEMENTS, effect of, in criminal cause, i. 125 (3); how charge corrupt, in the alternative, i. 591 (4); as to disposition of case, i. 1254 a@ (5). AGREEMENT WITH ACCOMPLICE, nature of the, i. 1164. AGREEMENT OF JURY, judge not to coerce an, i. 982. AGREEMENTS ON FACTS, effect of, i. 1254 a (4). AIR UNWHOLESOME, indictment for nuisance of rendering, ii. 877 a ALTA ENORMIA. (See OTHER.) ALIAS DICTUS, when and how, i. 681. ALIBI, (See REBUTTAL.) Doctrine of, full, i. 1061-1068. special charge on, i. 980 (4). ALIEN, ALIENS, Jury for trial of, full, i. 927-930. same as citizens, i. 100 a (8) ; cannot be grand juror, i. 851 (1, 2), 884 (1); or petit, i. 923; how object to grand juror as, i. 884. ALL OF A CONFESSION, admissible when part is, i. 1241; same of admission, i. 1247 (2). ‘“ ALL,” “DIVERS,” persons, in conclusion for nuisance, ii. 862 (38). ALL ON EACH COUNT, a modern English form of sentence, i. 1330. ALL THE FACTS, constituting the crime, allege, i. 509 (1), 528 (3). ALL ISSUES, circumstantial evidence good in, i. 1074. ALL THE JURORS, present at verdict, i. 1003. ALLEGATION, ALLEGATIONS, (See ConsUNCTIVE.) Constitutional guarantees as to, full, i. 95-112. All essential in, must be proved, full, i. 127-129. no conviction without, i. 418, 517-519; acquittal for defective, i. 977. ALLEGATION INADEQUATE, as avoiding duplicity,.i. 440. ALLEGATION OF INTENT, The, full, i. 521-525. ALLEGATION OF KILLING, repeating, needless in manslaughter, ii. 536. ALLEGATION OF PLACE, Formalities in, full, i. 376-385. ALLEGE EXCUSE, how, where name unknown, i. 680. ALLEGED, Proof of crime not, full, i. 1120-1129. ALLEGIANCE, (See “ ConTRARY TO.”’) indictment for seducing from, ii. 76 (1). 735 ANN INDEX OF SUBJECTS. ALTERING, word “alter” in indictment for forgery, ii. 426 (4). how charge, in forgery, ii. 419, 426 (4), 442 (2). of forged bank-bills, ii. 446. ALTERING MARK, on animal, how indictment for, i. 629 (2), note. ALTERING RECOGNIZANCE, effect of, i. 264 ¢ (8). ALTERING SENTENCE, i. 1298. ALTERNATIVE, sentence in the, i. 1307. ALTERNATIVE CLAUSES, indictment on, i. 434-436, 586. ALTERNATIVE EXPRESSIONS, (See ** Or.””) In indictment, full, i. 585-592. in indictment for forgery, ii. 438-440. AMBASSADOR. (See Empassapor.) AMBIGUITY, how, in indictment, i, 325 (4), 354-356, 489, 510 (2), 512. AMBIGUOUS, charge to jury should not be, i. 980 a. AMBIGUOUS INSTRUMENT, how charge, in forgery, ii. 418 a. : AMBIGUOUS WORDS, in threatening letters, ii. 1029 a. AMEND BY, something to, in amending record, i. 18438. AMENDABLE INDICTMENT, amended, not quashed, i. 771 (4). AMENDING VERDICT, Law and practice of, full, i. 10138, 1014. AMENDMENT, AMENDMENTS, (See ALTERING SENTENCE — STATUTES OF JEOFAILS — WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION.) Of indictment, full, i. 96-98, 708-711. limitation of right of, i. 124; of plea, by withdrawal and substitution, i. 124, 747; of jurat, i. 231 (2); of complaint, i. 284 (1), 721 (1); in search-warrant, i. 245 (3); whether presence of prisoner at, i. 269 (1); of indictment and record distinguished, i. 705 (1); how make, i. 706 (2); in information, how, i. 714 (1), 715; of complaint before magis- trate, i. 721 (1); whether, to plea in abatement, i. 793 (4) ; in docket entries and record, i. 1298, 1842 (2)-1345; form of making, i. 1845; clerk not make, to record on certiorari, i. 1880; of writ of certiorari, i. 1380. AMENDMENT OF VERDICT, how, i. 1013; may be presumed, i. 1015a (2). AMENDMENTS AND JEOFAILS, distinguished, i. 705 (2). AMERICAN JURIST, Metcalf’s article from the, i. 685 (1), and note. AMICUS CURIA, (See APPEAL.) who, and what may do, i. 308; move to quash, i. 759 (2); how interfere in impanelling grand jury, i. 877 (1). ANCESTRY, insanity of, in evidence, ii. 675 (2). “cc AND,” 66 OR,”’ Rules for each of these words in indictment, full, i. 585-592. “and,’’ i. 847 (8); and,” without ‘‘ then and there,” i. 408; where “or” in statute, i. 436, 484 (2), 586. ANIMALS, (See Witp ANIMALS.) how describe, in larceny indictment, ii. 706, 708, 709. ANIMUS FURANDI, how allege, in larceny, ii. 698 a. ANNO DOMINTI, how, in indictment, i. 846. 736 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. APP «« ANOTHER ” offence, in a subsequent count, i. 480, 431. ANOTHER BREAKING, ° proof of, in burglary, ii. 153 (2). ANOTHER BURNING, proof of, in arson, ii. 53 (8). ANOTHER COUNTY, how allege offence in, i. 382 (1). ANOTHER COURT, pendency of cause in, delaying trial, i. 950 d (1). ANOTHER CRIME, (See Crimp — OFFENCE.) Whether prove, and presumption from defendant's cummission of, full, i. 1120- 1129. proof of, to contradict alibi, i. 1068. in cheats and false pretences, ii. 189; conspiracy, ii. 235 (2) ; counterfeit- ing, ii. 261 (2), 270 (2); disorderly house, ii. 279 (2); disturbing meet- ings, ii. 288; embezzlement, ii. 327 (4); forgery, ii. 428, 472 (2); homicide, ii. 628 (8); attempt to kill, ii. 645 (5), 662; larceny, ii. 750; libel and slander, ii. 801 (2); malicious mischief, ii. 848 (4); offensive trades, ii. 876; rape, ii. 966; receiving stolen goods, ii. 990; threat- ening letters, ii. 1029. ANOTHER FIGHT, proof of, in assault to kill, ii. 662. ANOTHER INDICTMENT, (See INDICTMENT.) not quash for pendency of, i. 770. ANOTHER OCCASION, inadmissible to show evidence on, i. 1070 (3). ANOTHER OFFENCE, whether fugitive from justice put on trial for, i. 224 b (2, 3). ANOTHER PERSON, showing guilt in, inadmissible, i. 1070 (2). ANOTHER STATE, no common-law right to arrest offender escaped to, i. 219 (1). ANOTHER TRANSACTION, (See CriminaL TRANSACTIONS.) proof of, when admissible, i. 460 (2). ANSWER, the, to plea of former conviction or acquittal, i. 810 (3). ANSWER OVER, Whether, on demurrer, full, i. 781-786. to plea to jurisdiction, i. 736 (3); after plea, i. 754-757. ANTAGONISTIC DEFENCES, separate trial to defendants when, i. 1019 (2). ANTECEDENT, to what, a word will be referred, i. 355, 512. ANTECEDENT UNCERTAIN, in allegation of place, i. 379 (2); of time and place, i. 414. ANYTHING TO SAY? whether ask prisoner, at sentence, i. 1293; how record as to, i. 1358. APPEAL, prisoner’s presence on, i. 277 (4); amicus curie on, i. 308; whether from conviction before magistrate, i. 723; no, for conviction as to former jeopardy, i. 821 (2); as giving jury trial, i. 893 (2), 894; clog- ging, when unconstitutional, i. 894 (2); given by interpretation of con- stitution, i. 894 (3); as a method to rehearing, i. 1264, 1268 (8); whether, by State, i. 1272; right of, not bars writ of error, i, 1370. APPEARANCE, (See ARREST — MAGISTRATE.) how defendant’s, secured, i. 30-34, 225 et seq., 265 et seq., 950 a (3); necessity of, and how, i. 267, 268; cures prior irregularities, i. 950 a (3); enforcing, against corporation, i. 950 a (8). vou. 1.—47 . 737 ARR INDEX OF SUBJECTS. APPEARANCE BOND, Doctrine of the, full, i. 264-264 e. ! APPEARANCE DAY, whether charge bail after, gone by, i. 264 f (2, 8). APPELLATE COURT, distinguished from trial court, as to granting new trial, i. 1274. APPOINTMENT, Of prosecuting officer, full, i. 279-286. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, For prisoner, full, i, 803-306. APPREHENSION. (See ARREST.) APPROVEMENT, (See ACCOMPLICE.) Doctrine of, full, i. 1156-1158. APPROVERS, (See AccomPLice.) statute against admitting, as witnesses, i. 1163. ARBITRATOR, whether may be juror, i. 902 (2), 904. ARGUE, (See CounsEL — TRIAL.) right of counsel to, i. 313. ARGUING LAW, to jury, by counsel, i. 986. ARGUMENT, illegitimate, not permitted counsel, i. 975 a, 975 b. ARGUMENTATIVE, allegation not be, i. 508; charge to jury should not be, i. 980 a. ARRAIGNMENT, Doctrine and practice of the, full, i. 728-733 b. the, i387; whether, after change of venue, i. 74 (2); prisoner to be present at the, i. 268; grand jury amend indictment at, i. 709; the several steps stated, i. 728-732; necessity and waiver of, i. 733; refusing or unable to plead, i. 733 a; asking prisoner how he will be tried, i. 783 0; _ whether record must show an, i. 1854 (2). ARRANGEMENTS, Within the court-room, full, i. 952, 959. ARRAY, (See CHALLENGE.) challenge to the, i. 876 (3), 878 (1), 982 a (2), 984 (1). ARREST, (See Szeconp ARREST — WARRANT.) Law and practice of the, full, i. 155-218. first step in criminal cause, i. 80, 31; when and how, by bail, i. 249 and note; how warrant of, name unknown, i. 679; whether exclude confes- sions of persons under, i. 1238 (3) ; avoiding, as evidence, i. 1250; after escape, or condition of pardon broken, i. 1382-1385; when bail has proved insufficient, i. 1386. ARREST OF JUDGMENT, (See Morion rn Arrest.) The, full, i. 1282-1288. ; one of the steps in a criminal cause, i. 42; prisoner’s presence on motion in, i, 277 (1); joinder of separate offences of same nature, no objection in, i, 424; whether, for duplicity, i. 443 (4); no, on account of former jeo- pardy, i. 818; for misdoings of grand jury, i. 887-889 ; not, for errors as to petit jury, 1.949 (8); for part of defendants in conspiracy, i. 1038 (3); motion for, supersedes new trial, i. 1268 (3); when prisoner move in, i. 1293 ; not for defectively laid aggravating matter, i. 1383; right of, not bars writ of error, i. 1370. 738 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. ASS ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT, Doctrine of, full, i. 164-184. statutes extending right of, constitutional, i. 184. ARRESTED PERSON, How treat and keep, full, i. 168, 210-212. = How dispose of, full, i. 213-218. ARRESTING, on search-warrant, i. 209 (2). ARRESTS IN HOUSE, as evidence of bawdy-house, ii. 117 (1). ARRIVE AT VERDICT, how jury, i. 998 a (8). ARSON, Procedure for, full, ii. 31-53; namely, indictment, 33-49; evidence, 50-53. compelling election in, i. 459 (5); whether allege value in, i. 540 (3); how aver place in, i. 573 (4); “set fire to,” “burn,” in indictment, i. 613 (2). ARTIFICE, in obtaining confession, i. 1226 (1). AS OF COURSE, writ of error awarded with us, i. 1362 (2). “AS FOLLOWS,” meaning of, in indictment, i. 559 (8). “AS TRUE,” in indictment for possessing with intent to pass, ii. 464 (2). ASLEEP, confession uttered by one, i. 1230. ASLEEP DURING TRIAL, juror not be, i. 994 (2). ASSAULT, (See AssauLT aND BATTERY.) how indictment charge, i. 82; is breach of peace, i. 183 (5); use of “then and there ’’ in indictment for, i.411, 413; joining offences in, i. 452 (2); proof of, to avoid variance, i. 488 ¢ (2); allegation of, on unknown per- son, i, 548; under ‘‘circumstances,” how charge, i. 617. indictment against participants in aggravated, ii. 6 a. word in indictment for assault and battery, ii. 57 (8). with intent to kill, how, ii. 77-79; other aggravated, ii. 80-85. allegation of, in indictment for attempt to commit rape, ii. 82. with intent to rob, indictment for, ii. 84, 85. as disturbante of meeting, ii. 297. in fighting duel, ii. 308. whether charge, in false imprisonment, ii. 365 (1), 366. how aver the, in indictment for homicide, ii. 512, 518. when allegation of, surplusage in homicide, ii. 538 (2). how of, in murder, by poison, ii. 554 (1). need not be averred in poisoning, ti. 646 (2). with intent to kill — the procedure, ii. 651-659. averring, in kidnapping, ii. 692 (2). in indictment for mayhem, ii. 859 (2). upon an officer — the procedure, ii. 881-886. in indictment for rape, ii. 955. conviction for, on indictment for riot, ii. 993, note, 1000 (2). ASSAULT AND BATTERY, (See AssAuLT — BATTERY.) Procedure for, full, ii. 54-70 a; namely, indictment for simple, 55-62; for aggravated, 63-64 ; the evidence, 65-70 a. Indictment in homicide without, full, ii. 537-538 a. repetitions of time and place in indictment for, i. 413 (2); charging both, not duplicity, i. 433 (2, 3); on more persons than one, charged in one 739 ATT INDEX OF SUBJECTS. ASSAULT AND BATTERY — continued. count, i. 437 (4); by more persons than one, i. 437 (5); charging false imprisonment in, 1. 438 (3)5 indicting jointly for, i. 469; ill allegation of intent in, surplusage, i. 480 (3); rejecting words to make indictment good, i. 481 (4), note; indictment allege name of person injured, i. 548. conviction of, on indictment for affray, ii. 25, 26. with intent to kill, averring, ii. 80 (2). with intent to kill, procedure for, ii. 651-654. whether conviction for, on indictment for mayhem, ii. 859 (1, 4). ASSAULT TO MURDER, indictment for, ii. 77 (8). ASSAULT TO ROB, indictment for, ii. 84. ASSAULT TO STEAL, indictment for, ii. 89. ASSAULTING OR RESISTING OFFICER, Procedure for, full, ii. 881-895. ASSEMBLAGE, ASSEMBLAGES, how interfere in treasonable, i. 166 (2, 8). alleging purpose of, in riot, ii, 995. ASSEMBLED, allegation of being, in affray, ii. 22. : ‘«‘ ASSEMBLED FOR RELIGIOUS WORSHIP,” - in disturbing meeting, ii. 298. ASSIGNING COUNSEL, i. 303-305. ASSIGNMENT OF PERJURY, what and how, ii. 918-920; how prove, li. 934. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERRORS, on writ of error, i. 1871. ASSISTANCE, furnishing, to prosecuting officer, i. 281-284. ASSISTING OFFICER IN ARREST, Doctrine of, full, i. 185, 186. ASSUMING. (See OFFICER.) ASSUMING OFFICE WRONGFULLY, (See OvFIcER.) when protects bystander assisting, i. 185 (1). indictment for, ii. 898. “AT,” equivalent to “ in,” in allegation of place, i. 378 (2). AT LARGE, (See Escaped PRISONERS. ) Prisoner, full, i. 1882-1886. “AT OR NEAR,” — in indictment for disturbing meeting, ii. 290 (8). ATTACHED TO FREEHOLD, indictment for larceny of things, ii. 733, 734. ATTACHMENT, whether presence of prisoner at issuing, i. 269 (1). ATTAINDER, constitutional guaranty against, i. 86 (2). ATTEMPT, (See Homrcrpr.) Procedure for, full, ii. 71-97; namely, by solicitation, 74-76; by committing lower crime intending ‘aula: 77-85; by other acts, intending a particular crime, 86-93; the evidence, 94-97. To commit homicide, procedure for, full, ii, 643-663 ; namely, by poisoning, 644 -650; by violence, 651-6638. The, and procedure for, in perjury, full, ii. 988, 989. 740 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. AUT ATTEMPT — continued. where indictment for, i. 57 (2); how interfere in, i. 165 (2); indictment referring to antecedent count in, i. 431; laying more than one endeavor in, not duplicity, i. 437 (3); how indictment allege, i. 520 (1); to kill, how closely indictment follows statute, i. 618 (3, 9). how indictment for the, in arson, ii. 49; proof, ii. 51. to commit burglary, indictment, ii. 180 a. sufficient act, in embracery, ii. 347. ATTEMPT TO BRIBE, Procedure for, full, ii. 126 (2). ATTEMPT TO CHEAT, Procedure for the, full, ii. 194-196. distinguished from cheat accomplished, ii. 158 (2). ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD, “ knowingly,” in indictment for, i. 504. ATTEMPT TO KILL, Procedure for, by violence, full, ii. 651-663. seducer of wife, evidence in, ii. 95. ATTEMPT TO POISON, Procedure for, full, ii. 644-650. ATTEMPT TO RAPE, Procedure for, full, ii. 976-979. ATTEMPT TO ROB, Procedure for, full, ii. 1008. ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES, securing the, i. 959 5b. ATTENDING OFFICER, may convey what, to consulting jury, i. 982 a. ATTORNEY, (See ATTORNEY-GENERAL — CouNSEL — PROSECUTING OFFICER.) may honorably defend those who are really guilty, i. 94; whether appear- ance by, and when, i. 268; when prisoner may plead by, i. 268 et seq. ; presence at trial in place of prisoner, i. 270, 271; defendant corporation, appear by, i. 950 a (3); appearance by, not by guardian, corrected on error, i. 1369. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, (See “OnE in AUTHORITY.”’) right of information by, i. 142, 144; how employed for defence, i. 300-302; admitting accomplice as witness, i. 1161 (4); fiat of, for writ of error, i. 1862 (1); nolle prosequi by, i. 1888 (1). ATTORNEY FOR PROSECUTION, whether nolle prosequi by, i. 1388. ATTORNEY FOR STATE, informations by, i. 142, 144. AUTHORITY, whether committing magistrate’s, to appear in commitment, i, 239 (1); in, who, i. 1233 (8). AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER OATH, averting, in perjury, ii. 910 a (2), 914, 924. AUTHORITY OF OFFICER, how allege, in resisting or assaulting officer, ii. 885. AUTHORSHIP, disregarding rights of, in law writings, i. 685 (1), note. AUTREFOIS ACQUIT, (See ForMER JEOPARDY.) as plea in bar, i. 742 (2); pleading over after, i. 753-755 ; plea of, i. 806 (3) ; extending plea of, to new cases of former jeopardy, i. 818 (4), 827, 828. AUTREFOIS ATTAINT, as a plea in bar, i. 742 (2); plea of, obsolete, i. 806 (4). 741 BAN INDEX OF SUBJECTS. AUTREFOIS CONVICT, (See ForMER JEOPARDY.) as a plea in bar, i. 742 (2); the order of trial upon, i. 752-754 ; pleading over after, i. 753-755 ; plea of, i. 806 (2). AUTREFOIS CONVICT AND ACQUIT, Law and practice under plea of, full, i, 808-817. AVAILABLE, Every right to be made, full, i. 118-116. How set up former jeopardy when autrefois convict or acquit is not, full, i. 818-831. AVAILING OF ERRORS. (See Error.) AVERMENT, AVERMENTS, (See OrpeR or— SUBSTANTIAL AL- LEGATIONS — USELESS.) The common useless, full, i. 499-504, 647. essentials of the, in charge of crime, i. 319 (1), 820; quashing indictment for-material, omitted, i. 772 (2). AXE, how charge assault with, ii. 64 (2). AXIOMS. (See FUNDAMENTAL). BACKING WARRANT, (See WARRANT.) process called, i. 189 (2). BAD, plea in abatement, i. 793 (5). BAD CHARACTER, (See CHARACTER — REPUTATION.) evidence of, not permissible, i. 1112. BAD COUNT OR COUNTS, (See Count.) quashing the, i. 764; how treated at verdict, i. 1015 (2, 4); how treat, at sentence, i. 1332, 1333. BAD ENGLISH, (See GRAMMAR — SPELLING — UNGRAMMATICAL.) in indictment, i. 354. BAD INDICTMENT, no sentence on, i. 1291 (2). BAD INDICTMENT OR COUNT, nolle prosequi of, 1. 1394. BAD RHETORIC, in indictment, i. 354. BADGE OF OFFICE, official character inferred from, i. 191 (2), 192. BAIL, (See Arripavit — RECOGNIZANCE,) Doctrine and methods of, full, i. 247-264; namely, nature of 248-250; when and before whom, 251-263 a; forms of, 264-264 e; charging, dis- charging, §c., 264 f-264 n. not arrest by, on Sunday, i. 207 (3), note; effect on, of surrendering fugi- tive from justice, i. 224 a (2); on hearing for commitment before magistrate, i. 234 a; defendant on, during trial, i. 952 a-954; whether accomplice have, i. 1168 (2); giving straw, as evidence of guilt, i. 1250; mere insufficiency of, not an escape, i. 1886; whether rearrest after in- sufficient, i. 1886; habeas corpus for, i. 1407. BANK, . whether aver incorporation of, in forgery and uttering, ii. 454, 455. BANK-BILL, BANK-BILLS, (See Forgrp Bank-BILLS — ForGERY — Monry — Possession.) Procedure for forging and uttering forged, full, ii. 445-460. 742 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. BEA BANK-BILL, BANK-BILLS — continued. Procedure for possessing forged, with intent to pass, full, ii. 461-469. indictment for having fictitious, i. 523 (2). in forgery, whether set out name of State, ii. 409 (2). proof that it is a forgery, ii. 459 a. and * bank-note ” are synonymous in forgery, ii. 450. indictment for larceny of, ii. 732 (2), 734, 736 (2), 738. how determine value of, ii. 751 (7). BANK-NOTES, variance by needless description of, i. 486 (3). indictment for larceny of, ii. 732 (2), 734, 736 (2), 738. how determine value of, ii. 751 (7). BANK OFFICERS, witnesses to forgery of own bills, ii. 481 (1). BANKERS, (See EMBEZZLEMENT. ) procedure against, for embezzlement, ii. 388-342. BANKRUPTCY, (See CoMMISSIONER IN.) place of trial for neglect to surrender in, i. 53 (5) ; fine not provable in, i. 1304. ‘*BAPTIZED,” in plea of misnomer, i. 792 (2). BAR, time alleged to show a, under limitations statute, i. 405; what add to plea in, i. 749; matter in, plea special, i. 799 (3); the, as department in court-room, i. 952. “ BARILLA,” good, in indictment, ii. 701. BARN, breaking, under warrant to search dwelling-house, i. 209 (1). as name of the structure in arson, ii. 34. BARRATRY, Procedure in, full, ii. 98-103. whether joint indictment for, i. 470 (5); how indictment for, i. 494 (8). conclusion ‘‘to common nuisance ” in indictment for, ii. 101, 863. “« BASE,” in indictment for passing counterfeit coin, ii, 259 (6). BASTARD, concealing death of —number of defendants, i. 465; how of name of, i. 686 (2). BASTARD CHILD, conspiracy falsely to charge one with being father of, ii. 241 (2). how indictment for killing, ii. 507 (2); name of, ii. 508, 509; how allege name of, unknown, ii. 510. ; BATTERY, (See AssaAuLT AND BATTERY.) one, of two or more persons, i. 437 (5); wife testifying to husband’s, on her, i. 1153. includes assault, ii. 55 (8). alleging, in indictment for homicide, ii. 512. needless allegation of, in attempt to kill, ii. 658. BAWDRY IN HOUSE, evidence of, against bawdy-house, ii. 118 (2). BAWDY-HOUSE, (See DisorpEriy Hovss.) Procedure for keeping, full, ii. 104-122; namely, indictment, 105-111 ; evi- dence, 112-118; letting for bawdry, 119-122. BAY OR BROWN, in statute, how in indictment, i. 590 (8). “ BEAT,” meaning of, in indictment, i. 356 (2). 743 BLA INDEX OF SUBJECTS. BEFORE SWORN, (See CHALLENGE.) challenges to jury to be, i. 945 (1), 946 (1): except, i. 947 et seq. BEGIN, when sentence, i. 1310 (8, 4). “ BEING,” in allegation of time, i. 410; in alleging age, i. 557 (1). BELIEF, how charge perjury as to one’s, ii. 920. BELIEF OF COUNSEL, (See Orrnron.) not to be stated to jury, i. 975 a (2). BELIEF OF GUILT, (See Guixr.) As disqualifying juror, full, i. 908-910. prosecuting officer not to express, i. 293 (3). BELIEF OF INNOCENCE, counsel expressing, i. 311. BELIEVED GENUINE, charge that forgery was, ii. 460 (3). BELIEVING WITNESS, or not, for jury, i. 1147. BELL OR WHISTLE, how charge neglect to have, i. 591 (2). BENCH, when judge must be on the, i. 314 (6,7); the, as department in court-room, i. 952. BENCH WARRANT, for arrest of indicted person, i. 869 a (5). BENEFIT. (See Hope or.) BENEFIT OF CLERGY, declinatory plea of, i. 737. BENEFIT A FRIEND, (See Frienp.) effect of hope to, on testimony, i. 1175 (2). BEST EVIDENCE, Doctrine of, and of res geste, full, i. 1080-1087. BESTIALITY. (See Sopomy.) BET, disqualifies to be juror, i. 907 (1). BETWEEN TWO DAYS, alleging offence as, i. 396. BIAS, (See OPinion.) As disqualification of petit juror, full, i. 901, 903-906, 908-910, 916-918. ‘¢ BILL,” meaning of word, i. 181 (2). distinguished from acceptance of it, in forgery, ii. 471. BILL OF ATTAINDER, constitutional provision against, i. 86 (2). BILL OF EXCEPTIONS, (See ExcErrion.) . as a method to rehearing, i. 1265. BILL OF EXCHANGE, ‘procedure for forging, &c., ii. 470-472. BILL OF PARTICULARS, (See PARTICULARS.) Doctrine and practice of, full, i. 643-646. none, of infinite offences, i. 108 (2). on trial for barratry, ii. 100. in indictment for common scold, ii, 201; generally in indictments, ii. 209. in indictment for nuisance, ii. 873. BINDING OVER, (See CommitmENT — CompPLaAInt—CourRTS OF Recorp — Justice or PEace. ) The, before magistrate, full, i. 224 ¢-239 a. person taken on search-warrant, i. 218. BIRTH. | (See Concearine Birtu.) BLASPHEMY, disturbing peace by, how allege, i. 557 ees BLASPHEMY AND PROFANENESS, Procedure for, full, ii, 123-125. 744. INDEX OF SUBJECTS. BRE BLENDING, of law and fact in a case, i. 982 ¢ (2). BLOOD RELATION, proving insanity of, ii. 675 (2). BLOOD STAINS, explainable by experts and others, ii. 631 (5). BLOWS, how set out the, in homicide, ii. 516, 517. BLUNDER, (See Error.) deciding from, i. 550. BOARD FROM BURNED BUILDING, evidence in arson, ii. 52. BODILY CONDITION OR SUFFERINGS, as evidence in homicide, ii. 626 (1). BODY, proceed against the, to collect fine, i. 1801, 1802; costs, i. 1321, to enforce abatement of nuisance, ii. 871. BOND, (See APPEARANCE Bonp.) how charge, in forgery, ii. 418 a (8). is “ writing obligatory,” ii. 439 (2). ' BOND OF RECORD, as form of bail, i. 264 (2), 264 a. BOOKS, (See NewspaPErs.) whether jury take, to their room, i. 982 a ; officer not to bring jury, i. 998. a (1); use of, by expert witness, i. 1180. jury taking, when retiring to deliberate, ii. 686. in evidence of insanity, ii. 686. BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, in proof of embezzlement, ii. 327 (6). BOOKS OF RECORD. (See Recorp.) BOOTH, how allege liquor-selling in a, i. 378 (2). BORDERS OF COUNTIES, where indict crimes committed in, i. 63 (2). “BOTTLES” OF WHISKEY, how indictment for larceny of, ii. 710 (8). BOUNDARIES, United States courts take cognizance of what, i, 67. BOYCOTT, conspiracy of, ii. 242 (3). ‘““BRAWLER.”’ (See ‘‘ Common BrAwLer.”) BREACH OF DUTY, how charge, i. 591 (1). BREACH OF PEACE, (See AFFRAY — Assautt —Forciste De- TAINER — DistuURBER OF Pracre — ForcrsLE Entry — Lise, — Rrot.) how interfere in, i. 166 (2), 170 (1), 178; officer arrest person committing, i. 183 (4-6); what is a, i. 183 (5), 207 (8); how allege, by cursing and swearing, i. 557 (2); how indictment for, concludes, i. 648 (3). when allege intended, in libel, ii. 784 (5). “BREAK AND ENTER,” in indictment for burglary, ii. 140. BREAKING, BREAKINGS, (See ARREST.) Procedure for the various criminal, full, ii. 128-153; namely, in general of the indictment, 129-180 a; allegation and proof of time, 181-184; same of place, 135, 136; same of ownership, 137-139; same of breaking and enter- ing, 140, 141; same of intent, 142-150; further of the evidence, 151-153. what is a, in arrest, i. 199. 745 BUR INDEX OF SUBJECTS. - BREAKING FROM ARREST, how officer conduct toward one, i. 161, 162. BREAKING DOORS, In making arrest, full, i. 194-205. in serving search-warrant, i. 208 (1). BREAKING PRISON. (See Prison BREACH.) BREVITY, how of, in indictment, i. 336. BRIBE, indictment for attempting to, ii. 75 (2). BRIBERY, (See MAGISTRATE.) Procedure for, full, ii. 126, 127. by letter, where indict, i. 61 (1). BRIBING WITNESS, (See WITNESS.) by. defendant, as evidence, i. 1251. BRINGING ON CAUSE, party who has the, may elect the order, i. 1045. BROKEN DOORS, proof of, in disorderly house, ii. 280 (2). BROTHER. proven insanity of, ii. 675 (2). BUGGERY, Procedure for, full, ii. 1018-1018 a. “ BUILDING,” indictment for larceny from a, ii. 779. not demolish, in abating nuisance, ii. 871 (2). BURDEN OF PROOF, (See Presumprion — REASONABLE Dovst.) The, full, i. 1048-1051. 5 in autrefois convict or acquit, i. 816 (2); not affected by alibi, i. 1066; statutes changing the, i. 1090; on defendant, preponderance of evi- dence, i. 1095; of evil intent, i. 1101; presumption of innocence keeps the, on State, i. 1104; on prosecution, as to competency of confession, i. 1220; of confession being voluntary, i. 1232. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS, In homicide trials, full, ii. 599-608. On issue of insanity, full, ii. 669-675. “ BURGLARIOUSLY,” in indictment for burglary, ii. 129 (3), 130 (2). BURGLARS’ TOOLS, as evidence, i. 1097 (4). evidence from, in burglary, ii. 151 (2). BURGLARY, (See INTENT — RoBBery.) Procedure for, full, ii. 128-153; namely, in general of the indictment, 129- 130 a; allegation and proof of time, 181-184 ; same of place, 185, 186 ;, same of ownership, 187-189; same of breaking and entering, 140, 141; same of intent, 142-150; further of the evidence, 151-153. where indict, i. 61 (4); how charge, i. 83, 372 (2), 439 ; separate counts in, i, 423 (1, 2); count for, may charge larceny actually committed, i. 439, 449; variance as to intent, i. 488 ¢ (4), 521 (2), note; how specific the averment of intent in, i. 527 (3); aver place as dwelling-house, and how, i, 578 (8); in one county, evidence in, of same in another, i. 1124 (1). possession of stolen goods as evidence in, ii. 747 (2). BURGLARY AND LARCENY, (See Larceny.) whether join, i. 449 (5); whether prove both, on different days, i. 459 (2); joint defendants differently convicted for, i. 1037, note. 746 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. CAR BURIAL. (See SEPULTURE.) “BURN,” in indictment for arson, ii. 46, 47. BURNING, BURNINGS, Procedure for criminal, full, ii. 31-53 ; namely, indictment, 338-49 ; evidence, 50-53. allegation of the, in arson, ii. 46, 47. “BY COLOR OF OFFICE,” words, in indictment for extortion, ii. 357 (4), 358 (1). BY FORCE, (See ForcIBLY.) in indictment for carnal ravishment, ii. 959. BY-LAW, whether indictment on, recite, i. 609; action on, not criminal, i. 892 (4). BYSTANDER, to assist officer commanding, i. 185 (1), 186 (1). CALENDER, for executing sentences, i. 1336. CAPACITY, proof of, in forgery, ii. 436 (8). CAPACITY FOR CRIME, . not aver, in indictment, ii. 952. CAPIAS PRO FINE, i. 1302. CAPITAL CASE, (See Guitty.) accepting plea of guilty in a, i. 795 (1); care of jury in, i. 995; concern- ing the sentence in, i. 1811. CAPITAL CRIME, whether bail for, i. 255 (2), 256. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, (See ExecuTion or SENTENCE.) scruples against, disqualifying grand juror, i. 852 (2); juror who cannot convict for offence subject to, disqualified, i. 918 (1); how sentence to, i. 1311. CAPITAL SENTENCE, how executed, i. 1336. CAPTION AND COMMENCEMENT, Of indictment, full, i. 653-668. CAPTION OF INDICTMENT, amendment of, i. 708 (2); quashing defec- tive, i. 765. CAPTIOUS DOUBT, not reasonable doubt, i. 1094 (2). CARET, in wrong place in indictment, i. 338. CARNAL ABUSE, (See Apusz — Rape.) indictment for, i.481 (2); on indictment for, conviction of simple assault, i. 521 (2), note. when age of female necessary in charging, ii. 82. how indictment for, ii. 960. CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, averring, in sodomy, ii. 1015 (1). “CARNALLY KNOW,” in indictment for rape, ii. 958. CARRIER. (See Common CARRIER.) CARRIER’S NEGLECT, death from, how indictment, i. 542. “CARRY AWAY,” in larceny indictment, ii. 698 (1). CARRYING CHALLENGE TO DUEL, offence of, ii. 311. TAT CHA INDEX OF SUBJECTS. CARRYING GUN, indictment for, i. 588 (3). . CASE RESERVED, revision of cause by, i. 1266. CASHIER, order on, is on the bank, ii. 474 (1). CASTLE, (See DWELLING-HOUSE.) Breaking, in making arrest, full, i. 194-205. ‘“ CATTLE,” (See Maricrous Miscurer.) too general in allegation, i. 568, 570; in statute, too general in indict- ment, i. 619. CAUSE, CAUSES, (See Criminat Cause.) For quashing indictment, full, i. 766-774. Challenge of petit jurors for, full, i. 934. effect of challenge for, wrongly overruled, on peremptory challenge, i. 948 a. CAUSE OF CHALLENGE, waiving, i. 982. CAUSE OF DEATH, experts may testify to, ii. 681 (6). CAUSE OF INSANITY, showing, in proof of, ii. 675. CAUSE AND ISSUE, how prove the, in perjury, ii. 933 0 (1). CAUTION, judge giving jury, as to believing witnesses, i. 1148-1150; as to believing accomplices, i. 1169 (2). CAUTION TO JURY, giving, when separating, i. 996 (2); as to confes- sions, i. 1245. CERTAIN, sentence must be, i. 1297. allegation of value must be, ii. 715. “CERTAIN INTENT IN EVERY PARTICULAR,” certainty to a, i. 823 (4). “CERTAIN INTENT IN GENERAL,” certainty to a, i. 323 (4), 325. CERTAINTY, (See Descrirtion — PLEA.) Doctrine of, in criminal pleading, full, i. 823-328. Methods of allegation to promote, full, i. 508-516 a. how, in indictment, and why, i. 506, 507; how, in description of goods, &c., i. 575, 576; what, in plea, i. 745; what, in plea in abatement, i. 793 (3); what, in plea of autrefois convict, i. 808 (2) ; court determines degree of, in jury’s belief, i. 1091. CERTIFICATE OF OATH, as evidence in perjury, ii. 983 c. “CERTIFIED,” recognizance, i. 264 e. CERTIFIED COPY, in proof of record, i. 1188 (2). CERTIORARI, Writ of, full, i. 1375-1881. distinguished from error, i. 1364, 1378. CHALLENGE, (See ARRAY.) Of grand jurors, full, i. 875-881. CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE, wrongly overruled, effect on peremptory challenge, i. 9438 a. CHALLENGE TO THE FAVOR, Doctrine of, full, i. 903-906. 748 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. CHA CHALLENGE BY PERMISSION, i. 947 (1); overruled, i. 949 (2). CHALLENGES TO JURY, (See IMPANELLING.) By joint defendants, full, i. 1027-1082. on trying separate indictments together, i. 1042. CHALLENGING TO DUEL, (See DUELLING.) Procedure for, full, ii. 8304-311. CHALLENGING AND IMPANELLING, The petit jurors and the panel, full, i. 980 a-945; namely, in general, ma 933; for cause, 934; peremptory, 985-945. CHAMPERTOR, how indictment against, i. 530 (2). CHAMPERTY AND MAINTENANCE, Procedure for, full, ii. 154-156. CHANCE, device of, makes verdict illegal, i. 998 a (8). CHANCELLOR, may bind over for trial, i. 225 (2). CHANGE sentence, i. 1298. CHANGE OF RAIMENT, jury to be permitted, i. 997. CHANGE OF VENUE, Doctrine of, full, i. 67 a-76. when constitutional, i. 50 (3) ; whether presence of prisoner at, i. 269 (1) ; working severance, i. 1023 a; to appear in record, i. 1855 (4). CHANGE VERDICT, (See VERDICT.) power of jury to, i. 1003 et seq. CHAPEL, procedure for larceny from, ii. 777. CHAPLAIN, is “in authority,’’ for confession, i. 1238 (8). CHARACTER, Of defendant, how as evidence, full, i. 1112-1119. defined, and how proved, i. 1117, 1118; showing, of defendant, testify- “ing for self, i. 1185; of declarant in dying declaration, i. 1209 (2). of assaulted person, in evidence, ii. 65 (2). defendant’s, in assault and battery, ii. 68 (2). reputation in proof of, ii. 112 (2). CHARACTER OF COMPLAINING WOMAN, impeaching, in rape, ii. 964 (2) et seq. CHARACTER OF DECEASED, As evidence in homicide, full, ii. 609-617. CHARACTER OF DEFENDANT, What presumption from the, full, i. 1112-1119. As evidence in homicide, full, ii. 628-630. CHARACTER IN ISSUE, not putting, i. 1119. CHARACTER AND REPUTATION, how differ, ii. 617. CHARGE WITH CRIME. (See Crime.) CHARGE TO JURY, By judge, full, i. 975 c- 982 a. jury disregarding, i, 985-988. how the, in homicide, ii. 638 a. CHARGE SEVERAL, trial where, i. 1041. CHARGING, Bail, full, i, 264 7-264 n. 749 CIR INDEX OF SUBJECTS, CHARITY OR NECESSITY, jury to determine, in Lord’s day, ii. 818 (8). CHASTISEMENT, assault inflicted in, ii. 70. CHASTITY, complaining woman’s bad reputation for, in rape, ii. 965, 966. CHATTELS, (See Goons.) how indictment describe, i. 575. how determine value of, ii. 752 (8). CHEAT, CHEATS, (See FALtsE PRETENCES.) Procedure for, full, ii. 157-198; namely, indictment for common-law cheat, 158-161; same for statutory false pretences, 162-186; the evidence, 187- 193; procedure for the attempt, 194-196; questions of practice, 197, 198. how indictment for conspiracy to, i. 516 (2). forgery is in nature of, ii. 399. “CHEAT AND DEFRAUD,” words, in indictment for conspiracy, ii. 212-214, 217. CHEAT INDIVIDUAL, Indictment for conspiracy to, full, ii. 207 (2)-222. CHEATED, ; Allegation of person to be, in forgery, full, ii. 420-425 6. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, in cases of poisoning, ii. 650 (2). CHILD, kidnapped, affection of, as evidence, ii. 695 (1). CHILD MURDER, (See HomicipE.) how minute the allegations of indictment, i. 527 (1). CHOICE OF PROCEEDINGS, Some views concerning, full, i. 28-44. CHOICE OF STEPS, (See ORDER oF.) in criminal cause, i. 28 a. CHRISTIAN NAME, (See Naz.) whether one or more, &c., i. 688, 684. CHURCH, breaking into and stealing from, procedure, ii. 777. CIRCUIT COURT, (See Court — Unitep States.) of U. S. as to writ of error, i. 13865. CIRCUMSTANCES, how allege unknown, i. 495 (8); when indictment must charge the, i. 527 (4); show what, in circumstantial evidence, i. 1078, 1079. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, (See EVIDENCE.) Doctrine of, full, i. 1073-1079. proving county of offence by, i. 384 (8); juror who cannot convict on, dis- qualified, i. 917 (8); to corpus delicti, i. 1057; in proof of identity, 1. 1060 (2). in arson, ii. 58 (7). in conspiracy, ii. 227. in counterfeiting coin, ii. 254, 268. that defendant is keeper, in disorderly house, ii. 278, in perjury, 933 b (2). 750 ‘ INDEX OF SUBJECTS. COE CIRCULATE AS MONEY, charge that forged note was issued to, ii. 460 (2), and see 466 (2). CITY, laying offence in, without county, i. 378 (1). CITY ORDINANCE, (See By-Law.) whether prosecution on, is a criminal case, i. 892 (4, 5). CIVIL CAUSES, compared with criminal .as to new trial, i. 1273, as to en- forcing the law, i. 1275; as to writ of error, i. 1861. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES. how jury’s oath differs in, i. 983. CIVIL EVIDENCE, compared with criminal, i. 1046 (1), 1092, 1095, 1182, 1136; familiar rules of, in criminal cases, i. 1047. - CIVIL NATURE, quashing indictment in cases of, i. 769. CIVIL PLEADING, compared with criminal, i. 320, 321. CIVIL PROCESS, (See Process.) confinement on, effect on bail, i. 264 7 (2). CLASSES OF PERSONS, Larcenies by particular, full, ii. 775-776 a. CLASSES OF WITNESSES. (See WITNESSES.) CLAUSE, (See Enactine CLAUuSsE.) what, of statute, and how indictment, i. 634. CLAUSES OF STATUTE, (See NEGATIVE.) How considered in indictment on it, full, i. 682-639. CLEAR CASE, quash indictment in a, i. 768 (1). CLERICAL ERRORS, (See GRAMMAR — SPELLING.) whether vitiate indictment, i. 354, 357; how correct, in record, i. 1343. CLERK, restricted, as to record, i. 1842, 1344, 1845. procedure for larceny by, from master, ii. 775, 776. CLERK’S BOX, as department in court-room, i. 952. CLERK OF THE CROWN, no nolle prosequi by, i. 1388 (1). CLIENT, whether can be juror, i. 902 (4); position of, in court-room, i. 952. CLOG THE RECORD, (See Recorp.) indictment must not, i. 528. CLOGGING APPEAL, when unconstitutional, i. 894 (2). CLOSE OF TERM, effect of, on amendments of docket and record, i. 1343- 1345. CLOTHING, as evidence, i. 1097 (4). “CLUBS, KNIVES,” &c., (See Toots oF CRIME.) averment of using, i. 502 (1). CO-CONSPIRATORS, (See Conspiracy.) declarations of, in evidence, i. 1248 (2). declarations of, in assault and battery, ii. 68 (3). declarations of, in burglary, ii. 153 (8). declarations and acts of, in conspiracy, ii. 228-230. admissions and conduct of, in forgery, ii. 428 (4). declarations of, in robbery, ii. 1007 a (6). how charge, in treason, ii. 1033; acts and conduct of, ii. 1088 (2). CO-DEFENDANT, CO-DEFENDANTS, witnesses, when, i. 1020, 1021. testimony of, in treason, ii. 1039. COERCE FELLOW, juror should not, i. 998 a (3). 761 COM INDEX OF SUBJECTS. COFFIN, how lay ownership of, in larceny, ii. 725 (2). value of, ii. 751 (5). COHABITING ILLICITLY, parties, witnesses, i. 1154. COIN, (See CounTERFEITING COIN.) Procedure for offences against the, full, ii. 246-271. how describe, in indictment for counterfeiting, ii. 252, 253. having counterfeit, with intent, &c., ii. 265-268. how describe, in larceny indictment, ii. 703, 704. how determine value of, ii. 751 (6). COINING, (See Counrerreit Money.) indictment for, how, i. 529 (2). COLLATERAL ISSUE, no peremptory challenges on, i. 942. COLLATERAL MATTER, how allege, i. 554 (1) et seq. COLLOQUIUM, no, in false pretence indictment, ii. 178 (2). in indictment for libel, ii. 785-788. COLONIAL STATUTES, (See ADDITION.) of addition, i. 674. COLOR, (See VARIANCE.) variance by needless description of, i. 486 (1); variance in proof of, i. 488 (5); discerned by inspection, i. 1097 (4). “COLOR OF OFFICE,” in indictment for extortion, ii. 358 (1). COMBATANTS, (See AFFRAY — Pr1zE-FIGHT.) duty to part, i. 166 (2, 3). COMBINATIONS. (See Co-consprraTors — CoNSsPIRACY.) COMBINING, the, allege in conspiracy, ii. 204 (3). COME TO LIFE, when prisoner does, after hanged, i. 1811 (2). COMMENCEMENT, the, of count, i. 429, 480. COMMENCEMENT AND CAPTION, Of indictment, full, i. 653-668; namely, under English practice, 655-659 ; under American, 660-668. COMMEMCEMENT OF INDICTMENT, amendment of, i. 708 (2). COMMENT, on what counsel may, i. 975 a. COMMENTS ON EVIDENCE, in opening to jury, i. 971 (2). COMMISSION, officer arrest for crime in course of, i. 183 (2). COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERS, how aver perjury before, of U. S., ii. 910 a (2). of U. S. courts, bind over for trial, i. 226 (2). COMMISSIONER IN BANKRUPTCY, admissions before, i. 1255. COMMITMENT, (See Brnpina Over.) the, a step in a criminal cause, i. 82, 33; magistrate’s power of, i. 229; evidence necessary for, i. 233; whether warrant of, to show authority, i. 289 (1), note; order of, accompanying sentence to a fine, i. 1301. COMMITTING MAGISTRATE, admitting ‘‘king’s evidence,” i. 1158; accomplice, i. 1161 (2), when produce testimony before, at trial, i. 1197-1199; as witness to such testimony, i. 1199 (3), note; sworn ad- 752 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. COM COMMITTING MAGISTRATE — continued. missions before, i. 1255, 1258, 1261, 1262; statutes concerning, how construed, i. 1259. COMMITTING FOR TRIAL, Doctrine and practice of, full, i. 224 c-239 a. Doctrine and practice of bail, full, i. 247-264 n. “COMMON BARRATOR.” (See BarRRATRY.) words, whither alone sufficient in indictment, i. 494 (3). essential in indictment for barratry, ii. 98, 99 (1). “COMMON BAWDY-HOUSE.” (See BAwpy-HOUSE.) “COMMON BRAWLER,” words, in indictment for common scold, ii. 200 (1). COMMON CARRIER, form of indictment against, for death of passenger, i. 542. as alleged owner in larceny, ii. 720 (3). “COMMON CHAMPERTOR,” words, not sufficient in indictment, i. 580 (2). COMMON CHEAT, right to arrest, i. 169, 170 (2), note. words, inadequate in indictment, ii. 160. “COMMON CONSPIRATOR,” (See ConsPIRACY.) how indictment against, i. 530 (2). COMMON DEFAMER, (See SLANDER.) how indictment against, i. 530 (2). COMMON DISORDERLY HOUSE, words, in indictment for keeping disorderly house, ii. 275, 276 (1). “COMMON DISTURBER,” words, not sufficient in indictment, i. 530 (2). “COMMON EMBRACER,”’ in indictment for embracery, ii. 346. ‘*COMMON EVIL-DOER,” words, not alone sufficient in indictment, i. 530 (2). “COMMON FORESTALLER,” words, not alone sufficient in an indictment, i. 530 (2). COMMON GAMING-HOUSE, species of disorderly house, ii. 106 (2). COMMON INFORMER, As witness, full, i. 1173-1176. COMMON INTENT, certainty to a, i. 323 (4). COMMON KNOWLEDGE, counsel state matters of, to jury, i. 975 (2). COMMON LAW, aids interpretation of statute, i. 110; constitutions requir- ing minuteness beyond the, i. 111; waiver of right under, i. 118; bail good at, notwithstanding statute, i. 264 @ (2); enters into interpreta- tion of written, i. 314 (2); affirmed by statute, whether indictment statutory, i. 599; writ of error only on proceedings after course of, i. 1364; certiorari in proceedings not after the, i. 1378. COMMON-LAW ‘FORMS, (See Form.) of indictment, the pruned, i. 336 (2). ' “COMMON NIGHT-WALKER,” -in indictment, ii. 874 a. COMMON NUISANCE, whether indictment for barratry concludes to the, ii. 101. conclusion to the, in indictment for common scold, ii. 200 (2). conclusion to, not necessary in disorderly house, ii. 276 (3). VOL. 11. —48 758 COM INDEX OF SUBJECTS. COMMON NUISANCE — continued. whether conclusion to, in exposure of person, ii. 353 (8). whether conclude to, for uttering obscene words, ii. 810. in conclusion for nuisance, ii. 862-864. COMMON OPPRESSOR, how indictment against, i. 530 (2). COMMON PURPOSE, (See Co-coNsPIRATORS.) declarations and acts of persons combining in one, ii. 228-280. COMMON SCOLD, Procedure against, full, ii. 199-201. technical words in indictment against, i, 335; whether joint indictment for, i. 470 (5); how indictment against, i. 494 (2). words ‘‘ to the common nuisance,” in indictment against, ii. 863. COMMON SELLER, (See Liquor-sELLING.) allegation and proof of time, i. 402 (1); bill of particulars on indictment for being, i. 645 (2). COMMON THIEF, (See Larceny — STOLEN Goons.) how indictment against, i. 530 (2). COMMON TIPPLING-HOUSE, species of disorderly house, ii. 106 (2). COMMON UTTERER, how charge one with being, i. 515 (2). words, iu indictment for being, ii. 271 (2). COMMON VEXER, how indictment against, i. 530 (2). COMMONLY KNOWN, name by which one is, i. 686 (1). COMMUNICATE, how deliberating jury, with court, i. 998 a (1), 1000. COMMUNICATIONS, (See WitTNEss.) between excluded witnesses and counsel, i. 1198 a. COMPARISON OF HANDS, proof by, in forgery, ii. 432 0. COMPENSATION, (See FEEs.) Of prosecuting officer, full, i. 279-286. of officers as to fugitives from justice, i. 224 a (1); to prosecuting officer’s assistant, i. 281; to prosecuting officer, i. 286. COMPENSATION OF COUNSEL, To prisoner, full, i. 8303-806. COMPETENCY OF WITNESS, a fact for the court, i. 989 (2, 3). COMPETENT, special verdicts always, i. 1008 (1). COMPLAINANT, who, before magistrate, i. 232 (1); refusing to complain, i. 232 (2); who be, before magistrate, i. 719 (1). COMPLAINING WOMAN, Testimony of, in rape, full, ii. 961-968. COMPLAINT, (See Arripavit — BrnpiIna Over — INFORMATION.) The, before inferior magistrate, full, i. 148-154, 716-727. proceeding by, before magistrate, i. 152; whether in proceedings to bind over, and how issue, i. 230 (2-5) ; requisites of, amendments, &c., i. 230- 234; what, in search-warrant, i. 242 (3); structure of, compared with indictment, i. 639 (7), note. COMPLAINT OF INJURED PERSON, as evidence in sodomy, ii. 1018. COMPLAINT OF WOMAN, in evidence of rape, ii. 963. 754 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. CON COMPLAINTS OF SUFFERING, when admissible in evidence, i. 1111, ii. 626 (1). COMPOUNDING, allegation of time in, i. 404 (2). COMPREHENSIBLE, by lay persons, charge to jury should be, i. 980 a. CONCEALING BIRTH, how specific the indictment for, i. 527 (1). CONCEALMENT OF DEATH, how indictment for, i. 465 (2). CONCEALMENT OF DEFENDANT, as evidence, i. 1250. CONCEPTION, evidence of, in rape, ii. 971 (1). CONCLUDING PART, Of indictment, full, i. 647-652 a. of plea of not guilty, i. 797 (1). in indictment for nuisance, ii. 862-864. CONCLUDING SUMMARY, The, in murder indictment, full, ii. 548-550. in indictment for perjury, ii. 903. CONCLUSION, Of indictment on statute, how, full, i. 602-607. the, of count, i. 429; what, to plea in abatement, i. 793 (2). CONCLUSION OF LAW, not allege, i. 831 (2), 515 (1); not good in record of conviction, i. 725; in special verdict, i. 1007 (5). CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS, what are, i. 1098, 1099. CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, (See JurispIcTIon.) rule where courts have, i. 315 (1). CONCURRENT REMEDY, when writ of error is, i. 1370. CONDITION OF PARDON, effect of breach of, i. 1388, 1884. CONDUCT, showing connection between conspirators by, ii. 235 (1). and language, in insanity, ii. 687 a. CONDUCT OF DECEASED, As evidence in homicide, full, ii. 609-611, 618-622. CONDUCT OF DEFENDANT, And his admissions, as evidence, full, i. 1247, 1254. As evidence in homicide, full, ii. 628-630. CONDUCT AND LANGUAGE, : evidence by, in forgery, ii. 428 (2). CONFESSION, CONFESSIONS, (See Apmrssron.) Extra-judicial, what and when and why received, full, i. 1216 a-1246; namely, in general, 1217-1220; when and why rejected or received, 1221-1240; further thereof and their effect, 1241-1246. as evidence of corpus delicti for binding over, i. 233 (1); whether should be opened to jury, i. 969 (4); court decides whether, is voluntary, i. 989 (3); when separate trials to exclude, i. 1019 a (2); as evidence of corpus delicti, i. 1058; of person not the defendant, inadmissible, i. 1070 (2); are not hearsay, i. 1081 (2); distinguished from admissions, i. 1247 (1). : of principal, on trial of accessory, ii. 18 (4). of prisoner in arson, ii. 53 (2). in aggravated assault, ii. 67 (4). 755 CON INDEX OF SUBJECTS. CONFESSION, CONFESSIONS — continued. whether evidence in blasphemy and profaneness, ii. 125. of one conspirator as evidence, ii. 229. (See Co-cONSPIRATOR.) as evidence in forgery, ii. 428 (8). CONFESSION IN WRITING, how prove, i. 1260. CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS, Judicial, as evidence, full, i. 1254 a-1262. CONFESSIONS OF JURORS, not evidence, i. 1270. CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION, arrest on, i. 233 (2); accomplice to disclose, i. 1164. CONFIDENTIAL CONFESSION, admissibility of, i. 1226 (2). CONFIRMING. (See CoRROBORATING.) CONFUSED AND CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE, of courts, as to indictment for murder in degrees, ii. 571-581. CONGREGATION ASSEMBLED, (See DistursinG MEETING.) procedure for disturbing, ii. 293-298. CONGRESS, (See MemBers oF.) not change rules of evidence in State courts, i. 1088. CONJECTURE, not reasonable doubt, i. 1094 (2). CONJUNCTIVE AND DISJUNCTIVE ALLEGATIONS, (See ALLEGATION — “ OR.”’) In indictment, full, i. 585-592. CONNECTICUT, prosecutions in, by information, i. 144. CONSANGUINITY, what, disqualifies to be juror, i. 901 (1, 4). CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES, disqualifying grand juror, i. 852 (2); when disqualify to be petit juror, i. 918. CONSENT, (See WaIvER.) effect of, in change of venue, i. 73 (4, 6); as dispensing with allegation, i. 96; not complain of what is done by, i. 117; not remove disqualifica- tion of judge, i. 314 (8), 316 (2); no jurisdiction by, i. 316 (2); to trial without jury, i. 893 (3), 898 (1); to depositions, i. 1205, 1206. whether want of, must be proved in larceny, ii. 752 a. CONSENT OF PRISONER, to separation of jury, i. 998; not essential to nolle prosequi, i. 1390. CONSEQUENCES, when presume natural and probable, intended, i. 1100. CONSERVATOR OR CONSERVATORS OF PEACE, preceded justices of peace, i. 174; who is, with us, i. 181 (1); his power of arrest, i. 181 (1); power to hold for trial, i. 225 (2); court as, i. 225, 229. “ CONSIDERED,” word, in sentence, i. 1296. CONSOLIDATED SENTENCE, on several counts, i. 1327, 1829. CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS, i. 421 (1). CONSOLIDATING INDICTMENTS, And trying together, full, i. 421 (1), 1042-1045. CONSPIRACY, (See ‘‘ Common ConspiraTor.’’) Procedure for, full, ii. 202-245; namely, in general of the indictment, 204- 226 ; the evidence, 227-236; questions of practice, 237-239; in some par- ticular forms of, 240-245. where indict for, i.61 (8) ; Sunday arrest for, i. 207 (8) ; laying several overt acts in, not duplicity, i. 437 (2) ; how charge, against several, i. 464 (2), 468 (4); in, to cheat, how indictment, i. 516 (2); bill of particulars in, 756 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. CON CONSPIRACY — continued. i. 644 (2) ; wife as witness in, i. 1019 (5) ; when severance not permitted in, i. 1019 (5); trying defendant alone, i. 1022; new trial, arrest, and error, in cases of, i. 1038 (2, 3), 1039 ; declarations in progress of, i. 1248 (2). CONSPIRATORS, (See Co-cONSPIRATORS.) indictment against several, ii. 225. CONSTABLE, (See OFFICER. When arrest by, without warrant, full, i. 181-184. procedure for refusing to accept office of, ii. 820, 821. CONSTITUTED AND ORGANIZED, How grand jury, full, i. 849-860. CONSTITUTION, interpreting statute by the, i. 114; waiver of right under, i. 118. CONSTITUTION AND STLATUTE, interpreted together, i. 894 (3). CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (See Jurispicrion — Tria — UNITED STATES.) as to place of prosecution, i. 50, 52 (2), 58 (2), 61 (4), 63 (1), 64-67; as to change of venue, i. 75 a, 76; as to fulness of allegation, i. 86-88, 95- 112; as to prosecutions by information, i. 145; as to fugitives from justice, i. 220-223 4; as to search-warrants, i. 240 (2) ; excessive bail, i. 261, 262 (3); as to trial without prisoner’s presence, i. 269 (8); as to prisoner's presence in trials for felony, i. 271 (2); as to appointing prosecuting officer pro tem., i. 280; provisions giving prisoners right to have counsel, i. 301; as to counsel to poor prisoners, i. 8305; whether lawyers compellable without compensation, i. 305, 306; giving mean- ings, by statute, to words, i. 358; statutes dispensing with allegation and proof of place, i. 385; as to conclusion of indictment, i. 607, 650- 652 a; as to defects in indictment cured by acquiescence, i. 706 a (3); as to amendments in indictment, i. 711 (2, 3); whether requires oath to complaint before inferior magistrate, i. 718 (1); number of grand jurors, i. 855; as to irregularly selected grand jurors, i. 875 (4); as to jury trial, i. 891-894; as to qualifications of petit jurors, i. 900 et seq.; as to triers, 906 (1); as to opinion of guilt disqualifying juror, i. 908 C1, 3), 909, note; Tennessee, i. 910 (2); as to bias respecting the law, i. 916-918; as to scruples about capital punishment disqualifying juror, i. 918 (1); as to juror being a resident, voter, or tax-payer, i. 922; as to speedy trial, i. 951 ¢; as to public trials, i. 957, 958; as to furnishing prisoner copy of indictment, i. 959 a (1); as to compulsory process for witnesses, i. 959 b; as to paying witnesses, i. 959 b; defence by counsel and self, i. 962 (2); as to postponement of trial, to procure inculpatory evidence, i. 966 d (2); forbidding charge to jury upon facts, i. 979 (2); as to jury judging of law, i. 984, 987; as to statutes changing rules of evidence, i. 1089 (2), 1090; ‘* confronted with witnesses,” i. 1134; as to record evidence, i. 11384; as to defendants testifying for themselves, i. 1183, 1186; as to absent or deceased witness, i. 1194 (2), 1204; meet- ing witnesses ‘face to face,” i. 1204, 1208; as to dying declarations, i. 1208; as to effect of facts agreed, i. 1254 a (4); as to statutes taking away motion in arrest of judgment, i. 1287; as to respite and reprieve, i. 1299; as to writ of error by State, i. 1363 (2); pronouncing statute unconstitutional upon habeas corpus, i. 1410 (7). requirements of, as to indictment for murder in first degree, ii. 582-587. 757 CON INDEX OF SUBJECTS. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, various, as to form of indictment, i. 100 a-112. CONSULAR COURTS, not bound to give jury trial, i. 891 (1). CONTEMPORARY UTTERANCES, as evidence in homicide, ii. 625, 626. CONTEMPT, (See In Contempr — MIsBEHAVIOR.) by a grand juror, i. 869 (2); by witness before grand jury, i. 869 (1); for disobeying order excluding witnesses, i. 1191. process as for, to compel abatement of nuisance, ii. 871 (1). CONTEMPT OF COURT, punishable summarily, i. 100 a (8); breaking doors, to arrest for, i. 196; Sunday arrest for, i. 207 (8); not jury trial for, i. 892 (6). CONTEMPT OF TITHING-MAN, how indictment for, i. 518 (4). CONTENTS AND FORM, (See Form.) Of record, full, i. 1847-1860. CONTINUANCE, CONTINUANCES, (See TRIAL.) Doctrine and practice of, full, i. 951-951 e. of hearing for commitment before magistrate, i. 234 a; whether presence of prisoner at motion for, i. 269 (1); whether, before plea, i. 780 (2); of case before grand jury, i. 870 a (2); working severance, i. 1023 a; asking, in case of surprise, i. 1280; for sentence, of capitally convicted woman, who is pregnant, i. 1324. CONTINUANDO, defective, i. 888 (2); what, and form of, i. 394. alleging barratry by, ii. 103 (1). CONTINUING, when nuisance must be charged as, ii. 866 (2, 3). CONTINUING MALICE, presumption of, in murder, ii. 607. CONTINUING MOTIVE, as excluding confession, i. 1239. CONTINUING NUISANCE, voluntary abatement of, mitigates punishment, ii. 870. CONTINUING OFFENCE OR OFFENCES, how lay, i. 393-897; cor- respondence of proof and allegation in, i. 402; election in, i. 460 (3). alleging time in, i. 888, 393- 397, 402, ii. 103 (1), 812, 866 (2). CONTINUOUS LARCENY, (See Larceny.) how allege and prove time of, i. 897 (1), note, (2). “CONTRA PACEM.” (See ‘* AGAINST THE PEACE.”) CONTRACT, the scilicet in declaration on, i. 406 (3). how allege, in cheat, ii. 161; when not allege, in false pretences, ii. 166 (2). CONTRADICT dying declaration, i. 1209 (8). CONTRADICT INDICTMENT, not, on motion to quash, i. 763 (1). CONTRADICT WITNESS, (See WITNEsS.) by doings before grand jury, i. 858; competent to, i. 1071 (1); deposi- tions to, i. 1202. CONTRADICTIONS, defendants’, about case, i. 1252, 1253. CONTRADICTORY AND CONFUSED LANGUAGE, of courts as to indictment for murder in degrees, ii. 571-581. CONTRADICTORY OATHS, in perjury, ii. 931. “CONTRARY TO ALLEGIANCE,” whether allege, in indictment for treason, i. 647 (1), ii. 1034. 758 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. COR CONTRARY TO INSTRUCTIONS, verdict, must be received, ii. 642 (2). “CONTRARY TO STATUTE,” conclusion of, in false pretence indictment, ii. 164. CONTROL OF COURT, grand jury under, i. 868 (1). CONTROLLABLE, whether and how prosecuting officer, i. 292, 293 (1). CONVENIENCE, how governs procedure, i. 7 (8). CONVERSATION, CONVERSATIONS, between husband and wife, evi. dence, i. 1155; denying, to witnesses in waiting, i 1190 (2). as evidence against bawdy-house, ii. 116 (3, 4). CONVERSE, when juror not, with outside persons, i. 994 (2), 997. “ CONVEYING” INSTRUMENT FOR ESCAPE, in indictment for rescue, ii. 945 (2). CONVICTED OF CRIME, (See Prion ConvIcTION.) witness, since former testimony, i. 1195. CONVICTED DEFENDANTS, whether, pay costs, i. 1317 (2). CONVICTION, Can be only on pursuing established forms, full, i. 89-94. In general, before magistrate, full, i. 716-727. one escaping after, may be brought back, i. 220 (4); whether bail after, i. 252 (3), 253 (2); whether or when judge may direct, i. 977 (2); prior, discrediting witness, applied to testifying defendant, i. 1185; arrest of judgment after, before sentence, i. 1284; costs following, i i. 1317 (2). CONVICTION FOR CRIME, disqualifies witness, i. 1187; lost record of i. 1398 (2) CONVICTIONS ON COMPLAINT before magistrate, i. 152, 153. CONVICTIONS ON VIEW, whether, and what, i. 150, 151. COPY OF INDICTMENT, when formerly denied prisoners, i. 14 (1), 22; waiver of, i. 126 QQ). furnishing prisoner with, i. 959 a (1); trial on, if lost, i. 1400. CORONER, information by, i. 148; may bind over for trial, i. 225 (2), 229 b, as conservator of peace, i. 229 b, may be petit juror, i. 914; testimony before, when admissible at trial, i. 1198-1200 ; whether depositions be- fore, admissible at trial, i. 1200, admissions before, i, 1255, 1257 a. CORONER’S JUROR, whether competent as petit juror, i. 914. “CORPORAL OATH,” meaning of, ii. 913 (3). CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, (See SENTENCE.) Sentence to, and its incidents, full, i. 1310-1312. cannot be judgment for, in prisoner’s absence, i. 275 (2). CORPORATION, how allege, prove, and proceed against, i. 682; bringing, into court as defendant, i. 950 a (3). how lay ownership of, in burglary, ii. 138 (5). in averment, ii. 455, 457, proof of corporate existence, ii. 456. how aver, as owner in larceny, ii. 718 (4). laid as owner, proof of, ii. 752 (2), proof of ownership in, ii. 850 (2). CORPSE. (See Drap Bopy — SEPULTURE.) CORPUS DELICTI, Doctrine of, full, i. 1056-1059. proof of, in larceny, ii. 739 (2), 741. 759 cou INDEX OF SUBJECTS. CORRECT, sentence, i. 1298. CORROBORATED OR NOT, confession, i. 1244 (2). CORROBORATING, testimony of witness, i. 1150; accomplice, i. 1169 (2, 8), 1170 (1). CORRUPT, proof that testimony was, in perjury, ii. 935 a. CORRUPT ACTS AND NEGLECTS, In office, procedure for, full, ii. 822-836. CORRUPTION, charging, in indictment for malfeasance in office, ii. 834. « CORRUPTLY,” in perjury indictment, ii. 922. COST, as element of value, ii. 751 (5). COSTS, Sentence to pay, full, i. 1813-1321. prosecutor’s liability for,i 691 (2), 698 (8); what, against joint defend- ants, i. 1035 (2), 1825 (2). COUNSEL, (See ATTORNEY — PROCEEDING WITHOUT — PROSECUTING.) Right of prisoners to have, full, i. 296-302. Appointment of, compensation, trial without, full, i. 8303-307. General views of duty of, full, i. 809-313. when formerly denied prisoners, i. 14; the judges as, i. 14 (2); may de- fend both guilty and innocent, i 94; presence of, at trial, i. 270, 272 (1); for prisoner, appointing and controlling, i. 282; queen’s attorney, &c., as, in England, i. 800; how as to prosecuting officer with us, i. 302; whether before magistrate, i. 726; continuance for absence or sickness of, 1.951 ¢ (1); position of, in court-room, i. 952-954 ; how defence by, i. 962 (2, 8); arguing law to jury, i. 9865 of joint defendants after severance, i. 1026; for defendants jointly indicted, i. 1040; not ex- clude, from court-room, i. 1190 (1); whether new trial for misdoings of, i. 1281. insanity incapacitates to employ, ii. 666 (1). COUNSEL FOR DEFENCE, (See Drerence — DEFENDANT.) Rights and duties of, full, i. 809-313. Summings up at trial, full, i. 974-975 b. opening by, to jury, i. 972, 978 COUNSEL FOR PROSECUTION, (See Prosecuting OFFICER.) how, in England, i. 962 (5)-964. COUNT, COUNTS, (See Bap— New — Onr — SEPARATE.) What and arranging indictment in, full, i, 421-431. Compelling election as to the, full, i. 455-458. how distinguished, i. 182 (1), note, 183 (2) ; meaning of, i. 421 (8); how, in joinder of offences, i. 449 and note; repugnancy between, i. 492; whether add new, to information, i. 714 (1); quashing, when part bad, i. 764; more than one, partial verdict, i. 1010 (2, 3); entering verdict on particular, i. 1014; good and bad, general verdict, how, i. 1015, 1015 a. how verdict on several, in conspiracy, ii. 237. joinder of, in counterfeit coin, ii. 271 (8). 760 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. cou COUNT, COUNTS — continued. joinder of, in disorderly house, ii. 277. joining, for rape and for assault with intent, ii. 975 (1). joinder of, in receiving stolen goods, ii. 981 (2), 987. COUNT IN FORGERY, may charge different intents, ii. 425 a. “ COUNTERFEIT,” in indictment for uttering, ii. 440. COUNTERFEIT MONEY, passing, how indictment for, i. 436 (2), note. COUNTERFEITING, (See Corning — Forerry — Possession.) how indictment for diminishing coin, i. 636 (7) ; proof of another, i. 1126 (2), 1127 (4). COUNTERFEITING COIN, Procedure for, and the like, full, ii. 246-271; namely, counterfeiting the coin, 248-256; passing counterfeit coin, 257-262; uttering, having other in possession, 263, 264; possession with intent to pass, 265-268; possessing or making the instruments, 269, 270; second or third offence, common utterer, &e. 271. indictment for, to state kind, i. 529 (2). COUNTERFEITING AND HAVING, (See Possessine — Coun- TERFEITS.) whether join, i. 449 (6), note. COUNTERFEITS, how indictment for receiving, contrary to statute, i. 688 (2). COUNTRY, (See ForREIGNER.) ‘crime may be committed out of the, i. 53. COUNTS GOOD AND BAD, (See Count.) sentence on, i. 1332. COUNTS MORE THAN ONE, Verdict on, full, i. 1015, 1015 a. COUNTS AND OFFENCES, Sentence where more than one, full, i. 1825-1334. COUNTY, COUNTIES, (See CHANGE OF VENUE — PARTICULAR Locatiry — PLac—E— Proor or.) Of the prosecution, full, i. 45-67. Procedure for goods stolen in one, and carried into another, full, ii. 727- 729. effect of dividing a, on the place of the indictment, i. 49 and note; part of the act in one and part in another, i. 52-55; electing in which of two, to prosecute, i. 54 (1); acts partly in each of two, i. 58 (2); amending name of, in indictment, i. 97 (4); when to pay prisoner’s counsel, i. 305, 806; in margin of indictment, i. 377, 379, 385; special verdict must state the, i. 1006 (7); costs payable by, i. 1316. the, in false pretences, ii. 197. the, in embezzlement, ii. 326. the, in indictment for forgeries and utterings, ii. 475, 480. averring and proving the, in homicide, ii. 638 (2). the, in kidnapping, ii. 693; in libel, ii, 805. COUNTY OR DISTRICT, (See District.) How charge, in modern indictment, full, i. 368-871. COURSE OF JUSTICE, Or proceeding wherein perjury was committed, how aver, full, ii. 905-911, 924. 761 cou INDEX OF SUBJECTS, COURSE OF TRIAL, (See OrpER — TRIAL.) Indictment to give information how to order, full, i. 582-537. COURT, (See Crrcurr — Course or Triat — Inrerior — JupcE— JURISDICTION — OPEN.) Personal presence of prisoner in, full, i. 265-277. The, full, i. 314-817. Indictment to inform the, so it can order course of trial, full, i. 532-3587, What will guide the, in its sentence, full, i, 538-542. who the, i. 35; jurisdiction of, from law, not consent, i. 96 (1); act of, not prejudice prisoner, i. 120 (2); arrests for offences in presence of, i. 179 (1); or judge may bind over, i. 229 (1); distinctions as to, of inferior » and of superior jurisdiction, i. 236-239; changing day of holding, effect on recognizance, i. 264 b (8); to determine words of indictment, i. 338; pleas to jurisdiction of, i. 736,794; grand jury a part of the, i. 868 (1); the, in place of triers, i. 906, 934 (4); of own motion discharging unfit juror, i. 947 (2); to be open at trial, i. 957-959 ; how interfere in ex- amination of witness, i. 966 a (1); when check counsel, i. 975 } (2); to determine sufficiency of evidence, i. 977, 978; communications be- tween, and deliberating jury, i. 1000; admitting accomplice as witness, i. 1161 (8); the, determines admissibility of dying declaration, i. 1212 (1); determines, and on what evidence, whether to admit confession, i. 1220; sworn admissions before, i. 1255; may arrest judgment self- moved, i. 1283; place of holding, how in record, i. 1851; whether par- ticipate in nolle prosequi, i. 1888 (2), 1889; no injunction against the, i, 1414. what for, in disorderly house, ii. 281 (3). determines competency of expert, ii. 687. how far perjury a question for the, ii. 933. COURT OR CAUSE, Wherein perjury was committed, how aver, full, ii. 905-911, 924. COURT DAY, change of, after bail, i. 264 0 (2). COURT DE FACTO, (See De Facto.) doctrine of, i. 316 (3). COURT EXCUSING JURORS, parties not object to, i. 926 (4) COURT HAND, abolition of, i. 348 (1). COURT-HOUSE, whether court must sit in, i. 817 (2). COURT AND JURY, (See TRIAL.) Respective provinces of, full, i. 982 6-989 6; namely, general, 982 c, 982 d; jury judging of law, 983-988; court judging of fact, 989-989 db. How communications between, full, i. 1000. COURT NOT OF RECORD, certiorari in proceedings of a, i. 1878. COURT OR OFFICIAL PERSON, before whom perjury was committed, how aver, ii. 910. ‘COURT IS OF OPINION,” words, in sentence, i. 1296. COURT OF REVIEW, distinguished from trial court, as to granting new trial, i, 1274. COURT ROOM, Arrangements within the, full, i. 952-959. ; Excluding from, witnesses in waiting, full, i. 1188-1198 a. 762 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. CRI COURTS OF RECORD, (See Bryping Over — Court.) power of, to commit for trial, i. 229; writ of error ouly to correct judg- ments of, i. 1364. COVENTRY ACT, indictment on the, ii. 855 (2). CREATED, how court, i. 315 (2). CREDIBILITY OF ACCOMPLICE, evidence of, i. 1170 (2). CREDIT TO STUDENT, how indictment for unlawfully giving, i. 626 (2). CRIME, CRIMES, (See ANotHER — No Orrence.) Ascertaining and particularizing the, in indictment, full, i. 415-420. Evidence of another, in proof of the one in question, full, i. 1120-1129. all, subject to indictment, i. 130; breaking castle to arrest for all, i. 196; meaning of word, i. 220 (2); what, bailable, i. 252; alleging time in way to disclose no, i. 404; one, set out differently in different counts, i. 426; committed in different ways, i. 434-436; bias against, whether disqualifies juror, i. 916 (2), 917; equity no jurisdiction over, i, 1412; commission of, not subject for injunction, i. 1415. procedure in couspiracy to charge with, ii. 240, 241. CRIME WITHIN CRIME, how indictment, i. 417 (2); charging, not dupli- city, i. 433. CRIME JOINT, (See JoINDER OF OFFENCES.) How indictment against perpetrators, full, i. 463-472. CRIME AGAINST NATURE. (See Sopomy.) CRIME PREJUDICIAL TO PUBLIC, right to arrest one committing, i. 169. CRIMES SEPARATE, One indictment for several, full, i. 473-476. CRIMINAL ACT, How set out the, in forgery, full, iu. 426. “CRIMINAL CASES,” what are, within constitutional provision for jury trial, i. 892 (4); higher degree of presumption required in, than civil, i. 1078. CRIMINAL CAUSE, Outline of a, full, i. 28-44. effect of agreements in, i. 125 (3); compared with civil, as to new trial, i. 1273; as to enforcing the law, i. 1275; as to writ of error, i. 1361. CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES, how jury’s oath differs in, i. 983. CRIMINAL EVIDENCE, (See EvIpENCE.) compared with civil, i. 1046 (1), 1080, 1092, 1095, 1182, 1136. CRIMINAL INTENT, (See INTENT.) allegation of, in homicide by neglect, ii. 538 (1). proof of, in libel, ii. 801. when presumed, in violating Lord’s day, ii. 818 (2). CRIMINAL PLEADING, importance of knowing, i. 44; compared with civil, i, 8320-322. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, (See JupicIAL PRocEDURE — ORDER — PROCEDURE.) Viewed historically and in general, full, i. 12-27. meaning, i. 1, 2. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, equity does not enjoin, i. 1414. 763 DAY INDEX OF SUBJECTS. CRIMINAL TRANSACTIONS, (See ANOTHER CRIME — CRIME.) Division of, into specific crimes, as to the indictment, full, i. 415-420. one, set out differently in different counts, i. 426. CRIMINATE SELF, (See WITNESS.) when accomplice must, i. 1172; defendant testifying as witness must, i. 1183; admissions by answers which, as evidence, i, 1256. witness not to, in libel, ii. 803. CRITICISM, offence given by, i. 100 a (4), note, par. 1. CROSS-EXAMINATION, rebutting, testimony drawn out on, i. 1072; not allowed as to crime not charged, i. 1122, 1123; limiting the, of defen- dant testifying, i. 1182; not, of dying declaration, i. 1218. ’ CROSS-EXAMINE, prisoner’s right to, i. 1204. CROSS-INDICTMENTS, trying together, i. 1044. CROWD, arrest of one collecting, i. 183 (8). CROWN CASE RESERVED, rehearing by, i. 1266. CROWN OFFICE. (See Master or Crown OFFICE.) CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, (See Maricrous Miscurer.) word ‘ beat” in indictment for, i. 856 (2); how indictment for torturing, i. 629 (2). CRUELTY TO PAUPER, how indictment for, ii. 828 (8). ; CUMULATIVE SENTENCES, how of, i. 1827 (2) and note. CURRENT, whether allege counterfeit coin as, in indictment for passing, ii. 259 (7). CURTESY INITIATE, tenant by, a freeholder, i. 921 (2). CUSTODY, (See PRISONER.) Escape of prisoners from, full, i. 1882-1386. proper demeanor toward one in, i. 781. CUSTOM, character is in the nature of, i. 1117. CUTTING OFF EAR, how indictment for, ii. 858. DAMAGE, (See Costs —‘* To THE DaMaGE.”) to the, of party, needless in averment, i. 647 (1); costs as parcel of, i. 1321. word, in assault and battery, ii. 57 (2). concluding to, in nuisance, ii. 862 (1, 2). DATE, DATES, how written, in indictment, i. 346; variance by needless allegation of wrong, i. 486 (2); whether allege the, in indictment on recent statute, i. 622; altering, by amendment in indictment, i. 711 (3); mistakes of witnesses as to, i. 1064. of libel, need not be alleged — when alleged, proved, ii. 802. DATE OF INSTRUMENT, setting out, in forgery, ii. 409 (1). DAY, (See DatE — Time.) whether search-warrant limit time to, i. 243 (3). alleging burglary in the, ii. 183 a. DAY OF OFFENCE, bow set out, i. 389; allegation of, proof of another, i. . 897 (1). 764 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. DEC DAY OF PUBLICATION, proof of, in libel, ii. 802. DAY SUBSEQUENT to indictment, offence laid on, i. 403 (2). DAY FOR TRIAL, court fixing, i. 950 (4). DAY OF WEEK, of offence, when and how allege, i. 399 (3). DAY AND YEAR, Of offence, whether and how allege, full, i. 387-891. DAYS MORE THAN ONE, Alleging offence on, full, i. 892-898, 402. repetitions of, i. 407, 408. DE FACTO, judge, i. 814 (1), 316 (8); prosecuting officer, indorsing indict- ment, i. 704 (2, 8). DE JURE, judge, i. 814 (1), 316 (8). DE MEDIETATE LINGUA, the jury, i. 927-930. DE NOCUMENTO AMOVENDO, writ of, how, ii. 871 (1). DEAD, no trial after defendant is, i. 950 c. DEAD BODY, importance of discovering the, in homicide, i. 1056 (3). procedure for offences against, ii. 1009-1012. DEADLY WEAPON, charging assault with, ii. 64 (2), 80 (2). that death from, is murder, ii. 601; in what degree, ii. 602. DEAF AND DUMB, girl testifying in rape, ii. 961 (8). DEAF MUTE, competent witness, i. 1143. DEAFNESS, disqualifying juror, i. 925 (2). DEATH, (See Bastarp — Homricrpn.) place of, whether determines county for trial, i. 50 (5)-52; affinity ceases with, i. 314 (2), 901 (8); from negligence of common carrier, the alle- gation, i. 542; of indorser of indictment, i. 693 (4); no trial of person after, i. 950 c; in homicide, specially proved, i. 1056 (3, 4), 1057; con- cerning sentence to, i. 1293, 1299, 1311, 1322-1324, 1336. : as caused by wound in homicide, ii. 527-529, proof of causes of, by experts, ii. 631. DEATH WARRANT, procedure as to, i. 1336. DEBT, (See FINE.) whether fine is a, i. 1304. DECEASED PERSON, how charge assault on, ii. 62. how lay ownership of goods of, in larceny, ii. 725 (1). DECEASED WITNESSES, Supplying testimony of, full, i. 1194-1206. “DECEIVE AND DEFRAUD,” inadequate in indictment for conspiracy, ii. 212. DECISIONS, correcting the, in embezzlement, ii. 380 (3). DECLARANT, competency of, in dying declaration, i. 1209 (1, 2). DECLARATIONS, (See Apmission — Conression — Dyna DECLARATIONS.) by prisoner, should be opened to jury, i. 969 (3); of the res geste, i. 1086; in presence of husband and wife, evidence, i. 1155. 765 DEF INDEX OF SUBJECTS. DECLARATIONS — continued. contradictory, in perjury, ii. 931. of complaining woman, in rape, ii. 961-963. of persons engaged in riot, ii. 1000 (1). of injured person in sodomy, ii. 1018. DECLARATIONS OF PERSON ROBBED, | as evidence in robbery, ii. 1007 a (1). DECLARATIONS OF PARTY, are not hearsay, i. 1081 (2). DECLARATIONS OF PURPOSE, proof of, in aggravated assault, ii. 67 (2). DECLARATIONS OF SECONDS, evidence by, in challenge to duel, ii. 308 (1). DECLARATIONS IN TRAVAIL, not admissible in rape, ii. 971 (2). DECLINATORY PLEAS, (See PLEA.) the, i, 787. DECLINE TRIAL, when judge may, i. 1282 (2). DECLINING TO TESTIFY, (See WITNESS.) for self, effect of defendant’s, i. 1186. DEED, (See ForGEry.) how charge, in forgery, ii. 418 a (3). DEED OF LAND, how set out, in forgery, ii. 441 (8). DEER, charge of taking, not sustained by proof of deer-skin, ii. 395 (1). DEFACING BURYING GROUND, indictment for, ii. 1011. DEFAMING OFFICER, (See SLANDER.) how indictment for, i. 530. DEFAULT, as to judgment on, i. 267, 950 a (8). DEFECT ON FACE, (See Face or INDICTMENT.) of indictment, whether move to quash for, i. 763. DEFECTIVE COUNT, whether quash one, i. 764. DEFECTIVE VERDICT, doctrine as to, i. 1004, 1005, 1011, 1014, 1016. DEFECTIVELY CONSTITUTED, how take advantage of grand jury being, i. 763 (8). : DEFECTS, In indictment cured by acquiescence and amendment, full, i. 704 a-711. DEFENCE, (See Dinatory DEFENCE.) Moving to quash as a step in the, and for what causes, full, i. 761-774. counsel’s right of, i.94; how aver matter of, i. 326, 513 (1); indictment on statute not negative matter in, i. 638; pleading different defences together, i. 749-755; anticipating, in opening to jury, i. 971 (1). DEFENCE OR PROSECUTION, juror’s connection with, whether dis- qualifies, i. 919 (1). DEFEND, Indictment to give information how to, full, i. 517-531. DEFEND SELF, (See TesTIFYING FOR THEMSELVES.) defendant may, i, 962 (1, 2), 967. 766 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. DEL DEFENDANT, DEFENDANTS, (See CounseL — Joint — SEVERAL.) Joinder of, in indictment, full, i. 75, 462 a-476. How name the, in indictment, full, i. 676-689 b. Peremptory challenges by, full, i. 941-945. Trial where more than one, full, i. 1017-1041; namely, severance and separate trials, 1018-1026 ; the joint trial, 1027-1040; where charge is sev- eral, 1041. judgment for, on demurrer, i. 781 (2); against, i. 782; before grand jury in Connecticut, i. 861 (5); not admitted to grand jury room, i. 861 (6); right of the, to challenge jurors, i. 983 (1); conducting own cause and having counsel, i. 962; statement of, i. 962 (4); opening of, to jury, i. 972, 973; evidence of accomplice for, i. 1171; not witness for self under common law, i. 1139; under statutes, i. 1181-1187; dying decla- rations of one of several, i. 1215; costs from, i. 1817; ordinary plaintiff in writ of error, i. 1363 (1); nolle prosequi as to part of the, i. LBB Bs joinder of, in perjury, ii. 936. DEFENDANT’S CHARACTER, (See CHARACTER.) What presumption from the, full, i. 1112-1119. proof of, in assault and battery, ii. 68 (2). DEFENDANT'S FAVOR, errors in, on writ of error, i. 1874. DEFENDANT'S POSSESSION, how aver forged instrument in, ii. 404. DEFENDANT UNKNOWN, statutes as to, and how proceed, i. 678. DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES, committing magistrate to hear, i. 238 (1). DEFENDING SELF, prisoner’s privileges while, i. 953, 954. DEFILEMENT OF FEMALE, conspiracy for the, ii. 244. DEFINITE, sentence to fine must be, i. 1309. DEFRAUD, “ knowingly,” in indictment for attempt to, i. 504. DEFRAUD INSURERS, indictment for arson to, ii. 45 a, 48 b, 50 (8). DEFRAUD PERSON, allegation and proof of intent to, in arson, ii. 50 (2). DEFRAUD PUBLIC, conspiracy to, ii. 243. DEFRAUDED Allegation af person to be, in forgery, full, ii. 420-425 b. DEFRAUDING GAS COMPANY, how indictment for, i. 627 (2). DEGREE OF CRIME, how, in judge’s charge to jury, i. 980 (2) ; verdict specifying the, i. 1010 (8). DEGREES, indictment where burglary is divided into, i. 83; joining different, of offence, i, 452 (5) ; joint defendants may be convicted in different, i. 472 (2), 1037 ; how the jury is to be charged as to, i. 980 (2). indictment for arson in, ii. 48 a, DEGREES OF ASSAULT Charging different, full, ii. 63-64. DEGREES IN MURDER, (See Homicrpsz.) How indictment under statutes creating, full, i. 102, ii. 561-589. the verdict, ii. 590-596. DELAY OF COURT, record to prevent injury from, i. 18438. 767 DES INDEX OF SUBJECTS. DELAY IN PROSECUTION, (See Prosecution.) bail on account of, i. 258. DELAYS, (See CONTINUANCE.) In trial of cause, effect of, full, i. 951 d-951 f. essential, in real justice, i. 23 (3). “DELIBERATELY PREMEDITATED,” In indictment for murder of first degree, full, ii. 561-589. “ DELIBERATELY AND WILFULLY,” in indictment on statute for perjury, ii. 926 (1). DELIBERATING JURY, how communicate with court, i. 998 a (1), 1000. DELIBERATING ON VERDICT, how jury conduct while, i. 998 a. DELIBERATIONS, Of jury, how conducted, full, i. 990-1000. DELIRIUM TREMENS, presumptions as to, ii. 674 (3). DELIVERED OPINION, as disqualifying juror, i. 908-910 ; juror as witness to having, i. 934 (2). DELIVERY, whether allege, in false-pretence indictment, ii. 175. proof of, in embezzlement, ii. 327 (8). DELUSIVE ARGUMENTS, judge to protect jury from, i. 981 (2). DEMAND, (See ARREST.) to open, before breaking door, i, 201. DEMORALIZING SHOW, how allege, in indictment, ii. 865 (8). DEMUR, when, i. 780 (1); right to, i. 1282 (2). DEMURRER, (See PLEADING OVER.) The, full, i. 775-786 ; namely, general, 776-780; the judgment, 781-766. for incongruous joinders, i. 424; for duplicity, i. 442 (8); after, over- ruled, arraignment, i. 730a@ (1) ; in general of, i. 741; whether add plea to, i. 749; oral, i. 790; to plea of former conviction or acquittal, i. 810 (3), 817 (1); motion in arrest compared with, i. 1286 ; right of, not bars writ of error, i. 1370. DENIAL OF GUILT, former, by accomplice, i. 1167. DEODAND, what, and forfeiture of, ii. 505. DEPENDENT, whether may be juror, i. 902 (2). DEPOSITIONS, In place of absent witness, full, i. 1194-1206. on question of bail, i. 257; jury taking with them, on retiring to deliber- ate, i. 982 a. DEPUTATION, (See PrivaTE Person.) when must be in writing, i. 189 (1). DEPUTY, (See SueriFr.) whether prosecuting officer appoint, i. 281. DESCRIPTION, of persons, places, &c., in allegation, i. 566 (2). of the stolen goods, in larceny, ii, 699-712, 729 (1), 731-7385. DESCRIPTION OF HOUSE, in bawdy-house indictment, ii. 111. 768 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. DIS DESCRIPTION OF OFFENCE, in bail, i. 264 5 (4). DESCRIPTION OF WAY, in indictment for non-repair, ii. 1045 ; for obstructing, ii. 1051. DESCRIPTIVE MATTER, prove as laid, i. 486, 488 (2), 488 a. DESCRIPTIVELY, averring thing, i. 573 (2). DESERTION of married party, not takes away incapacity to be witness, i. 1154. DESTROY, in indictment for mayhem, ii. 857 (4). DESTROYED OR LOST, (See Lost.) written testimony, i. 1199 (4). how aver forgery that is, ii. 404. DESTRUCTION, of obscene libel, ii. 794 a (8). DETAIL, How far indictment descend into, full, i. 526-531. 4 how in the indictment for malfeasance in office, ii. 826. DETAINER, (See Forcrste ENTRY AND DETAINER.) whether prove, in forcible entry, ii. 373 (2). * DEVIL.” (See ‘* INSTIGATED BY.’’) DIFFERENT DAYS, transaction on, electing day, i. 459 (2, 8). DIFFERENT GRADES of crime, separate counts for, i. 423 (4). DIFFERENT MEANS, joining, in alleging offence committed by, i. 453 (2). DIFFERENT METHODS, (See METHops.) of crime, separate counts for, i. 423 (3). DIFFERENT MODES OF TRIAL, joinder of offences requiring, i. 453 (1). DIFFERENT NATURES, joinder of offences of, i. 453 (1). DIFFERENT PUNISHMENTS, joinder of offences requiring, i. 453 (1). DIFFERENT WAYS, how allege crimes committed in, i. 420, 488, 586-588. DIFFERING FORMS, (See Name.) of same name, i. 689. DIFFERING UTTERANCES, effect of, in confession, i. 1240. DILATORY DEFENCE, (See DeFEncr.) waived by omission to plead, i. 123 (1). DILATORY PLEA OR PLEAS, (See Pra.) resorting to, i. 38 (2); how framed, i. 327, 328; at arraignment, i. 730, 730 a; what certainty in, i. 745 (2) ; when, i.746; in writing, or not, i. 789 (1). DIMINUTION OF RECORD, certiorari in cases of, i. 1379. DIRECT, (See PRECISION.) To what the rule requiring allegation to be, applies, full, i. 554-558. allegation must be, i. 508, 520 (2). DIRECT EVIDENCE, of corpus delicti, i. 1056 (4); distinguished from presumption, i. 1096. DIRECT PROOF, (See Expert — Oprnron.) is in fact presumption, i. 1073 (2), 1074; scientifically viewed, is expert opinion, i. 1177 (1). DIRECTORY STATUTE, non-compliance with, as to grand jurors, i. 875 (8). “ DISABLE,” in indictment for mayhem, ii. 857 (8). DISAGREEMENT OF JURY, nolle prosequi upon, i. 1394. VOL, II, — 49 769 DIS INDEX OF SUBJECTS. DISCHARGE, Of juror, after sworn, full, i. 946-949 b. of person whom one has arrested, i. 214 (2), 215; how of grand jury,. i. 868 (2); of defendant, on grand jury’s not finding bill, i. 8704; of prisoner for delay in trial, i. 951/, DISCHARGE DEFENDANT, after former jeopardy, i. 820, 830. DISCHARGE OF JURY, (See Jury.) for non-agreement, prisoner’s presence at, i. 272 (2); operating as acquit- tal, i. 821 (1). DISCHARGING, Bail, full, i. 264 7-264 n. DISCLOSE NAME, (See Name.) refusing to, i. 676 (3). DISCONTINUANCE, when, equivalent to nolle prosequi, i. 1891 (2), note; whether nulle prosequi is a, i. 1395. DISCONTINUE CAUSE, prosecuting officer may, i. 287 (8). DISCREDIT, how, defendant testifying for self, i. 1185. DISCRETION, (See JUDICIAL.) of judge, how guided by law in judicial procedure, i. 6 (2), 7 (2), 10; review- ing, as to change of venue, i. 72; facts addressed to the, not in indict- ment, i. 85; in bail, i. 256 (2); prosecuting officer’s, as to whether prosecute, &c., i. 287 (3)-290; of court, as to limiting counsel, i. 318 (2). DISCRETION OF COURT, view at the, i, 965 (3). DISCRETION OF OFFICER, in making arrest, i. 193 (2). DISCRETION AND RULE, (See ProcepDurRE.) in procedure, i. 6 (2), 10. DISCRETIONARY, assistance, &c., to prosecuting officer, i. 282. DISCRETIONARY PUNISHMENT, facts for, not in indictment, i. 85. DISGRACE JUROR, need not state what will, i. 934 (2). DISJUNCTIVE AVERMENTS, inadequate in conspiracy, ii. 224. in forgery, ii. 438-440; poisoning, ii. 647. DISJUNCTIVE AND CONJUNCTIVE ALLEGATIONS, = (See ‘‘Or.”) In indictment, full, i. 585-592. DISOBEYING MAGISTRATE’S ORDER, how indictment for, i. 513 (3), 529 (5), 554 (3). ; “ DISORDERLY,” in indictment for keeping bawdy-house, ii. 106 (1). DISORDERLY CONDUCT, prisoner’s, at trial, i. 272 (8). DISORDERLY HOUSE, (See Bawpy-HOUSE.) Procedure for keeping, full, ii, 272-283, namely, indictment, 273-277; evidence, 278-282; verdict, 283. indicting keepers, separaliter, i. 474 (1). DISPLEASURE OF GOD, to the, needless in averment, i. 647 (1). DISPOSAL, Of person arrested, how, full, i. 218-217. Of goods, full, i. 210-212, 218. “DISPOSE OF,” in indictment for statutory uttering, ii. 453. DISPOSITION OF CASE, agreements as to, i. 1254 a (5). 770 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. DO DISQUALIFICATION, juror stating own, i. 934 (2). DISQUALIFIES WITNESS, What, full, i, 1137-1146. “« DISSEISED,” allegation of, in forcible entry, ii. 387 (2), note. DISSENT, juror, at verdict, 1, 1003 (2). DISSENTERS, disturbing meeting of, in England, ii. 289 (1). DISSUADING WITNESS. (See TAMPERING WITH WITNEss.) DISTINCT FELONIES, proof of intent to commit, in burglary, as to duplicity, ii. 150. DISTINCT TRANSACTIONS, joining felonies in, i. 450, 451; misdemean- ors, i. 452 (5). DISTRESS INFINITE, to compel appearance of corporation, i. 950 a (3). DISTRICT, (See County.) Of the prosecution, full, i. 45-67. in what, indict crime against United States, i. 64-67 ; removal of case from one, to another, i. 223 6 (1); prosecuting officer no jurisdiction beyond own, i. 287 (2). DISTRICT ATTORNEY. (See ProsecuTinG OFFICER.) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, jury trial in, i. 891 (1). ‘« DISTURB,” in indictment for disturbing meeting, ii. 285 (8). DISTURBANCE, as evidence against bawdy-house, ii. 116. how allege the, in disturbing meetings, ii. 285 (2, 3). DISTURBER OF PEACE, how indictment against, i. 530 (2). DISTURBING MEETING, Procedure in, full, ii 284-301; namely, in general and at common law, 285-288; statutory disturbances, 289-801. allege only county in indictment for, i. 374; duplicity in indictment for, i. 441 (2); ill indictment for, i. 484 (1). DISTURBING PEACE, (See Breacu oF PEACE.) how allege, by cursing and swearing, i. 557 (2). DISTURBING PEACE OF FAMILY, indictment for, ii. 65 (1), note. “DIVERS,” “ ALL,” persons, in conclusion for nuisance, ii. 862 (3). “DIVERS DAYS AND TIMES,” allegation of, i. 388 (2), 395. ‘DIVERS LIEGE SUBJECTS,” words, in indictment for cheat, ii. 159. ‘¢ DIVERS PERSONS,” alleging, as frequenters in bawdy-house indictment, ii. 107 (2). “DIVERS QUANTITIES,” too indefinite in indictment for cheat, ii. 159 (1). DIVISION OF COUNTY, (See Counry — Pace.) effect of, on place of prosecution, i. 49 (2); on allegation, i. 49 (2), note, DIVORCE ends affinity, i. 901 (5). kidnapping child in custody under, ii. 695 (1). DO OR CAUSE, in indictment for administering poison, ii. 647. 771 DUP INDEX OF SUBJECTS. DOCK, prisoner’s occupation of, during trial, 1. 952 a-954. DOCKET, under control of court, i. 1842 (1). DOCKET ENTRIES, what, and distinguished from record, i. 1841 (8), 1842 (1); record made from, i. 1841 (8), 1842, 1344. DOCTRINE, limited by adverse doctrine, i. 120 (1). DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, Concerning, full, i. 1182-1134, DOCUMENTARY PROOFS, not unconstitutional, i. 1134. DOING AND CAUSING, uot duplicity, i. 434 (8). DOING OR CAUSING, how allegation of, i. 585 (3). “ DOLLARS,” in designation of counterfeit coin, ii. 259 (5). DOMESTICS, of embassadors, exempt from arrest, i. 207 a (2). DONE RIGHTLY, presumption that thing was, i. 1856. DOORS, Breaking, in arrest, full, i. 194-205. in serving search-warrant, i. 208 (1). DOORS BROKEN, proof of, in disorderly house, ii. 280 (2). DOUBLE PLEAS, (See Dupticiry.) And how tried, full, i. 748-752. DOUBT. (See REASONABLE DouBtT.) DOUBT OF TRUTH otf confession, excludes, i, 1224. DOUBTFUL CASE, not quash in a, i. 768 (2). DRANK, (See Foon.) _ at one’s expense, disqualifies as juror, i. 902 (2), 904. DRAWINGS, exhibiting, to jury, i. 965 (4), 982 a, 999 (3). "DRIVE AWAY,” in larceny indictment, ii. 698 (1). DRUM, taking, to prevent nuisance, i. 212. DRUNK, grand juror getting, i. 869 (2); no trial while defendant is, i. 950 ¢; juror getting, i. 999 (2); confession by one, i. 1229 (1). DRUNKARD, indictment for selling liquor to, how, i. 488 (2); whether competent witness, i. 1142. DRUNKENNESS, (See Liquor-SELLING.) not seize goods in arrests for, i. 210 (1); as breach of sureties of peace, i. 264 n; whether indictment against two for, i. 470 (4) ; disqualifying juror, i. 925 (1). defendant’s, in homicide, ii. 634. DUE, whether charge fee as, in extortion, ii. 858 (3), 359. ‘“‘DUE PROCESS OF LAW,” Constitutional provision securing, full, i. 100 a (2-4) and note. information is, meaning of phrase, i. 145 (2) ; whether provision for, gives jury trial, i. 891 (2), 892 (1). DUELLING, (See Homicrpg.) Procedure for, full, ii. 302-311. where indict, i. 61 (1). DUPLICITY, (See DousLE PLEas.) In indictment, full, i. 482-443. How take advantage of, full, i. 442, 443. 772 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. EAV DUPLICITY — continued. what is not, i. 444 (2); ill allegation does not create, i. 480 (5); good, does, i. 480 (6); in indictment on alternative clauses of statute, i. 587 (2); cured by nolle prosequi, i. 1396. not, to join assault and battery, ii. 55 (8). not, in laying assaults with aggravation, ii. 63 (3). not, to charge attempt to commit more offences than one, ii. 93. in indictment for keeping disorderly and bawdy house, ii. 106 (2). what is not, in burglary, ii. 143. what is not, in conspiracy, ii. 226. not, to charge both forcible entry and detainer in one count, ii. 388 (1). having possession of forged instruments, ii. 453; keeping gaming-house, ii. 493; kidnapping, ii. 692 (2); violating Lord’s day, ii. 815 (2). in indictment for nuisance, ii. 867 (1). DUPLICITY OF MEANS, in disturbing meeting, ii. 295. DURESS, (See Fear.) confession extorted by, i. 1237 (1). DURING TRIAL, (See TrrAt.) To verdict, the jury, full, i. 990-1000. presence of prisoner, i. 271-274. DUTY, DUTIES, (See NEGLECT — OMISSION OF.) Of prosecuting officer, full, i. 287-294. how charge breach of, i. 591 (1); official persons presumed to have done their, i, 1181. in indictment for murder by starving, ii. 558. DUTY OF COUNSEL, For defendant, full, i. 809-318. DUTY TO REPAIR, averring, in indictment for non-repair of way, ii. 1044. DWELLING-HOUSE, (See Burgtary — House.) Breaking doors of, to arrest or search, full, i. 194-209. meaning, i. 194; in search-warrant, i. 209 (1); indispensable term in alle- gation of burglary, i. 573 (8). as name of the structure in arson, ii. 34. indictment for attempt to steal in, ii. 87 et seq. in indictment for burglary, ii. 135 (2). forcible entry into, ii. 380 (1). indictment for breaking into and stealing from, ii. 778. allegation for pulling down, by riot, ii. 999 (2). DYING DECLARATIONS, As evidence, full, i. 1207-1216. as evidence in homicide, ii. 624. EACH OTHER, assault by two on, ii. 61. EARLIER RECORD, compared with final, i. 1359. EATEN, at expense of party, disqualifies juror, i. 902 (2), 904. EAVESDROPPING, Procedure for offence of, full, ii. 312, 313. 773 EMB INDEX OF SUBJECTS. “EFFECT FOLLOWING,” meaning of the words, i. 560. EFFECT AND PURPORT, averring words by the, i. 560. EFFECT OF QUASHING, not to let prisoner go free, i. 764 (4). EFFIGY, indictment for hanging man in, ii. 795. EGGS, how indictment for larceny of, ii. 707 (1). ELECT, who, the order of trial, i. 1045. ELECTION, As to steps in a criminal cause, full, i. 28-44. Compelling, on what count or evidence to proceed, full, i. 454-462; namely, as to counts, 455-458; as to transaction, 459-460; time to elect, 461, 462. of steps by defendant, i. 38; official character presumed after public, i. 191 (2); as to the form of the allegation, i. 882-3835; compelling, of counts, i. 425 (1); of offences in indictment, for duplicity, i. 442 (4); compel- ling, to cure misjoinder, i. 453 (1); as to witnesses and their order, i. 966 a (2)-966 ¢; notice of, to be proved, i. 1181. indictment for riot in disturbing, ii. 999 (8). ELECTION BET, (See Bet.) allegation of, as to time, i. 404 (2), note. ELECTION OF COUNTIES, (See County.) in which to prosecute, i. 59 (1). ELECTION OF COUNTS, in embezzlement, ii. 325 (2). ELECTION FRAUDS, “qualified voter,” in statute, not adequate in indict ment, i. 627 (1). ELECTION OF METHODS for alleging facts, i. 833 (1). ELECTION OF STEPS to show former jeopardy, i. 819. ELEMENTS, Of the indictment, full, i. 506-516 a. ELEMENTS OF OFFENCE, indictment to contain all the, i. 98 a, 100. ELUDE JUSTICE, (See Escapr.) attempt to, as evidence, i. 1250. $ EMBASSADOR, exempt from arrest, i. 207 a (2). ‘¢ EMBEZZLE,” in charging embezzlement, ii. 322, 328. EMBEZZLEMENT, (See OVERDRAWING ACCOUNT.) Procedure for, full, ii. 314-3843; namely, in general, 315-330; particular cases, 331-343. where indict, i.61 (2); how charge time in, i. 897 (4) ; joining counts for, and for larceny, i. 423 (1), 449 (3); defective allegation of, surplusage, i. 480 (5); surplusage in indictment for, vitiating, i. 482 (2); of the allegation for, i. 583 (2) ; bill of particulars in, i. 645 (1); form of ver- dict for, on indictment for larceny and, i. 1010 (8). indictment for soliciting to, ii. 74 (3). EMBEZZLEMENT AND FALSE PRETENCES, whether join, i. 449 (4). EMBEZZLEMENT AND LARCENY, whether join, i. 449 (8). EMBRACERY, Procedure for, full, ii. 844-847. 774 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. ERR ENACTING CLAUSE, (See Excuprion.) of statute, what, i. 633-635, 639; negativing exceptions in, i. 636; mean- ing of term, i. 634, 687 (8), note. ENDEAVORING TO SEDUCE, form of the indictment for, soldiers, ii. 76 (1). ENDS, when sentence, i. 1310 (8, 4). ENEMY, cannot be juror, i. 902 (3). ENFORCEMENT OF COSTS, i. 1821. ENGLISH AUTHORITIES, in embezzlement, how viewed, ii. 330 (1). ENGLISH LANGUAGE, (See UNGRAMMATICAL.) Indictment, record, &c., to be in, full, i. 840-359. all pleadings to be in the, i. 341 (3), 342, 848; what is English, i. 344- $47; when ignorance of, disqualifies juror, i. 925 (5). ENGLISH PRACTICE, in embezzlement, 11. 331-343. ENGROSSING, Procedure for, full, ii. 348-350. ENJOINING CRIME, doctrine as to, i. 1415-1417. ENMITY of defendant, in evidence, i. 1109. ENTERING, allegation and proof of, in burglary, ii. 140, 141. ENTICING, indictment for attempts by, ii. 74-76. ENTICING SLAVE, in what county prosecute, i. 58 (4), note. ENTIRE ACCUSATION, testimony of defendant for himself must cover, i. 1184. ENTIRE CASE, must prove, against defendant, i. 1059. ENTIRE CRIME, indictment must charge, i. 80, 81, 84, 98a. ENTIRE RECORD, (See Recorp.) writ of error brings under review, i. 1372. ENTIRE TRANSACTION. (See TRANSACTION.) ENTIRE TRIAL, when prisoner must be present during, i. 273. ENTRIES OF CLERK, distinguished from record, i. 1341 (38). EPILEPSY, in proof of insanity, ii. 674 (8), note. EQUITY, not the rule for decision in criminal cases, ii. 138 (3), 726 (1). EQUITY JURISDICTION, In criminal affairs, full, i. 1412-1417. EQUIVOCAL CHARGE, insufficient, i. 325 (4). EQUIVOCAL EXPRESSIONS, not good in allegation, i. 510. ERASURES in indictment, i. 338. ERECT AND CONTINUE, in indictment for nuisance, ii. 867 (2), ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTIONS, whether new trial for, which proved harmless, i. 1276. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT, habeas corpus will not free one from, i. 1410 (2). 775 EVI INDEX OF SUBJECTS. ERROR, ERRORS, (See BLUNDER — MIsTakE.) Availing of, in grand jury’s organization and doings, full, «i. 871-889, namely, general doctrine, 872-874; by challenge, 875-881; by motion to quash, 882; by plea in abatement, 8838-885; by raising question at trial, 886; after verdict, 887-889. The writ of, full, i. 1861-1874. Presumes injury, i. 1276 (2). ERROR OF JUDGE, he may correct, i. 980 a. ERROR IN PROCEEDINGS, guilt immaterial as to, i. 92; guilty man may avail of, i. 93 ERRORS OF DECISION, in embezzlement, correcting, ii. 330 (3) ERRORS OF FACT, whether writ of error reaches, i. 1369. ERRORS IN RECORD, whether writ of error reaches only, i. 1868, 1869. ESCAPE, , (See Prison BrEacu — Rearrest — Rescue.) from unlawful arrest, i. 162 (2) ; taking life to prevent, i. 161, 168; re- arrest after, i. 163 (2), 1882; right to arrest on, by verbal order, i. 178; breaking doors to arrest after, i. 203; danger of, effect on bail, i. 255 (1), effect of, on subsequent proceedings, i. 269 (3) ; how indictment for, i. 529 (1); precautions against, during trial, i. 952 a-955; defend- ant’s, as evidence, i. 1250; fine not discharged by, i. 1805; how execute sentence after, i. 1810 (5); how count period of liberty, i. 1310 (6). ESCAPE, PRISON BREACH, AND RESCUE, Procedure for, full, ii. 940-946; namely, escapes suffered by officer, 941, 942; prison breaches and escapes by prisoner, 948, 944; rescues and helps to escape from third persons, 945, 946. ESCAPED PRISONERS, Or otherwise unlawfully at large, full, i. 1882-1386. whether case proceed in absence of, i. 269 (8). ESSENTIAL IN DESCRIPTION, in allegation of place, i. 373 (8); statu- tory words which are, how indictment, i. 618. ESSENTIAL TO VERDICT, judge’s charge to jury, i. 976 (38). ESTATE, How lay and prove the, of dispossessed person in forcible entry, full, ii. 883- 386. ownership not to be laid in an, ii. 189. ESTATE AND POSSESSION, alleging, 1n forcible entry and detainer, ii. 378 (1). ESTOPPEL, what certainty in pleading an, i. 324. ESTRAY, how indictment for non-feasance as to, ii. 828 (2), 835. ESTREATING, bail, how of, i. 264 e. EVERY ESSENTIAL FACT, (See Fact.) to be proved in circumstantial evidence, i. 1076 (2). EVERY RIGHT, (See RiGcut.) Accused may avail of, full, i. 113-116. EVIDENCE, (See CrrcumstTanTIAL — INcomPpETENT— TESTIMONY.) To cover entire charge, full, i. 127-129. Of time of offence, full, i. 400-402. Specially against joint defendants, full, i. 1033, 1034. ‘ The, full, in twelve chapters, i. 10145 a-1262; namely, general rules, 776 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. EXC EVIDENCE — continued. 1045 a-1090; weight of, and reasonable doubt, 1091-1095; presumptions as, 1096-1101; some special presumptions, 1102-1131; documentary, 1182- 1134; the classes of witnesses and their testimony, 1135- 1187; excluding witnesses in waiting, 1188-1193 a; witnesses deceased or ane absent, 1194-1206 ; dying declarations, 1207-1216; extrajudicial confessions, 1216 a-1246; conduct and extrajudicial admissions, 1247-1254 ; judicial confessions and admissions, 1254 a-1262. (And for the evidence in each offence, see under title of the offence in Vol. II.) The, against participants in crime, full, ii. 12-15. meaning, i. 2 (3), 3; not, but fact, fixes county for trial, i. 51; things taken from prisoner as, i. 211 (1); obtained by search-warrant, i. 246; as to place of offence, i. 384; indictment need not aver, i. 516 (1); how show indictment was found without, i. 763 (3); of pardon, i. 847 (4) ; prosecuting officer to use care relating to the, i, 863 (1); knowledge of grand jurors as, i, 864 (1); grand jury to procure what, i. 867 (2); what, for grand jury, i. 865, 872 (5); having heard the, not disqualifies juror, i. 913 (1); order of the, i. 966-966 c, 978; sufficiency of the, de- termined by court, i. 978; judge’s charge to recapitulate the, i. 979 (1); jury determine what is the, i.979 (8); and what it proves, i. 979 (4), 989 a; whether judge may give his opinion on, i. 981; juror not take minutes of, i. 994 (2); separate trials to admit important, i. 1019 (3); insufficient, a ground for new trial, i. 1278; newly discovered, new trial for, i. 1279; new trial where one prevented from producing, i. 1280 ; whether control record by, i. 1346; when, appear in record, i. 1847; no habeas corpus for sentence contrary to, i. 1410 (5). on preliminary inquiry as to insanity, flexible, ii. 668 (1). EVIDENCE TO COMMIT, (See CommirtinG MaGisTRATE.) how much, and what, i. 223. EVIDENCE BEFORE GRAND JURY, what, i. 1208. EVIDENCE AND LAW, (See Fact — Law.) scruples against finding verdict in accord with, disqualify juror, i. 918 (2). how differently treated in judge’s charge, i. 978 (3, 4), 979. EVIDENCE AT TRIAL, not restricted to that before magistrate, i. 1202 (2). EVIL EXAMPLE, to the, needless in averment, i. 647 (1). whether in indictment for exposure of person, ii. 358 (2). EVIL INTENT, (See INTENT.) special verdict must state the, i. 1006 (4). : proof of, in false pretences, ii. 190. EX POST FACTO, (See ConsTITUTIONAL Law — STATUTE.) when statute changing place of trial is not, i. 76 (2); statutes changing rules of evidence as, i. 1089 (2). EXAMINATION, waiving the, for binding over, i. 2346 (3). EXAMINING MAGISTRATE, (See Arrest — Binpine Over.) Proceedings before the, full, i. 224 c-239 a. admitting accomplice as State’s evidence, i. 1161 (2); testimony before, when admissible at trial, i. 1197-1199; confessions and admissions be- fore, in evidence, i. 1258-1262. EXAMPLE. (See Evi, Examprr.) EXCEPTED, persons, out of pardon, i. 834, 835, 777 EXP INDEX OF SUBJECTS. EXCEPTION, EXCEPTIONS, how allegation of time as to, in limitations statute, i. 405; when indictment must negative, i. 513 (5), 513. a, 631-639; of statute, meaning of the term, i. 635 (1); referred to in enacting clause, not negative, i. 639 (5, 6); what negative, in plea of pardon, i, 847 (3); as a method to rehearing, i. 1265, 1268 (3); whether, per- mitted to State, i. 1272; lay foundation for writ of error, 1. 1368. EXCHANGE, restitution of stolen goods taken in, ii. 758 (2). EXCLUDING improper persons from trials, i. 959. EXCLUDING FROM COURT, Witnesses in waiting, full, i. 1188-1193 a. EXCULPATING DECLARATIONS, (See DEcLARATIONS.) of the res gest, how regard, i. 1087. EXCUSE. (See ALLEGE Excuse.) EXCUSED FROM SERVICE, grand jurors, i. 858 (2). EXCUSING JURORS, parties not object to, i. 926 (4). EXECUTE LAWS, prosecuting officer’s duty to, i. 289. EXECUTED MURDERERS, (See SENTENCE.) what do with bodies of, i. 1336. EXECUTION, what, and how serve, i.5; bail to one under, i. 254 (1). indictment for not returning, ii. 832. EXECUTION OF SENTENCE, (See SENTENCE.) Law and practice of, full, i. 1835-1339. by what officer, after change of venue, i. 74 (4); after escape and rearrest, i. 1884, 1885. EXECUTIVE ORDER, reprieve by, i. 1299. EXECUTIVE PARDON, (See Parpon., must be pleaded, i. 888; and produced in court, i. 839, 847 (4). EXEMPT FROM ARREST, who, i. 207a. EXEMPTIONS FROM SERVICE, (See Excusep FROM.) Not disqualify jurors, full, i. 853 (1), 926. EXERCISE OF OFFICE, what presumed from, i. 1130 (2). EXHIBIT, EXHIBITS, to jury at trial, i. 965; jury take, to their room, i. 982 a; effect of, in jury room, i. 999 (8). in homicide trials, ii. 6383 (2). of thing stolen, in larceny trial, ii. 753. EXHIBITING INFORMATION, before inferior magistrate, i. 717. EXHIBITING LIGHTS, at forbidden hour, proof of, i. 401 (2). EXHIBITION SEEN, averring, in exposure of person, ii. 352. EXHIBITS OF PERSONS, requiring, at trial, i. 965 (2). EXIGENT, addition required to name in, i. 678 (1). EXPANDING ALLEGATION, (See STATUTE.) Beyond statutory words, full, i. 623-630. for nuisance, beyond statute, ii. 868 (8, 4). ‘¢ EXPELLED,” in allegation for forcible entry, ii. 887 (2), note. EXPENSES, (See Costs — F errs.) prosecutor’s liability for, i. 691 (2). 778 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. FAC EXPERT, EXPERTS, (See Testimony — WITNESS.) As witnesses, full, i. 1177-1180. And their testimony, in insanity, full, ii. 683-687. order for, to inspect, &c., i. 959 d (3); court to determine whether one offered is, i. 989 (3); not shut out, from court-room, i. 1190 (1) ; fees of, i. 1818 (2). proof of handwriting by, in forgery, ii. 432 ¢. who, in homicide, ii. 632. as witnesses in rape, ii. 973. EXPERT TESTIMONY, In homicide, full, ii. 631, 632. EXPERT WITNESS, who, i. 1179 (1); provinces of court and jury as to, i. 1179 (2, 3); sphere of, i. 1179 (4). EXPLAINABLE CIRCUMSTANCES, in circumstantial evidence, i. 1077. EXPLANATORY ALLEGATIONS, of obscure bank paper, ii. 459. EXPOSING INFECTED PERSON, evil intent to be alleged in indictment for, i. 524, note. EXPOSURE OF PERSON, Procedure for, full, ii. 8351-355. EXPRESSED FEELINGS AND PURPOSES, (See PRESUMPTION.) The presumptions from, full, i. 1108-1111. ; EXPRESSED OPINION, whether disqualifies grand juror, i. 852 (3), 881 (2); petit juror, i. 908-915. EXPULSION AND DETAINER, when prove, in forcible entry and de- tainer, ii. 373 (2). “EXTORT,” in indictment for extortion, ii. 358 (1). EXTORTION, Procedure for, full, ii. 356-364. laying sum in, i. 406 (8); offenders may be indicted jointly, i. 469. EXTRA THE RECORD, showing facts, on motion to quash, i. 882 (2). EXTRADITED PERSON, may be tried for what, i. 2246 (2, 3). EXTRADITION, From abroad and as between States, full, i. 219-224 d. EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSIONS, And conduct, as evidence, full, i. 1247-1254. EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS, (See ConrEssion.) what are, i. 1217 (3). EXTREME CERTAINTY, (See CERTAINTY.) what and when the, i. 327 (2). EXTRINSIC FACTS, (See Fact.) showing, on motion to quash, i. 763. EXTRINSIC MATTER, averring, in forgery, ii. 415 (2). EYESIGHT, imperfections in, disqualifying juror, i. 925 (6). FACE TO FACE, (See WiTNEss.) right to meet witnesses, i. 1204; as to dying declaration, i. 1208. FACE OF INDICTMENT, (See Derect on Face.) arrest of judgment is for defects on, i. 1285 (1). 779 FAL INDEX OF SUBJECTS. FACT, FACTS, (See Every Essentra, — Law anp — MISTAKE oF.) The allegation must state, and how, full, i. 829-335. What, are for the court to find, full, i. 989-989 b. indictment must charge all in crime, i. 81, 84, 98a, 508, 509 (1), 519; prosecuting officer not to state a, not in proof, i. 298 (4); indictment must charge, not law, i. 514 (1); judge to charge law as modified by the, i. 978 (4); jury, judge of, i. 979, 989 a; admitting, in open court, i. 1245 (8); errors of, writ of error for, i. 1869; equity takes cogni- zance of, the same as do the criminal courts, i. 1413. alleging the, in riot, ii. 996. false pretence indictment must allege, not promise, ii. 166 (1). FACT AND LAW, Pleaded differently, and how, full, i. 829-335. mingled, how indictment, i. 514 (2-4); distinguished, as to granting new trial, i. 1275. FACTORS, (See EMBEZZLEMENT.) procedure against, for embezzlement, ii. 343. FAILURE OF ALIBI, consequence of, i. 1063. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, (See CONTINUANCE.) As to continuance and discharge, full, i. 951 d-951//. effect of, as to bail, i. 258. FAIR TRIAL, change of venue to procure, i. 70, 71. FALSE AFFIDAVIT. (See AFFIDAVIT.) “FALSE, FORGED, AND COUNTERFEITED,” words, in indictment for forgery, ii. 426 (6). FALSE DICE, (See GamInc.) right to arrest one using, i. 169, 170 (2), note. FALSE GRAMMAR, (See UNGRAMMATICAL ) in indictment, i. 854, 355; amendment of indictment for, i. 708 (1); not vitiates verdict, i. 1005a (1). FALSE IMPRISONMENT, (See IMPRISONMENT.) : Procedure for, full, ii. 865-368. charged in assault and battery, i. 438 (8); by confining convict in un- authorized prison, i. 1338. kidnapping is a form of, ii. 688, FALSE LATIN, formerly, in indictment, i. 348. FALSE PRETENCES, Procedure for cheating by, full, ii. 162-198; namely, indictment, 162-186; evidence, 187-198; procedure for the attempt, 194-196; questions of prac- tice, 197, 198. place of trial for, i. 53 (4), 60a (2); how charge time in, i. 297 (3); charg- ing many pretences in, not duplicity, i. 434 (2); how join participants in, i. 468 (2); in conspiracy to cheat by, how indictment, i. 516 (2); of the allegation for, i. 583 (2); indictment specify the, i. 627 (3); proving another false pretence in, i. 1127 (2). indictment for attempt to cheat by, ii. 89, note. words, in indictment for, ii. 165. conspiracy to cheat by, ii. 215. FALSE PRETENCES AND EMBEZZLEMENT, whether join, i. 449 (4), FALSE RETURN, how indictment for a, ii. 828 (1). 780 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. FEL FALSE SWEARING, (See Persury.) as to one particular, effect on another, i. 1149. FALSE TESTIMONY, How set out the, in perjury, full, ii. 915-917. Averments to show the testimony false, in perjury, full, ii. 918-920. Averment of its materiality, full, ii. 921. FALSE WEIGHTS, how indictment for selling by, ii. 159 (1). FALSEHOOD, defendant’s, about the case, i. 1252. “ FALSELY,” when equivalent for “ unlawfully and feloniously,” i. 613 (8). word, in indictment for false pretences, ii. 168. not sufficient negative of false pretence, ii. 168. in indictment for forgery, ii. 401 (1). as, “falsely forge,’’ in forgery, ii. 426 (1). in perjury indictment, ii. 922. “FALSELY CONSPIRED,” in indictment for conspiracy, ii. 241 (1). “ FALSELY FORGED,” in forgery, ii. 426 (6). FALSELY MAKING COIN, indictment for, ii. 249, 250. “FALSUS IN UNO,” &c., the maxim, in: ne i. 1149. FALSITY OF PRETENCES, proof of, in false pretences, ii. 191. FAMILY. (See SEPARATE FAMILIES.) FATHER, insanity of, in proof, ii. 675 (2). FEAR, (See ConFEssion.) confession through, i. 1237 (1); admissions under, as evidence, i. 1256. alleging, in robbery, ii. 1005. “FEAR OF GOD,” averment of not having, i. 501. same in libel, ii. 783 (2). FEAR OR HOPE, ground of excluding confession, i. 1234 (1), 1236. FEELINGS, (See STATE OF.) Presumptions from the expressed, full, i. 1108-1111. FEE DUE OR NOT, alleging, in extortion, ii. 358 (3)-360, 362 (4). FEES, (See Costs.) of experts and officers, in nature of costs, i. 1318 (2), 1819. FEIGNED ACCOMPLICE, (See ACCOMPLICE.) believing, i. 1169 (8). FELONIOUS INTENT, charging and proving, in robbery, ii. 1007. “ FELONIOUSLY,” when, in indictment, i. 534-537; instead of “pur- posely,” &c., in indictment, i. 613 (3). in indictment for arson, ii. 85, 42 (1), 48 (2). in indictment for burglary, ii. 129 (3), 180 (2). in false-pretence indictment, ii. 181. must be in’ indictment when in statute, ii. 181. in indictment for passing counterfeit coin, ii. 259 (8). in charge of embezzlement, ii. 823 (2). in forgery, ii. 426 (5). 781 FIG 5 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. “ FELONIOUSLY ” — continued. in indictment for murder and manslaughter, ii. 542, 548 (1). in larceny indictment, ii. 698 a. in indictment for statutory larceny, ii. 787. in indictment for mayhem, ii. 852. in perjury indictment, ii. 922. in indictment for rape, ii. 949, 959 (2). in attempt to rape, ii. 977. in robbery, ii. 1003. “FELONIOUSLY PRETEND,” not equivalent for “false pretences,” ii. 180 (1). FELONY, FELONIES, | (See FELonious.y.) Joining, in indictment, full, i. 449-451. where prosecute misprision of, i. 55(2); one committing, flying from arrest, i. 159 (3); duty to arrest one committing, i. 165, 166; when pri- vate person arrest for, i. 168; officer arresting for, without warrant, i. 181 (2); breaking doors to arrest for, i. 198, 199; bail in, i. 255-257; waiver of prisoner’s presence in trials for, i. 271 (2); presence during entire trial, i. 273; compared with misdemeanor, as to averment, i. 321; electing transaction in, i. 457 (2); joining felonies in one count, under ‘+ separaliter,’’ i. 474-476; how differs from misdemeanor as to plead- ing double, i. 749, 750; pleading over in, i. 754; after demurrer, i. 782; one convicted for, not juror, i. 924 (1); care of jury in cases of, i. 995, accessories before and after in, distinguished, ii. 2-4. indictment for assault and other attempt to commit, ii. 81-83. FELONY COMMITTED, charging, in indictment for burglary, ii. 143. proof of, proves intent to commit it, in burglary, ii. 148, FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR, Joining, in indictment, full, i. 445-448. distinguishable as to electing count or offence, i. 457 (1). FELONY, TREASON, MISDEMEANOR, Difference in, as to course of trial, full, i. 5838-587. FEMALE, in assault to ravish, not say victim was a, ii. 82. FERRY, indicting jointly for unlawful keeping, i. 469. FICTION OF LAW, when separate counts are a, i. 427, 428, FICTITIOUS NAME, (See NAME.) charging one by, i. 678 (3). how charge forgery of a, ii. 423. FIDUCIARY RELATION, averring, in embezzlement, ii. 323 a. FIGHT, (See CHALLENGING TO DUEL.) evidence of, in attempt to kill, ii, 662. “FIGHT TOGETHER,” in indictment for affray, ii. 17, 20, 21. FIGHTING DUEL, charge of, ii. 803. FIGURES, whether, in indictment, i. 343-346, FIGURES IN MARGIN, ‘of bill, whether aver, ii. 407 (2, 3). 782 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. FOR FILES, supplying lost papers from, i. 1899. FINAL JUDGMENT, (See JUDGMENT.) rendering, after plea or demurrer overruled, i. 755; on demurrer, i. 782- 784; no writ of error without, i. 1364, 1366; after, writ of error only method, i. 1367. FINAL RECORD, and earlier steps, compared, i. 1359. FINDING OF INSANITY, on preliminary inquiry, not receivable on main issue, ii. 668 (8). FINDING PART, (See GrRanpD JuRY.) of indictment by grand jury, i. 701 (1). FINE, And its incidents, full, i. 1800-1309. enforceable by indictment, i. 130; bail on execution for, i. 254 (1) note; appearance by attorney in case of, i. 268 (2); presence of defendant in case of, i. 275 (1), 276 (2); how of, when persons are indicted jointly, i. 1085 (2); defendant not present at, i. 1291 (1), 1302. FINE OR IMPRISONMENT, sentence to, i. 1307. FIRE INQUEST, admissions before, i. 1255. FIRING GUNS, to the public disturbance, ii. 844. FIRM, how charge forgery to defraud a, ii. 424. FIRST DEGREE, - How indictment for murder in, full, ii, 561-589. FIRST ERROR, (See Error.) judgment in demurrer against party committing, i. 777 (3). FISH, how indictment for larceny of, ii. 707 (2, 3). throwing fishermen out of employment by diminishing, not a nuisance, ii. 878. FISHING IN STREAM, how aver, i. 574, “FLASH NOTE,” ‘how set out, in false-pretence indictment, ii. 183 (3). FLED FROM JUSTICE, How take persons who have, full, i. 219-224 6. FLEEING FROM JUSTICE, what is, i. 220 (3). FLIGHT, danger of, effect on bail, i. 255 (1); defendant’s, as evidence, i. 1250. FOLLOW LAW, duty of jury to, i. 987. FOOD, (See Dranx — NecEssaries — WITHHOLDING.) jury to be supplied with, i. 997. FOOTPRINTS, (See IDENTITY.) as presumptive evidence of identity, i. 1097 (2). evidence of, in arson, ii. 53 (6). FORCE, employ what, in arrest, i. 159 (2). how allege the, in forcible entry and detainer, ii. 379, 380. “FORCE AND ARMS,” (See With Force anp Arms.) in assault and battery, ii. 57 (2). whether, in indictment for forcible entry, ii. 371, 380 (1). needless to charge homicide with, ii. 503 (2). allegation of, in libel, ii. 783 (2). 783 FOR INDEX OF SUBJECTS. “FORCE, WITH,” whether “violently ” equivalent for, i. 613 (14). FORCIBLE DETAINER, how allegation for restitution of premises in, i. 372 (8). FORCIBLE ENTRY, right to arrest one committing, i. 170 (1); allegation of time in, i. 410, 413 (3); repugnancy in indictment for, i. 490 (2). FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER, Procedure for, full, ii. 869-388; namely, under English common law, 371- 373; under old English statutes, 374-877; modern procedure with us, 378- 388. j FORCIBLE TRESPASS, Procedure for, full, ii. 889-395. «“« FORCIBLY,” in indictment for rape, ii. 959 (1). FOREIGN BANK, general evidence of existence of, ii. 469. FOREIGN COUNTRY, Procedure as to goods stolen in, and brought to our own country, full, ii. 727- 729. FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, indictment for libel on officer of, ii. 798. FOREIGN LANGUAGE, (See LANGUAGE.) How allege words in, full, i. 564, 565. how allege libel in, ii. 792 (2). FOREIGN LAW, court decides on proof of, i. 989 (8). FOREIGN NATIONS, Surrendering fugitives from justice to, full, i. 224-224 b. FOREIGN SOVEREIGN, and his agents, exempt from arrest, i. 207 a (2). FOREIGN WORDS, (See Worps.) made English by adoption, allowable in indictment, i. 347 (1). FOREIGNER, (See ALIEN.) Jury for trial of, full, i. 927-9380. FOREMAN, of grand jury, i. 697; how name of, on indictment, i. 698; of grand jury, i. 861 (2). FORESTALLER, how indictment against common, i. 530 (2). FORESTALLING, Procedure for, full, ii. 396, 397. FORFEIT RECOGNIZANCE, (See RECOGNIZANCE.) How, full, i. 264 7-264 n. ; FORFEITING bail, doctrine and practice of, i. 264 f. FORFEITURE, Of recognizance, and mitigating, full, i. 264 f-264 n. prosecuting officer to collect, i. 264 n; interest in, disqualifies to be juror, i. 907 (1). “FORGE OR CAUSE TO BE FORGED,” in forgery indictment, ii. 438. “FORGE AND COUNTERFEIT,” in forgery, ii. 426 (1, 3). ‘“ FORGED,” in indictment for forgery, ii. 418 (1). in indictment for uttering, ii. 440. 784 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. FOR FORGED BANK-BILLS, Procedure for forging and uttering, full, ii. 445-460. ‘“ FORGED OR COUNTERFEIT,” words, in indictment for forgery, ii. 440. FORGED INSTRUMENT, How set out the, in forgery, full, ii. 403-412 et seq. producing, in forgery trial, ii, 438 (1). FORGED TOKENS, (See CoUNTERFEITING.) whether “ knowingly ” in indictment for uttering, i. 504. FORGED WRITING DESTROYED, proof of, in forgery, ii. 430 (2). FORGERY OF WRITINGS, (See PossEssIon.) Procedure for, and kindred offences, full, ii. 398-486 ; namely, in general of indictment, 899-426; in general of evidence, 327-436; in particular forms of offending and law, 437-474; questions of practice, 475-486. place of trial for, i. 53 (4), 61 (1); prisoner’s presence on motion for new trial in, i, 276 (2); what not duplicity in indictment for, i. 435; allega- tion of seal, recording needlessly alleged, i. 486 (5) and note; whole instrument charged, proof of part, i. 488 d (3); to defraud bank, proof of order on cashier, 488 e (3); variance in proof of, i. 483 e (3); charge of forged bond binding one, repugnant, i. 490 (1); incompatibility of pur- port and tenor clauses, i. 490 (1); averring knowledge in, i. 504; indict- ment for concealing, i. 523 (2); of lost or destroyed instrument, how, i. 553 (2); averment in, i. 554 (5); indictment for forging “ warrant or order,” i. 588 (2); when instrument described with word ‘ or,’’ i. 590 (2); special verdict in, i. 1007 (2); intent to defraud in, when conclu- sive, i. 1098 (2); proof of another, i. 1126 (2), 1127 (1). indictment for counterfeiting coin how differs from, ii. 250. FORGERY AND UTTERING, whether join, i. 449 (6). FORGING AND UTTERING FORGED BANK-BILLS, Procedure for, full, ii. 445-460. how charge both, ii. 442 (1). whether, distinct offences, ii. 481. FORM, FORMS, (See OuTwarp — SUPERVISING.) of indictment, i. 182, 183; of information, i. 146; adherence to, i. 322; of the addition, i. 675a; different, of same name, i. 689; of plea of not guilty in writing, i. 795 (3), 796; of plea of autrefois convict or acquit, i. 808 (3), 810 (1); substantial allegations, i. 810 (2), 814, 829; of plea of pardon, i. 847 (2); of grand jury’s oath, i. 856 (2); of plea in abate- ment as to grand jury, i. 884.4; no special, for judge’s charge to jury, i. 976 (2); of special verdict, i. 1006, 1006 a; of partial verdict, i. 1010, 1011; of verdict assessing punishment, i. 1012 (4, 5); of dying declar- ation, and how delivered, i. 1213; of nolle prosequi, i. 1891 (2). (And see under the titles of the offences in the second volume.) FORM AND CONTENTS, Of record, full, i. 1847-1360. FORM OF COUNT, i. 429-431. FORM OF STATUTE. (See Acarnst Form or.) FORM OF WORDS, (See Worps.) proof need not be in same, i. 488 e (1). VOL. 11. — 50 785 FRE INDEX OF SUBJECTS. FORMAL ALLEGATIONS, Some needless, connected with the essential averments, full, i. 499-504. amendment of, i. 97 (8). FORMALITIES, at rendition of verdict, i. 1001 (6-8), 1002 et seq. FORMER ACQUITTAL, plea of, special, i. 799 (8). FORMER CONVICTION, plea of, special, i. 799 (8). FORMER INSTANCES, of ill-conduct in disorderly house, ii. 279 (2). FORMER. JEOPARDY, (See AuTREFoIs Acquit — AUTREFoIS AT- raint— AuTREFoIs Convict — JEopaRDY — SECOND.) Plea and practice in, full, i. 805-831; namely, in general, 805-807 ; autre- fois convict and autrefois acquit, 808-817 ; methods where these pleas not available, 818-831. the certainty required in plea of, i. 323 (4); indictment to allege what will enable prisoner to plead, i. 543, 544; burden of proof on plea of, i. 1048 (2). what, in riot, ii. 1000 (2). FORMER OCCASION, when produce testimony of witness on a, i. 1195, 1196. FORMER TESTIMONY, of witness, how prove, i. 1196 (2). FORMER TRIAL, (See Prior Conviction.) when produce witness’s testimony on a, i. 1196. FORMS OF ADMISSION, as evidence, i. 1247 (4). FORMS OF BAIL, How as to, full, i. 264-264 e. FORMS IN DOUBLE PLEADING, i. 751. FORMS OF LAW, Compliance with, essential to just conviction, full, i. 89-94. FORMS OF SEARCH-WARRANTS, i. 242, 243. FORNICATION, whether conviction for, on indictment for rape, i. 419. conspiracy falsely to charge with, ii. 241 (2), 244. proving, on indictment for rape, ii. 956. “FOUND,” not necessary in larceny indictment, ii. 697 (2). FRAMED AND PLEADED, How the pleas are, full, i. 744-757; namely, in general, 745-747; double pleas and how tried, 748-752 ; pleading over, 753-756 ; formalities, 757. FRAUD, (See Carat.) in hail. effect of, 1. 263 a (2); joining offences in, i. 452 (2). FRAUDULENT INTENT, Averment of. in forgery, full, ii. 420-425 b, “FRAUDULENTLY,” when indictment must have word, i. 533 (2); whether equivalent for “ unlawfully and feloniously,” i. 618 (11). in charge of embezzlement, ii. 323 (1). in indictment for possessing, with intent to pass, ii. 465. FREEHOLDER, whether grand juror must be,i. 851 (3) ; what, and whether petit juror, i. 921. FREEMAN AND SUBJECT, grand juror to be a, i. 851 (1, 2). FRENCH, use of, in pleading, i. 311 (1). FREQUENTERS, reputation of, in proof against bawdy-house, ii. 112 (2). 786 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. GEN FRESH INDICTMENT, |, (See Binpine OVER.) holding for, after quashing, i. 229 (2). FRESH RECOGNIZANCE, on quashing, i. 264 kh, 264. FRESH WARRANT, (See WARRANT.) when not necessary for rearrest, i. 1383. FRIEND, (See BENEFIT A,) whether can be juror, i. 902 (4). FRIENDLY RELATIONS, and otherwise, evidence of, in homicide, ii. 630 (1). “FROM THE PERSON,” in indictment for assault to rob, ii. 84. “FROM THE POSSESSION,” not necessary in larceny indictment, ii. 698 (2). FRUITS OF CRIME, as evidence in robbery, ii. 1007 a (7). FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE, (See Escarep PRISONERS.) As between the States, full, i. 220-223 a. As between States, United States, and Territories, full, i. 223 b. Under treaties with foreign nations, full, i. 224. Further of unlawful seizures and both surrenders, full, i. 224 a, 224 0. surrender of, as release from bail, i. 2642 (2). FUGITIVES FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER, Arresting, full, i. 220-223 a, 224 a, 224 b. FULL AND ACCURATE, (See PREcISION.) should be judge’s charge to jury, i. 980. FULL PANEL, (See IMpANELLING AND CHALLENGING.) less than, of petit jury, i. 898 (2, 3). FULLY, SUBSTANTIALLY, FORMALLY, constitutional provision for alleging, i. 101 et seq. FUNDAMENTAL AXIOMS, decisions contrary to, not bind future, ii. 585 (2), 587. GAMING, (See Fatse Dicz — Lottery.) not break doors to prevent, i. 197; allege only county in indictment for, i, 8374; indicting several for, ‘‘ separaliter,’’ i.476; what exceptions the indictment for, must negative, i. 689 (4); in what terms, i. 641 (7). GAMING-HOUSE, Procedure for keeping, full, ii. 487-494; namely, common-law offence, 488, 489; statutory forms of the offence, 490-494. may allege keeping, with continuando, i. 388 (2). GAMING IMPLEMENTS, (See Farse Dice.) search-warrant for, i. 241 (5). GAS COMPANY, how indictment for defrauding, i. 627 (2). proceedings against, for rendering water of river unwholesome, ii. 878. “ GELDING,” in indictment, for “cattle” in statute, i. 619; whether and when, equivalent for ‘‘ horse,”’ i. 620 (2). GENERAL ALLEGATION, permissible or not, i. 580, 581. GENERAL GOOD CHARACTER, whether in evidence, i, 1113-1115. GENERAL ISSUE, (See IssuE.) what is the, i. 748, 794a; what certainty in the, i. 745 (8). 787 GRA INDEX OF SUBJECTS. GENERAL KNOWLEDGE, jurors may act on their, i. 982, 998 a (8). GENERAL PLEADING, when permissible, i. 497, 498. GENERAL REPUTE, (See Hearsay.) evidence of, on indictment against bawdy-house, ii. 112 (2)-115. GENERAL AND SPECIAL OWNER, laying ownership of goods having, in larceny, ii. 720, 721. GENERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE, (See EvipENcE.) The, full, i. 1045 a-1090; namely, some preliminaries, 1046, 1047; burden of proof, 1048-1051; covering whole issue, 1052-1055; corpus delicti and identity, 1056-1060; alibi, 1061-1068; other evidence in rebuttal, 1069- 1072; circumstantial evidence, 1078-1079; best evidence and res geste 1080-1087 ; statutory changes, 1088-1090. GENERAL OR SPECIAL, demurrers are either, i. 777 (1), 778. GENERAL VERDICT, (See Verpicr.) permissible always to jury, i. 1008 (2). GENERIC TERMS, ' (See Terms — Worps.) not employ in allegation, i. 568. GEORGIA, practice in, as to presentments, i. 139. GODFATHER, whether, can be juror, i, 901 (1). GOOD, (See Error.) no new trial for error which brought, i. 1276. GOOD AND BAD COUNTS, sentence on, i. 1332. GOOD FAITH, how protects arresting officer, i. 159 (2), 205. GOODS, (See PersonaL Properry — STOLEN.) Seizing under search-warrant, full, i. 208, 209. Taking, from arrested person, full, i. 210-218. description of the, in search-warrants, i. 244, 245 ; in indictment, i. 575. description of the, in larceny, ii. 699 et seq. “GOODS AND CHATTELS,” words, in indictment for larceny, ii. 699, 736 (2). GOSPELS, alleging oath to be on the, ii. 918 (2). GOVERNMENT, (See ProsecuTine OFFICER — STATE.) Prosecuting counsel for the, appointment, compensation, duties, powers, full, i. 278-294. GOVERNMENT AND JUSTICE, : Procedure for obstructing, full, ii. 879-898; namely, assaulting or resisting officer, 881-895; other obstructions, 896-898. GOVERNOR, duty of, as to fugitives from justice, i. 221-223. GRADE OF OFFENCE, increased by statute, indictment statutory, i. 595 (3). : GRADES, (See DEGRERS.) how verdict for offences in, i. 1005 a (2). GRAMMAR, (See UNGRAMMATICAL.) how far regarded in pleading, i. 348-355. GRAND JUROR OR JURORS, whether names of, should appear in cap- tion, i. 666; as witnesses to what transpired before them, i. 857 (1), 858 ; cannot be petit juror, i. 911 (2). 788 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. GUI GRAND JURY, (See Juror — Jury.) Altering the findings of, full, i. 96-98. Indorsement of indictment by, full, i. 695-701. The, and its doings, full, three chapters, i. 849-889 ; namely, how constituted and organized, 849-860; proceedings before, 861-870 b; availing of errors in organization and doings of, 871-889. instructing the, i. 35 (2); right to have, secures what accusation, i. 88 (2); doings of, as to bail, i. 257; amendment of indictment by, i. 709; authorizing amendments, i. 710; pleading defect in, or its doings, i. 791 (2); admissions before, i. 1255. GRAND JURY ROOM, offence of stealthily approaching, ii. 313, note. GRAND AND PETIT LARCENY, value distinguishing, ii, 718 (2), 716 (8). GRANDFATHER, insanity of, in proof, ii. 675 (2). GRAVE. (See SEPULTURE.) «GREAT SCANDAL,” whether, in indictment for exposure of person, ii. 353 (1). GROUNDS FOR ADMITTING accomplice as witness, i. 1162. GUARD, (See ‘‘ ONE In AUTHORITY. ’’) confession to, i. 1238 (1). GUARDIAN AD LITEM, minor defending by, i. 959 e. GUEST, ownership not in, but landlord, in burglary, ii. 138 (6). GUILT, (See BeLrer or — INFamy.) Opinion of, as disqualifying juror, full, i. 908-910. whether, a ground for counsel refusing to defend, i. 94, 309; doubt of prisoner’s, as to bail, i. 256 (2), 257, 260 (2); confession in answer to question assuming, i. 1228; acts inferring, in evidence, i. 1249. GUILTY, (See PLEA.) Plea of, full, i. 794 a-801. the, punished only in compliance with law’s forms, i. 89; plea of, oral, i. 788 (2), 790; distinguished from nolo contendere, i. 804; how the single word, in verdict, i. 1005 a (2); plea of, by one joint defendant, trial proceed against the other, i. 1025 (1); as to punishment, i. 1025 (2); on plea or verdict of, sentence follows, and when, i. 1229 (1); plea of, under fear, writ of error, i. 1369. verdict of, in murder, ii. 640. GUILTY OF ALL CHARGED, how the verdict finding, i. 1005 @ (2). GUILTY KNOWLEDGE, (See ANOTHER CRIME.) other instances in proof of the, i. 1126. alleging, in receiving stolen goods, ii. 986; proving, ii. 991. “ GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER,” verdict of, ii. 641. GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY, court entering, from jury’s finding of facts, i. 1018 (2). GUILTY OF PART, silent as to residue, verdict, i. 1011. GUILTY OF PART CHARGED, how verdict of, i. 1005 a (8). 789 HIS INDEX OF SUBJECTS. HABEAS CORPUS, What, and doctrine of, full, i. 1406-1411. in behalf of fugitive from justice, i. 223 a, 224 (5); to correct irregularities in committment, i. 236 (1); for surrender of principal by bail, i. 250 (2); where court no jurisdiction, i. 816 (1); no, as to former jeopardy, i. 821 (2). HAM, how indictment for larceny of, i. 709. HAND. (See Hotprne Ur.) HANDOUFF, (See Irons.) right to, arrested person, i. 163 (1), 214 (1) and note. HANDKERCHIEEFS, how indictment for larceny of, ii. 710 (7). HANDWRITING, Proof of, in forgery, full, ii. 482-483. non-expert opinion of, i, 1178. HARMLESS, (See Goon.) wrong charge which is, i. 980 (7). HATE, observations evincing, in aggravated assault, ii. 67 (3). HATE OR LOVE, declarations in evidence of, ii. 626 (2). HAVING IN POSSESSION, Counterfeit coin with intent to pass it, full, ii. 265-268, laying intent in indictment for, i. 523 (2). HEAD OF FAMILY, is householder, i. 921 (3). HEALTH, (See Sicx.) danger to prisoner’s bail, i. 259 ; things needful to, given jury, i. 997. one’s declarations as to his, ii. 626 (1). HEARSAY, whether evidence of insanity, ii. 687 a (8). HEARSAY EVIDENCE, (See EvipENCE.) Doctrine of, full, i. 1081, 1082. HEREDITARY INSANITY, as to, ii. 675 (2). “‘ HERETOFORE USED,” constitutional provision, whether gives jury trial, i. 892 (2). HIDING, by defendant, as evidence against him, i. 1250. HIGH SEAS, what constitutes murder on the, i. 51 (3); where try homicide on, i. 58 (3); and other crime, i. 65; how allege offence on, i. 382 (2), note. HIGHER COURT, supervising lower. as to petit jury, i. 949, HIGHEST COUNT, sentence on, i. 1381. HIGHWAY. (See Way.) HIGHWAY ROBBERY, how indictment for, ii. 1008 a. ‘¢ HINDER,” . in indictment for disturbing meeting, ii. 285 (3). HISTORICAL, As to allegation and proof of place, full, i. 862-367. HISTORICAL FACTS, counsel may allude to, i. 975 (2). 790 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. HOM HISTORICAL VIEW, Of indictment in homicide, full, ii. 497-500. HISTORY, (See AppiT1on — PLEA.) Of the addition in pleading, full, i. 671-675 a. HOLD FOR TRIAL, (See Arrest — Brnpine over — Court.) How, full, i. 224 c-239 a. Bail, full, i. 247-264 n. HOLDING DEFENDANT, (See PRISONER.) after quashing indictment, i. 771 (2). HOLDING UP HAND, at arraignment, i. 732. HOLDING BEFORE MAGISTRATE, for complaint to be ie i. 234. HOLIDAY, whether verdict rendered on, good, i. 1001 (3). HOMICIDE, (See Cuitp Murper — Deatu — DUELLING.) Dying declarations as evidence in, full, i. 1207-1216. As to the allegations common to manslaughter and murder, full, ii. 495-539; namely, historical and general view, 497-500 ; indictment in outline, 501- 505; specific questions, 506-536; where no assault or battery, 537-588 a; statutory changes of rules, 539. As to the allegations distinguishing common-law murder from manslaughter, full, ii. 540-539. As to the indictment and verdict for murder under statutes dividing it into de- grees, full, ii. 560-596 ; namely, indictment, 561-589; verdict, 590-596. As to the evidence, full, ii. 597-637; namely, presumptions and burden of proof, 599-608; character, conduct, and utterances of deceased, 609-627 ; same of defendant and his relations with deceased, 628-630; expert testimony, 631, 632 ; other questions of evidence, 633-637. As to questions of practice, full, ii. 638-642. 1s ‘to the attempt, full, ii. 643-663; namely, by poisoning, 644-650; by vio- lence, 651-663. in what county the indictment for, i. 50-53; blow in one jurisdiction, death in another, i. 50 (5)-56; divided into degrees, effect of constitu- tional provisions on form of indictment, i. 102; indictment omitting means and circumstances, i. 104 (2)-106; when unlawful in making arrest, i, 159 (2), 183 (8); breaking doors to prevent, i. 197 ; how allege place of, i. 374; acts in, charged or done on more days than one, i. 392 (2); when and how repeat time and place in, i. 408 (3), 411 (2); if blows are not joint, indictment not, i. 470 (2); proof of, to avoid variance, i. 488 ¢ (2); where name is unknown, i. 495 (1, 2); how indictment for, as civil injury, i. 542; alleging, of unknown persons, i. 548; allegation when manner unknown, i. 553 (1); words “reasonable creature” in indictment for, i. 615; procuring inspection of exhibits in, i. 959 d (3); whether all who witnessed, must be called, i. 966¢; special verdict in, i. 1007 (8); partial, i. 1010 (8); joint defendants differently convicted for, i. 1037, note; death to be specially proved in, i. 1056 (3, 4), 1057; what declarations in, of the res geste, i. 1086 (2); unlawful act of, when presumed of malice aforethought, i. 1098 (3); evidence of another, not admissible, i. 1124. indictment against participants, ii. 5 (1), note. indictment for, in affray, ii. 29. by killing in a duel, ii. 302, 303. possession of goods taken by robbery as evidence in, ii. 747 (2). 791 HUS INDEX OF SUBJECTS. HOMICIDE BY SHOOTING, how special verdict for, i. 1006 (5). HOPE OF BENEFIT, (See BENEFIT A FRIEND.) effect of, on admissibility of confession, i. 1223 (2). HOPE OR FEAR, ground of excluding confession, i. 1234 (1), 1236. HOPE OF RECOVERY, renders dying declaration inadmissible, i. 1212 (8). HORSE-STEALING, (See Larceny.) allegation of value in, i. 541; how describe the animal in, i. 619, 620, not allege and prove value in, ii. 713 (4). HOSTILE, no new trial to show witness, i. 1279. HOSTILE FEELING, evidence of, in arson, ii. 53 (5). HOSTILITY, disqualification of, to be juror, i. 902 (8). HOUR of offence, when allege, i. 399 (2, 4). whether and how allege, in burglary, ii. 131-133. HOUR OF DAY, arrest on any, i. 207 (1). HOUSE, (See DweLLInG-HOUSE.) when officer enter, to suppress disturbance, i. 183 (4); word, how in in- dictment for burglary, i. 573 (8, 4). as name of the structure in arson, ii. 34. word, in indictment for burglary, ii. 135 (2). in indictment for disorderly house, ii. 276 a. keeping, for gambling, the procedure for, ii. 490, 491. HOUSE-BREAKING. (See Bureiary.) HOUSE, DISORDERLY. (See DisorpErty Hous.) HOUSE OF ILL-FAME, (See Bawpy-HOoUsE.) whether prosecution for, criminal, i. 892 (4). HOUSE OF LORDS, how carry case to, by writ of error, i. 1362 (1). HOUSE OF REFUGE, for reformation, i. 1838, note. “HOUSE OF WORSHIP,” in disturbing meeting, ii. 298. HOUSEHOLDER, whether grand juror must be, i. 851 (8); grand juror not being, how take advantage of, i. 884; what, and whether petit juror, i. 921. HOW MANY, compose grand jury; i. 854, 855; constitute petit jury, i. 897 (2-4) ; witnesses, i. 1148. HOW SWORN, witness before grand jury, i. 868 (4); unduly sworn, i. 873. HOW TRIED, (See DousLte PLEas.) the pleas in double pleading, i. 752, HOW WILL BE TRIED, asking prisoner, i. 733 6. HUMAN BEING, arson of house containing a, how charge, ii. 40. in indictment for homicide, ii. 506 (2). HUMAN SPECIES, in assault to ravish, not say victim was of, ii. 82. HUSBAND, evidence on indictment against, for killing seducer of wife, ii. 95. whether ownership in burglary to be laid in, ii. 188 (3). charging, with murder of wife by neglect, ii. 559. HUSBAND’S CONSENT, to wife’s assault in his presence, presumed, ii. 66 (2). 792 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. IMP HUSBAND AND WIFE, (See Maritat Corrcion — WIFE.) Witnesses for and against each other, full, i. 1151-1155. joint battery by, i. 469; when separate trials of, to render evidence ad- missible, i. 1019 (4, 5); dying declarations of, i. 1210; declarations of, in evidence, i. 1248 (1). as witnesses against accessory, ii. 15 (4). ‘arson as between, ii. 50 (5). witnesses for or against each other in assault and battery, ii. 69. joinder of, in indictment for keeping bawdy-house, ii. 109. relationship of, as evidence in homicide, ii. 630 (1). how lay ownership as between, in larceny, ii. 726. evidence of ownership as between, ii. 752 (4). IDEM SONANS, (See Name.) in name, i, 688. IDENTIFICATION, as reason for requiring name, i. 677 (1). IDENTIFYING MATTER, Allegation of, full, i. 566-584. indictment on statute must contain, i. 625. in charge of receiving stolen goods, ii. 982, 983. IDENTITY, (See Footprints. ) Proof of the, full, i. 1060. of person and offence, in autrefois convict or acquit, i. 814 (2, 3); how prove, i. 816 (4); of offence indicted with that on trial, not disputable, i. 872; liability of witnesses to mistake, i. 1064; showing another crime in proof of, i. 1129; non-expert opinion of, i. 1178; proof of prisoner’s, after escape and rearrest, i. 1384, 1385. IDENTITY OF OFFENCE, altering, by amendment, i. 711 (3); before grand jury and on trial, i. 872 (6). IDIOCY. (See Insanity.) IGNORANCE, wilful, not excuses allegation, i. 549, 550. ILL. (See Prisoner IL.) ILL-CONSIDERED LEGISLATION, in dividing murder into degrees, ii. 566-570. ILL-FAME. (See Bawpy-House — Hous or.) ILLEGAL BODY, grand jury, plea in abatement for, i. 884 (2); further as to, i. 889. ILLEGAL WARRANT, (See WARRANT.) when, justifies arrest, i. 187 (2). ILLEGITIMATE CHILD, how charge murder of, by withholding food, ii. 558 (2). ILLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS, counsel drawing, i. 975a (1). IMMATURE AGE, (See Acre —InFant.) as disqualifying witness, i. 1144; confessions of persons of, how regarded, i. 1231. IMMEDIATE DEATH, (See Drearu.) belief of, test of dying declaration, i. 1212 (2-4), “IMMEDIATELY,” not a substitute in allegation for “then and there,” i. 409. ‘¢TMPANEL,”’ meaning of the verb to, i. 931, 960 (1), note. 793 IN INDEX OF SUBJECTS, IMPANELLING, how, as to grand jury, i. 849 et seq.; jurors, meaning of, i. 981. IMPANELLING AND CHALLENGING, (See Fut Pane .) The petit jurors and the panel, full, i. 930 a-945; namely, in general, 931- 933; challenge for cause, 934; peremptory challenge, 935-945. IMPARTIAL, grand juror must be, i. 852 (1). IMPEACH WITNESS, no new trial merely to, i. 1279. IMPEACHMENT, as to alleging exact words in, i. 20 (2). IMPEDIMENT, distinguished from excuse, as to juror, i. 926. IMPENDING DEATH, (See Deatu — DecLaraTions.) Declarations under sense of, as evidence, full, i. 1207-1216. belief of, test of dying declaration, i. 1212 (2-4). IMPERFECT ALIBI, (See AxrzI.) as evidence, i. 1067. IMPERFECT INDICTMENT, verdict on, i. 1005 (4, 5). IMPERFECT VERDICT, (See VeRDICT.) in libel, ii. 806 (3). IMPLEMENTS OF CRIME, (See ‘*Ciuss,” &c.—Gamine ImpPLE- MENTS — INSTRUMENTS.) exhibiting, at trial, i. 965 (1), 982a; discovered through inadmissible confession, as evidence, i. 1242. IMPLICATION, election of counts or offence by, i. 461 (3). IMPLIES REMEDY, (See Ricut.) right conferred by statute, i. 113 (1). IMPORTATION PROHIBITED, how indictment for, i. 633 (8). IMPOSSIBILITY, IMPOSSIBILITIES, not reasonable dount, i. 1094 (2). courts cannot establish, as law, ii. 585 (2), 587. IMPOSSIBLE, (See NEcEssitTy.) averment of the, in indictment, ii. 6a. IMPOSSIBLE DAY, laying offence on, i. 408 (8). IMPOUNDING LIBEL, whether, ii. 806 a. IMPRISONMENT, (See Fats.) Procedure on escape from, full, i. 1882-1386. Habeas corpus to set free from, full, i. 1410. as release from bail, i. 2647 (2); no sentence to, in absence of prisoner, i. 275 (2); time and manner of executing sentence to, i. 1310, 1811; how successive periods of, i. 1327; how sentence to, executed, i, 1837, 1338. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT, (See Fine.) laws abolishing, do not affect fine, i. 1804. IMPRISONMENT EXPIRED, habeas corpus where one is detained after, i. 1410 (4). IMPRISONMENT OR FINE, (See Fine.) sentence to, i. 1307. IMPROPERLY FOUND, how show indictment, i. 763 (8). IMPURITIES OF LANGUAGE, In indictment, full, i. 8348-359. “IN,” (See Pracr.) equivalent to “at,” in allegation of place, i. 878 (2). ‘IN CONTEMPT,” whether allege, in indictment, i. 647 (1). 794 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. IND IN NAME OF STATE, (See Srare.) requiring indictment to be, i. 652, 652 a. “IN PEACE,’ words, in indictment, i. 502 (2). needless in indictment for homicide, ii. 504. ‘ “IN THE STATE,” statutory words, in challenge to duel, ii, 306 (2). INACCURATE, charge partly correct, i. 980 (5). INADEQUATE VERDICT, (See Verpicr.) in form or substance, i. 1004, 1005. INADEQUATELY ALLEGED, part of two crimes, in duplicity, i. 440. INADMISSIBLE CONFESSION, confirmed by search, how in evidence, i. 1242. INARTIFICIAL STRUCTURE of indictment, i. 511 (1). INCIDENTAL OR OF DIRECT SUBSTANCE, Difference, in allegation, full, i. 554-558. INCITING TO RIOT, indictment for, ii. 999 (4). INCOMPETENT, grand juror, plea in abatement for, i. 884 (1). INCOMPETENT EVIDENCE, (See EvipENCE.) as to one defendant, admitted as to the other, i. 1034; whether new trial for admission of, which did not influence result, i. 1276. INCOMPETENT GRAND JUROR, effect of one, i. 856 a (1). INCOMPETENT AS TESTIMONY, what is, would be in dying declaration, 1.1211. INCONCLUSIVE, (See AxrB1.) effect of alibi being, i. 1062 (2). INCONGRUITY, in joinder of offences, i. 446 (2). INCONSISTENCY in description, bad, i. 572 (1). INCORPORATION, needless allegation of, ii. 458. INCORPORATION OF BANK, whether set out, in forgery and uttering of its bills, ii. 454, 455. INDECENT LANGUAGE, (See Breacu or Pacts.) breach of peace may be by, i. 183 (5). INDEFINITENESS, what, spoils indictment, i. 108 (1). INDEPENDENT FACTS, discovered through inadmissible confession, com- petent, i. 1242. INDICT OR NOT, whether, accomplice, i. 1166, 1167. INDICTED PERSONS, Testifying for themselves, full, i. 1181-1187. INDICTMENT, (See ALLEGATION — AMENDMENT — Copy or —Im- PERFECT — PuNISHMENT — SECOND.) Locality of the, full, i. 45-67. Charge all essential to punishment, full, i. 77-88. Constitutional guarantees respecting the, full, i. 95-112. Altering, full, i. 96-98. As method of prosecution, and form of, full, i. 180-185. The, and its incidents, through numerous chapters, full, i. 818-711; namely, preliminary and in general of the, 318-339; language of the, 340-359; al- legation and proof of place in the, 360-385; allegation and proof of time in the, 386-406 ; repetitions of time and place in the, 407-414; ascertain- 795 IND INDEX OF SUBJECTS. INDICTMENT — continued. ing and particularizing the crime in the, 415-420; arranging the, in counts, 421-481; duplicity in the, 482-443 ; joinder of offences in the, 444-453 ; compelling election in, 454-462; joinder of defendants in the, 462 a—-476; surplusage in, 477-484; variance, 484 a-488 e; repugnancy, 489-492; necessity as affecting allegation, 493-498; averments needless and merely formal, 499-504; substantial requirements of the, 505-544 ; methods of the substantial allegations, 545-592; methods special to the, on statutes, 593- 642; bill of particulars, 643-616; concluding part of the, 647-652 a; cap- tion and commencement of the, 658-668; name and addition of defendant and third persons in, 669-689 b ; indorsement of prosecutor’s name on the, 690-694 ; grand jury’s indorsement on the, 695-701; prosecuting officer’s indorsement on the, 702-704; defects in, cured by acquiescence and amend- ment, 704 a-711. Quashing the, full, i. 757 a-774; namely, general doctrine, 758-760; as step in defence, 761-765; for what causes, 766-774. Trial where there are more than one, full, i. 1042-1045. little change in forms of, i. 13; or information, i. 36; steps on defective, i, 39; how much must be in county of, i. 57; custody of, on change of venue, i. 76; stipulating words into, i. 96 (2); as one form of prosecu- tion, not exclusive of others, i. 99; must disclose what, i. 185; whether must be, on presentment, i. 187 (1), 189 (1); for fugitive from justice, i. 222 (2); effect of finding, on bail, i. 254 (2), 256 (2), note, i. 257, 262 (1); arrest after, found, i. 263 a (2); whether to be read to pris- oner at arraignment, i. 733 (2); two indictments pending, quashing one, i. 770; unauthorized, void, i. 860; return of, into court, i. 869 a (3) ; defendant may be tried on second, at same term, i. 950 d (2); in- sufficient, a ground of acquittal at trial, i. 977 (1); jury taking, when retiring to deliberate, i. 982 a; arrest of judgment for errors in, i. 1282, 1285 (2); record must contain the, i. 1855 (2); writ of error reaches, i. 1368. against accessories and the like, ii. 2-11. need not allege sanity, ii. 669 (1). INDICTMENT BAD, no sentence when, i. 1291 (2). INDICTMENT CUT IN PIECES, trial on, i. 1400. INDICTMENT ILL, effect on recognizance, i. 264 &. INDICTMENT LOST, i. 1400. INDICTMENT ON STATUTE, (See STATUTE.) How the, full, i. 593-642 ; namely, how distinguish whether on statute or not, 594-601; conclusion ‘* against form of statute,’ 602-607; following stutu- tory words, 608-622; expanding beyond those words, 623-680; negative what and how, 631, 642. the conclusion, i. 429; alternative offences, i 436 (1); joining offences in, and at common law, i. 452 (4); exceptions in it, 1. 513 (5); affirmative matter, i. 513 a; as to intent, i. 523; where alternative clauses, i. 586 et seq. INDIFFERENT, petit juror to be, i. 903 (2), 905, 906 (3), 908 (4). INDIRECT INTEREST, not disqualifies witness, i. 1138 (2). INDIVIDUALIZING, offence in indictment, ii. 210 et seq. 796 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. INJ INDORSEMENT, (See Names or WITNESSES.) Of prosecutor's name on indictment, full, i. 690-694. Of indictment by grand jury, full, i. 695-701. By prosecuting officer, full, i. 702-704. to be made on indictment, i. 959 a (5). of prosecutor’s name in indictment for bawdy-house, ii. 108 (2). whether set out an, in forgery, ii. 410. averring forgery of, ii. 418 (8), 472 (1). INDUCEMENT, how allege matter of, i. 554 (1) et seq.; to confession, sources and effect of, i. 1233-1236. «© INFAMOUS,” what crimes are, i. 145 (4). INFAMOUS PERSON, not dying declaration from, i. 1209 (1). INFAMY, (See GuItt.) when guilt produces, i. 90; whether disqualifies juror, i. 924. INFANT, (See ImmaTuRE AGE.) how bail by, i. 264 ¢ (3); how, make defence, i. 959 e; whether witness, i. "1144; bound by a fine, i. 1304. INFANT UNBORN, life of, respected, i. 1322. INFECTED PERSON, nuisance of carrying, how aver, i. 524, note. INFERENCES FROM FACTS, are for jury, i. 1177 (2). INFERIOR COURT, (See SUPERIOR.) how prosecutions before, i. 285; as to caption of indictment, i. 656-659, 663. INFERIOR JURISDICTION, whether court of committing magistrate is of, i. 236 (2), 289 (1); how record of court of, i. 1350, 1851. INFERIOR MAGISTRATE, (See ComMITTING.) Proceedings before, to bind over, full, i. 280-239 a. INFINITE OFFENCES, indictment may not charge, i. 100 a (4), note, par. 2, 4, 6, also 107, 108. INFINITIVE MODE, in averring offence, i. 556 (2). INFLUENCE, undue, as disqualification of juror, i. 903. INFLUENCING TESTIMONY, by defendant, as evidence, i. 1251. INFORMANT’S NAME, (See Name.) when not compelled to disclose, i. 283 (2). INFORMATION, (See InpicTMENT — PRESENTMENT.) As form of prosecution, full, i. 141-147. Before higher court, full, i. 712-715. The, before inferior magistrate, full, i. 716-727. one of the steps in a criminal cause, i. 86; as one form of prosecuticn, i. 99; proceeding by, before magistrate, i. 152; as to fugitive from jus- tice, i. 222 (2). INFORMATION AND BELIEF, whether, in complaint before magistrate, i. 230 (5); verification of information on, i. 713 (3); complaint before magistrate on, i. 718 (3). INFORMER FOR GAIN, as witness, i. 1175 (1). INFORMERS, (See WiTNEss8.) As witnesses, full, i. 1173-1176. INHABITANT OF TOWN, whether, may be juror, i. 907 (2). INITIALS OF NAME, how of, in indictment, i i. 685. INJUNCTION, Whether, against crime, full, i. 1414-1417. 797 INS INDEX OF SUBJECTS. ““INJURE,” in indictment for arson, ii. 45 (2), 50 (2). INJURED PERSON, (See Person InyuRED.) Testimony of, in rape, full, ii. 961-968. / utterances out of court by, not evidence, i. 1082 (2); competent witness, i. 1186-1138; the, ‘‘ in authority,” for confession, i. 1233 (8). in false pretences, ii. 192. in attempt to commit rape, ii. 978. INJURING REGISTER, how indictment for, i. 436 (2), note. INJURY, presumed from error, i. 1276 (2); no new trial where no, i. 1276, 1277 (1). how prove, permanent, ii. 70. INJURY INFLICTED, how set out, in malicious mischief, ii. 841. INK, whether indictment must be written in, i. 337 (2). INN-KEEPERS, joining “ separaliter,” in one count, i. 474 (1). INNOCENCE, (See PRESUMPTION.) The presumption of, full, i. 1103-1106. indictment framed with view to protecting, i. 517 (2, 8)-519; importance of not convicting, i. 1092; official character presumed from presump- tion of, i. 1130 (2). INNOCENT, injurious to convict the, i. 40. INNOCENT AGENT, false pretence through, where indictable, ii. 197 (8). INNOCENT MAN, when, may be punished, i. 89. INNUENDO, INNUENDOES, needless, rejected as surplusage, i. 480 (4). nature and use of, ii. 798, 794, and note; further of, ii. 799 (2, 3). in indictment for perjury, ii. 917. INQUISITION, what is, i. 131 (8). INSANE, no trial while defendant is, i. 950 c; confession by one, i. 1229 (2). INSANE PERSON, right to arrest, i. 178; not dying declaration from, i. 1209 (1). INSANE PRISONER, counsel for, i. 308 (2). INSANE AT TRIAL, defective proceedings where, on writ of error, i. 1369. INSANITY, Procedure for, in defence, full, ii. 664-687 6; namely, practice on preliminary inquiry, 666-668; presumptions and burden af proof on main issue, 669- 675 ; witnesses, their testimony, and other evidence, 676-687 b. proving, against prisoner’s will, i. 8303 (2); indictment need not negative, i. 522 (1); proof of, under not guilty, 1.799 (2); grand jury suspecting, i. 867; juror in preliminary inquiry as to, competent to main issue, i. 915; prejudice against defence of, whether disqualifies juror, i. 918 (3); disqualifying juror, i. 925 (1); no trial of insane prisoner, i. 950 c; special charge on, i, 980 (4); whether disqualifies witness, i. 1141. INSPECTION, of evidence by opposite party, ordering, i. 959 d. INSPECTION OF JURY, may determine value, ii. 751 (8). “INSTANTLY,” in allegation of time, i. 409 (3). “INSTIGATED BY DEVIL,” words, in averment, i. 836 (2), 501. 798 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. INT “INSTIGATION OF DEVIL,” allegation of being moved by, in libel, ii. 783 (2). INSTRUCT JURY in law, court to, in criminal cases, i. 987 (2); how, as _ to believing witness, i. 1147, 1148. INSTRUCTION TOO FAVORABLE, party not object to, i. 980 6 (1). INSTRUCTIONS, of the judge to the jury, i 976-982, 987 (2); asking or not, from judge, i. 980 (8, 9) ; as to evidence, without trenching upon functions of jury, i. 981; as to the law, though statute makes jury judges thereof, i. 987, 988. INSTRUMENT, INSTRUMENTS, (See CounTERFEITING— ForGED InstRUMENT — VALUE — WRITING.) For coining, having or making, full, ii. 269, 270. of death, how aver in homicide, ii. 514. INSTRUMENT OF ASSAULT, whether specify, in indictment, ii. 64 (2). INSTRUMENT IN WRITING, whether produce, on trial for stealing it, ii. 753 (2). INSTRUMENTS OF CRIME, (See IMPLEMENTS OF.) officer seize, i. 183 (2); exhibiting, at trial, i. 965 (1); jury take, to their room, i, 982 a. INSUFFICIENT BAIL, not equivalent to escape, i. 1386. INTELLIGENCE, lack of, disqualifying juror, i. 925 (8). INTENDED FELONY, how stated in indictment for burglary, ii. 142. INTENDMENTS, all, support verdict, i. 1005 a (1). INTENT, (See AnsencE or Mortrve—CriminaL Intent — Evit IntENT — MOTIVE.) The, how laid in indictment, full, i. 521-525. Allegation and proof of, in burglary, full, ti. 142-150. alleging, with participle, i. 558 (1); with adverb, i. 558 (2); the, provable only by presumption, i. 1101; proof of another crime to establish the, i. 1126; one testify to his own, i. 1184; nolle prosequi of the, in in- dictment, i. 1391 (8). allegation of the, in arson, ii. 42-45 a; how prove, ii. 50-53. presumed from aggravated assault, ii. 66 (1); proof of the, in aggravated assault, ii. 67 (1). word, in indictment for attempt — “ intention,” ¢‘ attempt,” ii. 80 (4). presumptive proof of, ii. 97 (2). proof of, in disturbing meeting, ii. 292. allegation of, in indictment for homicide, ii. 541 (1). proof of, in possessing forgery with intent to pass, ii, 468. the, in assault to kill, ii. 661 (2). evidence of, in kidnapping, ii. 694; in libel, ii. 801. on indictment for violating Lord’s day, ii. 818 (2). - allegation and proof of, in threatening letters, ii. 1028. INTENT TO DEFRAUD, How allege the, in forgery, full, ii. 420-425 0. alleging and proving in false-pretence indictment, ii. 182. showing the, in passing counterfeit coin, ii. 261 (3). proof of, in forgery, ii. 427 (3), 427 a. charging the, in statutory forgery, ii. 441 (2). 799 IRR INDEX OF SUBJECTS. INTENT TO DO, open to rebuttal, i. 1099 (2). INTENT TO KILL, how aver, ii. 80 (4). not necessary to allege, in murder by poison, ii. 554 (2). INTENT TO RAVISH, how allege, ii. 82. INTENT TO “STEAL,” (See LARCENY.) in allegation, intent to ‘‘rob,” in proof, i. 488 e (4); proof of, i. 1078 (2). ‘“ INTENTION,” as substitute for “intent,’’ ii. 80 (4). INTEREST. what, disqualifies judge, i. 314 (2). of witness in forgery, ii. 429 (2). INTEREST IN EVENT, disqualifies witness, i. 1138 (2). INTEREST IN SUBJECT, not disqualifies witness, i. 1188 (1). INTERLINEATIONS in indictment, i. 338. INTERMITTENT INSANITY, proof of, ii. 674 (8). INTERNAL COMMUNICATION, effect of, on ownership in burglary, ii. 138 (7), 138 a. INTERNATIONAL LAW, As to treaties for mutual surrender of fugitives, full, i. 224-224 b. INTERPRET, how, special verdict, i. 1006 a. INTERPRET RECORD, how, i. 1348. INTERPRETATION, (See MEANING.) of indictment, to make it effectual, i. 510 (2); consider, in indictment on statute, i. 611 (2), 612 (1), 614 (1), 624 (1), 626, 628, 629 (1) ; what, of judge’s charge, i. 980. a; of reasonable doubt, i. 1094. INTERPRETED TOGETHER, statutes and constitutions, i. 894 (3). INTERPRETER, dying declaration may be through, i. 1213. INTERROGATORIES, need not aver the, in perjury, ii. 916 (2). ‘ INTERRUPT,” in indictment for disturbing meeting, ii. 285 (8). INTIMIDATING WITNESS, as evidence of guilt, i. 1251. INTOXICANTS, effect of taking, by juror, i. 999 (2). INTOXICATING LIQUORS, (See Liquor-SELLInG.) search-warrant for, i. 241 (4); statute extending meaning of, how indict- ment, i. 358. INTRODUCTORY MATTER, how allege, i. 554 (1) et seq. INVOLUNTARY TESTIMONY, (See ApMIssion — TESTIMONY.) admissions by, i. 1256. IRONS, (See Hanpcurr.) prisoner not in, at arraignment, i. 731; at trial, except, i. 955. IRREGULARITY, in grand jury, plea in abatement for, i. 884. IRREGULARITY OF JURY, whether set aside verdict for, i. 999. IRREGULARLY DRAWN, grand juror, i. 875 (2). IRREGULARLY SELECTING grand jurors, i. 875 (4). IRRELEVANT dying declarations, not admissible, i. 1211. IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE, exclude, i. 1053; not good in rebuttal, i. 1070. IRRELEVANT TESTIMONY, whether new trial for, i. 1276 (2). 800 INDEX OF SUBJECTS, JOI ISSUE, ISSUES, (See SUBSTANCE OF.) whether waiver of, i. 125 (2) ; no good, on null plea, i. 733 (5) ; the gen- eral, plea of, i. 7438; how distinct, tried, i. 752; in plea in abatement, how try, i. 793 (7); joinder in, and form of, i. 796, 801 (2) ; jury decides whether, proved, i. 989 a; evidence to cover entire, i. 1052-1054; alibi must cover entire, i. 1067; in what, jury must believe beyond reason- able doubt, i. 1095; joinder of, how in record, i. 1354. what the, in insanity, ii. 669, 670. how prove the, in perjury, ii. 933 d (1). ISSUE OR INQUIRY, Wherein perjury was committed, how aver, full, ii. 905-911, 924. ‘ T,” referred to what antecedent, i. 355. “IT IS CONSIDERED,”’ proper style of sentence, i. 1296. “IT IS ORDERED,” words, in sentence, i. 1296. JACK. (See Stranpine Jack.) JAIL, (See Prison.) habeas corpus to bring prisoner from, to court, i. 1408. JAILER, “in authority,”? for confession, i. 1283 (38); confession to, i. 1238 (1). JEFFREYS, in Rosewell’s case, i. 15-22; views of, as to relative pronouns, i. 355. JEOFAILS, (See AMENDMENT — STATUTES OF.) how statutes of, interpreted, i. 705 (3), 706. JEOFAILS AND AMENDMENTS, distinguished, i. 705 (2). JEOPARDY, (See ForMER.) when the constitutional, begins, i. 961 (1); second, after defective verdict, i. 1016 (2). JOINDER OF COUNTS, When, what, and how, full, i. 424-431. ; in receiving stolen goods, i. 981 (2), 987. JOINDER OF DEFENDANTS, In indictment, full, i. 462 a-476. quashing as remedy for misjoinder, i. 773 (1); on joint indictment, de- fendants may plead separately, i. 800. in assault and battery, ii. 59 (1). in extortion, ii. 362 (1). how, for spoken words, ii. 811. as to, in perjury, li. 936. JOINDER IN DEMURRER, (See DemurRER.) whether, i. 780 (2). JOINDER IN ERROR, on writ of error, i. 1871. JOINDER IN ISSUE, (See Issue.) following plea of not guilty, i. 801 (2); form of, i. 796; whether record show, i. 1354 (8). JOINDER OF OFFENCES, (See InpIcTMENT.) In indictment, full, i. 448-453. in misdemeanor, i. 458. JOINT CRIME, How indictment, full, i. 463-472. VOL. 11. —- 51 801 JUD INDEX OF SUBJECTS. JOINT DEFENDANTS, (See Jornt AnD SEPARATE TRIALS.) Trial of, together, on separate indictments, full, i. 1041-1045. change of venue in, i. 75; conviction of part, i. 472 (1); how arraigned, i. 729 (2); plea by, in law several, i. 800 ; when separate trial to let in, as witness, i. 1020; conviction of part, i. 1036; different degrees, i. 1037. JOINT INDICTMENT, form of, i. 471; trial, i. 472 (1). : for violating Lord’s day, ii. 817 (1). JOINT OWNERSHIP, how charge, in larceny, ii. 723 (1), 724. JOINT PARTICIPANTS IN CRIME, sentence against, i. 1825 (2) et seq JOINT AND SEPARATE TRIALS, Procedure as to, where more defendants than one, full, i. 1017-1041. JOINT AND SEVERAL, bail as to, i. 264 d. JOINT WRONG-DOERS, Indictment against, full, i. 462 a-472. ‘* JOINTLY,’ word, not necessary in indictment for joint offence, i. 471. JUDGE, JUDGES, (See Court — JupicraL DiIscRETION.) as counsel to prisoners, i. 14 (2); disqualified, whether venue changed, i. 71 (6), 72 (1); taking offence at criticism, i. 100 a (4), note, par. 1; superior, may bind over for trial, i. 225 (2), 226 (2), 229 (1); or make warrant returnable before justice of peace, i. 229 (1); superior, whether should follow justice of peace statutes, i. 230 (1); power of, to take bail, i, 251 (2, 3); who competent as, i. 314; de facto, i. 816 (8); acting, by consent, in place of jury, i. 898, 898; whether witness, i. 1145; deter- mines, and on what evidence, whether to admit confession, i. 1220; ad- dressing prisoner at sentence, i. 1295; power of, over docket entries and record, i. 1342, whether indictment must name the, before whom perjury was committed, ii. 910 (1). whether witness in perjury, ii. 933 @ (2). JUDGE’S CHAMBER, no sentence in, i. 1291 (1). JUDGE’S CHARGE, To jury, full, i. 975 c-982 a. JUDGE AND COURT, distinguished, i. 314 (7). JUDGE AND JURY, indictment for libel on, ii. 797. JUDGE’S MINUTES, use of, at sentence, i. 1825 (4). JUDGE’S OPINION, on evidence, whether give, i. 981. JUDGMENT, (See Firnat — SENTENCE.) The, on demurrer, full, i. 781-786. Arrest. of, full, i. 1282-1288. wrong, of same effect with right, i. 90; what, on plea in abatement, 1. 798 (2); whether certiorari before or after, i. 1877 (1). JUDGMENT FOR ABATEMENT, of nuisance, how, ii. 871. JUDGMENT IN ARREST, effect of, i. 1288. JUDGMENT DEBT, (See Fine.) whether fine is, i. 1804. JUDGMENT ON DEMURRER, (See DEMURRER ) The, full, i. 781-786. 802 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. JUR JUDICIAL, whether committing magistrate’s functions are, i. 237. JUDICIAL CONFESSION, (See ConFEssIon.) what is, i. 1217 (2). JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS, As evidence, full, i. 1254 a-1262. JUDICIAL DETERMINATIONS, as to indictment for murder in first degree, ii. 584, 585. JUDICIAL DISCRETION, (See Discretion.) as to joinder of counts, i. 425(1); corrects misjoinder of offences, i. 447 (1), 452 (1); compelling election is of the, i. 454 (2), 461 (5), 462; quashing indictment is of the, i. 761 (2, 3), 766, 767; as to receiving demurrer, i. 780 (8); whether to permit withdrawal of plea of guilty, i. 798; as to order of evidence, i. 966 (2), 966a; granting new trial is of the, i. 1277 (1); certiorari is of the, i. 1880. JUDICIAL NOTICE, what court takes, of divisions of county, i. 378 (1), 382. JUDICIAL PROCEDURE, (See CriminaL Procepurs.) In general, full, i. 1-11. ; JUDICIAL SENTENCE, not commonly habeas corpus where imprisonment is on, i. 1410 (6). JUNTOR in name of person, i. 687 (1). JURAT, the, to complaint before magistrate, i. 231; amend, i: 231 (2). JURISDICTION, (See Court.) How aver the, in perjury, full, ii. 905-911. not by consent, i. 96 (1); or on unconstitutional statute, i. 96a; waiver of, i. 1004 (4), note, par. 7, 112, 123 (2); arrest beyond magistrate’s, i. 189 (2); full, on proceeding to bind over, i. 235 (3); rule of inferior and superior, i. 236 (2); presumption of committing magistrate’s, i. 239 (1); giving court new, not takes away old, i. 315 (3); presump- tions favor, i. 315 (3); no, void, i. 316(1); less or more than county, how indictment, i. 375 (1); allege all essential to the, i. 381; record of con- viction must show, i. 722, 724, 727 (1); plea to the, i. 736, 794; what add to plea to, i. 749; quashing for want of, i. 772 (1); of former pro- ceeding in autrefois convict or acquit, i. 814 (4); of grand jury, local, i. 859; not given by waiver or consent, i. 893 (4); how state the, in record, i. 1850, 1351; nolle prosequi cannot give, i. 1396; habeas corpus available where no, i. 1410 (8). to administer oath in perjury, how allege, ii. 914. proof of, in perjury, ii. 935 (2). JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY, sources of, i. 893 (4). JUROR, JURORS, (See Court — Granp — List or.) Objecting to, after sworn, full, i. 946-949 db. knowledge of, how communicate with, how deliberate, &c., i. 998 a; not witness to irregularities of jury, i. 998a (3); competent on separate trials of joint defendants, i. 1024; whether witness, i. 1146; confessions and testimony of, as evidence, i. 1270. who incompetent, in nuisance, ii, 874. JUROR SICK, i. 948. JURY, (See DiscHarGE Or — GRAND.) Charge of judge to, full, i. 975 c-982. As judges of law, full, i. 9838-988. 803 KID INDEX OF SUBJECTS. JURY — continued. During trial to verdict, full, 1. 990-1000. The, for trial of joint defendants, full, i. 1027-1082. prisoner’s presence at discharge of, i. 272 (2); order of addresses to, i. 960-965; to judge of evidence, i. 1054; weigh evidence of character, i. 1116; may believe witnesses or not, i. 1147; no arrest of judgment for matter concerning the, i. 1285'(2). what for the, in arson, ii. 52 (2). judge of evidence of name, ii. 65 (1). determines whether force used to repel a battery was appropriate, ii. 70 a. what for the, in disorderly house, ii. 281 (8). what for the, in challenge to duel, ii. 309. to decide on prisoner’s capacity to be tried, ii. 666 (8). judge of the fact, in rape, ii. 968. how far perjury is a question for the, ii. 933. JURY INFLUENCED by one another, how, i. 982. JURY AND JUDGE, indictment for libel on, ii. 797. JURY OF MATRONS, When, and proceedings of, full, i. 1822-1324. JURY DE MEDIETATE LINGUA, Trial by, full, i. 927-980. JURY ROOM, what the jury may take to their, i. 982; juror not testify as witness in the, i. 1146. JURY OF SIX, when statute may authorize, i. 897 (4). JURY TRIAL, (See Trrau sy Petir Jury.) The right of, full, i. 890-894. what fulness of allegation required for, i. 87; of. autrefois convict or acquit, i. 816 (1); habeas corpus not remedy for denying, i. 1410 (2). JUSTICE, (See FuGitTIves FROM.) Reclaiming fugitives from, full, i. 219-224 6, JUSTICE AND GOVERNMENT, Procedure for obstructing, full, ii. 879-898; namely, assaulting or resisting officer, 881-895; other obstructions, 896-898, JUSTICE OF PEACE, (See Brnpinc Over — ComprAint — MacIs- TRATE — MaGISTRATE’S ORDER.) history of office of, i. 149, 174-176; personal arrest by, i. 177 (1); by war- rant of, i. 177 (2); by verbal order from, i. 177 (2), 178; late powers of, i. 175, 176; may bind over for trial, i. 226, 228; power of, to take bail, i. 251 (3); depositions before, as evidence, i. 1198-1200. KEEPER, who, of bawdy-house, ii. 118 (1), 119. proof that defendant is, in disorderly house, ii. 278. KEEPING OF BAWDY-HOUSE, proof of, ii. 118 (1). KEEPING GUN, indictment on statute for, i. 588 (3), KEEPING HOUSE FOR BAWDRY. (See Bawpy-Houss.) KEEPING AWAY WITNESS, by defendant, as evidence, i. 1251. KIDNAPPING, Procedure for, full, ii. 688-695. 804 INDEX OF SUBJECTS, LAN KILLING, (See Arrest — HoMICIDE.) In homicide, presumption from mere, full. ii. 603-606. one resisting, or breaking from arrest, i. 160-162. KILLING COW, in malicious mischief, ii. 849. KIN, disqualifying petit juror, i. 901. KING'S CORONER, same as master of crown office, power of, as to informa- tions, i. 143. KING’S EVIDENCE, practice of, i. 1158. KNIFE, averring assault with, to murder, ii. 79 (1). KNOW LAW, modification of rule that men, i. 988. ‘‘ KNOWINGLY,” when necessary in indictment, i. 504, 522 (4); not supplied by “unlawfully,” i. 613 (4). word, in indictment for false pretences, ii. 172. in indictment for possessing instruments for coining, ii. 269 (3). in allegation of extortion, ii. 864 (2); in the proofs, ii. 364 (8). in indictment for selling unwholesome food, ii. 868 (4). in perjury indictment, ii. 922. KNOWLEDGE, when indictment aver, i. 522 (3, 4); of grand jurors, as evi- dence, i. 864; proof of another crime to show, i. 1126 (1), 1127 (1). proof of defendants’, in passing counterfeit coin, ii. 261 (1). averment of, in rescuing goods from sheriff, ii. 892, 394. averring, in forgery and utterings, ii. 425 (1). defendants’, evidence in forgery, ii. 428 (5). of defendant, alleging, in nuisance, ii. 868 (4). alleging, in receiving stolen goods, ii. 986; proving, ii. 991. KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, whether, in complaint before magistrate, i. 230 (5), 718 (3); information on, i. 718 (3). KNOWLEDGE OF FALSITY, alleging defendants’, in false pretences, ii. 172. proof of, in false pretences, ii. 158 (3), 189. KNOWLEDGE OF OFFICIAL CHARACTER, in averment of resisting or assaulting, ii. 887. KNOWN OR NOT, Difference where thing, full, i. 546-558. LABOR CONSPIRACIES, procedure for, ii. 242. LACK OF PROOFS, no arrest of judgment for, i. 1285 (2). LANGUAGE, (See Foreign LANGUAGE). statute not alter meaning of, i. 100 a (4). LANGUAGE OF CHARGE, to jury, how, and how interpret, i. 978 (4), 980 a. LANGUAGE AND CONDUCT OF PARTY, as evidence of insanity, ii. 687 @ (1). LANGUAGE OF INDICTMENT, (See INDICTMENT.) The, full, i. 840-859. LANGUAGE OF VERDICT, (See VERDICT.) how, and how interpret, i. 1005 a, 1007 (1). 805 LAR INDEX OF SUBJECTS. LARCENY, (See Common Tuer —Intrent To STEAL — STOLEN Goops.) As to the indictment, full, ii. 696-738 ; namely, in general, 697-698 b; de- scription of stolen property, 699-712; allegation of value, 713-717 ; allegation of ownership, 718-726; stolen goods conveyed to another jurisdiction, T27- 729; indictment upon statutes, 730-738. As to the evidence, full, ii. 738 a-754; namely, presumption from possession, 739-747 ; other questions, 748-754. As to questions of practice, full, ii. 754 a-770; namely, restitution of the stolen goods, 755-763; the verdict, 764-769; other questions, 770. taking goods through different counties in, where indict, 1. 59 (2), 60; after change of statute, i. 59 (2), note; seizing fruits of, i. 211 (2); alleging time in continuous, i. 397 (1), note, (2); separate counts in, i, 423 (1, 2); receiving, embezzlement, burglary, and, in one indict- ment, i. 449; rejecting ‘‘ embezzle”’ in indictment for, i. 480 (5); name of owner of stolen things, i. 481 (4), note; surplusage in indictment for, i. 481 (4), note; conviction of, on indictment for embezzlement, i. 482 (2); surplusage which cannot be rejected, i. 483; proof of things stolen, i. 488 & (4); allegation in, where owner unknown, i. 495 (2); how allegation of value in, i. 541; allegation where ownership unknown, i. 548; where description of thing unknown, i. 558 (3); how describe things in, i. 575 (2), 576; of the allegation for, i. 583 (2): of chose in action, indictment statutory, i. 595 (2); ‘‘ personal property ” in statute, how in indictment, i. 616; how describe the animal in horse-stealing, i. 619, 620; amending name of owner, i. 711 (3); and embezzlement, form of verdict for embezzlement, i. 1010 (3); proof of corpus delicti in, i. 1056 (8, 4); other larcenies not evidence in, i. 1124 (1); inadmissible confession of, and search, as evidence, i. 1242. indictment for soliciting to, ii. 74 (8). how indictment for attempted, ii. 87-89. conviction for, on indictment for burglary, ii. 148 et seq. charging cheating by, in indictment for, ii. 185. * unlawful combination, &c.; as evidence in, ii. 230. whether indictment for embezzlement should charge a, ii. 815 (4)-818. joining counts for, with those for embezzlement, ii. 325 (1). evidence of, does not prove embezzlement, ii. 327 (3). alleging time and place of, in receiving, ii. 984. no conviction for receiving, on charge of, ii. 988 (2). LARCENY AND BURGLARY, whether join, i. 449 (5); whether prove both, on different days, i. 459 (2). LARCENY COMPOUND, Procedure for, full, ii. 771-780; namely, general doctrine, 772-774; lar- cenies by particular classes, 775-776 a; from particular places, 777-779; from the person, 780. how describe place of, and ownership, i. 573 (5); in dwelling house, how the indictment, i. 580 (1); from the person, how as to exceptions in statute, i. 639 (7), note. LARCENY FROM DWELLING-HOUSE, possession of stolen goods as evidence in, ii. 747 (2). LARCENY IN DWELLING-HOUSE, allegation and proof of value, i. 580 (1). 806 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. LEF LARCENY AND EMBEZZLEMENT, whether join, i. 449 (3). LARCENY IN ONE JURISDICTION, And goods carried into another, procedure for, full, ii. 727-729. LARCENY FROM PLACE, how aver, i. 578 (8). LARCENY AND RECEIVING, (See Recrivine STOLEN Goons.) whether join, i. 449 (7) ; verdict for both, repugnant, i. 1015 a (6). LARGER CRIME, includes smaller, not duplicity to charge both, ii. 55 (3). LATENT MEANING, libellous words with a, ii. 788. LATIN, formerly language of record, i. 841 (2-4); not with us, i. 342. LATIN CONCLUSION of indictment, how, i. 606 (2). LAW, (See Know Law — Law anp Facr— Views or.) substantive and adjective, i i. 1; regulates procedure, i. 6; prosecuting offi- cer’s duty as to the, i. 294; right to counsel on question of, i. 296; what knowledge of, presumed, i. 329 (1); not allege, i. 329 (2), 514 (1), 515; whether there has been a previous jeopardy is of, i. 816 (5); opinions on the, as disqualifying juror, i. 916-918 ; state, in opening to jury, i. 970; what is the, to be given in charge to jury, i. 978 (4); whether jury to judge of the, i. 984, 985, 986 a, 988; whether counsel argue the, to jury, i. 986; court instruct jury as to the, i. 987; presumptions of, as evidence, i. 1098; confession involving question of, i. 1246. witness cannot testify to, ii. 681. LAW BOOKS, effect of jury having, i. 999 (3). LAW OF CASE, how judge lay down the, i. 1180. LAW AND EVIDENCE, (See Ev1pENCE.) scruples against finding verdict in accord with, disqualify juror, i. 918 (2); how differently treated in judge’s charge, i. 978 (3, 4), 979. LAW AND FACT, (See Fact — Law.) Pleaded differently, and how, full, i, 329-835. What is each, full, i. 982 6-989 b; namely, general, 982 c, 982 d; jury judg- ing of law, 983-988 ; court judging of fact, 989-989 b. mingled, how indictment, i. 514 (2-4); questions compounded of, i. 989 a; rule for distinguishing, i. 989 6; distinguished, as to granting new trial, i. 1275. “LAW OF LAND,” meaning, i. 100 a (2). LAWSUIT, pending, when disqualifies juror, i. 902 (3). LAWYER, defend even guilty client, i. 40; how far client bound by acts of his, i. 1281. LAYING INFORMATION before inferior magistrate, i. 717. “LEAD AWAY,” in larceny indictment, ii. 698 (1). LEAD PENCIL, interlineations with, i. 337 (2). LEADING QUESTION, in dying declaration, i. 1213; confession in answer to, i. 1228. “LEFT,” “ RIGHT,” describing hand holding weapon in homicide, ii. 515. as place of wound in homicide, ii. 516 (3). in indictment for cutting off ear, ii. 858. 807 LIB INDEX OF SUBJECTS. LEGAL BODY, how object that the grand jury is not, i. 889. LEGAL EFFECT, setting out acts by, as to variance, i. 488 d (1); ‘proof by, i. 488 d, 488 ¢. LEGAL FICTION, when separate counts are a, i. 427, 428. LEGAL HOLIDAY. (See Hoxipay.) LEGAL IMPORT, of facts, when suffices in allegation, i. 382-884. forgery may be charged according to its, ii. 419 (2). LEGAL QUESTION, confession involving, unreliable, i. 1246. LEGAL WORD OR PHRASE, in charge to jury, i. 980 a. LEGIBILITY, what required, in indictment, i. 338. LEGISLATION ILL-CONSIDERED, in dividing murder into degrees, ii. 566-570. LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, sworn admissions before, i. 1255. LEGISLATIVE CONTEMPTS, breaking doors to arrest for, i. 196, LEGISLATIVE MEANINGS, given‘to words, effect of, i. 358. LEGISLATIVE REGULATIONS, of jury trial, i. 893, 894. LEGISLATORS, whether, exempt from arrest, i. 207 a (3, 4). LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT, counsel to employ only, to jury, i. 975 a (1). LESS THAN ALLEGED, verdict finding, how, i. 1005 (3). LESS THAN COUNTY, how allege crimes in place, i. 871, 872 (2). LESS THAN LAID, ‘ proved in larceny, ii. 712 (1). LETTER, LETTERS, (See THREATENING.) where try crimes by, i. 58 (4), 61 (1); as evidence, i. 1182 (2); confession in, opened unauthorized, i. 1226 (2). LETTING HOUSE, For bawdry, procedure for, full, ii. 119-122. LEVARI FACIAS, to collect fine, i. 1803 (1). LEVYING WAR. (See TREASON.) LEWDNESS, (See ADULTERY — Bawpy-HOUSE — ExposuRE OF Person, &c.) LIBEL, (See SLANDER — Worps OF.) by letter, place of trial, i. 538 (4), 61 (1); where indictment for, i. 57 (4); as breach of sureties of peace, i. 264 n; prisoner’s presence on motion for new trial for, i. 276 (2); what not duplicity in indictment for, i. 435; ** published and caused to be published,” i. 485; one, on two or more persons, i. 437 (6); joining offences in, i. 452 (2); how join par- ticipants in, i. 468 (4); ill innuendo, surplusage, i. 480 (4); when unnecessary words in indictment for, surplusage, i. 481 (2); variance by needless allegation descriptive of, i. 486 (2); how allege obscene, i. 496; intent in indictment for, i. 521 (2), note; indictment for, sets forth libel, i. 580 (3); according to its tenor, not substance, i. 559-561; defendant’s bill of particulars of truth in evidence, i. 645 (5); proof of truth of, under not guilty, i. 791 (2); enjoining, i. 1416. LIBEL AND SLANDER, Procedure for, full, ii. 781-811; namely, indictment generally and for libel- ling individuals, 783-794; indictment specially as to other libels, 794 a—-798; the evidence, 799-804; questions of practice, 805-806 a; oral words, 807- 811. LIBERTINES, visits of, as evidence against bawdy-house, ii. 116. 808 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. LOA LIBERTY, preserving, in times of quiet, i. 21, 23 (2). LICENSE, when prisoner’s counsel requires, in England, i. 800; how nega- tive, i. 591 (3). whether allege and how prove, in disorderly house, ii. 282. proof of absence of, in malicious mischief, ii. 848 (8). LICENSED PERSON, proceeding against, for making house disorderly, ii. 282. LIFE, danger to prisoner’s, in bail, i. 256 (2), 259. “LIFE DESPAIRED OF,” in assault and battery, ii. 57 (2). LIGHTS, exhibiting, at forbidden hour, proof of, i. 401 (2). LIKE OFFENCES, evidence in, i. 1124. LIMIT ARGUMENT, right of court to, i. 818 (2). LIMITATIONS, (See STATUTE OF.) statute run, effect on quashing, i. 229 (2); allegation of time as to statute of, i. 405; by what plea statute of, i. 799 (5); statute of, as to writ of error, i. 1871. LIMITS. (See Locat Limirs.) LIQUOR-KEEPING, with intent to sell, how indictment, i. 108. LIQUOR SEIZURES, laying thing in, i. 406 (3), note. LIQUOR-SELLING, (See InroxicaTine Liquors.) constitutional provisions as to the indictment, i. 100; whether indictment for, negative license, i. 100; O’Neil’s case as to, i. 100 a (4), note; as to keeping with intent, Maine Jaw, i. 103; Vermont law reviewed, i. 107, 108; indictment for dealing in, i. 107, 108; not break doors to pre- vent, i. 197; arrest for, on Sunday, i. 207 (3), note; special allegation for, where law varies with place, i. 373 (1,2); laid as continuing, i. 402; ‘indictment for, on statute in the alternative, i. 436 (2); ‘sell and offer to sell,’’ i. 438 (2); joining offences in, i. 452 (3); indicting jointly for, i. 469; ‘‘second glass,” surplusage, i. 479 (2); “spirituous or intoxi- cating,” i. 484 (2); surplusage which must be proved, i. 484 (2) ; whether aver price in, i. 514 (3); allegation where name unknown, i. 548, 549; allegation and proof of quantity, i. 578; indictment on stat- ute in alternative for, i. 587 (3), 588 (1); indictment where by agent, i. 592 (2); how specifically describe liquors, i. 624 (2); what the indict- ment must negative, i. 636 (4); not negative that the liquor was imported, i. 638 (3); how indictment as to exceptions in statute, 1. 639, note; in what form negative license, i. 641 (2); negative medical pre- scription, i. 641 (5); common seller — bill of particulars in, i. 645 (2); proof of license under not guilty, i. 799 (2); buyer as witness to, i, 1173 (5); “spies and informers” as witnesses, i. 1174; cumulative sen- tences for, i. 1327 (2), note; statutory injunction against, i. 1415. LIQUORS, effect of drinking, by juror, i. 999 (2). : LIST OF JURORS, waiver of, i. 126, 931a@ (2), 982 (1); furnishing pris- oner with, i. 931 a (1), 959 a (4). LIST OF WITNESSES, waiver of, i. 126 (1); furnishing prisoner with, i. 959 a (2); calling all in the, or not in’ the, i. 966 ¢ (4, 5). LISTS OF PRISONERS, the, for carrying out their sentences, i. 1336. LOADED, when firearm presumed, ii. 66 (1). when gun presumed, in attempt to murder, ii. 96 (2). 809 LYI INDEX OF SUBJECTS. “LOADED PISTOL,” in indictment for homicide, ii. 514 (2). LOCAL LIMITS, court no authority out of, i. 317. LOCAL NATURE, crimes of, in indictment, i. 372 (1). LOCALITY, (See County — ParticuLar.) Doctrine of, full, i. 45-67. how allege the, in indictment for keeping bawdy-house, ii. 111. how in false-pretence cases, ii. 197; in conspiracy, ii. 236; in counter- feiting, ii. 271 (4) ; in larceny where original taking was in another county or State, il, 727-729. LOCKED IN, (See BreaxinG Doors.) - officer breaking out after, i. 202. LODGERS, * rooms of, as to ownership in burglary, ii. 188 (7). LODGER’S ROOM, how charge furniture stolen from, ii. 721 (8). LOOK ON PRISONER, jury directed to, i. 960 (2). LORD’S DAY, Procedure for violation of, full, ii. 812-818. serving warrant of arrest on, i. 207 (2,3); bail on, good, i. 264c¢ (5) ; how aver violation of, i. 399 (8, 4); how indictment keep within statu- tory terms, i. 636 (8); what the indictment for violating, must nega- tive, i. 6836 (3); how negative work of necessity in indictment for violating, i. 641 (3); judicial acts not valid on, rendering verdict on, i. 1001 (2); no,sentence on, i. 1291 (1); cumulative sentences for keeping open on, i. 1327 (2), note. LOSS of record does not destroy it, i. 1898. LOST, Records mutilated or, full, i. 1898-1400. LOST OR DESTROYED, written testimony, i. 1199 (4). how set out forgery that is, ii. 404. LOST INDICTMENT, how proceed in case of, i. 1400. LOST INSTRUMENT, how aver, i. 561 (2). excusing, &c., possession of, in forgery, ii. 433. how prove contents of, ii. 434. LOST PAPERS, how, as to supplying, i. 1399. LOST WRITTEN PRETENCE, proof of, in false pretences, ii. 187 (8). LOTTERY, (See GAMING.) how allege “ property ” in, i. 569. LOTTERY TICKETS, how indictment for unlawfully selling, i. 486 (2), note. LOTTERY TICKETS AND MATERIALS, search-warrant for, i. 241 (8). ‘LOVE OR HATE, declarations in evidence of, ii. 626 (2). LOWER CRIME, Committing, intending higher, full, ii. 77-85. LUCRE, whether alleged keeping of bawdy-house for, ii. 105 (2), 108 (1). needless in charge of disorderly house, ii. 274. LUNATIC. (See INSANITY.) “LYING IN WAIT,” in indictment for mayhem, ii. 857 (2), 810 1 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. MAL MAGISTRATE, (See Brinery — Compiaint — Conviction — Ex- AMINING — InreRIOR CouRT— JUSTICE OF PEACE.) Preliminary proceedings before, full, i. 82-34, 224 c-239 a. delivering arrested person to, i. 218-216; one before, is in custody of offi- cer, i. 217 ; how, person taken on search-warrant, i. 218 ; “ in authority,” for confession, i, 1238 (2). indictment for slander of, spoken to him, ii. 807. MAGISTRATE’S CLERK, “in authority,” for confession, i. 1233 (38). MAGISTRATE’S ORDER, indictment for disobeying, how, i. 518 (8), 529 (5), 554 (8). MAIL, (See LETTER.) letters sent by, in what county the offence, i. 61 (1). venue, in uttering forgery by, ii. 475 (2). robbery of the, ii. 776 a. MAIL-BAG, indictment for robbing, ii. 773 (2). MAIM, indictment for attempt, how, ii. 90. word, in indictment for mayhem, ii. 852. MAIM AND MAYHEM, Procedure for, full, ii. 850a-859; namely, common-law proceeding, 851- 854; proceeding upon statutes, 855-859. MAINPRISE, (See Bart.) compared with bail, what, i. 248 (2). MAINTENANCE AND CHAMPERTY, Procedure for, full, ii. 154-156, “MAKE AFFRAY,” words, in indictment, ii. 17. MAKING COMPLAINT, (See Complaint — Private Person.) before inferior magistrate, i. 717. MALEDICTION, introductory, in libel, ii. 783 (2). MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE, Procedure for, full, ii. 819-836 ; namely, refusal to accept office, 820, 821; corruption in office, 822-836. MALFEASANCE AND NON-FEASANCE IN OFFICE, (See Duty — NON-FEASANCE.) indictment on the South Carolina statute, i. 637 (8). MALICE, (See ‘‘ Martice AFORETHOUGHT.’’) averring assault with, ii. 80 (3). word, in indictments for murder, ii. 5438-547, 593-595. presumption as to its continuing, in homicide, ii. 605, 607. proof of, in libel, ii. 801. how charge and prove the, in malicious mischief, ii. 842, 848 (2). “MALICE AFORETHOUGHT,” (See Homicipr.) In indictment for murder of first degree, full, ii. 561-589. technical words, in the indictment for murder, i. 335, ii, 541-544, 547- 549, 564. indispensable, ii. 544; applied to what allegations, ti. 547. charging, in assault to kill, ii. 657 (1). 811 MAR INDEX OF SUBJECTS, “MALICE PREPENSED,” same as ‘malice aforethought,”’ ii. 544. “MALICIOUS ” in indictment, covers ‘“ wilful” in statute, i. 613 (7). MALICIOUS FINDING, by grand jury, i. 870 d. MALICIOUS MISCHIEF, (See CrurLty TO ANIMALS.) Procedure for, full, ii. 837-850; namely, indictment generally and at com- mon law, 838-844 ; specially ap indictment on statutes, 845, 846; the evi- dence, 847-850. what not duplicity in indictment for, i. 484 (3); to white-oak trees, &c., variance, i. 486 (1); whether allege value in, i. 540 (4); to animals, how charge, i. 570; of the allegation for, i. 583 (2); to “cattle,” how indictment, i. 619. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, grand juror, &c., witness in, i. 858; no action for, against grand jurors, i. 870 D. : MALICIOUS SHOOTING, (See ‘‘ Snoor.”) how join participants in, i. 468 (8) ; how indictment for, i. 629 (2), note. «“ MALICIOUSLY,” in indictment for arson, ii. 42 (2), 48 (1), 44. in indictment for assault and battery, ii. 58. for malicious mischief, ii. 842. in perjury indictment, ii. 922. “MAN,” whether, in indictment for rape, ii. 952. MANACLES, (See Hanpcurr.) on prisoner at arraignment, i. 731; not on prisoner at trial, except, i. 955. MANDAMUS, to compel sentence, i. 815; available in criminal cases, i. 1402 ; when, and nature of, i. 1403. MANNER, charging the, in attempt, ii. 91 (2). MANNER OF DISTURBANCE, charging, in disturbing meeting, ii. 287, 294, 295. “ MANSION-HOUSE,”’ in indictment for burglary, ii. 185 (2). MANSLAUGHTER, (See HomicipE.) Allegations for, full, ii. 495-539; namely, historical and general view, 497- 500; indictment in outline, 501-505; specific questions, 506~536 ; where no assault or battery, 5837-538 a; statutory changes of rules, 539. As to the evidence, full, ii. 597-637; namely, presumptions and burden of proof, 599-608 ; character, conduct, and utterances of deceased, 609- 627; same of defendant and his relations with deceased, 628-630 ; expert testi- mony, 631, 632; other questions of evidence, 6338-637. As to questions of practice, full, ii. 638-642. death from deadly weapon may be, ii. 601. when verdict in a murder case may be for, ii. 689 (8). MANY ACTS, (See Act.) one offence by one count, i. 488 (1). MANY MEANS, charging, not duplicity, i. 434 (1). MARE AND STALLION IN PUBLIC VIEW, indictment for, ii. 867 (2). MARGIN OF INDICTMENT, county in, i. 377, 379, 385. setting out marks in the, in forgery, ii. 407. 812 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. MAY MARITAL COERCION, (See HusBanp AND WIFE.) indictment need not negative, i. 518 (2). MARK, (See ALTERING Mark.) averring signature by, in forgery, ii. 407 (4). MARKET OVERT, sale in, not divest owner of stolen goods, ii. 762 (8). MARKS OF QUOTATION. (See QuoTaTION-MaRKs.) MARKS OF VIOLENCE, in evidence of rape, ii. 968. MARRIAGE, (See UNLAWFUL.) affinity ends with dissolution of, i. 814 (2); relationship by, as disqualify- ing to be juror, i. 901. conspiracy to procure an unlawful, ii. 244. indictment for rape not negative, ii. 956. MARRIED WOMAN OR WOMEN, (See WIFE.) not exempt from arrest, i. 207 @ (5); how bail by, i. 264 ¢ (2); indict- ment against, not negative coercion, i. 513 (2); averring offence against, by maiden name, i. 687 a; not good indorser of indictment, i. 693 (1) ; fine binds a, i. 1304. how charge murder by neglect, against, ii. 558 (2). MARTIAL LAW, arrest under, i. 183 (4), note. MASSACHUSETTS, special doctrine in, as to time in continuing offence, i. 402. MASTER, (See ConFESSION.) “in authority,” for confession, i. 1233 (3). whether ownership in burglary to be laid in, or servant, ii. 138 (2). MASTER OF CROWN OFFICE, information by, i. 143. MATERIAL ALLEGATION, (See ALLEGATION.) not allege, in form of recital, i. 554 (2). MATERIAL AVERMENT, quashing for omission of, i. 772 (2). MATERIALITY OF FALSE TESTIMONY, averring, in perjury, ii. 921, 924; proving, ii. 935. MATHEMATICAL SIGNS, the, in indictment, i. 347 (2). MATRIMONIAL WRONGS, not take away incapacity to be witness, i. 1154. MATRONS. (See Jury or Marxons.) MATTER IN BAR. (See Bar.) MATTER NEGATIVING AVERMENT, destroys indictment, ii. 895 (2). MAXIMS, ‘‘cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex,’’ i. 120 (2), 121; “ better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer,” i. 1092 ; ‘¢falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,” i. 1149; “in vino est veritas,” i. 1229 (1). MAYHEM, the statutory indictment must describe the particulars, i. 629 (2). indictment for attempted, ii. 90. MAYHEM AND STATUTORY MAIMS, Procedure for, full, ii. 850 a-859; namely, common-law proceeding, 851- 854; proceeding upon statutes, 855-859. MAYOR, whether, may bind over, i. 229 a. 813 MIN INDEX OF SUBJECTS. MEANING, (See INTERPRETATION. ) how determine the, of indictment, i. 856; what will support it, i. 356, 510 (2); indictment to be plain in, i. 518. how determine the, in threatening letters, ii. 1029 a. MEANINGLESS WORDS, (See SURPLUSAGE.) rejecting, to make indictment good, i. 481 (4). MEANS, allegation and proof of the, in arson, ii. 50 (4). setting out, in indictment for conspiracy, ii. 208-217. charging the, in assault to kill, ii, 656 (3). MEANS OF DISTURBANCE, alleging, in disturbing meeting, ii. 294, 295. MEANS OF TAKING LIFE, averring the, in homicide, ii. 514. MEASURE OF PROOF, How as to the, full, i. 1052-1055, 1091-1098. MEDICINE, for sick juror, i. 948; jury tobe supplied with, i. 997; intoxi- cants as, i. 999 (2). MEETING, MEETINGS, (See DisturBinG MEETINGS.) the, how set out in disturbing meeting, ii. 286. ‘* MEETING-HOUSE,” in disturbing meeting, ii. 298. MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, (See ConcREss.) whether exempt from arrest, i. 207 @ (8). MEMBERS OF LEGISLATURES, whether exempt from arrest, i. 207 a (4). MEMBERS OR SOCIETY, indictment for disturbing meeting of, ii, 298 (1). MEMORANDA, as evidence, i. 1182 (2). MENTAL CAPACITY, (See INSANITY.) want of, disqualifying juror, i. 925. MERITS, what certainty in pleading to the, i. 324. METHODS, (See DIFFERENT.) Of the substantial allegations, full, i. 645-592. of admitting accomplice, i. 1166, 1167. METHODS TO REHEARINGS, The, full, i. 1263-1271. METHODS SPECIAL, To indictments on statutes, full, i. 598-642. MIDDLE NAME, (See Name.) whether, and how regarded, i. 683, 685. MILE-MARK, duplicity in indictment for omitting, i. 441 (1). “MINISTERIAL, whether committing magistrate’s functions are, i. 237; act of rendering verdict is, i. 1001 (1). MINOR, (See ImmatuRE AGE.) how, defend, i. 959¢; writ of error reaches irregular proceedings against, i, 1369. MINOR’S CLOTHING, how allege ownership of, in larceny, ii. 721 (4). 814 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. MIS MINOR LOCALITY, (See County.) ‘ More minutely of, full, i. 872-382. in indictment, i. 364-367, 369-371; allegation of, without county, i. 378 (1). averring, in bawdy-house indictment, ii. 111. not allege, in gaming-house, ii. 491 (2). MINUTE, how, charge of keeping disorderly house, ii. 275, 276. MINUTENESS, what, of negative in indictment, i. 641. with what, charge aggravated assault, ii. 64 (1). MINUTER PLACE, (See PLacE.) The, in indictment, full, i. 872-875. MINUTES OF JUDGE, amending verdict by, i. 1018 (2). MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS, distinguished from record, i. 1341 (8). MISBEHAVIOR, (See ConTEMPT.) of juror or the panel deliberating, i. $99. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS, Further, full, i. 1382-1417; namely, prisoner escaped, or otherwise unlaw- fully at large, 1882-1886; nolle prosequi, 1887-1396; records mutilated or lost, 1898-1400; petition of review, 1401; mandamus, 1402, 1403; prohili- tion, 1404, 1405; habeas corpus, 1406-1411; equity jurisdiction, 1412-1417. MISCHIEF. (See Maticrous MiscuHier.) ‘“* MISCHIEVOUSLY,” word, in indictment for malicious mischief, ii. 842. MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE, indictment for libel charging, should aver official character, ii. 784 (3). MISDEMEANOR, MISDEMEANORS, (See SUBSTANTIVE.) Joining, in indictment, full, i. 452, 453. Procedure against participants in, full, ii. 1-15. whether all acts in a, must be in one county, i. 55 (1), 56; all, indictable, i. 130; against U.S., when information, i. 145 (5); one committing, flying from arrest, i. 159 (3); whether distinguished from felony in resisting and breaking from arrest, i. 160-162; when arrest for, in process of commission, i. 166, 167, 169-171; whether officer arrest for, without warrant, i. 181 (2); breaking doors to arrest for, i. 197; bail in, i. 260 (1); when appearance by attorney in, i. 268 (2); pris- oner’s presence at trial for, i. 270, 273, 274; prisoner always entitled to counsel in, i. 298; compared with felony as to averment, i. 321; use of “then and there” in indictment for, i. 4138 (1); repetitions of time and place in, distinguished from felony, i. 413 (1); finding, on felony in- dictment, i. 417 (2), 445; distinguished from felony as to election at trial, i. 425 (1), 457, 458; count for, whether join with count for felony, i. 445, 446; consequences of misjoinder, i. 447; joining distinct acts of, in one indictment, i. 452 ; compelling election in, i. 460 (1); “felo- niously ” vitiates, or not, indictment for, i. 537; how differs from felony as to pleading double, i. 749 (2), 750; pleading over in, i. 755, 783 et seq.; demurrer in, 1.783, 784; plea of nolo contendere only in, i. 802 (2); whether jury trial for the minor, i. 892 (4-6); prisoner’s position in court room in trial for, i. 953, 954; distinguished from felony as to separation of jury, i. 995, 996; nolle prosequi of part charging felony, leaving allegation of, i. 1392. 815 MOR INDEX OF SUBJECTS. MISDEMEANOR AND FELONY, Joining in indictment, full, i. 445-448. MISDEMEANOR, FELONY, TREASON, difference in, as to course of trial, | i. 533-537. MISFEASANCE. (See MALFEASANCE.) MISJOINDER, (See JormnpER oF DEFENDANTS.) motion to quash for, i. 778 (1). MISLED AS TO TESTIMONY, adjournment when, i. 966d (2). MISNOMER, Plea of, full, i. 791-7938. whether amend plea of, i. 124 (2), note; how plea of, i. 328. MISPRISION, by neglect to arrest, i. 164 (2). MISPRISION OF FELONY, where prosecute, i. 55 (2). MISTAKE, (See Error.) confession through, i. 1237 (2). MISTAKE OF FACT, (See Fact.) indictment need not negative, i. 522 (2). MISTAKE IN VERDICT, how correct, i. 1014. MISTAKEN BELIEF OF AUTHORITY, effect on confession, i. 1234 (2, 8). MISTAKEN IDENTITY, i. 1060. MISTRIAL, effect of, on bail, i. 262 (2); no arraignment after, i. 730 a (2); juror in, not competent on second trial, i. 918, MITIGATING FORFEITURE in bail, i. 2644 (2). MITIGATION AND AGGRAVATION, (See PunisHMENtT.) of punishment, matter for, not in indictment, i. 85; when move in miti- gation, i. 1294. MITTIMUS, effect of, in prison breach, i. 91; form of, i. 227,228; magistrate’s, i. 238. MOB, declarations from the, in evidence, ii. 68 (3). MODELS, exhibiting, to jury, i. 965 (4), 982 a. MODES OF TRIAL, joinder of offences requiring different, i. 453 (1). MODIFICATIONS, statutory, of common-law indictment for homicide, ii. 539. MODIFIED, How rules of evidence may be, by statute, full, i. 1088-1090. MODIFYING STATUTES, in embezzlement, ii. 328, 829 and note. MOMENTARY ABSENCE from trial, i. 2738. MONEY, (See Bank Bits.) taking, from person arrested, i. 210 (2); 211; how dispose of, i. 212; whether deposit, as bail, i. 264 (1); variance ‘by needless description of, in allegation, 1, 486 (38). how describe, in embezzlement, ii. 821 (2-4). word, as descriptive of thing stolen, in larceny, ii. 703. MORAL CERTAINTY, belief to a, equivalent to ‘‘ beyond reasonable doubt,’’ i. 1094 (4). MORAL FITNESS, lack of, disqualifying juror, i. 925 (4). MORE COUNTS THAN ONE, (See Count.) Verdict on, full, i. 1015, 10154. 816 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. MUR MORE DAYS THAN ONE, Alleging offence on, full, i. 392-398, 402. repetitions of, i. 407, 408. MORE DEFENDANTS THAN ONE, Trial where, full, i. 1017-1041; namely, severance and separate trials, 1018- 1026; the joint trial, 1027-1040; where charge is several, 1041. MORE THAN LAID, proved in larceny, ii. 712 (2). MORE PERSONS THAN ONE, charging assault on, ii. 60. “MORTAL,” in allegation of wound, in homicide, ii. 521. MORTGAGE, variance by needlessly describing, as recorded, i. 486 (5). MORTGAGOR IN POSSESSION, a freeholder, i. 921 (2). MOTION, MOTIONS, whether presence of prisoner at, i. 269, 276 (2), 277 (1); form of the, to quash, i. 772 (5); when, appear in record, i. 1347, MOTION IN ARREST, (See ARREST OF JUDGMENT.) of judgment, whether available for duplicity, i. 443 (4); for former ac- quittal, i. 818; writ of error reaches what will be ground for, i. 1368. effect of, on writ of error, i. 1370. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. (See New TRIAL.) MOTION TO QUASH, (See QuasHING.) Law and practice of the, full, i. 757 a-774. rule of, changed by implication of statute, i. 114; effect of quashing on bail, i. 2644; presence of prisoner at, i. 269; available for improper joinder of counts, i. 425 (1); how, in cases of duplicity, i. 442 (2); prosecutor compelled by, to elect, i. 455 (1); as to criminal informa- tions, i. 713 (4), 715 (2); indictment wrongly found by grand jury, i. 882; applicable to writ of error, i. 1371. refusing, in nuisance, until abated, ii. 872. MOTIVE, (See INTENT.) The presumptions from, full, i. 1107, 1108. proof of another crime to show, i. 1126 (1), 1127 (1); one testify to own, i. 1184; to confession, i. 1218, 1222, 1225, 1233-12389. evidence of, in arson, ii. 53 (5). as evidence in homicide, ii. 629 (4). MOVABLES, (See Goons.) how describe, in indictment, i. 575, 576, ii. 699-710. MULTIFARIOUSNESS, (See Dupticity.) The doctrine of, full, i. 482-443. MUNICIPAL BY-LAW, arrest of one breaking. i. 183 (2). MURDER, (See Curtp Murper — DuE.Luine — Homicipe.) Allegations for, in common with manslaughter, full, ii. 495-589; namely, his- torical and general view, 497-500; indictment in outline, 501-505; specific questions, 506-536; where no assault or battery, 5387-538a; statutory changes of rules, 589. Allegations for, to be added to those for manslaughter, full, ii. 540-559. As to indictment and verdict for, under statutes dividing it into degrees, full, ii. 560-596; namely, indictment, 561-589; verdict, 590-596. As to the evidence, full, ii. 597-637; namely, presumptions and burden of proof, 599-608; character, conduct, and utterances of deceased, 609-627 ; VOL. 11. — 52 817 . NAM INDEX OF SUBJECTS. MURDER — continued. same of defendant and his relations with deceased, 628-630; expert testi- mony, 631, 632; other questions of evidence, 633-6387. As to questions of practice, full, i1. 638-612. As to the attempt, full, ii. 643-663; namely, by poisoning, 644-650 ; by vio- lence, 651-663. how indictment where two degrees of, i. 102; a technical word, how, j. 885; technical words in indictment for, i. 835; allege only county in indictment for, 1.3874; use of “then and there” in indictment for, i. 408; other crimes included in indictment for, i. 417 (2); what other offences in count for, i. 433 (4); one, of two or more persons, i. 487 (5); evi- dence in, of other, i. 1124 (1). indictment against participants in, ii. 5 (1), note. how charge assault with intent to, ii. 64 (1). in duel, ii. 302, 308. word, in indictment for murder, ii. 548-550, possession of stolen goods as evidence in, ii. 747 (2). MURDER TRIALS, (See Trrat.) whether call as witnesses all who were present, i. 966 « (8). MUTILATED OR LOST RECORDS, Doctrine and practice of, full, i. 1898-1400. MUTUAL RELATIONS, of parties, as evidence in homicide, ii. 680 (1). NAME, (See Curist1an — Ipem Sonans — Wrong.) amendments of indictments as to the, i. 97 (4, 5), 98, 104 (1); when in- dictment should allege, i. 104 (1), 571 et seq.; proving, as laid, i. 488 (3, 5); allegation of, unknown, i. 495 (2), 546 (2)-552, 676-680 ; proof of, unknown, i. 552; variance in, where tenor of instrument is alleged, i. 562; foreign, i. 564; when, to be alleged, and how, i. 571 (1), 572; repugnancy in, not permissible, i. 572 (1); change of, effect in plead- ing, i. 687 a; in indictment, altering by amendment, i. 711 (8); how take advantage of wrong, i. 740 (2); proof of, on plea of misnomer, i. 792 (3). of human being in house set fire to, ii. 40 (1). alleging, of assaulted person, ii. 62. proving, of assaulted person, ii. 65 (1). averring, of person assaulted to murder, ii. 77 (4). alleging, of person to be cheated in conspiracy, ii. 210 (2). whether, of person to whom passed, in indictment for passing counterfeit coin, ii. 259 (2). alleging, of person defrauded in forgery, ii. 421 et seq. and proof, of owner in larceny, ii. 718-726, 736 (1), 752. of owner in larceny from dwelling-house, ii. 778 (1). of concurring persons, in indictment for riot, ii. 998 (3). of owner of house pulled down, ii. 999 (2). alleging, of co-conspirators in treason, ii. 1033. NAME AND ADDITION, Of defendant and third persons, full, i. 669-689 b; namely, addition, 671- 675.a: naming defendants and third persons, 676-682; further of name, 683-689 / 818 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. NAT NAME OF ANIMAL, averring, in sodomy, ii. 1015 (2). NAME CHANGED, how indictment after, i. 687 a. NAME OF CRIME, unimportant in indictment, i. 416; partial verdict may be by, i. 1010 (8). NAME OF DECEASED, proof of, in homicide, ii. 686. NAME FORGED. (See PERson.) NAME OF FORGED INSTRUMENT, whether or how aver, ii. 413-415. whether, and how ayer, in statutory forgery, ii. 439. NAME OF GAME, need not allege, in gaming-house, ii. 492 (1). NAME OF LESSEE, in indictment for letting house for bawdry, ii. 120. -NAME OF OWNER, allege, in receiving stolen goods, ii. 983 (1); prove, ii. 991 a. NAME OF PERSON, changing by amendment, in indictment, i. 97 (5), 98. NAME OF PERSON UNDER ARREST, in indictment for resisting officer, ii. 894 (2). NAME OF PERSON DEFRAUDED, averring, in false pretences, ii. 173 (8), 174. NAME OF PERSON INJURED, in statutory utterings, whether aver, ii. 452. NAME OF PERSON SLAIN, In indictment for homicide, full, ii. 506-511. NAME OF PROSECUTOR, Indorsement of, on indictment, full, i. 690-694. NAME OF SOCIETY, whether allege, in disturbing meeting, ii. 298 (2). NAME OF STATE, whether set out, in forgery, ii. 409 (2). NAME OF THIEF, need not allege, in receiving, ii. 982 (3). NAME UNKNOWN, alleging, in cheat, ii. 159 (1). NAMES OF FREQUENTERS, not allege, in indictment for bawdy-house, ii. 107 (1). not, in indictment for disorderly house, ii. 276 (2). NAMES OF PLAYERS, whether allege, in gaming-house, ii. 492 (2), 498. NAMES OF THE PLEAS, With their import, full, i. 734-743. NAMES OF WITNESSES, (See INDORSEMENT.) indorsement of, on indictment, i. 869 a (2). NATIONALITY, of ship, proof of, i. 384 (6). NATURAL AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES, when presume in- tended, i. 1100. NATURE, Procedure for offence against, full, ii. 10138-1018 a. 819 NEG INDEX OF SUBJECTS. NATURE OF ACCOMPLICE, (See INroRMERS.) common informer in, i. 1173 (8). NATURE OF ACT, (See Act.) as to allegation of intent, i. 524. NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION, constitutional provision con- corning, i. 88; indictment to state, i. 110. , NATURE OF OFFENCE, as to duplicity, i. 487. NAVIGABLE RIVER. (See River.) NEAREST ANTECEDENT, (See ANTECEDENT — UNCERTAIN.) rule of referring word to, i. 355, 512. NECESSARIES, jury to be supplied with, i. 907 ; may express to officer their need of, i. 998 a (1). how indictment for homicide by withholding, ii. 588 @ (1). NECESSITY, As affecting allegation, full, i. 493-498. Excuse for not averring name, full, i. 676-681. how governs procedure, i. 7 (2); effect of, on constitutional requirement, i. 50 (4); is supreme in the law, i. 113 (1); waiver of rights comes from, i. 119; only, justifies killing in arrest, i. 161 (2); non-compliance of bail from, when discharges, i. 2647 (1); when makes wife witness against husband, i. 1153; permitting testimony of deceased, sick, absent, or insane witness to be supplied, i, 1195; the rule for receiving or rejecting confession, i. 1221 (2). NECESSITY AND CHARITY, whether indictment for violating Lord’s day must negative, i. 636 (8). NECESSITY OR CHARITY, jury to determine, in Lord’s day, ii. 818 (3). NEEDLESS ADJECTIVE, creates variance, i. 486 (1). NEEDLESS AVERMENTS, (See UsELEss.) The principal common, full, i. 499-504. NEGATIVE, (See INDICTMENT ON STATUTE.) What indictment on statute must, and how, full, i. 631-642. when indictment must contain, i. 513 a. for violating Lord’s day, ii. 816 (1); nuisance, ii. 869. NEGATIVE DESCRIPTION of offence, indictment on statute allege, i. 636 (6). NEGATIVING AUTHORITY, in false imprisonment, ii. 367 (1, 2). NEGATIVING PRETENCES, In false-pretence indictment, full, ii. 168, 169. NEGLECT, (See Dury.) place of trial for, i. 53 (5); how charged as to time, i. 898; indictment for death by, how, i. 542. official procedure for, ii. 822 et seq. NEGLECT TO ARREST, indictable, i. 206 (1). NEGLECT OF DUTY, how charge murder by, ii. 588. NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE, as barring right to have restitution of stolen goods, ii. 760. NEGLECT TO REPAIR WAY, how indictment for, ii. 827. 820 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. NOL NEGLIGENT ESCAPE, proof of, ii, 942. NEGROES, (See SLAVE.) right of, to have, on jury, and to be jurors, i. 930 (2). NEW BAIL, taking, i. 263 @ (4). NEW COUNT, what words introduce, i. 182 (2). NEW EVIDENCE, discovered after opening to jury, i. 969 (5, 6). NEW INDICTMENT in place of one lost, i. 1400. NEW PUNISHMENT, provided by statute, does not require indictment statutory, i. 597, 600. NEW TRIAL, Methods through which, applied for, full, i. 1263-1271. On what principles granted, full, i. 1272-1281. whether prisoner present at hearing for, i. 276 (2); no second arraignment after order for, i. 730 a (2); when, for objecting to grand jury and its doings, i. 887 (2); objectionable jurors as cause for, i. 949 6 (2); when adjournment for surprise is refused, i. 966d (2); for misconduct of counsel, i, 975 8; for verdict contrary to law, i. 987 (8); for misconduct of jurors, i. 994 (2); whether, for irregularity of jury, i. 998a (3), 999; whether, for furnishing jury with intoxicants, i. 999 (2); for in- adequate special verdict, i. 1008 (8); for erroneous instructions on good and bad counts, i. 1015 (3); when verdict set aside, i. 1016 (2); whether, to let in witness, i. 1033 (2); to convicted defendant, to use testimony of acquitted, i. 1033; in case of joint defendants, i. 1038; whether, to let in defence of alibi, i. 1065; as a method for rehearing, i. 1268; the practice on, i. 1268 (8), 1271; effect of ordering, i. 1271; because record lost, i. 1398. NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, opening of, to jury, i. 969 (5); new trial for, i. 1279; must not be cumulative, &c., i. 1279. NEWSPAPERS, (See Books.) whether prohibit, to witnesses in waiting, i. 1190 (2). NICE OBJECTIONS, discard, in indictment, i. 511 (8). NIGHT, (See Day — Timez.) allegation and proof of offence in, i. 401 (8). how allege, in burglary, ii. 131 (2), 182; proof of, ii. 184. NIGHT-WALKER, right of private persons to arrest a, i. 169, 170 (2), note; arrests of, by constables, &c., i. 182 (1). how indictment against, ii. 874 a. NO CRIME, juror who deems act charged, disqualified, i. 917 (2); habeas corpus setting free one held on allegations disclosing, i. 1410 (8). NO OFFENCE, quashing where, i. 772 (2). NO OFFENCE CHARGED, whether or when waived, i. 123 (8). NOISE, NOISES, (See Breacu or PEACE.) breach of peace may be by, i. 183 (5). house may be disorderly by reason of, ii. 106 (2). proof of, in disorderly house, ii. 280 (2). indictment for nuisance by, ii. 8748. NOLLE PROSEQUI, ., The law and practice of, gil, i. 1887-1396. may cure indictment of duplicity, i. 443 (2); electing count or transac- 821 NOT INDEX OF SUBJECTS. NOLLE PROSEQUI — continued. tion by, i. 456 (1); quashing a substitute for, i. 760; by Attorney- General to information, i. 760; to superfluous matter, i. 1014 (3); applied to cure imperfect verdict, i. 1014 (8); of joint defendant, to make him witness, i. 1020 (4); to admit accomplice, i. 1166. NOLO CONTENDERE, Plea of, full, i. 802-804, NON COMPOS MENTIS. (See Insanity.) NON-CONSENT, to taking in larceny, ii. 752 a. NON-DELIVERY, of books to successor, indictment for, ii. 829. NON-EXPERT OPINIONS, (See Oprnron.) as evidence, i. 1178. NON-EXPERT WITNESSES, opinions of, in insanity, ii. 676-682. NON-FEASANCE, (See Orricrat Dury.) in office, how aver, i. 555 (2); negativing proviso, i. 687 (8); how con- clusion of indictment for, i. 649 (1). NON-FEASANCE IN OFFICE, Procedure for, full, ii. 819-836 ; namely, refusal to accept office, 820, 821; corruption in office, 822-836. NON-PAYMENT OF MONEY COLLECTED, how indictment for, ii. 830 (2), 831. NON-REPAIR OF WAY, Procedure for, full, ii. 1043-1049. NON-RESIDENT, (See ALIEN.) whether can be juror, i. 922 (1). NONSUIT, no, in criminal causes, i. 961 (2). NORMAN-FRENCH, anciently, in indictment, i. 341 (1). NOT ALLEGED. (See ALLEGED.) “NOT BAPTIZED,” words, describing murdered child, ii. 510. NOT CHARGED, proof of crime, i. 1123. NOT IN COUNTY, how allege offence, under statutory jurisdiction, i. 381, 382. NOT IN EVIDENCE, no charge on fact, i. 978 (2). NOT FOUND, (See Finpinc Part.) grand jury’s indorsement of bill as, i. 697. NOT GUILTY, (See PLEA.) Plea of, full, i. 794 a-801. when plea of, ordered by court, i. 733 a; joinder of dilatory plea with plea of, i. 750; court entering plea of, i. 785; plea of, oral, i. 788 (2), 790; former jeopardy not under plea of, i. 806 (1); adding, to plea of former conviction or acquittal, i. 811; burden of proof on plea of, i. 1049; plea of, in record, i. 1354 (1). covers and includes plea of insanity, ii. 669. NOT OBJECTING, to wrong charge of judge, i. 980 (6). NOT SEEING, (See ContrapicT WITNESS.) contradictions of seeing and, i. 1071 (2). 822 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. OAT NOT IN STATE, (See ExTRADITION.) crime by one, not extraditable, i. 220 (3). NOT TRUE BILL, (See True Bit.) grand jury’s indorsement as, i. 697, 701 (2). NOTE OF PARTICULARS, (See Bru oF.) Ordering, full, i. 643-646. NOTES. (See Taxine Notes.) NOTICE, when, in place of actual arrest, i. 206 (1). NOTICE AND DEMAND), before breaking door, i. 201. NOTICE TO PRODUCE, (See Lost — Paper.) needed papers at trial, i. 959 c. in larceny, ii. 753 (2). NOTICE OF TRIAL, whether and when, i. 950 0 (1). NOVEL MEANING, (See INTERPRETATION.) of word in indictment, i, 358. NUISANCE, (See ABATE— BarratRy — BiaspHemy — CARRYING GuN— Common Scotp — DisorpErLy House — Distursine MEEt- inc — DrunKENNESs — Exposine INvECTED Person — FoRESTALLER — Gaminc-Hovuss — Liquor-SeLting — Lorn’s Day — Way.) Procedure for, full, ii. 860-878; namely, indictment generally and at com- mon law, 861-867 ; indictment specially upon statutes, 868, 869; evidence and practice, 869 a-874; particular nuisances not elsewhere considered, 874 a-878. whether arrest one committing, i. 170 (2), note; arrest of one placing, i. 183 (2); presence of defendant at judgment to abate, i. 275 (8); how allegation for abatement of, i. 372 (4); how allege time of, i. 393 (2); bill of particulars in, i. 645 (4); when injunction against, i. 1417. eavesdropping is a, ii. 312. in violating Lord’s day, ii. 812. NUISANCE ABATED, quashing indictment because, i. 772 (8). NUMBER, how prove, to avoid variance, i. 488 6 (4), 579; of grand jury, 1. 854, 855. of bank-bill, not aver, ii. 407 (38). NUMBER OF COUNT, partial verdict may be by, i. 1010 (2). NUMBER AND UNANIMITY, Of petit jurors, full, i. 897-899. NUMBERS OF FORGED INSTRUMENTS, whether uttering, more offences than one, ii. 482; possessing, ii. 483. NUMERALS, (See Ficures.) whether allowable in indictments, i. 344, 345. NUNC PRO TUNC entries in record, i. 13438. NURSE, as expert in insanity, ii. 687. OATH, (See Farsz SwEearinc — Juror — Persury — SWEARING Witness — WITNESS.) Allegation of the, in perjury, full, ii. 912-914. whether magistrate commit or arrest, without, i. 280 (8) ; forms as to, i. 230 (4); search-warrant to be on, i. 242 (2); the, in indictment for per- jury, i. 529 (8); whether information verified by, i. 718 (3), 714 (2); 823 OFF INDEX OF SUBJECTS. OATH — continued. whether, to complaint before inferior magistrate, i. 718 (1); to plea in abatement, i. 793 (1); required of grand jurors, i. 856; evidence before grand jury to be under, i. 865 (1); how administered to witness before grand jury, i. 868 (4); no plea in abatement for improper, i. 885 (2); to petit jury, form of, i. 983; whether jury violate their, in not follow- ing instructions, i. 987 (2); to officer having care of jury, i. 991 (2, 8); admissions under pressure of unlawful, as evidence, i. 1256; or other, i. 1257; whether and how, in record, i. 1357, how prove the, in perjury, ii. 933 c. OBEYED STATUTE, presumption that official persons, i. 1856. OBJECTING, (See CHALLENGING AND IMPANELLING.) To grand jury by challenge, full, i. 875-881, Lo petit jurors after sworn, full, i. 946-949 0, before sworn, i. 982 a; promptly to errors, i. 966 6; to argument, i. 975 b (2); to instructions of court, i. 980; to witness, i. 1187 (2). OBJECTION UNKNOWN, at time to challenge petit juror, i. 949 a. OBJECTIONS TO PROCESS, too late after trial, i. 756 (8). OBSCENE LIBEL, how set out, ii. 790; procedure for, ii. 794 a. OBSCENE ORAL WORDS, how set out, in libel, ii. 808 (2); how prove, ii. 809. OBSCENE PICTURE, indictment for libel by, ii. 794 b. OBSCENITY, (See ScanpaLous Worps.) how allege, i. 496, 561 (2). OBSERVATION, OBSERVATIONS, latitude of, in judge’s charge to jury, i. 982; dying declarations open to, i. 1216. “OBSTRUCT,” in indictment for disturbing meeting, ii. 285 (8). OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENT AND JUSTICE, Procedure for, full, ii. 879-898 ; namely, assaulting or resisting officer, 881- 895; other obstructions, 896-898. OBSTRUCTING OFFICER, in arrest, crime of, i. 185 (2). OBSTRUCTING WAY, Procedure for, full, ii, 1050-1053. OBSTRUCTION, how set out the, in public way, ii. 1052. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, conclusion of to the, in indictment, i. 647 (1). “ OBTAINED,” in false-pretence indictment, ii. 175, 176. OCCUPANCY, ownership by, in arson, ii. 36 (2), 37 (1). ‘“‘OF AND CONCERNING,” in indictment for libel, ii. 785. OFFENCE, OFFENCES, (See Crime — CRIMINAL TRANSACTIONS — | JOINDER OF —No Orrencr CHARGED.) must be complete in county, i. 54-56; how described, in recognizance, i. 264 6 (4); including several, in one count, i. 473 et seq.; committed in different ways, i. 484; serious or public, quashing indictment for, i- 769 (2); quashing indictment for no, i. 772 (2). 824 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. OLD OFFENCES AND COUNTS, Sentence where more than one, full, i, 1825-1334. OFFENSIVE ACTS, proof of, not within allegation, in nuisance, ii. 877. OFFENSIVE TRADE, indictment for nuisance of, ii. 875; other instances in proof of, ii. 876. “ OFFER,” in attempt to bribe, ii. 126 (2). OFFICE, (See MaLFEaAsANceE, &c., IN.) proof of, i. 1130, 1181. how lay burglary in an, ii. 186. falsely assuming, ii. 898. OFFICER, OFFICERS, (See ARREST — ASSAULT — OBSTRUCTING OFrriceR — OFFICIAL CONDUCT AND.) Right of arrest by, without warrant, full, i. 173-184. Under warrant, full, i. 187-193, 206-218. Jury in care of, full, i. 991-993. Procedure for resisting or assaulting, full, ii. 881-895. Escapes suffered by, full, ii. 941, 942. delivering arrested person to, i. 214 (1); exempt from jury service, not disqualified, i. 926 (3); possession by, of prisoner on trial, i. 9524; having care of jury, how, i. 998 a; jury not act on statements from at- tending, i. 998 a (3); presumed to have done his duty, i. 1131; deemed ‘in authority,” for confession, i. 1233 (8); confession to, by arrested person, i. 1238 (1). OFFICER ATTENDING grand jury, i. 861 (1). OFFICER’S CARE, what permit to jury in, i. 997. OFFICER PRESENT, must be, when bystander assists, i. 186 (1). OFFICIAL APPOINTMENT, dispensing with proof of, i. 1180, 1131. OFFICIAL CHARACTER, how proved, i. 1130 (2). of person killed, not allege in indictment for homicide, ii. 506 (2). proof of, in libel, ii. 804. how set out the, in malfeasance in office, ii. 823; how prove, ii. 824. how allege, in resisting or assaulting officer, ii. 884, 886; how prove, ii. 891, 895 (1). OFFICIAL CONDUCT AND DUTY, The presumptions from, full, i. 11380, 1131. OFFICIAL DUTY, DUTIES, joining offences for violation of, i. 458 (2), note. officer presumed to have performed, ii. 893. OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS, presumed authorized from their doing, i. 1130 (2). OFFICIAL NEGLECT, (See Non-FEASANCE.) indictment for, i. 687 (3). OFFICIAL PERSON OR COURT, how aver, in perjury, ii. 910. OLD AGE, (See Senior.) as excusing from grand jury, i. 853 (1). OLD FORMS, (See Form.) adhering to, i. 822 (1). OLD RULES, compared with new, as to criminal pleading, i. 322 (1). 825 OPI INDEX OF SUBJECTS. OMISSION OF DUTY, (See Non-FEASANCE.) how lay time in, i. 898; conclusion of indictment for, i. 648 (4). OMISSION OF EVIDENCE, how regarded, i. 966 ¢ (2, 3). OMISSION OF FACT, how supply, in record, i. 1343. OMITTING AVERMENTS, from necessity, i. 493. OMITTING TO EXPLAIN the other party’s prima facie case, i. 966 ¢ (2). “ON OR ABOUT,” in alleging day of offence, i. 390 (1). “ONE IN AUTHORITY,” (See Guarp.) confession to, i. 1233, 1234. ONE COUNT, (See Count.) one offence only provable under, i. 460 (1) ; demurrer to, i. 779 (1). ONE DAY, averring, when more in fact, i. 397; offence charged on, proof of more or different days, i. 400 (1), 401. “ONE NOT IN AUTHORITY,” (See ConFEssion.) confession to, i. 1288, 1234. ONE OFFENCE, what is, i. 483-441. of keeping gaming-house, what, ii. 489 (3). what, of violating Lord's day, ii. 814. ONE OF TWO PERSONS GUILTY, convict neither, i. 1105. ONE WITNESS, not alone adequate in perjury, ii. 928, 932. O’NEIL’S CASE, something concerning, i. 100 a (4) and note. OPEN COURT, (See Court.) whether magistrate must sit in, i. 726; trials to be in, i. 957, 958; jury act only on evidence delivered in, i. 998 a (3); communications between court and jury to be in, i. 1000; verdict to be rendered in, i. 1001 (5); confession in, i. 1254 a (2, 8); sentence must be in, i. 1291 (1). OPEN SHOP, procedure for, on Lord’s day, ii. §13 et seq. OPENINGS TO THE JURY, For the prosecution, full, i. 967-971. For the defence, full, i. 972, 973. OPINION, OPINIONS, (See Bras — Expressep.) As evidence, full, i. 1177-1180. on question of guilt, whether disqualifies to be juror, i. 908-910; not, in dying declaration, i. 1207 (2); word, in sentence, i. 1296. in proof of handwriting in forgery, ii. 432-433. OPINION OF COUNSEL, as to prisoner’s innocence, expression of, i. 311; as to guilt, inadmissible, i. 975 a (2). OPINION ON EVIDENCE, whether judge in his charge may give, i. 981. OPINION OF GUILT. (See Gu1t.) OPINION OF LAW, As disqualifying to be juror, full, i. 916-918. OPINION OF WITNESS, not, that a house is a nuisance, ii. 279 (1). that acts were disturbance of meeting, ii. 287 (1). general doctrine as to admitting, ii. 676. on a question of insanity, ii, 676, 686. as to value, ii. 751 (8). of experts, in rape, ii. 978. 826 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. ORT “ OR,” (See DissUNCTIVE AND CONJUNCTIVE ALLEGATIONS.) in statute, ‘‘ and ”’ in indictment, i. 486, 484 (2), 586-588; specific terms in statute connected by, how indictment, i. 620 (2). in indictment for conspiracy, ii. 224. word, in indictment for poisoning, ii. 647. “ORY? “ AND,” Rules for the use of these several words in the indictment, full, i. 585-592. ORAL, (See VerBAL ORDER — WRITING.) pleadings were anciently, i. 840 (1); whether plea of pardon, i. 848; whether judge’s charge to jury to be, i. 976 (1); whether verdict i. 1002 (1); dying declaration may be, i. 1213. ORAL PLEA, Procedure as to, full, i. 788-790. of pardon, i. 848. ORAL WORDS, (See Worps.) How allege, full, i. 559-563. how set out, in indictments, ii. 123, 807-809, 904 et seq. ORAL OR WRITTEN, whether demurrer is, i. 776 (4). ORDER, (See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.) Of proceedings, in acriminal cause, stated in outline, full, i. 28-44. Of proceedings at trial, full, i. 960-966 d. of plea of pardon, i. 847 (1); of proceedings where defendants jointly in- dicted, i. 1040; by which party election to bring on trial, i. 1045. how distinguished from ‘' warrant,” ii. 439 (8). proceeding for forgery of an, ii. 478, 474. 5; ORDER OF AVERMENTS, in indictment, i. 511 (2). ORDER OF CAUSES on the docket, i. 950 6 (2). ORDER OF EVIDENCE, At trial, full, i. 966-966 6. ORDER OF EXCLUSION, Of witnesses from court, full, i. 1188-1198 a. ORDER FOR INSPECTION, preparatory to trial, i. 959 d. ORDER OF JUDGE, to execute capital sentence, i. 1336. ORDER OF PLEAS, the, i. 746. ORDER OF RESTITUTION, of stolen goods, ii. 762 (2). ORDER TO RESTORE MONEY, in treason, ii. 1041. ORDER OF STEPS, (See Cuorce oF — PROCEDURE.) In trial, full, i. 963, 964, 967-982 a. ORDER OF TESTIMONY, on preliminary hearing, i. 234 0 (2). in conspiracy trial, ii. 231. ORDER OF THIS WORK as to evidence, i. 1046 (2). “ ORDERED,” word, in the sentence, i. 1296. ORE TENUS. (See ORAL PLEA.) ORGANIZATION AND DOINGS OF GRAND JURY, (See Error.) Exposition of, full, i. 849-889. ORNAMENTS, about bill, not aver, ii. 407 (3). ORTHOGRAPHY, (See SPELLING.) not regarded in name, i. 688. 827 OVE INDEX OF SUBJECTS. OTHER ATTEMPTS, proof of, in false pretences, ii. 189. OTHER CRIME. (See ANOTHER CRIME.) OTHER DISTURBANCES, by third persous, ii. 288. OTHER INSTANCES, When may prove another crime, full, i. 1120-1129. of conspiracy in evidence, ii. 235 (2). in proof of having counterfeit coin with intent to pass it, ii. 268 (1), 270 (2). in proof of embezzlement, ii. 327 (4). whether prove, in forgery, ii. 428 (1). of larceny, whether admissible, ii. 750. proving, in malicious mischief, ii. 848 (4). as evidence of receiving stolen goods, ii. 990. proving, in threatening letters, ii, 1029. OTHER LOCALITIES, treasonable acts in, ii. 1038. OTHER UTTERINGS, proving, in passing counterfeit coin, ii. 261 (2). “OTHER WRONGS,” averment of, in indictment, ii. 57 (1). “OTHERWISE CALLED,” words, how used in pleading, i. 681. OUSTED, allegation of, in forcible entry, ii. 387 (2). OUT-BUILDING, how lay burglary in, ii. 185 (2). OUT-HOUSE, as name of the structure in arson, ii. 34 (2). OUTCRIES, when of the res geste, i. 1087. of ravished woman, in rape, ii. 969. OUTER DOORS, distinguished from inner, as to breaking for arrest, i. 196, 200. OUTLAWRY, addition required to name in, i. 673 (1). OUTSIDE PERSONS, when juror not converse with, i. 994 (2), 997. OUTSIDE THE HOUSE, proof of what is done, in disorderly house, ii. 280 (1). OUTWARD FORM, (See Form — SurERVISING.) setting out facts by, i. 8332-334. OVERDRAWING ACCOUNT, (See EMBEZZLEMENT.) how indictment for, i. 629 (2), note. OVERHEARD, confession, admissibility of, i. 1226 (2). OVERLOOKING THINGS, destroys decisions as precedents, ii. 587 (2). OVERSEERS OF POOR, (See Poor Prisoner.) indictment against, in general terms, i. 494 (4). OVERT ACT, ACTS, (See Act — Conspiracy.) laying the, in conspiracy and treason, i. 437 (2). in indictment for conspiracy, ii. 205 (2), 206, 228. as evidence of venue, ii. 236 (2). averring, in treason, ii. 1082. 828 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. PAR OWN AFFAIRS, belief on which jurors would act in, whether equivalent to beyond reasonable doubt, i. 1094 (5). OWN FAVOR, evidence in one’s, in conspiracy, ii. 232. OWN GOODS, how charge larceny of, ii. 721 (2). evidence of larceny of, ii. 749. OWN WRITINGS, witness to forgery of one’s, ii. 481. OWNER DECEASED, restitution of stolen goods, where, ii. 761 (2). OWNER’S NAME, alleging, in riot, ii. 999 (2). OWNERSHIP, (See PROPERTY.) Allegation and proof of, in burglary, full, ii. 187-139. Allegation of, in larceny, full, ii. 718-726. proved as laid, i. 488 6 (3); alleging, for identification, i. 566 (2), 575 (2), 581-584; inaccuracy, vepugnancy, or variance iy i. 582. in indictment for arson, ii. 36-39. averring, in false pretences, ii. 173 (2). proving, in false pretences, ii. 184 (2). allegation of, in embezzlement, ii. 320 (2). proof of, in embezzlement, ii. 327 (7). in extortion, 11. 363. laying, in statutory larceny, ii. 736 (1). proving, ii. 752. in larceny from dwelling-house, ii. 778 (1). as to averring and proving, for keeping open shop on Sunday, ii. 817 (5). whether allege and prove, in malicious mischief, ii. 848, 850 (1). averring, in rescuing goods, ii. 890. charging and proving, in robbery, ii. 1006 (8). OYSTERS, how indictment for larceny of, ii. 707 (8). PAIR OF BOOTS, how indictment for larceny of, ii. 710 (2). PANEL, (See List or Jurors.) defined, i. 931; furnishing prisoner with, i. 931 a@ (1). PAPER, PAPERS, (See Lost — Lost InstRUMENT.) whether indictment to be on parchment or on, i. 337 (1); giving notice to produce, i. 959¢; what, jury take to their room, i. 982a; supplying lost, from files, by copies, i. 1399. PARAGRAPH, whether different counts in one, i. 429. PARAPHERNALIA, how lay ownership of wife’s, in larceny, ii. 726. PARCHMENT, (See PAPER.) whether indictment on, i. 387 (1). PARDON, How plead, full, i. 882-848. Procedure as to sentence after forfeiture of conditional, full, i, 1882~1386. 829 PAR INDEX OF SUBJECTS. PARDON — continued. counsel to plead, i. 297 ; the certainty required in plea of, i. 323 (4); as a plea in bar, i. 742 (2); plea of, is special, 1.799 (3); whether removes disqualification of infamous juror, i. 924 (1); burden of proof on plea of, i. 1048 (2); obtaining, by approvement, i. 1156 (2); to be granted accomplice witness, i. 1164; how, where one gives evidence hoping to procure, i. 1175 (2); when plead, i. 1293; reprieve pertains to power of, i. 1299; arrest of one after, on condition broken, i. 1383; how dis- pose of him, i. 1384. PARDONING POWER, representative of, admitting accomplice as witness, i. 1161 (4). PARENT, assault by, on child, ii. 70. PARENTS AND CHILDREN, witnesses for each other, i. 1140. PARISH, (See Country.) alleging the, in indictment, i. 366, 870-375; alleging offence in, without county, i. 378 (1). aver not the. in disturbing meeting, ii. 286 a. PAROL PROOF on plea of second jeopardy, i. 544. PART, Conviction of, where more counts than one, full, i. 1825-1334. verdict of guilty of, silent as to the rest, i. 1011; verdict finding, no evi- dence as to the rest, i. 1014; verdict as to, where persons are indicted jointly, i. 1036 (2). verdict of guilty of, in burglary, ii. 141 (2). conviction for, in forcible entry and detainer, ii. 388 (2). proof of, on indictment for assaulting officer, ii. 895 (1). PART OR ALL, demurrer may be to, i. 779 (1); nolle prosequi to, i. 1391 (1), 1392. PART OF A CONFESSION, jury may believe, while all is produced, i. 1241. PART OF INDICTMENT, may be quashed or nol. pros’d, i. 764; plea of guilty and not guilty, each to a, i. 7944 (2). PART OF LIBEL, alleging only, ii. 791, 792 (1). PART OF PRETENCES, alleging only, ii. 170; proving only, ii. 171. PART OF SPEECH, (See GRAMMAR). what, in charging offence, i. 556 (1). PARTIAL VERDICT, (See VerpIcT.) Doctrine and practice of, full, i. 1009-1011. what is a, i. 1005 (8). PARTICIPANTS IN CRIME, How indictment against the several, full, i. 462 a—472, ii. 1-15. As witnesses, full, i. 1156-1176. PARTICIPLE, (See UNGRAMMATICAL.) in averring offence, i. 556 (8, 4), 558. PARTICULAR COURTS, references to cases concerning, i. 314 a. PARTICULAR CRIME, Indictment as to the, full, i. 415-420. Doing acts intending, full, ii. 86-93. 830 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. PEO PARTICULAR LOCALITY, (See Locanity.) formerly, in indictment, 1. 864 (2)-366. PARTICULAR ‘MANNER, of malicious mischief, averring, ii. 844. PARTICULAR PLACES, Procedure for larcenies from, full, ii. 777-779. PARTICULAR PRESUMPTIONS. (See Sprerat.) PARTICULAR TERMS of statute, how following in indictment on it, i. 618. PARTICULAR TRAIT, of character, in evidence, i. 1113. PARTICULARS. (See Bix oF.) to what, indictment descend, i. 98a; aver, of former jeopardy, i. 814 (5). PARTICULARS OF TRANSACTION, not compelling election as to the, i, 459 (4). PARTIES, When disqualified as witnesses, testifying for themselves, full, i. 1139, 1181- 1187. who, in criminal cases, i. 1082. PARTNERS, how lay ownership of, in burglary, ii. 138 (4), 189. how charge forgery to defraud, ii. 424. names of, in allegation of ownership in larceny, ii. 718 (8), 728 (1), 724. PARTRIDGE, how indictment for larceny of, ii. 708. PARTS OF BUILDING, ownership of, in burglary, ii. 138 a. PASSED UPON THE QUESTION, Petit juror having, disqualifies, full, i. 911-915. PASSING, proof of, counterfeit coin, ii. 260 (1). PASSING COUNTERFEIT COIN, Procedure for, full, ii. 257-262. PASSING JURORS, practice of, i. 938-940. PASSIONS OF JURY, counsel not to inflame, i. 975 (2). PAST MISDEMEANOR, not arrest for, without warrant, i. 167. PAUPER, how indictment for cruelty to, ii. 828 (3). PAWNEE, cannot hold stolen goods, ii. 762 (8). “PEACE.” (See Breacn or—In Prace— SuRETIES OF.) “PEACE OF GOD,” words, in averment, i. 336 (2). in assault and battery, ii. 57 (2). PEACE OFFICER, When arrest without warrant, full, i. 181-184. PECUNIARY INTEREST, (See Interkst.) disqualifies juror, i. 902, 907; witness, i. 1138. PEN AND PAPER, (See Paper.) prisoner may have, at trial, i. 956. PENALTY, not multiplicity of actions for, i. 458 (2), note; witness entitled to, disqualified, i. 1138 (2). PENCIL, whether indictment good in, i, 337 (2). PEOPLE, rights of, in court-room, i. 952. 831 PER INDEX OF SUBJECTS. PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, (See CHALLENGE.) Doctrine and practice of, full, i. 935-945. Where defendants are joint, full, i. 1028-1032. not, of grand jurors, i. 880; not, to jury on issue of identity, i. 1385. PERFECT ALIBI, what is, i. 1067. PERFECTING VERDICT, practice of, i 1004 PERJURY, Procedure for, full, ii. 899-939; namely, indictment, 901-926; evidence, 927-935 a; questions of practice, 986, 937; attempts, 988, 939. variance in allegation and proof of, i. 401 (5); whether joint indictment for, i. 470 (5); when ill assignment surplusage, i. 480 (2); variance, as tb term of court in, and circumstances, i. 488¢ (3); indictment for, must state oath, i. 529 (2); grand jurors witnesses in, committed before them, i. 857, 858; grand jury indicting for, before them, i. 864 (2); not, for jury to disobey court’s instructions, i. 987 (2); witnesses to, i. 1148, 1149. indictment for soliciting to, ii. 75 (1). PERMISSION, (See CHALLENGE BY.) when court grant jury, to separate, i. 994 (3). PERMISSION OF CROWN, when writ of error only by, i. 1862 (1). PERSON, (See Exposure oF Person.) procedure for larcenies from the, ii. 780. charging robbery as from the, ii. 1006 (1). PERSON ARRESTED, (See Arrest.) how dispose of, i. 213 et seq. PERSON TO BE DEFRAUDED, Allegation of the, in forgery, full, ii. 420-425 b. PERSON INJURED, (See NAME.) when must aver, i. 509 (2); allege name of, i. 571-(1); utterances out of court by, not evidence, i. 1082 (2); as witness, i. 1138. PERSON LIBELLED, alleging name of, in libel, ii. 784 (1). PERSON WHOSE NAME IS FORGED, witness in forgery, ii. 429 (2). PERSON SLAIN, How describe and prove, in indictment for homicide, full, ii. 506-511. PERSON UNKNOWN, (See Namr.) how when, i. 495 (2), 546 (2)-552, 676-680; ii. 225, 508-510, 1033. PERSONAL ARREST, by justice of peace, i. 177 (1). PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, grand jury finding indictment on, i. 864 (1); truly viewed, is expert opinion, i. 1177 (1). PERSONAL PRESENCE, (See PRESENCE.) not always in same locality with criminal act, i. 53. ‘PERSONAL PROPERTY,” (See Property.) words, in statutory indictment for larceny, i. 616. PERSONAL VIOLENCE, (See VIOLENCE.) wife testifying to husband’s, i. 1153, ii. 69, 961 (1). PERSONALLY, peremptory challenge to be made, i. 944 (2). PERSONS, (See Namr— Two or Mors.) what, liable to search-warrant, i. 240 (3); how indictment describe, i. 571 et seq. 832 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. PLA PETIT AND GRAND LARCENY, value distinguishing, ii. 713 (2), 716 (8). PETIT JURORS, And their qualifications, full, i. 895-930; namely, number and unanimity, 897-899 ; qualifications, 900-930. qualifications of grand jurors and, compared, i. 851, 852. how, on trial of defendants jointly indicted, i. 1024, 1027-1032. qualifications of, in cases of nuisance, ii. 874. PETIT JURY, (See TriaL By.) Impanelling and challenging, full, i. 980 a-945. Odjecting to jurors after they are sworn, full, i. 946-949 b. Preparations for trial by, full, i. 950-950 f. The trial, full, i. 959 g-982 a. The respective provinces of court and, full, i. 982 b-989 b. The, during trial and to verdict, full, i. 990-1000. Verdict of the, and its rendition, full, i. 1000 a-1016. ancient law concerning, i. 362 et seq.; form of oath of, i. 983; how as to, where several are indicted jointly, i. 1027-1032; what concerning, to appear in record, i. 1357. PETIT LARCENY, (See VALUE.) how allegation and proof of value in, i. 541. indictment for, where misdemeanor, ii. 737 (2) ; finding of, ii. 769 (2). PETITION OF REVIEW, as a method of rehearing, i. 1401. PHOTOGRAPHS, as evidence, i. 1097 (8). PIGEON, how indictment for larceny of, ii. 706 (2). PISTOL, averring assault with, ii. 79 (2). PLACE, PLACES, (See Country — PartTicuLaR PLacss.) Prosecution in county or district where offence committed, full, i. 45-67. How allege and prove the, in indictment, full, i. 360-385. Repetition of, and time, full, i. 407-414. Allegation and proof of, in burglary, full, ii. 185, 186. of prosecution, competent for government to determine, i. 47 (2); what, under search-warrants, i. 240 (3), 242 (4), 244, 245 (1); effect of laying, descriptively, i. 573; special verdict as to the, i. 1006 (7); the, for execution of sentence, i. 1338. allegation of, in affray, ii. 18, 19, 23. how allege the, in arson, ii. 41. the, in indictment for keeping bawdy-house, ii. 111. in disturbing meetings, ii. 286 a. when and how allege the, in nuisance, ii. 866 (3). averring the, in indictment for non-repair of way, ii. 1046. PLACE OF ARREST, proving, as to venue, i. 384 (5). PLACE OF COMBAT, in challenging to duel, ii. 306. PLACE OF DEATH, homicide indictment how state, ii. 534. PLACE OF FORGERY, ‘ presumption of the, ii. 476. VOL. 11. — 53 833 PLE INDEX OF SUBJECTS. PLACE AND TIME, Alleging, of wound and death respectively, in homicide, full, ii, 580-585. of holding court, how in record, i. 1351. PLACE OF TRIAL, change of, English expression for “change of venue,’ i. 69 (2). PLACE OF WOUND, how allege the, in homicide, ii. 522-525; proof of, ii. 525 (2), 526. PLEA, PLEAS, (See Arrorney — DitaTory — Former JEoparpy — Ora — PLEApiING OVER.) Names and import of the principal, full, i. 784-743. How framed and pleaded, full, i. 744-757 ; namely, in general, 745-747; double pleas and how tried, 748-752; pleading over, 753-756; formalities, 757. Course of the, and their method, full, i. 787-804; namely, oral, 788-790; in abatement, especially for misnomer, 791-798; to jurisdiction, 7943; guilty and not guilty, 794 a-801 ; not contradict, 802-804. whether amend, and how, i. 124 (2); substituting, i. 124 (8); no waiver of, i. 125 (2); whether, by attorney, i. 268; at arraignment, i. 730, 730 a, 733; no valid trial without, i. 733 (4); how when, refused by prisoner, i. 733 a; admits genuineness of indictment, i. 756 (2); veri- fication of, i. 757 (2) ; demurrer after, i.780 (1); when motion to quash not after, i. 882 (4); contrary to record, bad, i. 885; how, by per- sons indicted jointly, i. 1025 (1) ; admissions by, effect of, i. 1254 a (1); to assignment of errors, i. 1371. ° PLEA IN ABATEMENT, How of the, full, i. 738-740. Especially for misnomer, full, i. 791-793. For unlawful finding of indictment, full, i. 883-885. 7 amending information to cure defect objected to by, i. 714 (1); pleading over after, i. 754 et seq. ; not, after general issne, i. 756 (1); after plea in bar, i. 756 (1); after demurrer, i. 782-786; to precede not guilty, i. 884 a (2); no writ of error on, i. 1868. PLEA DENYING IDENTITY, law and practice of, i. 1385. PLEA OF GENERAL ISSUE, (See Pir.) what, i. 743. PLEA OF GUILTY, (See PLEA.) how and when presented, i. 729 a, 794.a, 795; tendered orally, i. 729 (2), 788 (2); withdrawing, i. 798. PLEA OF INSANITY, not required, ii. 669 (2). PLEA TO JURISDICTION, in general of the, i. 736; form of, &c., i. 794. PLEA OF MISNOMER, (See PLEa.) the law of, i. 791; form of, &c., i. 792. . PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE, (See Pia.) The law of, full, i. 802-804. PLEA OR NOT, whether demurrer is, i. 776 (1). PLEA OF NOT GUILTY, (See Nor Guirty — Pie.) how and when presented, i. 729 ; oral or in writing, i. 788 (2), 797; form, with joinder in issue, and how, i. 796, 797; effect of withdrawing, &c., i. 799-801; to appear in record, i. 1854 (1). 834 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. POS PLEA OF PARDON, (See Parpon.) Law and practice of the, full, i. 882-848, PLEA OF PREGNANCY, Law and practice of the, full, i. 1322-13824. PLEA PUIS DARREIN CONTINUANCE, after former jeopardy, i. 822, 824. PLEAD TO INDICTMENT, insane person cannot, ii. 666 (2). PLEADED, (See FRAMED AND PLEADED.) PLEADING, PLEADINGS, (See OrAL PLEAS — PROCEDURE.) The, subsequent to the indictment, full, i. 728-848. 2 Against the several participants in crime, full, ii. 2-11. meaning, i. 2 (2), 3; waiver by, i. 123 (1); civil and criminal, compared, 1. 820, 321. PLEADING DOUBLE, Law and practice as to, full, i. 748-752. PLEADING OVER, (See ANSWER OVER.) After plea or demurrer overruled, full, i. 753-756, After demurrer, full, 1. 781-786. PLEAS IN BAR, defined, enumerated, i. 742; what certainty in, i. 745 (8). POCKET-PICKING, how indictment for, ii. 89. POISON, POISONS, How charge murder by, full, ii. 553-556. expert testimony as to, in homicide, ii. 631 (2). POISONING, Procedure for attempting to kill by, full, ii. 644-650, indictment for homicide by, ii. 514 (3), 529. POISONOUS QUALITY OF DRUG, when aver in poisoning, ii. 648 (1); defendant’s knowledge of, ii. 648 (2). POLICE OFFICER, When arrest by, without warrant, full, i. 181-184. POLLING JURY, in rendering sealed verdict, i. 1002 (2); practice of, i. 10038 (38). POLLS, challenge of grand jury to the, i. 876 (8), 878 (1); petit jury to the, i. 932 a (2), 934 (2). POLYGAMY, locality of the crime of, i. 62, note; indictment for, need not negative what, i. 638 (4) ; grand juror’s scruples against convicting of, i. 852 (2); wife not witness against husband in, i. 1153. POOR, when indict overseers of, in general terms, i. 494 (4). POOR PRISONER, counsel for, i. 304 (2); how released from fine, i i. 1306. PORTRAIT, value of, ii. 751 (5). POSITIVE, allegation of guilt must be, i. 325 (5). POSSESSING COUNTERFEIT COIN, With intent to pass it, full, ii. 265-268. POSSESSING COUNTERFEITS, how indictment for, i. 590 (2). POSSESSING FORGED BANK-NOTES, Procedure for, with intent to pass, full, ii. 461-469. POSSESSING OR MAKING INSTRUMENTS, For counterfeiting coin, full, ii. 269, 270. 835 PRE INDEX OF SUBJECTS. POSSESSION, (See CounTERFEITING — ForGery — SToLEN Goons.) Of stolen goods, as evidence of larceny, full, ii. 739-747. of fictitious instrument, how the indictment, i. 523 (2); of counterfeits, how indictment for, i. 627 (2), note; unlawful, other instances in proof of, i, 1126, 1127. as evidence of burglary — robbery — murder, ii, 152, 747. of other counterfeits, in passing counterfeit coin, ii. 261 (2). when sufficient simply to aver, in forcible entry, ii. 386 (1). averring, in forcible trespass, ii. 390 (3). proof of, as to place of forgery, ii. 477-480. as evidence of receiving, ii. 989. POSSESSION AND ESTATE, alleging, in forcible entry and detainer, ii. 373 (1). POSSESSION OF PRISONER, Taking things from, full, i. 210-212. POSSESSION OF WARRANT, necessary in arrest, i. 190. POSSIBLE, how far thing charged must appear, ii. 59 (2). -POST-OFFICE EMPLOYEE, larceny by, ii. 776 a. POST-OFFICE LETTER, (See LETTER.) locality of crime committed by, i. 61 (1). POST-ROUTE, how allege, i. 486 (4). POSTPONEMENT, (See ConTINUANCE.) bail or not on, i. 258; of trial, i. 966 d; asking, in case of surprise, i. 1280; for sentence, i. 1291 (1). “POUNDS” OF FLOUR, how indictment for larceny of, ti. 710 (8). POVERTY, (See Poor.) effect of, on fine, i. 1306. POVERTY OR WEALTH, as evidence in larceny, ti. 748. POWERS, Of prosecuting officer, full, i. 287-294, POWERS OF BAIL, i, 249. PRACTICAL USES of nolle prosequi, i. 1396. PRACTICAL VIEWS of defendant testifying for self, i. 1187. PRACTICE, meaning, i. 2 (4),3; changes in criminal, i. 13, 322 ; when changes with law, i. 113 (2), 114; on certiorari, 1. 1380. “PREAMBLE ” of statute, meaning, i. 684. PRECEDENTS, adhering to, i. 22, 23; manner of creating, i. 120 (2), 121; indictment should follow, i. 336. PRECEPT, (See Process.) for execution of sentence, i. 1802, 1336, 1337. producing, in evidence, in justification of officer, ii. 892. PRECISE AND ACCURATE, sentence should be, i. 1297. PRECISE LOCALITY, proof of, i. 884 (4). PRECISION, Of language, how in indictment, full, i. 340-359, 520. 836 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. PRE PREGNANCY, Of female prisoner, at sentence, full, i. 1822-1824, provable by experts, ii. 631 (4). PREJUDICE IN COMMUNITY, venue changed for, i. 71 (3, 4). PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE, when separate trials to exclude, i. 1019 a (1). PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION, (See MaGisTRATE.) Before magistrate, full, i. 32-84, 224 c-239 a. whether necessary, i. 239 @ (1); producing, at trial, i. 1197-1199. PRELIMINARY INQUIRY, Into prisoner’s menial capacity to be tried, full, il. 666-668. juror in, when competent to main issue, i. 915; admission not introduced by, like a confession, i. 1247 (3). ' PRELIMINARY STEPS, (See ORDER oF.) writ of error not for errors in, i. 1368. PREMISES, , How describe the, in forcible entry and detainer, full, ii. 881, 382. PREPARATIONS FOR TRIAL, (See TRIAL.) What and how, full, i. 950-959 f ; namely, bringing on cause, 950 a-950 d; continuances, 951-951 ¢ ; effect of delays, 951 d-951 f; arrangements with- in court-room, 952-959; other preparations, 959 a-99 f. PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, (See Ev1DENCE.) in what issues, suffices, i. 1095. PRESENCE, in one locality, and act in another, i. 53; what, in assisting in arrest, i. 186; at crime, proof of,i.1061 (2); of prisoner in court, whether should appear in record, i. 1353. PRESENCE OF COURT, (See OPEN.) Care of jury in the, full, i. 994. permission to jury to leave, i. 995. PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT, at view, i. 965 (3); on motion for new trial in conspiracy, i. 1038 (2); at sentence, i. 1291 (1); at amending record, i. 1343; how record as to, i. 1353. PRESENCE OF OFFICER, arrest without warrant for crime in, i. 183. PRESENCE OF OWNER, in averment of forcible trespass, ii. 391, 395 (2). PRESENCE OF PRISONER, (See APPEARANCE.) In court, full, i. 265-277. PRESENT WORK, arrangement of evidence in, i. 1046 (2). PRESENTMENT, (See INFoRMATION.) | As form of prosecution, full, i. 186-140. as mere information, i. 137 (2), 140; what is a, and how, i. 181 (8). PRESUMPTION, PRESUMPTIONS, (See BuRDEN oF PRoor— SPECIAL.) In general, and some particulars, full, i. 1096-1181. From possession of stolen goods, full, ii. 152, 739-747, 989. of official character, i. 191; favor jurisdiction, i. 8315 (3); as to name unknown,.i. 552 (2); is one of the proofs, i. 1050,.1051; not changed by alibi, i. 1066; all evidence, especially circumstantial, rests on, i. 1073 (2); how, favors record, i. 1348 (2), 1356. in proof of aggravated assault, ii. 66. evidence in attempt, ii. 96 (1). 837 PRI INDEX OF SUBJECTS. PRESUMPTION, PRESUMPTIONS — continued. of intent to defraud in forgery, ii. 422 (2), 423, 427 a. in forgery, instrument genuine, ii. 432. when, that defendant mutilated instrument, ii. 436 (1). as to the county in forgery, ii. 476. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, there is always, i. 1051. PRESUMPTIONS AND BURDEN OF PROOF, In homicide trials, full, ii. 598-608. On issue of insanity, full, ii. 669-675. PRESUMPTIONS AS EVIDENCE, How as to, full, i. 1096-1101. PRETENCE, PRETENCES, Specifying the, in false-pretence indictment, full, ii. 165-167. Negativing, full, ii. 168, 169. Connecting with accomplished fraud, full, ii. 175, 176. averring the, in extortion, ii. 362 (8). PRETENCES BY THIRD PERSON, whether admissible in false pretences, ii. 193. “ PRETEND,” equivalent for, ‘‘ represent,” in false pretences, ii. 180 (2). PRIMA FACIE GUILT OR CASE, (See ALL THE Facts — ALLE- GATION.) indictment need aver only, i. 77 et seq., 100, 325 (2), 326, 513 (1), 519, 523 (3), 631, 687 (8); allegation of time must show, i. 405; evidence before grand jury must establish, i. 865 (1); proving, not changes burden of proof, i. 1050 (2); prosecuting power must show, i. 1052 (1). PRINCIPAL, PRINCIPALS, bound or not in bail, i, 264 ¢; joining first and second degrees in indictment, i. 468 (1). of first and second degree, how indictment against, ii. 8, 59 (1). how in mayhem, ii. 859 (4). PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY, (See Accussory.) Procedure against, full, ii. 1-15. joining in indictment, i. 467 (2). PRINCIPAL CAUSE, challenge for, distinguished from that to the favor, i. 903-906. PRINCIPAL, PRINCIPALS, OF FIRST AND SECOND DEGREE, how charge, i. 832 (5). how charge murder against, ii. 551, 552 and note. PRINCIPAL OF SECOND DEGREE, how aver rape against, ii. 957. PRINCIPLES, (See ProcEpurE.) Leading, of criminal procedure, full, i. 45-154. PRINTED SHEETS, averment of, not proved by bound books, ii. 824. PRIOR CONDUCT AND RELATIONS, proof of, in aggravated assault, ii. 67 (5); in homicide, ii, 609-630. PRIOR CONVICTION, (See Conviction.) showing, for defendant testifying for self, i. 1185. for assault, in defence of homicide, effect of, ii. 635. PRIOR MALICE, of defendant, in proof of murder, ii. 629 (3). 838 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. PRI PRIOR MISCONDUCT, evidence of man’s, in rape, ii. 970 (1). PRIOR PURPOSE, evidence of, in rape, ii. 970 (2). PRISON, (See JaiL.) commit to what, i. 1338; confining in one, when sentenced to another, i. 1338; management of, i. 1339. PRISON BREACH, (See Escape.) when guilt immaterial in, i. 91; where insufficient mittimus, i. 91. PRISON BREACH, RESCUE, AND ESCAPE, Procedure for, full, ii. 940-946; namely, escapes suffered by officer, 941, 942; prison breaches and escapes by prisoner, 943, 944; rescues and helps to escape from third persons, 945, 946. PRISON KEEPER, (See JAILeR.) power of, to arrest escaped prisoner, i. 1383. PRISONER, (See DEFENDANT.) When, to be personally present in court, full, i. 265-277. What information the indictment must communicate to, full, i. 517-531. Arraignment of, full, i. 728-733 db. Escape of, from custody, full, i. 1382-1386. ‘ Prison breaches and escapes by, full, i. 948, 944. position of, in court-room, i. 952-954; custody during trial, i. 952 a; treating improperly, i. 1339. PRISONER’S CONSENT, to separation of jury, i. 998. PRISONER ESCAPED, Or otherwise unlawfully at large, full, i. 1882-1386. PRISONER’S FAVOR, errors in, on writ of error, i. 1374. PRISONER GETTING WARRANT, in arrest, i. 193 (1). PRISONER’S GUILT, opinions on, whether disqualify to be juror, i. 908- 910. PRISONER ILL, (See Sick.) when trial delayed because, i. 274. PRISONER’S STATEMENT, recording the, on preliminary hearing, i. 234 6 (2), 962 (4), 969 (3). PRIVATE, (See Sit in Private.) court not communicate with jury in, i. 1000. PRIVATE HEARING, there may be, on preliminary inquiry as to insanity, ii. 668 (2). PRIVATE NUISANCE, injuuction against, i. 1417 (1). PRIVATE PERSON, Right of, to arrest, full, i. 164-172, 1383. informations prompted by, i. 143, 713 (3); warrant of arrest addressed to, i. 188, moving grand jury for indictment, i. 863 (2); confession to, arresting, i. 1238 (1) ; when arrest escaped prisoner, i. 1383. procedure for libel on, ii. 783-794. PRIVATE PROSECUTOR, (See ProsecuTor.) who may be, i. 278 (1); whether injunction against, i. 1414. PRIVATE STATUTE, whether indictment recite, i. 609. PRIZE-FIGHT, (See AFFRAY.) spectators as witnesses to, i. 1173 (6). indictment for, ii. 61. 839 PRO INDEX OF SUBJECTS. PRIZE-FIGHTING, charging affray by, ii. 24 (2). PRO TEMPORE, indorsement of indictment by prosecuting officer, i. 704 (1). PROBABLE CAUSE, what the, for binding over, i. 233 (1); grand jury to find indictment only on, i. 866 (1), 867 (2); finding bill without, i. 870 db. PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES, presumed in attempt, ii. 97 (1). PROCEDURE, (See OrveER oF STEPs.) Criminal, general view of the caw of, full, i. 12-27, Outline of the, in a criminal cause, full, i. 28-44. Leading principles in criminal, full, 1. 45-154. meaning, i. 1,2; explained, i, 4-10, 12; the, on writ of error, i. 1871. PROCEEDING WITHOUT COUNSEL, In criminal cause, full, i. 8307, 308. PROCEEDING OR COURSE OF JUSTICE, Wherein perjury was committed, how aver, full, i. 905-911, 924. PROCEEDINGS, Before grand jury, full, i. 861-870 6. who instigate, i. 33; committing magistrate’s discharge does not bar fresh, i. 239 a (2). PROCESS, (See OssEcTIONS TO — PRECEPT.) meaning, i. 100 a (3); void or voidable, arrest, i. 107 (2); no arrest of judgment for error connected with, i. 1285 (2); for recovery of fine, i. 1301, 1802. averment of, in resisting or assaulting officer, ii. 888, 890. producing on trial. ii. 891. PROCESS OF COURT, supplying testimony of witness beyond, i. 1195. PROCLAMATION OF SILENCE, (See SILENCE.) not essential at sentence, i. 1292. PROCURATION, forgery of instrument by, or not, ii. 435. PROCURING WOMEN, as evidence of bawdy-house, ii. 117 (2). PRODUCING AT TRIAL, the put-off counterfeit coin, ii. 262. PRODUCTION OF THING STOLEN, in larceny trial, ii. 753. PROFANENESS AND BLASPHEMY, Procedure for, full, ii. 123-125. PROHIBITED IMPORTATION, how indictment for, i. 633 (8). PROHIBITION, functions of, i. 1404; whether civil or criminal, available in criminal cases, i. 1405. PROLIXITY, when avoided by general pleading, i. 497, 498. PROMISE, to pay fine, whether enforceable, i. 1808 (2). PROMISSORY NOTE OR NOTES, bank-bill may be averred as, in forgery, ii. 449. indictment for uttering forged foreign, ii. 470 (2). procedure for forgery of, ii. 470-472. indictment for larceny of, ii. 732 (3), 784, 736 (2), 738. 840 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. PRO PROOF, PROOFS, (See BurpEN or — EvIDENCE — PrESUMPTIONS.) The, must cover entire charge, full, i. 127-129, distinguished from evidence, i. 129 (1) ; how take advantage of insuffi- cient, before grand jury, i. 872 (5); presumption is one of the, i. 1050, 1051; the, of mental condition which admits the dying declaration, i. 1212 (5). PROOF OF COUNTY of offence, i. 384, 385. PROOF OF HANDWRITING, In forgery, full, ii. 482-483. PROOF OF NAME in indictment, how, i. 689 d. PROOF OF TIME, In indictment, full, i. 400-402. PROOF OF WAY, what the, in indictment, ii. 1054. “ PROPERTY,” (See Premises — RESTITUTION OF.) word, too general in allegation, i. 568, 569; proceedings against the de- fendant’s, to collect fine, i. 1308 (1). in larceny indictment, ii. 699 (2). PROSECUTE FOR CRIME, how prove conspiracy to, ii. 234 (1). PROSECUTE OR NOT, (See FAILuRE TO.) State’s attorney determines whether, and by what rules, i. 287-291. PROSECUTING COUNSEL, (See CounsEt.) Concerning the, full, i. 278-294. PROSECUTING OFFICER, (See ATttorNEY — NoLLe Prosrequi— SPECIAL COUNSEL.) Of the, full, i. 278-294. Indorsement of indictment by, full, i. 702-704. Opening by, to the jury, full, i. 967-971. Nolle prosequi by, full, i. 760 (2), 1887-1396. how select, i. 26; what should be the qualifications of, i. 26; of what county, after change of venue, i. 74 (3); power of, to proceed by infor- mation, i. 141-144; power of, over arrest, i. 193 (2); whether, can be counsel for prisoner, i. 302; attends grand jury, draws indictments, &c., i. 696; not amend indictment, i. 711 (5); amend information, i. 714 (1); how attends grand jury, i. 861 (5), 863; determines when to bring cause to trial, i. 950 6 (2); trial where there is no, i. 962 (5); where there is, i. 964 (3) ; whether, must produce as witnesses all pres- ent, i. 966 ¢ (8-5) ; power of, to sever defendants for trial, i. 1018 (3); admitting accomplice as witness, i. 1161 (8, 4); allowance of costs to, i. 1819; equity will not enjoin, i. 1414. PROSECUTING OFFICER PRO TEM., appointment of, i. 962 (5). PROSECUTION, (See DeLay IN.) The several methods of, full, i. 129 a-154. Peremptory challenge by the, full, i. 936-940. counsel for, i. 962 (5)-964. PROSECUTION OR DEFENCE, juror’s connection with, whether disquali- fies, 1. 919 (1). PROSECUTOR, (See PrivaTE ProsecurTor.) liabilities and privileges of, i. 691, 692; motion by, to quash indictment or information, i. 760; connection with the, when disqualifies to be 841 PUN INDEX OF SUBJECTS. PROSECUTOR — continued. juror, i. 919; right of, to challenge juror, i. 933 (1); not a party, i. 1082; ‘* in authority,’’ for confession, i. 1233 (3); costs to and from, i. 1814. PROSECUTOR’S NAME, Indorsement of, on indictment, full, i. 690-694. on indictment for keeping bawdy-house, ii. 108 (2). PROSECUTOR'S WIFE, “in authority,” for confession, i. 1238 (3). PROSTITUTE, PROSTITUTES,” house frequented by, as evidence of being bawdy-house, ii. 116, 117. woman’s being, in rape, ii. 965, 966, 968 (2). PROSTITUTION, conspiracy to procure girl to elope for, ii. 215. PROVED, whatever to be, indictment must allege, i. 519. PROVEN FACTS, counsel state only, to jury, i. 975 (1). “ PROVIDED,” how indictment on statutory words following, i. 639. PROVISO AS TO PUNISHMENT, what the indictment may disregard, i. 639 (2). PROVOKING CHALLENGE TO DUEL, offence of, ii. 310. PUBLIC, conspiracy to defraud the, ii. 243. how allege forgery to defraud the, ii. 420. PUBLIC BUILDING, how lay ownership of, in arson, ii. 86 (1). PUBLIC EXCITEMENT, continuance by reason of, i. 9515. PUBLIC MEETING. (See DisTuRBING.) PUBLIC MORALS, protecting, from corrupting public trials, i. 958 (2), 959. PUBLIC NUISANCE, (See NuISANceE.) when equity will enjoin, i. 1417 (2). PUBLIC PLACE, in indictment for affray, ii. 19. whether blasphemy and profaneness must be in, ii. 123 (8). PUBLIC POLICY, As to husband and wife testifying, full, i. 1151-1155. interested witness admitted from, i. 1138 (2). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. (See ProsEcuTING OFFICER.) PUBLIC REVENUE, conspiracy against the, ii. 245. PUBLIC TRIALS, what restraint on corrupting, i. 958 (2), 959. PUBLIC WAY. (See Way.) PUBLICATION, forbidding the, of corrupting evidence, i. 958 (2). of libel, proof of, ii. 800. PUBLICITY, of trial, meaning of, i. 959. ‘“* PUBLISH,” in indictment for libel, ii. 784 (4). PUNCTUATION, (See Quorarion-Marks.) in indictment, i. 354. “PUNISHABLE BY LAW,” . in indictment for accusing of crime, ii. 1027 (2). 842 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. QUA PUNISHMENT, (See InpicTMENT — SENTENCE.) Indictment allege all essential to the, full, i, 77-88, 538-542, 571, 578-580. Not, without complying with law’s forms, full, i. 89-94. What and how the, against joint defendant, full, i. 1085-1037. prosecuting officer not bind court as to the, i. 287 (8); accusation to con- tain every fact essential to the, i. 325 (2,3); when charge to jury should state the, i. 980 (8); verdict as to the, i. 1012; gravity of, as affects new trial, i. 1278; whence fine as a, i. 1800 (2); record to set down and justify the, i. 1847, 1355. what concerns the, alleged in indictment, ii. 48, 177, 565, 572. PURITY, How far essential, in language of indictment, full, i. 840-359. PURPORT CLAUSE, The, in indictment for forgery, full, ii. 4138-416. PURPORT AND EFFECT, averring words by the, i. 560. « PURPORTING,” in indictment for forgery, ii. 418 (2). PURPOSE, PURPOSES, (See InrenT — Prior Purpose.) Presumptions from the expressed, full, i. 1108-1111. disclosure of the, in arrest, i. 158. PURPOSE OF CONSPIRACY, Allegation of, full, ii. 204 (4), 207-222. “ PURPOSELY,” in indictment on statute, i, 613 (8). PURPRESTURE, when enjoin, i. 1417 (2). PURVIEW, what, of statute, and how indictment, i. 634. “PUT IN FEAR,” in indictment for assault to rob, ii. 84. PUTTING IN FEAR, alleging, in robbery, ii. 1005. PUTTING OFF, proof of, counterfeit coin, ii. 260 (1). QUALIFICATIONS, Of grand jurors, full, i. 851-853. Of petit jurors, full, i. 900-930. “QUALIFIED VOTER,” not duly specific in indictment, i. 627 (1). QUANTITY, how describe and prove, in indictment, i. 577-579. QUARREL, as evidence in homicide, ii. 630 (1). QUARRELLING AND FIGHTING, proof of, in disorderly house, ii. 280 (2). QUARRELSOME, deceased being, as evidence in homicide, ii. 613, 615. QUASH, ' refusal to, to compel abatement of tiuisance, ii. 872. QUASHING, (See Motion To Quasd#.) ' Indictment, law and practice of, full, i. 757 a-774; namely, in general, 758- 760; as step in defence, 761-765; for what causes, 766-774. For defects in the grand jury’s finding, full, i. 882. 843 REA INDEX OF SUBJECTS. QUASHING — continued. arrest after, i. 229 (2); for misjoinder of counts, i. 425 (1) ; for duplicity, i. 442 (2); for misjoinder of offences, i. 453 (1); to compel election of counts, i. 455 (1); election may be concurrent remedy with, i. 461 (2) ; not of information when amendable, i. 715 (2); not, for insufficiency of grand jury’s evidence, i. 865 (2); by judge, of his own motion, i. 1282 (2); may be of writ of error, i. 1871. QUEEN’S COUNSEL, in England, as counsel for defendant, i. 300. QUEEN’S SERGEANT, how, employed for the defence, i. 300. QUESTION, Petit juror having passed upon the, disqualifies, full, i. 911-915. improper, object to promptly, i. 966 b. QUESTION ASSUMING GUILT, confession in answer to, i. 1228. QUESTION OF FACT, presence of prisoner at hearing of, i. 269 (1). QUESTION OF LAW, distinguished from one of fact as to presence of prisoner, i. 269 (1). “QUICK WITH CHILD,” woman, at capital sentence, i. 1823 (2). QUOD CUM, introductory matter laid under, i. 554 (4, 5), 555 (8). QUOTATION-MARKS, (See Punctuation.) effect of, in indictment, i. 338. RAKES, proof of, frequenting bawdy-house, ii. 112 (2), 116 (1). RAPE, ‘ Procedure for, full, ii. 947-979; namely, indictment, 948-960; evidence, 961-974 ; questions of practice, 975; attempts, 976-979. not take watch in arrest for, i. 210 (2); technical word in indictment for, i. 385; on indictment for, conviction of what, i. 419; improper form of alleging the attempt, i. 431 (2); joining in allegation misdemeanor with, i. 446 (3); “begotten with child,” in indictment, surplusage, i. 479 (3); whether “violently” in indictment covers ‘ with force” in statute, i. 613 (14); nolle prosequi of the higher charge in, i. 1391 (2), 1892. indictment against participants in, ii. 6a. indictment for assault intending, ii. 81 (2), 82. further of indictment for the attempt, ii. 91 (1). proof of intent to commit, in burglary, ii. 149 (2). RAVISH, word, essential in indictment for rape, i. 335, ii. 953. how lay assault with intent to, ii. 82. READING AND STUDY, expert witness gives result of, i. 1180. READY FOR TRIAL, when cause is, i. 950 a (4), 950 d (8). REAL DOUBT, is not reasonable doubt, i. 1094 (2). REAL ESTATE, indictment for larceny of things which are, ii. 733, 734. REALTY, (See Property.) allegation of offences to the, i. 584. REARREST, (See ARREST.) after unlawful arrest, i. 162 (2); when and how, lawful, i. 163 (2), 196, 203; after forfeited recognizance, i, 263 a (1); after fraudulent bail, i. 268 a (2); power of, as to prisoner at large, i. 1882; how, i. 1883. 844 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. REC REARRESTED PRISONER, how dispose of, i. 1384. REASON, the leading rule in pleading, i. 819 (3). ‘* REASONABLE CREATURE,” whether, in homicide indictment, i. 615. REASONABLE DOUBT, (See BurpEN or Proor — PRESUMPTION.) The doctrine of, full, i. 1091-1095. ; whether doctrine of, extends to proof of county, i. 884 (2); rule of, before grand jury, i. 866, 867; guilt beyond, i. 1075, 1076 (2), 1077. doctrine of, on question of insanity, ii. 671 et seq. _ REASONABLE SUSPICION, what, for arrest without warrant, i. 182 (1). REBUTTAL, By alibi, full, i. 1061-1068. Rule for, and as to evidence in, full, i. 1069-1072. requiring evidence in, not shifts burden of proof, i. 1050 (2). RECAPTURE prisoner, power of officer to, i, 1383. RECEIPT, how set out, in forgery, ii. 411. RECEIVED, When and why confession is, full, i. 1221-1240. RECEIVER, indictment against, not negative conviction of thief, i. 513 (6). RECEIVING COUNTERFEITS, contrary to statute, how indictment, i. 638 (2). RECEIVING AND EXCLUDING EVIDENCE, the practice in, i. 966 a (2). RECEIVING AND LARCENY, whether join, i. 449 (7); verdict for both, repugnant, i. 1015 a (6). RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS. (See Larceny — STOLEN Goons.) Procedure for, full, ii. 979 a-991a; namely, for accessorial offence, 980; indictment for substantive offence, 981-988; evidence, 988 a-991 a. where indict, i. 60a (2); improper form of alleging, i. 431 (2); joining counts for, and larceny, i. 449 (7); rejecting words in indictment for, as surplusage, i. 481 (3); needlessly stating name of thief, ill, i. 483 (2); “knowingly,” in indictment for, i. 504; form of the allegation for, i. 556 (4); joint defendants in, i. 1037, note. possession as evidence in, ii. 747 (2), 988 a, 989. RECENT POSSESSION, of stolen goods in evidence, ii. 742. RECENT STATUTE, whether special allegation of time in indictment on, i. 622. RECITAL, how allegation by way of, differs from direct charge, i. 554. RECITE STATUTE, whether, how when ill, i. 482 (1), note; indictment whether, i. 608, 809. RECOGNIZANCE, (See Bait.) Doctrine of the, full, i. 264-264 e. ; discharging prisoner on own, i. 258; as form of bail, i. 264 (2), 2644; suit on, i. 264m ; effect of quashing on, i. 771 (1) ; of witness before grand jury, i. 868 (3); of accomplice, forfeited, i. 1168 (2). RECORD, (See Croce THE — ENTIRE.) The, full, i. 1340-1860; namely, in general, and how made, 1341-1346 ; par- ticular questions as to form and contents, 1347-1360. uses of, i. 4, 5; no waiver of what leaves, imperfect, i. 125 (1); anciently in Latin — historical view, i. 840-342 ; show place of offence, i. 364 (2); amendments in, distinguished from indictment, i. 705 (1); defect ap- 845 REL INDEX OF SUBJECTS. RECORD — continued. parent on, or not, as to plea in abatement, i. 739. 740 ; of former pro- ceedings, in autrefois convict or acquit, i. 814 (1), 815, 816 (3); com- pelling, to show former jeopardy, i. 825, 826; of return of indictment, i. 869 a (3, 4); no allegation contrary to, i. 885 (1), 888 (1) ; motion in arrest, based on matter of, i. 888, 1285; proof of office by the, i. 1130 (2); as evidence, i. 1183; for what errors of, arrest of judgment, i. 1285 (2); authorizes capital sentence, i. 1836; writ of error reaches the, i, 1368, 1369. use of, on trial of accessory, ii. 12, 18 (1), 14. proving cause and issue by the, in perjury, ii. 9336 (1). RECORD OF CONVICTION, before magistrate, i. 722-725. RECORD OF COURT, setting out the, in perjury, ii. 906-909, 911. RECORD EVIDENCE, Concerning, full, i. 1182-1184. RECORD BEFORE GRAND JURY, contradicting, &c., i. 858 (8). RECORD OF VERDICT, (See VERDICT.) Amending, full, i. 1013, 1014. RECORDED, amend verdict before, not after, i. 1013 (1). RECORDS MUTILATED OR. LOST, Doctrine and practice of, full, i. 1898-1400. RECREATION, giving, to jury, i. 997. REFERENCE, how, from one count to another, i. 431. REFORMATORY PRISON, how of, i. 1388, note. REFRESHMENTS, permitting jury to take, i. 997, 999 (2). REFUSAL TO ACCEPT OFFICE, Procedure for, full, ii. 820, 821. REFUSAL TO ARREST, indictable, i. 206 (1). REFUSAL TO QUASH, not bars other proceedings, i. 774. REFUSAL TO TESTIFY, as evidence of bawdy-house, ii. 117 (8). REFUSING TO ASSIST OFFICER, crime of, i. 185 (1). how indictment for, ii. 896. REFUSING OFFICE, election, in indictment for, i. 529 (4). REFUSING TO TESTIFY, before grand jury, how proceed for, i. 869 (1). REFUSING TO TRY INDICTMENT, as substitute for quashing, i. 759 (1). REGISTER. (See InsuRING.) REGULATIONS. (See LecistaTIve REGULATIONS.) REHEARINGS, (See New TRIAL.) The methods to, full, i. 1263-1271. Principles on which, are granted, full, i. 1272-1281. REJECTED, When and why confession is, full, 1. 1221-1240. RELATIONS AND CONDUCT, evidence of, in aggravated assault, ii. 67 (5). RELATIONS WITH DECEASED, Defendant’s, as evidence in homicide, full, ii. 628-630. RELATIONSHIP, what, disqualifies judge, i. 314 (2); as disqualifying petit juror, i. 901. 846 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. REP RELATIVE STRENGTH, of parties, evidence in homicide, ii. 680 (2); in rape, ii. 970 (8). RELATIVES, as witnesses, i. 1140. RELEASE, causes of, from bail, i. 2647. RELEASE PRISONER, committed on fine, when, i. 1308. RELEVANT, (See IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE.) rebutting testimony must be, i. 1070(1). RELIGIOUS WORSHIP. (See Distursine MEETING.) REMAIN IN COURT for new proceedings, requiring prisoner to, after quashing, i. 229 (2). “REMAIN INVIOLATE,” in constitution as to jury trial, i. 892 (38). REMEDY, (See Rigur.) changeable by statute, i. 115; some, for every right, i. 872 (3). REMOVAL OF CAUSE, as meaning change of venue, i. 72 a, 73 (1); stat- utes for, i. 315 (4); to another court for trial or sentence, i. 1877, 1380, 1408. REMOVING PRISONER, for disorderly conduct at trial, i. 272 (3). RENDITION OF VERDICT, (See VerpicT.) » Practice of, full, i. 1000-1016; namely, general, 1001-1005 a; in special circumstances, 1006-1012; amending verdict, 1018, 1014; on more counts than one, 1015, 1016. REPEALED STATUTE, how where verdict is on a, i. 888 (2); arrest of judgment on, i. 1285 (2). REPEAT NAME, how, in indictment, i. 689 a. REPETITIONS, (See Place — TIME.) Of time and place in allegation, when and how, full, i. 407-414. of dying declaration, i. 1214 (2). REPLICATION, | (See PLEA.) to plea of misnomer, i. 793 (6); to plea of former conviction or acquittal, i. 810 (8), 817. REPLY, (See ANSWER.) right of counsel to, i. 974, 975. “REPRESENT,” equivalent for “ pretend,” in false pretences, ii. 180 (2). REPRIEVE, (See Respite.) what, and when grant, i. 1299. REPUGNANCY, In indictment, full, i. 489-492. in allegation of time, i. 387; in joinder of offences, i. 446 (2); in name, i. 572 ; in description, bad, i. 572 (1); in allegation of ownership, i. 582; in indictment on alternative clauses of statute, i. 587 (2) ; quashing for, i. 773 (2). in the indictment for assault, ii. 59. in perjury indictment, ii. 923. REPUGNANT, verdict on several counts, i. 1015 a (5). allegation for counterfeiting, ii. 253 (2). REPUTATION, Of defendant, how, as evidence, full, i. 1112-1119. showing, of defendant testifying for self, i. 1185. in proof of corporate existence, ii. 456. of third person, on a charge of helping him kidnap, ii 694. 847 RET INDEX OF SUBJECTS. REPUTATION AND CHARACTER, how differ, ii. 617. REPUTATION OF FREQUENTERS, as proof against bawdy-house, ii. 112 (2). REPUTATION OF HOUSE, whether admissible in proof of bawdy-house, ii. 113, 114, 118 (1). REPUTATION OF INDIVIDUAL, conspiracy to destroy, ii. 215. REPUTE, character as a thing of, i. 1117. REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS from judge, how, i. 980 (8, 9). REQUISITION, for fugitive from justice, i. 222 (3); arrest of fugitive be- fore, i. 228 (2). , RES GEST, Doctrine of the, full, i. 1083-1087. complaints of suffering of the, i. 1111; proving another crime when of the, i. 1125 (2), 1127; self-serving declarations of the, i. 1247 (5); declarations as being of the, i. 1248. in assault and battery, ii. 68 (3). evidence of the, in homicide, ii. 625, 626. importance of, in homicide, ii. 633 (2). explaining possession of stolen goods, of the, ii. 746. proving acts of the, in nuisance, ii..877. in evidence of rape, ii. 963. RESCUE, how aver time of, i. 892 (3), 404 (4). RESCUE, PRISON BREACH AND ESCAPE, Procedure for, full, ii. 940-946; namely, escapes suffered by officer, 941, 942; prison breaches and escapes by prisoner, 943, 944; rescues and helps to escape from third persons, 945, 946. “RESCUED,” whether necessary in indictment, i. 502 (1). RESCUING GOODS, indictment for, ii. 890. RESISTING ARREST, (See Arrest — OFFICER.) indictable, i. 159 (1); how officer conduct toward one, i. 160-162. RESISTING OR ASSAULTING OFFICER, Procedure for, full, ii. 881-895. RESISTING PROCESS, (See Process.) allegation of time in, i. 404 (3). RESPITE, of forfeited recognizance, i. 264g; sentence, i. 1299; of woman sentenced when with child, i. 1323 (2). RESPONSIVE to issue, verdict not, ill, i. 1005 (1). RESTITUTION, : how describe lands for, ii. 875 (2), 382. in forcible-entry proceedings, ii. 383. RESTITUTION OF PREMISES, in forcible detainer, how allegation for, i. 872 (8). RESTITUTION OF PROPERTY, obtained by false pretences, whether, ii. 198. RESTITUTION OF STOLEN GOODS, Procedure for, full, ii. 755-763. RESTRICTING COUNSEL. (See Exrcrion.) RETAINER, when counsel should accept, for prisoner, i. 809, 810. 848 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. ROB RETROSPECTIVE, whether statute allowing amendments is, i. 98. RETURN, officer must, warrant, i. 187 (3), 214 (2), 217, 218. RETURN INTO COURT, indictment, by grand jury, i. 869 a (8). RETURN DAY, no arrest after, i. 187 (4). RETURN ON WARRANT, in resisting or assaulting officer, ii. 892 (2). RETURNING, recognizance, how of, i. 264 e. RETURNS OF OFFICERS, distinguished from record, i. 1341 (8). REVENUE STAMP, whether aver, in indictment for forgery, ii. 407 (5), 408 (1). REVIEW. (See Petition or REVIEW.) REVISE, sentence, i. 1298. REVOLT AT CRIME, one whose feelings, as juror, i. 906 (3). REWARD FOR CONVICTION, witness entitled to, not disqualified, i. 1138 (2). RHETORIC. (See Bap RHETORIC.) RIGHT, (See WaIvER.) Accused may avail of every, full, i. 113-116. carries with it remedy, i. 818 (8), 827, 872 (3), 879. word, in indictment for cutting off the ear, ii. 858. RIGHT TO COUNSEL. (See CounsE..) The prisoner’s, full, i. 296-302. “RIGHT HAND,” ~*~ (See ‘ Lert.’) in indictment for homicide, ii. 515 (1). RIGHT, LEFT, as place of wound in homicide, ii. 516 (3). RIGHT OR NOT, bail as a, i. 261 (8), and preceding places, RIGHTLY ACTING, presumed from holding office, i. 1131. RIGHTS OF DEFENCE, largely influence indictment, i. 517 (1). “RINGING THE CHANGES,” charge of forgery by, ii. 460 (4). RIOT, (See Arrray— Breacn or PEace.) Procedure for, full, ii. 992-1000. agreement to be bound by verdict in, i. 125 (3); how interfere in, i. 166 (2, 8); how officer suppress, i. 183 (4), 186 (1); how charge against several, i. 464 (3); whether charged as done unlawfully, i. 503; whether separate trial for, i. 1023; other riots not evidence in, i. 1124 (1). charging forcible entry and detainer as, ii. 371, 372. RIVER, locality of crimes committed on, i. 63 (1). “ROB,” in robbery, ii. 1004 (2). ROBBERY, (See Larceny.) Procedure for, full, ii. 1001-1008 a. goods taken to another county, where indict, i. 60; use of “then and there” in indictment for, i. 408 (3); when and how repeat time and place in, i. 408 (3), 409 (2); proof of thing intended in, i. 4885 (4); intent to commit a, includes intent to steal, i. 488 e (4); allegation of value in, i. 541; allegation in, where thing taken is unknown, i. 553 (3); variance from value alleged in, i. 579; how special verdict in, i. 1006 (6); what is of the res gestz in, i. 1086 (3). VOL. 11. — 54° 849 scr INDEX OF SUBJECTS. ROBBERY — continued. indictment for assault with intent to rob, ii. 84. describing thing taken in attempted, ii. 85. possession of stolen goods as evidence in, ii. 747 (2). ROBBING GRAVE, indictment for, ii. 1010. ROBBING MAIL-BAG, indictment for, ii. 773 (2). ROMAN NUMERALS, (See Figures.) good, in indictment, i. 344. ROOM, ROOMS, (See Jury Room.) occupied by different tenants, in arson, ii. 38. ROSEWELL’S CASE stated, i. 15-22. ROUT, procedure for, ii. 992 (1). RULE, (See Unper THE RvLe.) combining with special facts, ii. 68 (4). RULE OR RULES OF COURT, in procedure, i. 9, 10; for executing sen- tence, i. 1836. RULES OF EVIDENCE, Statutory changes in, full, i. 1088-1090. RULES OF PLEADING, sensible, stable, indestructible, i. 339. RUMOR, opinion of guilt from, as disqualifying juror, i. 910 (3). SABBATH, (See Lorp’s Day). substitute for statutory ‘‘ Sunday,” ii. 816 (8). SACHEVERELL’S CASE, stated, i. 20 (2) “SAID,” in indictment, refers to what, i. 512. “ SALE,” whether in averment of, add price, i. 514 (3). SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS. (See Liquor-SELLING.) “SAME,” in indictment, refers to what, i. 512. SAME DAY, with indictment, laying offence on, i. 403 (8). SAME EVIDENCE, which proves another crime, pertinent to the one in issue, 1, 1121. SAME QUESTION, having passed upon, disqualifies juror, i. 911. “SAME TIME,” in charge of possessing forgeries with intent to pass, ii. 467. SANCTUARY, plea of, declinatory, i. 737. SANITY, (See InsaniTy.) indictment need not aver, i. 522 (1); presumption of, is proof of, i. 1050 (1). SATISFIED WITH VERDICT, no new trial where court is, i. 1277 (2). SCANDALOUS WORDS, indictment for, how, i. 530 (1). SCHOOL, indictment for disturbing, ii. 291. SCHOOL UNLICENSED, indiciment for setting up, i. 637 (2). SCIENTER, averring, in indictment for passing counterfeit coin, ii. 259 (4). in charge of extortion, ii. 864 (2). averring in statutory forgery, ii. 451. 850 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. SED SCIENTIFIC BOOKS, (See Booxs.) whether admissible, and how use, i. 1180. SCILICET, In pleading, full, i. 406. SCIRE FACIAS, on recognizance, i. 264 m. SCOLD. (See Common Scop.) SCOPE OF RECORD, what the, i. 1347. SCRUPLES OF CONSCIENCE, disqualifying grand juror, i. 852 (2). SEA, blow on, death on land, i. 51 (8). SEAL, whether, essential to warrant, i. 187 (1), 222 (4), 227 (2); whether search-warrant to be under, i. 243; no, to recognizance, i. 264 (2); want of, on venire facias to grand jury, i. 882 (8). how charge instrument under, in forgery, ii. 418 a (8). SEALED VERDICT, rendering, i. 1002 (2), 1003 (3). SEARCH-WARRANTS, (See WarranT.) How serve, full, i. 208, 209. Doctrine of, full, i. 240-246. breaking doors under, i. 196; disposal of goods and persons taken on, i, 218. SECOND APPLICATION, for bail, after refusal, i. 268 (1); while appli- cation pending, i. 263 (2). SECOND ARRAIGNMENT, no, i. 730 (2). SECOND ARREST, (See ARREST.) when, i. 265 a. SECOND DEGREE, How indictment for murder in, full, ii. 561-589. SECOND-DEGREE PRINCIPAL, indictment against, ii. 3, 5, 6, 59 (1). SECOND-HAND COFFIN, value of, ii. 751 (5). SECOND INDICTMENT, how grand jury find, i. 709; on old evidence, i. 870 (1); after bill ignored, i. 870 (2). “SECOND INQUEST,” meaning petit jurors, how formerly, i. 362-364. SECOND JEOPARDY, (See Former JEOPARDY — JEOPARDY.) how indictment to be foundation for plea of, i. 543, 544; parol proof of, i. 544; nolle prosequi as bar of, i. 1394, 1895; habeas corpus not remedy for, i. 1410 (2). SECOND OFFENCE, short allegation of, i. 101 (2). SECOND PREGNANCY, effect on sentence of mother, i. 1823 (2). SECOND PROSECUTION, (See ForMER JEOPARDY — JEOPARDY.) How indictment framed to protect from, full, i. 548, 544. SECONDARY EVIDENCE, in proof of instrument lost or destroyed, ii. 434. SECONDS, declarations of, in challenge to duel, ii. 8308 (1); as witnesses, ii. 308 (2) SECRECY, before grand jury, i. 857, 858. SECURITY for fine, whether enforceable, i. 1303 (2). «SEDUCED BY DEVIL,” unnecessary in allegation, ii. 503 (1). SEDUCER, evidence against husband for attempt to kill the, ti. 95. 851 SEN INDEX OF SUBJECTS. SEDUCING FROM ALLEGIANCE, indictment for, ii. 76 (1). SEDUCTION, presumption of chastity in, i. 1106 (2). SEEING, effect of not, as contradicting, i. 1071 (2). SEEN, averring, in exposure of person, ii. 352. SEISIN, presumed from possession, ii. 384. SEIZING GOODS, (See SEARCH-WARRANTS.) In making arrest, full, i. 210-212. of corporation, to compel appearance, i. 950 a (8). SELECTING COUNT, for the trial, i. 456 (2). SELF, how plead dilatory fact known only to, i. 328. SELF-DEFENCE, character and declarations of deceased on issue of, ii. 612 et seq. SELF-MOVED, court arresting judgment, i. 1283. SELF-PROMPTED HOPE, effect of, on confession, i. 1235. SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS, when admissible in evidence, i, 1247 (5). SELLING DISEASED MEAT, procedure for, ii. 868 (4). SELLING LIQUOR. (See Liquor-SELLING.) SELLING LIQUOR TO DRUNKARD, how indictment for, i. 438 (2). SELLING BY UNLAWFUL MEASURE, how indictment for, i. 577. And see ii, 158-161. SENIOR, (See OLp AGE.) in name of person, i. 687 (1). SENTENCE, (See JUDGMENT — PUNISHMENT.) Presence of prisoner at, full, i. 275. Between verdict and, full, i. 276, 277. What information indictment give as to, full, i. 5388-542. The, against joint defendants, full, i. 1035-1087. The, full, i. 1289-13384; namely, general, 1291-1299 ; fine and its incidents, 1300-1309 ; corporal punishment and its incidents, 1810-1812 ; costs, 1318- 1321; pregnancy of female prisoner at, 1822-1824; more counts, offences, &c., than one, 1325-1334. Execution of the, full, i. 1335-1339. How, after escape of prisoner, full, i. 1882-1386. mitigating or aggravating, i. 43 (1); what officer to execute, after change of venue, i. 74 (4); waiver of time of, i. 126 (2); bail to sick person awaiting, i. 253 (1); bail after, i. 254 (1); on plurality of counts, how, i. 428; how duplicity viewed at the. i. 443 (6); on guilty of felonies joined in indictment, i. 450 (2); misdemeanors, i. 458 (2) and note; on counts requiring different punishments, i. 453 (1); not set out the, in pleading former jeopardy, i. 815; on several counts, what, i. 1014 (2); on good and bad counts, i. 1015 (4); on more counts than one, i. 10154; whether render, on facts agreed, i. 1254 a (4); to appear in the record, i, 13847; writ of error reaches the, i. 1368; writ of error to reverse or correct the, i. 1872, 18783; certiorari, whether before or after, i. 1877 (2, 8); how, after escape and rearrest, i, 1884; nolle prosequi before or 852 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. SER SENTENCE — continued. after, i. 1894, 1395 ; nolle prosequi to enable court to pronounce lighter, i. 1396; habeas corpus will not free from too long or unauthorized, i. 1410 (2). how the, in burglary, ii. 144. not, of insane prisoner, ii. 666 (2) note. in nuisance, ii. 870 et seq. in rape, ii. 975 (4). SEPARABLE PARTS of record, on writ of error, i. 1872, 1873. SEPARALITER, Indictment, full, i. 473-476. in indictment for keeping bawdy-house, ii. 110. charging, in receiving stolen goods, ii. 988 (1). SEPARATE, when juror should not, from panel, i. 994 (2); by permission of court, i, 994 (3); when court may permit, i. 995, 996; whether jury, while deliberating, i. 998 a (2). SEPARATE COUNTS, why employ, i. 422 (2); may be quashed, i. 764; when sentence on, separate, i. 1327 (1) ; nolle prosequi to, i. 13891, 1392. not required in charging different degrees in assault, ii, 63 (8). SEPARATE CRIMES, How prosecute, in one indictment, full, i. 473-476. SEPARATE ESTATE, of wife, how lay in indictment, ii. 726. SEPARATE FAMILIES, occupancy by, in arson, ii. 38. occupancy by, in burglary, ii. 188 (7). SEPARATE OFFENCE, each count charges a, on face of indictment, i. 426. SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS, joinder of, in indictment, i. 448, 449 (2); restricting evidence in, i. 449 (2). SEPARATE TRIALS, (See JornT.) Of joint defendants, full, i. 1018-1026. on the several counts, i. 425 (1); on different counts for one or more tran- sactions, i. 455 (2), 458 (3) ; on separate indictments, i. 1041, 1045. in conspiracy, ii. 225, 239. SEPARATING WITNESSES, At trial, doctrine of, full, i. 1188-1198 a. SEPULTURE, Procedure for violations of, full, ii. 1009-1012. SERIES OF ACTS, repetitions of time and place in alleging, i. 412. SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS, as evidence in homicide, ii. 625 and note. SERIOUS OFFENCE, quashing in a, i. 769 (2). SERVANT, : premises wrongfully occupied by, how allegation in arson, ii. 37 (1, 2). whether ownership in burglary to be laid in, or master, ii. 188 (2). forcible entry by, allegation of, ii. 387 (1). how lay ownership of things stolen from, ii. 722 (2). restitution of goods stolen from, ii. 761 (1). procedure for larceny by, from master, ii. 775, 776. SERVANT’S OCCUPANCY, is master’s, in arson, ii. 387 (2). 853 SIG INDEX OF SUBJECTS. SERVE WARRANT, who may, of arrest, i. 189. “SET FIRE TO,” “BURN,” in indictment for arson, i. 618 (2), ii. 46, 47. SEVERAL, how serve warraut of arrest addressed to, i. 206 (2); trial where offence is, i. 1041. SEVERAL DEFENDANTS, (See DEFENDANTS.) juror who has tried one of, may try another, i. 913 (8). SEVERAL FAMILIES, premises occupied by, how the allegation in arson, ii. 38. in burglary, ii. 138 (7). SEVERAL AND JOINT, bail as to, i. 264 d. SEVERALTY OF OWNERSHIP, how lay, in larceny, ii. 723 (2). “ SEVERALLY,” charging assault as made, ii. 61. SEVERANCE of defendants, by change of venue or continuance, i. 1028 a; to restrict peremptory challenges, i. 1029-1031. SEVERANCE AND SEPARATE TRIALS, Of joint defendants, full, i. 1018-1026. SEX, variance in proof of, i. 488 (5) ; presamed from clothes worn, i. 1097 (4). of person slain, not aver in homicide, ii. 507 (1). whether aver, in rape, ii. 952. SHEETS PRINTED, bound books are not, ii. 824. SHERIFF, (See ARREST — ConsTABLE — OFFICER.) When arrest by, without warrant, full, i. 181-184. early office of, i. 149 (1); power of, to take bail, i. 251 (1). procedure against, by indictment for false return, ii. 828 (1). SHIP, proof of nationality of, i. 384 (6). *“* SHOOT,” (See Maricious SHOOTING.) when equivalent for “shoot at,” i. 613 (9). “ SHOOTING ” another, how indictment for, i. 629 (2), note. with intent to murder, ii. 652, 653. SHOP, how lay burglary in a, ii. 136. SHOP-BREAKING, possession of stolen goods as evidence in, ii. 747 (2). SHOW CAUSE, prisoner’s presence on rule to, i. 277 (2). SHOW WARRANT, when, in arrest, i. 191. SICK, (See NrcEssARIES.) , bail to a defendant, i. 253 (1), 259; prisoner taken, during trial, how pro- ceed, i. 274; one, excused from grand jury, i. 853 (1); juror becoming, i. 948; witness, ground for continuance, i. 951 a (2). SIGNATURE, indictment for obtaining the, by false pretences, ii. 178 (4). proof of, ii. 482-482 c. SIGNATURE BY MARK, how, in indictment for forgery, ii. 407 (4). SIGNED, information must be, i. 713 (2). word, in indictment for forgery, ii. 417 (2). 854 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. SOL SIGNS AND PICTURES, procedure for libel by, ii. 794 a-796. SILENCE, (See PROCLAMATION OF.) waiver of objectionable verdict by, i. 1004 (2). SILENCE UNDER ACCUSATION, as evidence, i. 1254. SIMILITER, the, whether in record, i. 1854 (8). SIMPLE AND AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, charging, together, ii. 63 a. SIMPLE LARCENY, (See Larceny.) distinguished from compound, as to where indict, i. 60. SIMILITUDE, proof of, in passing counterfeit coin, ii. 260 (3). SIMULTANEOUSLY, imprisonments executed, i. 1810 (3), 1827 (1). SINGLE COUNT. (See SEPARATE Counts.) SINGULAR NUMBER, whether suffices for plural, in indictment, i. 349. SIT IN PRIVATE, (See PrivaTE.) how far, grand jury, i. 861 (4-6). SIT OR STAND, whether prisoner, during trial, i. 952 a-954, 956. «“ SITUATE,” in indictment, effect on proof, i. 371. in indictment for burglary, ii. 135 (1). ‘“ SITUATED,” in bawdy-house indictment, ii. 111. SIX. (See Jury or.) SLANDER, of mayor, general charge uot sufficient, i. 530 (1); grand juror, &c., witness in action of, i. 857, 858 (1). SLANDER AND LIBEL, Procedure for, full, ii. 781-811; namely, indictment generally and for libel- ling individuals, 783-794 ; indictment specially as to other libels, 794 a-798; the evidence, 799-804; questions of practice, 805-806 a; oral words, 807 -811. SLANDERING MAGISTRATE, by oral words, indictment, ii. 807. SLAVE, (See NEGROES.) in what county prosecute enticing, i. 53 (4), note. SLEEP, (See AsLeEP Durine TRIAL.) confession in, i. 1230. SLITTING THE NOSE, procedure for, ii. 855 (2) et seq. SMALL THINGS, law not regards, i. 1276 (1). SOCIETY OR MEMBERS, indictment for disturbing meeting of, ii. 298 (1). sODOMY, Procedure for, full, ii. 10138-1018 a. “SOLEMN OATH,” meaning of, ii. 913 (8). “¢ SOLICIT,” in indictment for attempt, ii. 74 (1, 3). in indictment for attempt to bribe, ii. 126 (2). 855 SPE INDEX OF SUBJECTS. SOLICITATION, (See ATTEMPT — CHALLENGING TO DUEL.) To crime, full, ii. 74-76. place of trial for attempt by, i. 58 (4), 57 (2, 3). evidence of, in arson, ii. 53 (4). prior, in rape, ii. 970 (1). SOLICITOR-GENERAL, (See ProsecuTiInG OFFICER.) right of information by, i. 142, 144; how, employed for defence, i. 300. SORT OF MEETING, how aver, in disturbing meeting, ii. 286. “SOUND MIND,” words, not necessary in indictment, ii. 669 (1). “SOWER OF DISCORD,” , words, in indictment for common scold, ii. 200 (1). SPEAK THE TRUTH, how make record, i. 1348. SPECIAL CASES, how allege time in, i. 399. SPECIAL CAUTION, required as to circumstantial evidence, i. 1076. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, Verdict in, full, i. 1006-1012. SPECIAL COUNSEL, (See CounsEL.) for prosecution, how, i. 280-284, 962, 963. SPECIAL DEFENCE, admissible on general issue, i. 743 (2); permissible under plea of uot guilty, i. 799; whether grand jury hear matter of, i. 866 (2), 867; judge should give special charge on, i. 980 (4); burden of proof in, i. 1048 (2) ; alibi is not, i. 1066. insanity is not a, ii. 669 (3). SPECIAL DEMURRER, distinguished from general, i. 777 (1), 778. SPECIAL EMERGENCY, judge for a, i. 314 (4). SPECIAL FACT OR FACTS, plea of former jeopardy setting out, i. 826 (2), 828. combining with rule, ii. 68 (4). SPECIAL AND GENERAL OWNER, laying ownership of goods having, in larceny, ii. 720, 721. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS to deliberating jury, how, i. 1000. SPECIAL JURISDICTION, how record of court of, i. 1850, 1851. SPECIAL OBSERVATIONS, alibi subject to, i. 1064. SPECIAL PLEA, (See PLEa.) in bar, in writing, i. 789 (1), 790; where there has been former jeopardy, i. 822; burden of proof on, i. 1048 (2). SPECIAL PRESUMPTIONS, (See BuRDEN oF Proor — Presump- TION — REASONABLE Dovsrt.) Some, full, i. 1102-1131; namely, of innocence, 1103-1106; from motive, 1107; expressed feelings and purposes, 1108-1111 ; character of defendant. 1112-1119; defendant having committed another crime, 1120-1129; official conduct and duty, 1130, 1181. SPECIAL TERMS of recognizance, i. 264 j. SPECIAL VERDICT, Procedure as to, full, i. 1006-1008. whether in writing, i. 1002. in conspiracy, ii. 238. in disorderly house, ii. 283. in forcible trespass, ii. 895 (2). 856 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. : STA SPECIAL VERDICT — continued. ‘in uttering forgery, ii. 486 (1). in libel, ii. 806 (2). in treason, ii. 1040. SPECIES OF THINGS, when and how allege, i. 568; on a statute mention- ing only the genus, i. 616, 619, 620. SPECIFIC, How far indictment must be, full, i. 108 (1), 325 (6), 493 et seq., 526-531. search-warrant to be, i. 242 (1); indictment must be, though statute general, i. 619, 620, 624. SPECIFIC AND DISTINCT, pleadings to be, i. 323 (2), 325 (6). SPECTATORS, before magistrate, i. 726; to be admitted at trials, i. 957, 958. SPEEDY TRIAL, Right to, full, i. 951 d-951 f. SPELLING, (See CLERICAL Errors.) bad, effect in indictment, i. 354, 357, 688. SPENT WARRANT, arrest on, i. 187 (4). “SPIES AND INFORMERS,” as witnesses to liquor-selling, i. 1174. SPIRITUAL HOPE OR FEAR, effect of, on confession, i. 1225. “SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS,” (See L1QuoR-SELLING.) though in statute not adequate in indictment, i. 624 (2); effect of drink- ing, by jury, i. 999 (2). SPOKEN WORDS, (See Worps.) How allege, full, i. 559-563. STABBING, form of indictment for murder by, ii. 541 (1). with intent to murder, ii. 654. STALLION AND MARE IN PUBLIC VIEW, indictment for, ii. 869 (2). STAND, whether prisoner to, at trial, i. 956. STAND COMMITTED, order to, till fine is paid, i. 1301, 13802; till costs, i. 1821. order to, in compelling abatement of nuisance, ii. 871 (1). STANDING ASIDE JURORS, practice of, i. 938, 939. STANDING JACK, for mares, procedure for nuisance of, ii. 869 (2). STANDING MUTE, at arraignment, i. 733 a. STARVING, How charge murder by, full, ii. 557, 559. STATE, STATES, (See In Name or.) Crimes against the, where prosecuted, full, i. 49-63. Rights and duties of the, as to fugitives, full, i. 219-2230. Peremptory challenge by the, full, i. 936-940. Procedure for goods stolen in one, and carried into another, full, ii. 727-729. informations by attorney for, i. 142, 144; no jurisdiction over foreign fugitives from justice, i, 224 (2); whether and how allege, i. 383; whether bound by national Constitution as to jury trial, i.891; right of the, to challenge jurors, i. 933 (1); as to peremptory challenge of juror, i. 940; whether continuance by, of right, i. 951 (8); burden of proof on the, never shifts, i. 1049-1051; no confessions by the, i. 1082 (1); is 857 STA INDEX OF SUBJECTS. STATE, STATES — continued. plaintiff in criminal cases, i. 1082 (1); whether new trial on application of, i. 1272; whether, pays costs, i. 1815; whether, brings error, i. 1363 (2); enjoining nuisance on prayer of, i. 1417 (2). whether set out the, in indictment for forging bank-bill, ii. 409 (2). how allege forgery to defraud the, ii. 421. STATE’S ATTORNEY. (See ProsrcuTine OFFICER.) STATE AUTHORITY, arrest of fugitives from justice under, i. 223. STATE COURTS, some judgments of, reviewed by writ of error in national, i. 1365. STATE’S EVIDENCE. (See ACCOMPLICE.) STATE OF FEELING, (See FEELineGs.) not show, by dying declaration, i. 1207 (2). STATE LAWS, as to fugitives from justice, i. 221 et seq. STATE OFFICER, United States not compel, i. 221 (2). STATEMENT by one wounded, when of the res geste, i. 1086 (2); in other cases, i. 1087. STATEMENT BY PRISONER, in defence, i. 962 (4), 969 (3); as evidence, i. 1261 (1). STATES AND UNITED STATES, habeas corpus as between, i. 1411, note. STATUTE, STATUTES, (See AMENDMENT — CLAUSE — EXCEPTION — INDICTMENT ON.) How distinguish whether indictment should be on, and how drawn, full, i. 593- 642. Procedure on, in forgery, full, ii. 487-444. Procedure on, for keeping gaming-house, full, ii. 490-494. Indictment for larceny upon, full, ii. 730-738, Indictment on, for perjury, full, ii. 925, 926. regulation of procedure by, i. 8; changing locality of indictment by, i. 50 (8), 59 (2), note, 62, 63, 65, 76 (2); effect of court overlooking a, i. 1004 (4), note, par. 5; limiting methods of defence, effect of, i. 113, 114, 767; interpreted by constitution, i. 114; may change remedy, not right, i. 115; waiver of right under, i. 118; right of arrest modified and enlarged by, i. 172, 180, 184; creating conservator of peace, authorizes arrests by him, i. 181 (1); Sunday arrests regulated by, i. 207 (2); the, modifying criminal pleading, i. 822 (2), 339 (2); words of, in indict- ment on, i. 335; giving new meaning to word, how indictment, i. 358; disjunctive clauses, how draw indictment on, i. 434-436, 586; aggrava- tions above statutory terms, surplusage, i. 479; reciting, needlessly, erroneously, i. 482 (2), note ; how allege the statutory intent, i. 521- 525; duplicity in indictments on, i. 587; forbidding charge to jury on facts, i. 979 (2); jury taking, when retiring to deliberate, i. 982a; in- terested witness admitted under, i. 1138 (2); extending the witness capacity of husband and wife, i. 1152; giving State rehearings, how con- strued, i. 1272; modifying form of record, i. 1360. expanding allegation beyond words of, in nuisanee, ii. 868 (3, 4). STATUTE AND CONSTITUTION, interpreted together, i. 894 (8). STATUTE DIRECTORY OR MANDATORY, as to indorsement of in- dictment by prosecutor, i. 692; as to indorsement by grand jury, i. 700. STATUTE OF FRAUDS, recognizance not within, i. 264 (2). 858 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. STA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, (See LimItTATIONS.) allegation of time showing bar or not, i. 405; indictment on statute need not negative, i. 638 (2). how plead, i. 799 (5). STATUTES, ENGLISH, — cited, — Magna Charta, 29, —i. 100 a (2). Statute of Gloucester, c. 9, —i. 365 (2) and note. , Westm., 2 (13 Edw. 1) stat. 1, c. 31, —i. 1265 (2) Westm., : (13 Edw. 1), c. 34, A. D. 1285, —ii. 950, 958, 958. Westm., ., 2, ¢. 38, — i. 853 (1), 922 (1). 83 Edw. 1, stat. 4, —i. 936 (2), 988, note, oe 1 Edw. 3, ec. 14, — ii. 155. 1 Edw. 3, c. 16, —i. 174. 20 Edw. 3, c. 4, —ii. 155, note. 25 Edw. 8, stat. 5, c. 2, — ii. 251. 25 Edw. 3, stat. 5, c. 3, —i. 911 (2). 28 Edw. 3, c. 13, § 2,—i. 927. 34 Edw. 3, c. 1, -—i. 178. 36 Edw. 3, stat. 1, c. 15,—i. 341 (8). 1 Rich. 2, c. 4, —ii. 155, note. 5 Rich. 2, stat. 1, c. 8, — ii. 374. 13 Rich. 2,—i. 51 (8), note. 15 Rich. 2, c. 2, —i. 150, ii. 387 (2), note. 13 Hen. 4, c. 7, —i. 150. 1 Hen. 5, c. 5 (Additions), — i. 672-674. 8 Hen. 6, c. 9, — ii. 877, 383, 387 (2), note. 8 Hen. 6, c. 29, —i. 927, note. 3 Hen. 7, c. 2,—i. 54 (2), 523 (1), note. 21 Hen. 8, c. 11, — ii. 756, 759, 760, 762 (1). 22 Hen. 8, c. 14, § 6, —i. 941. 23 Hen. 8, c. 1, § 1, —ii. 561, note. 23 Hen. 8, c. 1, § 8, —ii. 498-502, 540, 541 (1), 544, 545 and note, 548, 562-565, 572. 25 Hen. 8, c. 6, —ii 1014, 1016. 28 Hen. 8, —i. 51 (8), note. 82 Hen. 8, c. 3, —i. 941. 82 Hen. 8, c. 9, —ii. 155, note. 33 Hen. 8, ¢. 23, § 3, —i. 941. 37 Hen. 8, c. 8, —i. 502 Q), 648 (8) and note. 1 Edw. 6, c. 12, § 10, —ii. 545 and note, 548, 561 (3), note, 572. 1 Edw. 6, c. 12, 22, — ii. 1037. 2 & 8 Edw. 6, c. 24, —i. 51 (8), note, 62, ii, 534. 2 & 8 Edw. 6, ¢ c. 24, § 2, —i. 82 (1). 2 & 3 Edw. 6, c. 24, § 4, —i. 58 (1, 3). 5 & 6 Edw. 6, c. 11, § 12, —ii. 1087, note. 1 & 2 Phil. & M., c. 10, —i. 941. 1&2 Phil. & M., ce. 10, § 7, —i. 928 (2). 1&2 Phil. & M., c. 10, § 11, —ii. 1037, note. , 1&2 Phil. & M., c. 18, § 4, 5, —i. 1198. 2&8 Phil. & M., c. 10, —i. 1198. 4 & 5 Phil. & M., c. 8, —i. 557 (1). 859 STA INDEX OF SUBJECTS. STATUTES, ENGLISH — continued. 5 Eliz. c. 9, — ii. 922. 5 Eliz. e. 14,—i. 924 (1). 1 Jac. 1, c. 11,-- i. 62, note. 21 Jac. 1, e. 15, — ii. 875-377, 383, 387 (2), note. 21 Jac. 1, c. 27, — i. 596, note. 21 Jac. 1, c. 28, —i. 737, note. 16 & 17 Car. 2, ¢. 8, § 1, —i. 705 (8). 22 & 23 Car. 2, c. 1, — ii. 855 (2) and note. 29 Car. 2,¢. 7, § 6, —i. 207 (2), ii. 814. 4&5 Will. & M., c. 8, —i. 1187. 4&5 Will. & M., c. 18, —i. 148. 6&7 Will. 3, c. 17, —i. 1157, 7 Will. 3, c. 3, — ii. 1087. 7 Will. 3, c. 3, § 2, ii. 1037, note. 8 & 9 Will. 3, c. 26, § 1, —ii. 270 (1). 8 & 9 Will. 3, c. 26, § 6, —i. 633 (2), note, ii. 260 (2). 10 & 11 Will. 3, c. 23, —i. 1157. 4 Anne, c. 16, § 4, —i. 748. 4 Anne, c. 16, § 11, —i. 757 (2). 5 Anne, c. 81, —i. 1157. 9 Geo. 1, ¢. 22, — ii. 34 (2), note. 2 Geo. 2, ¢. 25, — ii. 489 (2). 4 Geo. 2, ¢. 26, —i. 343 (1). 6 Geo. 2, c. 14, § 5, — i. 343 (1). 15 Geo. 2, ce. 28, — ii. 260 (1), 460 (4). 23 Geo. 2, c. 11, § 1, 2, — ii. 907, 908, 910 a (2), 914 (1), 915. 23 Geo. 2, ¢. 11, § 20, 21, —ii. 907, note. 29 Geo. 2, c. 80, —i. 1157. 80 Geo. 2, c. 24, § 1, —ii. 168, 172 (1). 7 Geo. 8. ¢. 50, § 1, ----i. 397 (1), note. 17 Geo. 3, c. 26, § 7, -—i. 480 (2). 387 Geo. 3, ¢. 70, — ii. 76 (1). 39 Geo. 3, — ii. 316. 389 Geo. 3, c. 85, — ii. 822, 323 (2), 323 a (2). 43 Geo. 3, c. 58, —i. 521 (2), note. 48 Geo. 3, c. 129, § 2, —i. 639 (7), note. 52 Geo. 3, c. 64, § 1, — ii. 172 (1). 56 Geo. 3, c. 73, — ii. 724, note. 6 Geo. 4, c. 50, § 18, — i. 868-370. 6 Geo. 4, c. 50, § 29, —i. 988, note. 7 Geo. 4, c. 46,— ii. 4250, note. 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, § 2-5, —i. 1199 (2), note. 7 Geo, 4,¢. 64, § 12, —i. 56 (1), note. 7 Geo. 4, ¢. 64, § 18, —i. 63 (1), note. 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, § 14, — ii. 724, note. 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, § 19, —i. 675, 676 (3), note. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 27, § 1, —ii 545. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 28, § 1, —i. 733d. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, —i. 83. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, § 8, — ii. 1025. 860 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. STA STATUTES, ENGLISH — continued. 7 & 8 Geo, 4, c. 29, § 10, — ii. 77. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, § 11, — ii. 141 (1), note. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, § 46,— il. 775. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, § 47, 48, —ii. 3831, 332 (1), 335, 387. 7&8 Geo 4, c. 29, § 49, — ii, 338. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, § 53, —ii. 172 (2). 9 Geo. 4, c. 21, § 11, 12, —i. 613 (6), note. 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, § 1,—ii. 545. 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, § 7, — i. 381 (2), note. 9 Geo. 4, c. 81, § 15, — ii. 1014. 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, § 24, —ii. 881 (2). 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, § aPar 81 (2), note. 9 Geo. 4, c. 82, § 2, — ii. 429 (2). 9 Geo. 4, ¢. 55,21 83. 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 68, § 20, —i. 436 (2), note. 2 Will. 4, ¢. 34, § 8, —ii. 249. 2 Will. 4, c. 34, § 7, —i. 1827 (1), note, ii. 258 (2). 2 Will. 4, c. 34, § 8, —ii. 263 (1), note, 265 (2). 2 Will. 4, c. 34, § 16,— ii. 249, note. 2&8 Will. 4, c. 123, § 3,—ii. 412 (1). 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 85, § 2, 8, —ii. 644 (1), 645 (1), 651 (2)-654. 7 Will. 4& 1 Vict. c. 85, § 4, —i. 629 (2), note. 7 Will. 4 & 1 Viet. ce. 89, —ii. 42 (2). 1 Vict. c. 86, —i. 83. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 39, § 6, —ii. 343. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 2, — i. 597, note. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 68, § 1, —i, 254 (1), note. 9 & 10 Vict. c. 62, — ii. 505 (2). 11 & 12 Vict. ¢. 42, § 17, 18, —i. 1199 (2), note, 1201, 1203, 1258, note. 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, —i. 717. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, § 4, —ii. 523. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, § 8,—ii. 425 b (1), note. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, § 18, — ii. 736 (2), note. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, § 20, 21, —ii. 907, notes. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, § 23, —i. 368, 370, note. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, § 24, —i. 403 (8), note, 675. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, § 25, —i. 1287, note, ii. 864, note. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, § 28, —i, 810 (1). 16 & 17 Vict c. 32, § 1, —i. 254 (1), note. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, § 27, —ii. 734. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, § 44, —ii. 1025. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, § 50, —ii. 777. 94 & 25 Vict. c. 96, § 67, —ii. 775. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, § 88, —ii. 172 (2). Qt & 25 Vict c. 98, § 42,—ii. 412 (1). 94 & 25 Vict. c. 98, § 44, — ii. 425 5 (1), note. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, § 2, — ii. 249, note. 94 & 25 Vict. c. 99, § 9, —ii. 263 (1), note. 94 & 25 Vict. c. 100, § 6, —ii. 523. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, § 11, 14, —ii. 644, 651 (2). 861 STO INDEX OF SUBJECTS. STATUTES, ENGLISH — continued. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, § 87, —ii. 881 (2). 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, § 38, — ii. 81 (2), note. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, § 61, —ii. 1014. 28 & 29 Vict. c. 18, § 1,— ii. 4820. 28 & 29 Vict. c. 18, § 2, —i. 964 (2). 28 & 29 Vict. c. 18, § 8, —ii. 482d. STATUTES, INDICTMENTS ON. (See STATUTE.) STATUTES OF JEOFAILS, (See AMENDMENT.) Concerning, full, i. 705-707 a. not extend to criminal cases, i. 572 (1). STATUTORY AUTHORITY, essential to waiver of jury trial, i. 893 (5). STATUTORY BAIL, and how construed, i. 264, 264a (2). STATUTORY CHANGES, In rules of evidence, full, i. 1088-1090. of common-law indictment for homicide, ii. 539. STATUTORY DIRECTIONS, committing magistrate to follow, i..239 (2) ; evidence taken under, i. 1199 (3). STATUTORY DISQUALIFICATION of judge, i. 314 (5). STATUTORY DISTURBANCES, Of meeting, full, ii. 289-301. STATUTORY MODIFICATIONS of indictment, how, i. 516 a. aa 8 ae STATUTORY OFFENCES, (See OFFENCE.) where tried, i. 56 (2), 60 (4); all, indictable, i. 130. STATUTORY PARDON, (See Parpon.) procedure as to, i. 834-837; with exceptions, how plead, i. 835, 837; without exceptions, i. 836. STATUTORY QUALIFICATIONS, technical, of jurors, i. 920. STATUTORY REGULATIONS of procedure, i. 8. STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS on arrest of judgment, i. 1287. STATUTORY WORDS, Following, in false-pretence indictment, full, ii. 179-182. STAYING JUDGMENT, for defendant to abate nuisance to way, ii. 1056. “ STEAL,” whether necessary in larceny indictment, ii. 698 (1), 698a. STEALING HEIRESS, where prosecute, i. 54 (2); allegation of, i. 557 (1). “STEER,” (See CatTTLeE.) in indictment, for “cattle” in statute, i. 619. STENOGRAPHER, for grand jury, i. 861 (8). STEPS. (See Cuorce or Steps.) STOLEN GOODS, (See Larceny — Recervine.) Presumption from the possession of, full, ii. 739-747. Procedure for restitution of, full, ii. 755-763. Procedure for receiving, full, ii. 979a-991a; namely, for accessorial offence, 980; indictment for substantive offence, 981-988; evidence, 988 a- 991a. search-warrant for, i. 241 (2); right to have back, not disqualifies wit- ness, i. 1138 (2). evidence from possession of, in burglary, ii. 152. 862 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. SUB STOLEN PROPERTY, How describe, in larceny indictment, full, ti. 699-712. STORE, how lay burglary in a, ii. 136. STRAITENED CIRCUMSTANCES, proof of, in embezzlement, ii. 327 (5). STRATAGEM to get into house, for arrest, i. 199. STRAW BAIL, giving, as evidence, i. 1250. STREET. (See Way.) STREET-NUMBER, unimportant in indictment, i. 372 (2). STRENGTH. (See RELATIVE STRENGTH.) STROKE, alleging, as to time and place, i. 408 (3). how lay the, in homicide, ii. 516 (2). “STRONG HAND,” charging forcible entry and detainer as with, ii. 871, 372, 879 (2). 380 (2, 8). in averment of forcible trespass, ii. 390 (3). STRUMPETS, proof of, frequenting bawdy-house, ii. 112 (2), 116 (1). STUDENT. (See CrepitT To.) STYLE OF SENTENCE, the, i. 1296. SUBMISSION, arrest by, i. 157. SUBMIT TO JURY, how, the two pleas of former jeopardy and not guilty, 1; 812. ? SUBORNATION OF PERJURY. (See Persury.) Procedure for, full, ii. 1019-1023. indictment for attempting, ii. 75 (1). whether indictment must mention sum offered, ii. 75 (2) one witness sufficient in, ii. 929 (2). as attempt, ii. 938, 939. SUBPGNA, to witness before grand jury, i. 868(8); whether judge should obey, i. 1145. SUBSCRIBING WITNESS, whether call, in forgery, ii. 430. SUBSEQUENT to indictment, laying offence, i. 403 (2). SUBSTANCE, (See Tenor.) alleging, where name unknown, i. 547; averring words by, i. 559 (2), 560; proof of, i. 563. false testimony in perjury to be set out by its, ii. 915; how, ii. 916. whether aver threatening ietter by its, ii. 1026. SUBSTANCE OF CONFESSION, admissible, i. 1241 (2). SUBSTANCE OR INCIDENTAL, Difference where matter of allegation is, full, i. 554-558. SUBSTANCE OF ISSUE, (See Issue.) proved, no variance, i. 4886 (1), 488c (1); proving, i. 1052 (2). proving, in false pretences, ii. 184 (1). proof of only, in disorderly house, ii. 281 (2). suffices in proof of gaming-house, ii. 489 (2). proof of only, in homicide, ii. 514 (4, 5). proving, in murder by poison, ii. 555. proof by, in poisoning, ii. 650 (1). proving, in assault to kill, 11. 659. 863 SUP INDEX OF SUBJECTS. SUBSTANCE OR TENOR, alleging, in false-pretence indictment, ii. 178, 183. SUBSTANTIAL ALLEGATIONS, Methods of the, full, i. 545-592. SUBSTANTIAL REQUISITES, Of the indictment, full, 1. 505-544, SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT, irregularity of jury depriving party of, i. 999 (1). SUBSTANTIVE CRIME, averring, in attempt, ii. 86 (2). SUBSTANTIVE MISDEMEANOR, (See MispEMEANOR.) where indictment for, i. 57 (3, 4). SUBSTANTIVE OFFENCE, whether proof of, takes away attempt, ii. 94. SUBSTITUTE FOR AVERMENT, bill of particulars not, i. 646, SUBSTITUTION of not guilty for guilty, in plea, i. 798. SUBSTITUTION AND WITHDRAWAL of pleas, i. 747. SUBTLE PLEADING in criminal cases, i. 23 (2, 3). SUCCESSIVE AND CUMULATIVE SENTENCES, i. 1327 (2). SUFFERING, complaints of, in evidence, i. 1111. declarations of, evidence in homicide, ii. 626 (1). SUFFICIENCY OF INDICTMENT, Allegation of time as to the, full, i. 403-405. SUICIDE, showing, in defence of murder, ii. 633 (5). SUIT ON RECOGNIZANCE, i. 264m. SUMMARY, The concluding, in murder indictment, full, ii. 548-550. concluding, in indictment for perjury, ii. 903. SUMMARY CONVICTION, (See Conviction — REcorv.) difference between, and indictments, as to allegations, i. 639 (7), note; before magistrate, practice in, i. 722. for disturbing meeting, ii. 300. SUMMARY PROCEEDING, no writ of error on, i. 1864; certiorari in, i, 1378. SUMMINGS UP, By counsel at the trial, full, i. 974-975 b. Of judge, full, i. 975 c-982. reading books in the, i. 1180. judge’s, to jury, in homicide, ii. 638 a. SUMMONS to corporation, for trial, i. 950 a (8). SUNDAY, (See Lorp’s Day.) arrest on, i. 207 (2); offence on, how charge, i. 899 (3, 4); verdict, but not judgment on, good, i. 1001 (2); finding on, that jury cannot agree, i. 1001 (2); no sentence on, i. 1291 (1). SUPERFLUOUS AVERMENTS, in assault and battery, ii. 57. SUPERIOR COURTS, (See InFError.) how distinguished from inferior, i, 236-239. SUPERIOR JURISDICTION, how record of court of, i. 1350, 1351. SUPERSEDEAS of magistrate’s warrant, i. 235 (2). 864 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. SYM SUPERVISING FORM, (See Form.) of plea, i. 789 (2). SUPERVISORS OF HIGHWAYS, how proceed against, for non-repair, ii. 827. SUPPLYING RECORD mutilated or lost, i. 1398 (1). SUPREME COURT, reviewing State decision by the, of U.S., i. 100 a (4), note, par. 4; of U. S. as to writ of error, i. 1305. SURETIES, (See Bart — RECOGNIZANCE.) Varying liabilities of, in bail, full, i. 264 7-264 n. when not refuse, in bail, i. 260 (3); found insufficient, effect of, in bail, 1. 263 a (2); how bail binds, i. 264 c, 264 d; not jurors, i. 907 (1). SURETIES FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR, breaking doors in arrest to compel, i. 196. SURETIES OF PEACE, requiring, on acquittal, i. 229 (3); forfeiture of recognizance, i. 264 n; as part of sentence, how enforce, i. 1812, 1321. SURNAME, (See NAME.) of the, i. 683, 684. SURPLUS ALLEGATIONS, in indictment on statute, i. 621; when, need not prove, i. 1052 (2). SURPLUS PROOFS, to be disregarded, i. 1052 (2). SURPLUSAGE, In indictment, full, i. 477-484. Rejecting, to avoid variance, full, i. 485-487, How, where not rejected, full, i. 488-488 e. in alleging time of offence, i. 388 (1); allowed in indictments, i. 436; re- jecting, to cure duplicity, i. 440; does not make indictment double, i. 440; rejecting, to avoid repugnancy, i. 491 (1); disjunctive allegation as, i. 592 (1); ‘against form of statute” as, i. 601; not, allegation showing no offence committed, i. 621; a not required negative, in in- dictment, i. 640 (1); harmless in verdict, i. 1005 a (1); facts notin issue in special verdict, i. 1006 (8); what, in verdict, i. 1012 (2, 5); striking, from verdict, i. 1013 (2); part of indictment treated as, i. 1070 (4); in dying declaration, i. 1214 (3). : in charge of aggravated assault, ii. 63 a (2). in cases of assault and battery, ii. 65 (3). SURPRISE, adjournment of trial for, i. 966 d (2) ; new trial for, i. 1280. SURRENDER, (See EscaPep PRISONERS.) Of fugitives from justice, full, i. 219-224 6. SURRENDER PRINCIPAL, bail may, when and how, i. 230 (1). SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION of sentence, i. 1299. SUSPICION. (See REASONABLE SUSPICION.) SWEARING, How allege the, in perjury, full, ii. 912-914. SWEARING OF JURY, (See OaTn.) how record as to, i. 1357. SWEARING WITNESS, (See WITNESS.) when, appear in record, i. 1347. SWORN. (See How Sworn.) SWORN TESTIMONY, effect of admissions in, i. 1255-1257. SWORN TO, dying declaration may be, or not, i. 1213. SYMBOL OR TOKEN, how allege the, in cheat, ii, 158 (2), 159 (2). VOL. 11. — 55 865 TER INDEX OF SUBJECTS. TACIT ACKNOWLEDGMENT, of guilt by defendant, i. 1258. “ TAKE,” whether necessary in larceny indictment, ii. 698 (1). TAKE WITH THEM, to their rooms, what the jury may, i. 982 a. TAKING OF LIFE, ‘ Presumption from a mere, full, ii. 608-606. TAKING NOTES, before magistrate, i. 726; in superior courts, i. 958. TALESMEN, the, of grand jury, i. 850. “TAME PIGEON,” words, as descriptive of thing stolen, in larceny, ii. 706 (2). TAMPERING WITH WITNESS, not by prosecuting officer, i. 293 (2); how allege, i. 556 (4); as evidence of guilt, i. 1251. how indictment for, ii. 897. TAX-PAYER, whether juror must be, i. 922 (8). TAXATION, of costs, i. 1319, 1820. TAXES, collectible summarily, i. 100 a@ (8). TEACHER, assault by, on pupil, ii. 70. TECHNICAL, complaint before magistrate less, than indictment, i. 720. TECHNICAL CRIME, whether prosecute, i. 290, 291. TECHNICAL LANGUAGE, verdict need not be in, i. 1005 a,-1007 (1). TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS, (See QUALIFICATIONS. ) statutory, of jurors, i. 920. TECHNICAL TERM, defining, in statute, how indictment, i. 629 (1). TECHNICAL WORDS, (See Worps.) indictment requiring, i. 335, TECHNICALITIES, how far observe, i. 24, 25. TELL THE TRUTH, exhortation to, effect on confession, i. 1227. TENDENCY TO PROVE ISSUE, ground on which evidence is admitted, i. 1091. TENEMENT, TENEMENTS, separate, in house in arson, ii. 38. word, whether in indictment for disorderly house, ii. 276 a. TENNESSEE, practice in, as to presentments, i. 138 (38). TENOR, (See SUBSTANCE.) proof of, i. 488 (4); averring words by, i. 559 (2, 3), 561 (1), 562; how, when in foreign language, i. 564, ii. 403-406. in libel, ii. 789, 790; oral slander, ii. 808 (2); how in perjury, ii. 915. whether aver thr eatening letter by, 3 ii. 1026. TENOR OR SUBSTANCE, alleging, in false-pretence indictment, ii. 178, 183. TENSE, the, of record, i. 1849. TERM OF COURT, (See Coser or Term.) deemed but one day, i. 1852. TERMINI, variance by stating wrong, of way, i. 486 (4). of way, alleging the, ii. 1045, 1051. TERMS, (See GENERIC — PARTICULAR.) impose, for allowing amendment, i. 715 (1). TERRIFYING ACT, alleging the, in riot, ii. 993, 99+. 866 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. THR TERRITORIES, (See Escarep Prisoners — STATE.) surrender of fugitives as between, i. 223 6 (2); jury trial in, i. 891 (1). TEST, the, of circumstantial evidence, i. 1079 (1). TEST OF INSANITY, on preliminary inquiry, ii. 667 (2). TESTIFYING FOR THEMSELVES, (See Witwess.) Defendants, full, i. 1181-1187. TESTIMONY, (See Farse Testimony —- Sworn — WITNESS.) writing down, on preliminary hearing, i. 234 6 (2); continuance to procure, i. 951 a (2); order and methods of delivering the, i. 966-966 c; absence of, a proper subject of comment to jury, i. 966 (2); the, of excluded witness, i. 1191-1193; dying declarations compared with, i. 1216. TESTIMONY OF JURORS, when admissible, i. 1270. THEFT, not divests owner of goods, of ownership, ii. 762 (8). “THEN AND THERE,” In allegation of time and place, full, i. 407-414. referred to what antecedent, i. 355. in indictment for assault and battery, ii. 57 (4). as to time and place of stroke and death, ii. 535. “THERE,” in indictment, refers to what, i. 512. THERE SITUATE, words, in arson indictment, ii. 41. in bawdy-house, ii. 111; burglary, ii. 135 (1) ; exposure of person, ii. 351 and note. See, also, ii. 866 (3), 1046, 1051. THIEF, witness against receiver, ii. 988 a. THING, the, in search-warrant, i. 244, 245 (2); proof of identity of the, i. 1060 (8). THING EMBEZZLED, how describe, in indictment, ii. 318-321. THING OBTAINED, How specify, in false pretences, full, ii. 178, 174. by false pretences, proof of, ii. 188 (2). THING TO BE OBTAINED, alleging, in conspiracy, ii. 211. THINGS STOLEN, (See Goops — SroLen Goons.) exhibiting, at trial, i. 965 (1). description of, in larceny, ii. 699-712. THIRD PERSON OR PERSONS, How name, in indictment, full, i. 676-689 0. Rescues and helps to escape by, full, ii. 945, 946. breaking doors of castle of, to arrest, i. 204, 205 ; whether allege name of, i. 571 (2); presumed innocence of, inadequate to convict defendant, i. 1106 (1); dying declarations of, not evidence, i. 1207 (2); declarations of, in evidence, i. 1248 (1), ii. 68 (3); acts of, i, 1249. as witnesses to forgery, ii. 431. acts and doings of, in homicide trials, ii. 633 (3). THREATENING LETTERS, (See LetTeEr.) Procedure for, full, ii. 1024-1029 6. place for trying offence of, 1,53 (4), 61 (1); procuring inspection of, i. 959 d (2). 867 TO INDEX OF SUBJECTS. THREATENING WITNESS, by defendant, as evidence, i, 1251. THREATS, Procedure for criminals, full, ii. 1024-1029 6. by defendant, evidence of, i. 1110; confession extorted by, i. 1287 (1). evidence of, in arson, ii. 53 (38). in aggravated assault, ii. 67 (4). of defendant, as evidence in homicide, ii. 629 (2). imply force in rape, ii. 972 (2). THREATS BY DECEASED, Evidence of, in homicide, full, ii. 619-622; and see 623-627. THREATS OF SURROUNDING PERSONS, confessions under, i. 1538 (2). THREE DEGREES, (See CERTAINTY.) of certainty in pleading, i. 823 (4)-828. THREE OR MORE PERSONS, indictment for riot must charge, and how, ii. 998. TICHBORNE CASE IN ERROR, i. 1327 (2), note. TIME, Allegation and proof of, in burglary, full, ii. 131-184. how allege, when important, i. 390 (2), 399; variance in allegation and proof of, i. 488 a; how interpret special verdict as to order of, i. 1007 (4); mistakes of witnesses as to the, i. 1064; limitation of, in proof of character, i. 1118. . how allege, in barratry, ii. 103 (1). allegation of, in homicide, ii. 552, note. proof of, in libel, ii. 802. allegation of, in indictment for violating the Lord’s day, ii. 815 (1). allegation of, in indictment for nuisance, ii. 866 (2). how aver, in perjury, ii. 911 (2). TIME NOT AUTHORIZED, indictment found at a, i. 889. TIME OF DAY, what, for arrest, i. 207 (1); for executing search-warrant, i. 243. TIME TO ELECT, The count or offence, full, i. 461, 462. TIME OF OFFENCE, Allegation and proof of, full, i. 386-406. inadequately alleged, reject as surplusage, i. 440. TIME AND PLACE, (See Prace — Time.) When and how allege repetitions of, full, i. 407-414. Alleging, of wound and death, respectively, in homicide, full, ii. 580-535. of holding court, how in record, i. 1851. TIME IN SENTENCE, i. 1310, 1311. TITHING-MAN, how indictment for contempt of, i. 518 (4). TITLE of information, defect in, i. 713 (4). not settled by forcible-entry proceedings, ii. 383. “ TO,” word, in proof of tenor, i. 488 (4). “TO THE COMMON NUISANCE,” (See Nuisance.) Words, in indictments for nuisance, full, ii. 862-864. in indictment for barratry, ii. 101; for common scold, ii. 200 (2). exposure of person, ii. 853 (3); uttering obscene language, ii. 810. “TO THE DAMAGE,” words, whether necessary in indictment, i. 647 (1). in indictment for assault and battery, ii. 57 (2). 868 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. TRE “TO THE DISPLEASURE OF GOD,” words, not necessary in indict- ment, i. 647 (1). “TO THE EVIL EXAMPLE,” words, whether necessary in indictment, i. 647 (1). “TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, conclusion, not necessary, i. 647 (1). “TO THE TERROR,” whether indictment for riot should conclude, ii. 997. TO WIT, indictment on statute where ‘‘ or’’ means, i. 590. TOKEN OR SYMBOL, how allege the, in cheat, ii. 158 (2), 159 (2). TOMBSTONE, indictment for defacing, ii. 1011. TOOLS OF CRIME, (See ‘* Cruss.’’) exhibiting, at trial, i. 965 (1), 982 a. evidence from, in burglary, ii. 151 (2). as evidence in robbery, ii. 1007 a (7). *« TORTURE,” word, in indictment for cruelty to animals, i. 629 (2). TOUCH, whether essential in arrest, i. 157. TOWN, (See County.) the, in indictment, i. 364-367, 870-375; laying offence in, without county, i. 878 (1); whether inhabitant of, juror, i. 907 (2). TOWN MEETING, proceeding for disturbance of, ii. 299. TOWNSHIP, how allege forgery to defraud a, ii. 421. TRACKS, requiring prisoner to put feet into, &c., i. 211 (1). TRADE, joinder of defendants for unlicensed working at, i. 470 (5). « TRAITOROUSLY,” when, in indictment, i. 534-537. in treason, ii. 1035. TRANSACTION OR TRANSACTIONS, Compelling election on what, to proceed, full, i. 459-460. joinder of more than one, in one indictment, i. 449 and note-451; joining felonies in distinct, i. £50, 451; in misdemeanors, i. 452 (5); proof of whole, though another crime is included, i. 1125 (2). indictment for perjury must individualize the, ii. 924. TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD, how made, as to amendments, i. 1845; not record on certiorari, i. 1880. TRANSFER PRISONER, from one court to another, habeas corpus to, i. 1408. TRANSLATION of writing in foreign language, i. 564, 565. TRANSPORTATION BEYOND SEAS, whether aver, in kidnapping, ii. 691. TRAVAIL, declarations in, as evidence in rape, ii. 971 (2). TREASON, (See FeLony — “ Trarrorovs.y.’’) Procedure against participants in, full, ii. 1-15. Procedure for, full, ii. 1030-1041; namely, indictment, 1031-1035 ; evi- dence, 1036-1089 ; questions of practice, 1040, 1041. 869 TRI INDEX OF SUBJECTS. TREASON — continued. the course in, an old trial for, i. 15-19; where prosecute misprision of, i. 55 (2); duty to arrest one committing, i. 165, 166; when private person arrest for, i. 168, 186; when officer of law, i. 178, 188 ; officer arresting for, without warrant, i. 181 (2); bail in, i, 255-257; prisoner’s presence during entire trial for, i. 278; count may allege several overt acts of, i. 483-437; laying several overt acts in, not duplicity, i. 487 (2); ‘‘ in- stigated by devil,’ i. 501; ‘“‘ with force and arms,”’ i. 502; conclusion in indictment for, i. 647; pleading over in, i. 754; one convicted for, not juror, i. 924 (1); witnesses to, i. 1148. TREASON OF COUNTERFEITING, old indictment for, ii: 251. TREASON, FELONY, MISDEMEANOR, Difference in, as to course of trial, full, i. 588-587. TREASONABLE ASSEMBLAGES, how interfere in, i. 166 (2, 8). TREASURY NOTES, how determine value of, ii. 751 (6). TREATIES, Surrender of fugitives from justice under, full, i. 224-224 b. TRESPASS. (See ForcisLe Trespass.) TRIAL, (See Arrest — Binpine OveR — ConTINUANCE — COURSE OF — JOINT AND SEPARATE — ORDER — SEPARATE.) Constitutional guarantee of, by jury, full, i. 87, 890-894. Presence of prisoner at, full, i. 271-274. The, full, i. 959 g~982 a; namely, the order with some particulars, 960-966 d; openings to jury, 967-973; summings up by counsel, 974-975 b; charge of judge to jury, 975 c-982 a. whether presence of prisoner at assigning case for, i. 269 (1) ; no election after, i. 461 (1); how the pleas are tried, i. 752-755; court may refuse, i. 759 (1); no, without plea of not guilty, i. 801 (1); not object at the, to grand jury’s doings, i. 886; no arrest of judgment for error at the, i. 1285 (2); writ of error whether reaches errors at, i. 1868; certiorari to remove cause for, i. 1877 (1), 1880. TRIAL COURT, distinguished from appellate, as to granting new trial, i. 1274. ‘ TRIAL BY PETIT JURY, (See Jury Tria.) The, full, eleven chapters, i. 8290-1045; namely, right of jury trial, 890-894; the jurors and their qualifications, 895-930; impanelling and challenging, 930 a-945; objecting to jurors after sworn, 946-949 b; preparations for trial, 950-959 f; the trial, 959 g-982 a; respective provinces of court and jury, 982 b-989 b; jury during trial to verdict, 990-1000; the verdict and its rendition, 1000 a-1016; more defendants than one, 1017-1041; more indictments than one, 1042-10435, TRIAL PROGRESSING, nolle prosequi while, i. 1894, 1395. TRIBUNAL, (See Court.) what, for accused person, i. 100 a (4). TRICKS TO CONVICT, prosecuting officer not to employ, i. 298 (5). TRIED TOGETHER, Several indictments, full, i. 1042-1045, TRIERS, In challenge to the favor, full, i, 903-906, 984 (4). 870 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. UNC TRIVIAL BENEFIT, (See BeneriT A FRIEND.) effect of hope of, on confession, i. 1223 (2). TRIVIAL INJURY, no new trial where only, i. 1276. TRUE BILL, (See InDoRSEMENT. ) grand jury’s indorsement as, i. 697-701; foreman’s indorsement of, with- out concurrence, i. 763 (8). TRUE NAME, (See Namez.) baptismal or not, i. 686 (1). TRUTH, (See Error.) duty of keeping mind open to, i. 100 a (4), note, par. 1. TRUTH AND VERACITY OF WITNESS, impeaching, in rape, ii. 964 (1). TURKEY, how indictment for larceny of, ii. 706 (8). TWEED’S CASE, as to joinder of misdemeanors, i. 458 (2); concerning, i. 1827 (2) and note; more of, i. 1410 (9), note. TWELVE, grand jurors find indictment, i. 854 (8), 855; constitute petit jury, 1. 897, 898. TWICE IN JEOPARDY. (See Former JEOPARDY.) TWO BREAKINGS, when not constitute two burglaries, ii. 140. TWO CLASSES, of averment in indictment for perjury, ii. 904. TWO COUNTS, verdict on, in forgery, ii. 486 (2). TWO DAYS, (See More Days THAN ONE.) charging offence on, i. 387 (8), 388 (2), 396. ‘i TWO INDICTMENTS against same defendant, how tried, i. 950d (2). TWO OR MORE PERSONS, charging injury to, by one act, not duplicity, i. 437 (4). TWO OR MORE STATUTES, how indictment conclude against, i. 605, 606. TWO STATUTES, how indictment on, i. 612 (4). TWO WITNESSES, whether, in perjury, ii. 927-929. in treason, ii. 1087. UNANIMITY AND NUMBER, Of petit jurors, full, i. 897-899. UNANIMOUS, whether grand jury’ to be, i. 854 (3), 855; petit jury to be, _ i, 897 (2, 8), 898 (1). UNAUTHORIZED OFFICER, bail before, void, i. 251 (4). UNAUTHORIZED SENTENCE, habeas corpus discharging one held under, i. 1410 (9). UNBORN INFANT. life of, respected, i. 1322. UNCERTAIN IN MEANING, verdict, ill, i. 1005 (2). UNCERTAIN PROOES, how treat, i. 1054. UNCHASTE, : woman’s being, in rape, ii. 965, 966. 871 UNL INDEX OF SUBJECTS. UNCOMMUNICATED THREATS, as evidence in homicide, ii. 611, 621 (2), 622, 623 (2), 627. UNCONSTITUTIONAL, deeming statute, disqualifies juror, i. 917 (1). UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE, habeas corpus where imprisonment is under, i. 1410 (7). UNDER INDICTMENT, for same offence, disqualifies juror, i. 919 (2), UNDER THE RULE, Putting waiting witnesses, full, i. 1188-1198 a. UNDERTAKING, proceeding for forgery of an, ii. 478, 474 UNDUE PURPOSE, (See Purpose). arrest on warrant obtained for, i. 187 (2). UNFINISHED dying declaration, whether admissible, i. 1213. UNFIT JUROR, court discharging, i. 947 (2). UNGRAMMATICAL, (See Part or SPEECH.) when indictment may be, i. 348 et seq., 511 (4). UNINCORPORATED PLACE, (See Town.) laying offence in, i. 878 (1). UNITED STATES, Where indict crimes against, full, i. 64-67. whether information in courts of, i. 145 (8); whether, pays costs, i. 1815; whether writ of error by, i. 1363 (2). ‘conspiracy to defraud the, ii. 245. UNITED STATES COURTS, (See Court.) indictments in, need aver only the district, i. 875 (2); writs of error in, i. 1365. UNITED STATES LAWS, as to fugitives from justice, i. 221. UNITED STATES AND STATES, habeas corpus as between, i. 1411, note. UNITED STATES TRIBUNALS, habeas corpus as between, i. 1411, note. UNJUST DEFENCE, (See CouNnsEL.) Rights and duties of counsel as to, full, i. 809-318. UNKNOWN, (See NeEcEssirTy.) allegation where thing is, i. 495-498, 545-553. how describe things stolen as, ii. 705. allegation where one of the conspirators is, ii. 225. UNKNOWN NAME, (See Name.) disclosed at trial, i. 551 (1). “UNLAWFUL,” all cheating is, ii. 212. ‘ UNLAWFUL ACT, implies unlawful intent, i. 1101. UNLAWFUL ARREST, how resist, and homicide therein, i. 162; of fugitive from justice, i. 2246 (1). UNLAWFUL BROKERAGE, how indictment for, i. 580 (2). UNLAWFUL COMBINATION, and acts pursuant, as proof in conspiracy, ii. 228 et seq. UNLAWFUL MARRIAGE, not takes away capacity to be witness, i. 1154. conspiracy to procure an, ii. 244. UNLAWFUL MEASURE, how indictment for selling by, i. 577 (2). 872 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. UTT “UNLAWFULLY,” when necessary in indictment, i. 503; whether equiva- lent for “ knowingly,” i. 613 (4); whether equivalent for “ feloniously,” i. 618 (12). in indictment for assault and battery, ii. 58. in indictment for disturbing meeting, ii. 290 (2). averring, in false imprisonment, ii. 867 (3); proving, ii. 368 (1). in indictment for murder, ii. 543 (2). in indictment for attempt to kill, ii. 657 (2). “UNLAWFULLY AND MALICIOUSLY,” whether equivalent for “felo- niously,” &c., i. 613 (6). UNLICENSED FERRY, (See Way.) joinder of defendants in indictment for keeping, i. 469. UNLIKE OFFENCES, evidence in, i. 1124 (2, 3). UNNECESSARY, (See SuRPLUSAGE.) words and phrases, when surplusage, i. 481 (1). UNNECESSARY MATTER, caution against, in indictment, i. 528. UNOFFICIAL PERSONS, (See Private Person.) power of, to arrest, i. 164 et seq. UNPOPULAR THINGS, witness who does, not incompetent, i. 1174. UNSWORN TURNKEY, not “in authority,” for confession, i. 12838 (8). ‘* UNTIL,” in indictment, refers to what, i. 512. UNWHOLESOME AIR, indictment for nuisance of, ii. 877 a. UNWHOLESOME FOOD, statutory indictment for selling, ii. 868 (4). UNWHOLESOME WATER, how aver supplying, i. 524, note. indictment for nuisance of, ii. 878. UPLIFTED HAND, charge that oath was with, ii. 918 (2). USAGE, how governs procedure, i. 7 (1); following, in indictment, i. 511 (2). USE OF WEAPON, how charge, in homicide, ii. 515. USELESS AVERMENTS, The common, full, i. 499-504. discarding, i. 8386 (2). USURY, how indictment for, i. 580 (8). “UTTER,” in indictment for statutory uttering, ii. 453. UTTERANCES OF DECEASED, As evidence in homicide, full, ii. 609-611, 619-627. As of the res geste and as dying declarations, full, ii. 623-627. UTTERANCES OF DEFENDANT, As evidence in homicide, full, ii. 628-630. UTTERING, (See CounTERFEITING — ForGERY.) Forged bank-bilis, procedure for, full, ii. 445-460, proof of another, i. 1126 (2). proof of, counterfeit coin, ii. 260 (1). UTTERING COUNTERFEIT COIN, Having other in possession, full, ii. 263, 264. how charge, ii. 259 (3). 873 VEN INDEX OF SUBJECTS. UTTERING FORGED INSTRUMENT, how charge, ii. 425(2). > UTTERING AND FORGERY, whether join, i. 449 (6). how charge both, ii. 442 (1). , whether, distinct offences, ii. 481. VALUE, (See PUNISHMENT.) As to alleging and proving, full, i. 540, 541, 567. Allegation of, in larceny, full, ii. 713-717. How verdict as to, in larceny, full, ii. 764-768. variance in proof of, i. 488 5 (2). in indictment for arson, ii. 48. alleging, in burglary, ii. 146 (1). alleging the, in false-pretence indictment, ii, 177. alleging, in embezzlement, ii. 320 (3). as to averment of, in forgery, ii. 426 (7). laying, in statutory larceny, ii. 736 (1). when required in allegation, must be proved, and how, ii. 751. when and how allege, in malicious mischief, ii. 840. alleging, in receiving stolen goods, ii. 985. alleging and proving, in robbery, ii. 1006 (4). VALUE OF INSTRUMENT, alleging, in indictment for homicide, ii. 505. VARIANCE, Between indictment and proofs, full, i. 484 a-488 e. Avoiding in false-pretence indictment, full, ii. 183, 184. In proof, full, ii. 187 (2). statutes for disregarding, i. 101 (3); in allegation and proof of time, i. 386 (1), 401 (4), 403; avoiding, by videlicet, i. 406; how of, as to name unknown, i. 550; on proof of tenor of written instrument, i. 562; in words of writing, i. 562 (2); in name, i. 572 (2), 677; in ownership, i. 582; between record and pardon, how the plea, i. 840; no arrest of judgment for, i. 1285 (2). what is, in burglary, ii. 146, 147. where executed contract alleged, and executory proved, ii. 161. in proof of attempt to cheat by false pretences, li. 196. in conspiracy cases, ii. 233. between indictment and proof in counterfeiting coin, ii. 254 (2), 255. in proof of passing counterfeit coin, ii. 260 (2). in proof of disturbing meeting, ii. 287 (2). in embezzlement, ii. 324. in setting out and proving instrument in forgery, ii. 408 (2). how prove, in forgery, ii. 460 (5). question for court or jury, ii. 711. VENIRE FACIAS for jurors, i. 364 (1). VENUE, (See CHanGE or — Locatiry.) How allege and prove the, in indictment, full, i. 8360-885. the, must appear in record, i. 1855 (38). proof of, in conspiracy, ii, 236. in indictment for challenge to duel, ii. 307. 874 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. VES VENUE, CHANGE OF. (See CHANGE oF VENUE.) VERBAL ORDER, arrest by, of magistrate, i. 177 (2), 178, 179. VERBAL SLANDER. © (See SLANDER.) VERDICT, (See Jury.) Jury preparing to render, full, i. 990-1000; namely, in care of officer, 991- 993 ; in presence of court, 994; permitted to leave presence, 995, 996; what court may permit while in officer’s care, 997; by consent of prisoner, 998; deliberating on, 998 a; consequences of misbehavior, 999; communications between court and jury, 1000. The, and its rendition, full, i. 1000 a-1016; namely, general doctrine, 1001- 1005 a; in special circumstances, 1006-1012; amending, 1018, 1014; more counts than one, 1015, 1016. The, in case of joint defendants, full, i. 1035-1037. Ordinary proceedings after, full, eight chapters, i. 1268-1881; namely, methods to rehearings, 1263-1271; on what principles granted, 1272-1281; arrest of judgment, 1282-1288; the sentence, 1289-1334; execution of sen- tence, 1835-1889 ; the record, 1840-1360; writ of error, 1861-1874; writ of certiorari, 13875-1381. In disorderly house, full, ii. 283. The, in homicide, full, ii. 639-642. The, in larceny, full, ii. 764-769. not necessarily final, i. 41; bail after, i. 252 (3), 253; whether prisoner present at, i. 269 (3), 272 (1), 273; whether counsel, i. 270; compelling election as to count for, i. 425 (1); how cures indictment of duplicity, i. 448 (1, 8); effect of, on misjoinder of offences, i. 447 (2); on several counts, i. 450 (2); what defects in, cured under statutes of jeofails, 1. 705 et seq.; defective indictment, whether and when cured by, i. 707, 707 a; taking, to make former jeopardy appear, i. 820; objecting to grand jury and its doings after, i. 887-889; interfering after, for course of counsel at trial, i. 975 6; right and duty of court to order, i. 977 (2); contrary to law, new trial, i. 987 (3); how jury arrive at, i. 998 a (3); directed, to make party a witness, i. 1020 (1), 1021; testimony and’ confession of jurors to support or overthrow, i. 1270; effect of setting aside, i. 1271; no new trial for, which corrected an error of the court, i. 1276; when arrest of judgment for wrong, i. 1285 (2); how, where more counts or defendants than one, i. 1825 (4); writ of error reaches, or not, i. 1368, 1869; affirming, on writ of error, i. 1873. of guilty of part, in burglary, ii. 141 (2). in forcible entry and detainer, ii. 387 (4). in forging and publishing, ii. 485, 486. the, in assault to kill, ii. 660. how the, in perjury, ii. 937. in rape, ii. 975 (8). VERDICT AGAINST EVIDENCE, new trial for, i. 1278. VERDICT IN MURDER, Under statutes creating degrees, full, ii. 590-596. VERIFICATION, whether, to information, i. 718 (3); when, of plea, i. 757 (2). ‘ VERIFIED, plea in abatement, i. 793 (1). VERITY, record imports, i. 1346. VESSEL ON RIVER, where indict crimes committed in, i. 63 (1). 875 WAI INDEX OF SUBJECTS. VESTED RIGHTS, (See WAIVER.) not taken away by statute, i. 115. VIDELICET, In pleading, full, i. 406. VIEW, ordering, i. 965 (8). by jury in arson, ii. 52 (1). VIEWS OF LAW, Disqualifying to be juror, full, i. 916-918. VILL, (See County.) ; stating non-existing, ground for plea in abatement, i. 366; alleging offence in, without county, i. 878 (1). not required in allegation of barratry, ii. 108 (2). alleging the, in burglary, ii. 185 (1). need not allege the, in disturbing meetings, ii. 286 a. VIOLENCE, (See PERSONAL.) Procedure for attempts to take life by, full, ii. 651-663. what, permissible in arrest, i. 159 (2). alleging the, in robbery, ii. 1004 (1). VIOLENT DISEASE, presumptions in insanity caused by, ii. 674 (3). “VIOLENTLY,” whether, equivalent to ‘‘ with force,” i. 613 (14). in indictment for assault to rob, ii. 84. in indictment for rape, ii. 959 (1). VIRGINIA, practice in, as to presentments, i. 138 (2). VITIATES INDICTMENT, What surplusage, full, i. 482-484. VITUPERATION, (See SLANDER.) counsel not indulge in, i. 975a (1). VOID JUDGMENT, (See JuDGMENT.) habeas corpus in case of, i. 1410 (3, 4). VOID SENTENCE, not imprisonment under, i. 1337, 1341 (2). VOID OR VOIDABLE, doings before grand jury, i. 860. VOIR DIRE, juror stating disqualifications on the, i. 934 (2). “VOLUNTARILY,” in indictment for arson, ii. 43 (2). in indictment for mayhem, ii. 857 (8). VOLUNTARY CONFESSION, admissible in evidence, i. 1223 (1); proof of voluntary, i. 1232. VOLUNTARY TESTIMONY, admissions by, i. 1255, 1262. VOTER, (See ELecrion FRAvupDs.) whether juror must be, i. 922 (2). WAIVED, what, by pleading over, i. 791 (5). WAIVER, (See ConsENT.) Of rights, doctrine of, full, i. 116 a-126. of constitutional right, i. 50 (2, 3), 112; of prisoner’s presence in court, i. 266 (3), 271; at verdict, i. 272; not, of disqualification of judge, i. 314 (3), 316 (2); not, of jurisdiction, i. 316 (2); of duplicity in indict- ment, i. 442 (1), 443 (3); of formalities to plea, i 733 (2); of right to reading of indictment at arraignment, i. 733 (2); of writing in plea of 876 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. WAY WAIVER — continued. : not guilty, i 797 (2); of pardon, i. 833; of objections to grand jury, i. 872 (1); of challenge to grand juror, i. 878 (2); of incompetent grand juror, i. 884; of right to jury trial, i. 893; of full panel of petit jury, i. 898; of other formalities, i. 899; of petit juror having passed on question, i. 911 (8); of jury de medietate lingua, i. 929; by prisoner, of panel, i. 931 a (2); of right to object to juror, i. 932; of objection to juror, by accepting and swearing, i. 946 (3, 4); of copy of indictment, and list of witnesses, and of jurors, i. 959 a (8, 4); of right by counsel toreply, i. 974; to jury separating, i. 998; of objection to verdict by silence, i. 1004 (2); of objection to witness, i. 1137 (2); of oral testi- mony, i. 1205. WALK ABROAD, when jury may, i. 997. WANT OF MENTAL CAPACITY. (See INSANITY.) “WANTONLY AND WILFULLY,” whether equivalent for “ unlawfully and maliciously,” i. 613 (10). WARD, alleging, in indictment, i. 366, 370-375. WAREHOUSE, how lay burglary in a, ii. 136. WARRANT, (See BEncH WARRANT — SEARCH-WARRANTS.) Arrest under, full, i. 187-193, 206-209. Before inferior magistrate, full, i. 716-727. whether necessary for arrest, i. 80 (3), 31; by justice of peace, when necessary in arrest, i. 177-180; no, for one brought before magistrate, i. 179 (2); when necessary where crime not in presence, i. 179 (3); breaking doors to serve, i. 200-202; how dispose of person arrested, i. 216, 217; as to fugitive from justice, i. 222 (2, 4); whether, under seal, i, 227; of arrest or commitment, form of, i. 227 (2), 228; form of the, how when void, i. 285 (1); how, for death sentence, i. 1811 (8); whether, necessary in capital execution, i. 1836; when issue, for escaped prisoner, i. 1383. how distinguished from ‘ order,” ii. 439 (3). proceeding for forgery of a, ii. 473, 474. producing the, in escape, ii. 942. WARRANT OF COMMITMENT, magistrate’s, after preliminary hearing, i. 235 (1); to prison, whether, i. 1337, WATCHMAN, When arrest by, without warrant, full, i. 181-184. how dispose of one whom he has arrested, i. 215. WATER. (See UNWHOLESOME.) WATER UNWHOLESOME, indictment for nuisance of rendering, ii. 878. WAY, (See UNLICENSED FERRY.) Procedure for offences against, full, ii. 1042-1057; namely, indictment and pleadings for non-repair, 1043-1049; indictment for obstructing, 1050-1053 ; evidence, 1054, 1055 ; questions of practice, 1036, 1057. place of trial for neglect to repair, i. 53 (5); arrest, to keep clear, i. 183 (3); duplicity in indictment for non-repair of, i. 441 (1) ; form of inadequate indictment for neglect to repair, i. 441 (1); whether joint indictment for non-repair of, i. 470 (5); variance by needlessly setting out termini, i. 486 (4); variance in proof, public, private, i. 488 ¢ (2). how indictment for neglect to repair, ii. 827. 877 WIL INDEX OF SUBJECTS. WEAK MIND. (See INSANITY.) WEALTH OR POVERTY, as evidence in larceny, ii. 748. WEAPON, Averment and proof of the, in jinimtiokde, full, ii. 514, and see 515, 516. alleging the, in aggravated assault, ii. 64; proving, ii. 65 (8). alleging the, in assault to kill, ii. 656 (1, 2), WEARING APPAREL, ownership of wife’s, in larceny, ii. 726. WEEK, alleging day of, i. 399 (8). WEIGHT, proof of, in receiving, i. 488 6 (5); the, evidence of character, i 1116; of dying declarations as evidence, i, 1216. WEIGHT IN EVIDENCE, (See EVIDENCE.) of confession, i. 1244. WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, The, and reasonable doubt, full, i. 1091-1095. on which grand jury should act, i. 866, 867. on question of insanity, ii. 671 et seq. “WELL KNOWING,” (See KnowInGLy.) when necessary in indictment, i. 504. “ WHEREAS,” in material allegation, when bad, i. 554 (2, 3), 555. WHIMSICAL DOUBT, not reasonable donbt, i. 1094 (2). WHISTLE OR BELL, how charge neglect to have, i. 591 (2). WHOLE CASE, judge to charge on, i. 978 (1); excluding what, i. 978 (2). WHOLE ISSUE, (See Issuz. ) Must be covered by evidence, full, i. 1052-1055. WHOLE RECORD, examinable on demurrer, i.'741 (1), 777 (2). WHOLE TRANSACTIONS, proving the, in homicide, ii. 633 (2). “ WICKEDLY,”’ in perjury indictment, ii. 922 WIFE, (See Marriep Woman.) as witness for co-defendant of husband, i. 1019 (4); of accomplice testify- ing in corroboration, i. 1170 (1); declarations of, against husband, i, 1248 (1). may testify to an assault committed on her by husband, ii. 69. in assault to ravish, not negative that victim was defendant’s, ii. 82. indictment of, for keeping bawdy-house, ii. 109. whether ownership in burglary to be laid in, ii. 188 (3). liability of, on indictment for murder by starving, ii. 558 (2). witness against husband in poisoning, ii. 649. testimony of, against husband who proeures her ravishment, ii. 961 (1). how indict for keeping bawdy-house, ii. 109. WIFE AND HUSBAND, : As witnesses for and against each other, full, i. 1151-1155. joint battery by, i. 469; dying declarations of, i. 1210. how lay ownership as between, in larceny, ii. 726. WILD ANIMALS, how describe, in larceny indictment, ii. 706, 708. 878 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. WIT WILFUL, when word, equivalent for “ malicious,” i. 613 (7). in indictment for malfeasance in office, ii. 833. proof that testimony was, in perjury, ii, 935 a. “ WILFULLY,” in indictment for arson, ii, 42 (2), 43 (1); for assault and battery, ii, 58. in indictment for extortion, ii. 858 (2). in indictment for murder, ii. 548 (1), 545, 546. in perjury indictment, ii. 922, 924, 926 (1). WILL. (See AGainsT uIs WILL.) “WITH FORCE AND ARMS,” whether the words, necessary in indict- ment, i. 502 (1). how in indictment for assault and battery, ii. 57 (2). in forcible entry, ii. 880 (1); in homicide, ii. 503 (2). “WITH STRONG HAND,” in indictment for forcible entry, ii. 380 (2, 3). WITHDRAWAL -AND SUBSTITUTION, of pleas, i. 124 (8), 747, 798, 801 (3); of motion to quash, i. 762. WITHHOLDING FOOD, how indictment for homicide by, ii. 538 a (1). “WITHIN THE STATE,” statutory words, in challenge to duel, ii. 306 (2). ‘“ WITHOUT HER CONSENT,”’ in indictment for rape, ii. 951. WITHOUT WARRANT, Arrest by unofficial persons, full, i. 164-172. By officers, full, i. 173-184. WITNESS, WITNESSES, (See Assent — DeceasED — EvIpENCE — List or — SWEARING.) Classes of, and their testimony, full, i. 1185-1187; namely, in general and some particulars, 1136-1150; husband and wife, 1151-1155; accomplices, 1156-1172; informers, and the like, 1173-1176; experts, and others, as to opinions, 1177-1180; defendants testifying for themselves, 1181-1187. In insanity, full, ii. 676-687; namely, opinions from non-experts, 676-682; experts and their testimony, 683-687. holding the, to appear, i. 34, 234 d (4); venue not changed to accommodate, i. 71 (2); whether complainant before magistrate must be competent to be a, i. 232 (1); what required for binding over, i. 233 (1); prose- cuting officer declining to call, i. 293 (6) ; counsel testifying as, i. 312; jurors as, formerly, i. 363, 864; preliminary inquiries of, before elec- tion, i. 461 (4); form at allegation for tampering with, i. 556 (4); may show who was, before grand jury, i. 858 (2); what, before grand jury, i. 865 (3), 867 (1), 872 (5) ; compelling and swearing, before grand jury, i. 868 (8, 4), 869 (1); indorsing names of, on indictment, i. 869 a (2); before grand jury, imecompetent, i. 872 (5), 873; whether grand jurors, to own doings, i. 874; whether be a juror, i. 902 (1); continuance for absence of, i. 951 a; continuance for ignorance of, i. 951 ¢ (3); at- tendance of, how secured, i. 959 8; order of examining, i. 966-966 b ; who the, and how choose, i. 966 ¢; competency of, a fact for the court, i. 989; credibility of, for jury, i. 989 a; separate trial to admit wife to testify, i. 1019, 1020; to make parties, for each other, i. 1020; how 879 WOR INDEX OF SUBJECTS. WITNESS, WITNESSES — continued. contradicted, i. 1069, 1071; two, swearing one saw, the other not, i. 1071 (2); legislation as to competency of, i. 1090; officer may be, to own official character, i. 1180:(2) ; defendant attempting to influence, as evidence, i. 1251; habeas corpus to bring in imprisoned, i. 1409. indictment for endeavoring to keep away a, ii. 75 (1). refusing to testify, as evidence against bawdy-house, ii. 117 (3). person defrauded by false pretences may be, ii. 192. seconds in duels, ii. 308. who, in forcible entry, ii. 887 (3). who may be, in forgery, ii. 429 (1, 2). subscribing witness, ii. 480; officer of bank, ii. 431 (1). how, to handwriting, ii. 482 a-482 c. who, that a bank-bill is forged, ii. 459 a. wife against husband, for poisoning, ii. 649. alleged owner, to ownership, ii. 752 (3). person whose property is injured, in malicious mischief, ii. 847. how indictment for tampering with, ii. 897. the, and corroboration of, in perjury, ii. 927-929, 932. party to suit, competent in perjury, ii. 933 a (1). injuréd female as, in rape, ii. 961-968. in attempt to commit rape, ii. 978. number of, in treason, ii. 1037. co-defendant in another indictment, ii. 1039. WITNESS FEES, in bills of costs, i 1318. WITNESS IN RAPE, How complaining woman a, full, ii. 961-968. WITNESS TO WILL, : as to testator’s mental condition, ii. 682, note. WITNESSES IN WAITING, Excluding from court-room, full, i. 1188-1193 a. “WITTINGLY,” whether equivalent for “ willingly,” i. 618 (18). “WOMAN,” (See Marrirp Woman.) whether word, in indictment for rape, ii. 952. WOMAN WITH CHILD, How capital sentence of, full, i. 1822-13824. “WOOLLEN” SHEFT, what, how indictment for larceny of, ii. 710 (4). WORDS, (See Forrian — SPELLING — TECHNICAL.) Different forms of setting out spoken, full, i. 559-563. whether arrest by, i. 157; court decides what are the, of indictment, i. 838; employing wrong, or omitting. in indictment, i. 354; of in- dictment, non-professional import, i. 509 (3); spoken against officer, i. 580 (1). varying, to charge assault and battery, ii. 56. as to setting out the, in false pretences, ii. 178. allegation of the. in oral slander, ii. 808-810. WORDS OF LIBEL, in parliamentary impeachments, i. 20 (2). 880 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. WRI WORDS OF STATUTE, (See STATUTE.) How closely follow the, in indictment, full, i. 608-622. Expanding allegation beyond, full, i. 623-630. WORKING AT. TRADE, no joint indictment for unlawful, i. 470 (5). WORKMEN, conspiracies among and against, ii. 242. WOUND, How aver the mortal, in homicide, full, ii. 518-526. proving, in aggravated assault, ii. 65 (3). alleging the, in indictment for homicide, ii. 514. relation of, to the instrument, ii. 516. expert testimony as to, in homicide, ii. 631 (38). WOUND AS CAUSING DEATH, allegations of, in homicide, ii. 527-529. “WOUNDING,” (See “SuHoor” — Maticious SHOOTING.) how indictment for, i. 629 (2), note. WOUNDING ANIMAL, indictment on statute for, ii. 846. WRIT OF CERTIORARI, The, full, i. 1875-1381. writ of error distinguished from, i. 1364. WRIT OF ERROR, The, full, i. 1861-1874. bringing, i. 43 (2); prisoner’s presence on, i. 277 (3); no, for duplicity, i. 443 (5, 6); how, in conspiracy, i. 1039; by several defendants, how, and as to counsel, i. 1026, 1039; as a method for rehearing, i. 1267; employed in connection with exceptions, i. 1267; whether State have, i. 1272; remedy after sentence, i. 1282 (3); how sentence on several counts regarded on, i. 13825 (4); certiorari compared with, i. 1878; in aid of, i. 1879; habeas corpus not substitute for, i. 1410 (2). WRIT OF RESTITUTION, of stolen goods, ii. 762 (1). ‘“ WRITE,”’ whether, in indictment for libel, ii. 784 (4, 5). WRITING, WRITINGS, (See Forgery — ORAL.) authorization of arrest when by, i. 186 (2); complaint before magistrate to be in, and how, i. 230 (5); charge of crime to be in, i. 319 (2); in- dictment must be in, i. 840 (1); whether complaint before inferior magistrate in, i. 718 (1); whether judge’s charge to jury to be in, i. 976 (1); dying declaration may be, i. 1213; embodying confessions, to be produced, i. 1260. how set out forged, ii. 403. when produce, in perjury, ii. 934 (2). WRITTEN AGREEMENT, producing, in proof of embezzlement, ii. 327 (9). WRITTEN ALLEGATION, right of, i. 319. WRITTEN COMPLAINT, to hold one brought before magistrate, i. 179 (2). WRITTEN INSTRUMENT, INSTRUMENTS, (See Worps.) how aver, i. 332 (4). allegation and proof of, in false-pretence cases, ii. 183, 187, 196. VOL. 11. — 56 881 YOU INDEX OF SUBJECTS. WRITTEN INSTRUMENT, INSTRUMENTS — continued. how set out, in forgery, ii. 403-406; in larceny, ii. 732-736. whether produce, on trial for stealing it, ii. 758 (2). how set out, in indictment for libel, ii. 789-792. how, in indictment for perjury, ii. 915, 916. WRITTEN OR ORAL, whether demurrer is, i. 776 (4). WRITTEN VERDICT, (See VERDICT.) when, i. 1002; altering or explaining, i. 1013 (2). WRITTEN WORDS, (See Worps — WRITTEN INSTRUMENTS.) How allege, full, i. 559-563. in foreign language, i. 564, 565. in challenge to duel, need not be set out, ii. 305 (1). WRONG NAME, (See Name.) vitiates or not, i. 483 (2) and note, 488 (38). WRONG SPELLING, in indictment, i. 354. WRONGFULLY OBTAINED, arrest on warrant, i. 187 (2). YEAR AND DAY, Of offence, whether and how allege, full, i. 387-391. homicide indictment to show death within, ii. 533. YIELDING, duty of, in arrest, i. 159 (1). YORK’S CASE, considerations from, ii. 606, note. YOUTH, confession by, i. 1281. 882