2. Real property and estates and in-
terests therein.

*That there was no memorandum of a sale
under a power in the mortgage held not to give
the mortgagor the right to avoid the sale un-
der the statute of frauds.-Drake v. Rhodes
(Ala.) 769.

The prescription of one year, whether under
Civ. Code, art. 1987, or Civ. Code, art. 1994,
has no application to attacks on simulated sales.
Lawson v. McBride (La.) 312.

FREIGHT.

399.

3. Requisites and sufficiency of writ-
ing.

A lessor's agent's failure to require the lessee
to give security for rents held not to make the
lease void within the statute of frauds. Civ.
Code 1896, § 2152 (5).—Paris v. Johnston (Ala.)
642.

Under Civ. Code 1896, § 2152, the question
what constituted a sufficient writing within the
statute of frauds held governed by the same
principle where the party sought to be charged
has acted through an agent as where the par-
ties act directly.-Paris v. Johnston (Ala.) 642.

Written authority to act for another within
the statute of frauds (Civ. Code 1896, § 2152)
held properly shown by several writings prop-
erly connected.-Paris v. Johnston (Ala.) 642.
4. Operation and effect of statute.
The principle that equity will in an appropri-
ate proceeding and on a proper showing declare
the existence of an equitable mortgage and en-
force the same in satisfaction of a debt does
not defeat the defense of the statute of frauds,
where such defense is applicable and pleaded.—
Edwards v. Scruggs (Ala.) 850.

Where a promise to give a real estate mort-
gage is not in writing, equity cannot, on fail-
ure to execute the mortgage, declare the exis-
tence of an equitable mortgage, at least in the
absence of such part performance as will take
the case out of the statute of frauds.-Edwards
v. Scruggs (Ala.) 850.

A demurrer to a bill to declare an equitable
mortgage on real estate and enforce the same
in satisfaction of a debt held to sufficiently
raise the defense of the statute of frauds.-Ed-
wards v. Scruggs (Ala.) 850.

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES.

By bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," § 2.
§ 1. Transfers and transactions invalid.
A transaction purporting to be a sale from
father to son of immovable property, and a
transfer to another son of the notes given in
payment of the price, held fraudulent as to
creditors.-Lawson v. McBride (La.) 312.

2. Rights and liabilities of parties
and purchasers.

Though a sale of real estate for a price rep-
resented by mortgaged notes be simulated, the
mortgage may be enforced for the payment of
a debt contracted in favor of the innocent third
person to whom the notes have been pledged
with approval of the apparent vendor of the
property.-Lawson v. McBride (La.) 312.

See "Fish."

GAME.

Laws relating to hunting as denying civil rights,
see "Constitutional Law," § 3.

The state by virtue of its police power may
make regulations for the preservation of game
and fish by restricting their taking and moles-
tation to certain seasons of the year.-Hyde v.
State (Ala.) 489.

GAMING.

Subjects and titles of statutes relating to slot
machines, see "Statutes," § 3.

GARNISHMENT.

See "Attachment"; "Execution."
In justice's court, see "Justices of the Peace,"
§ 3.

Mandamus to compel discharge of garnishee,
see "Mandamus," § 1.
Of property of estate of bankrupt, see "Bank-
ruptcy," § 3.

1. Persons and property subject to
garnishment.

*The maker of a note is not chargeable as
garnishee of the payee while the note is cur-
rent as negotiable paper and subject to transfer
to a bona fide purchaser without notice before
maturity.-Wohl v. First Nat. Bank (Ala.) 231.
§ 2. Proceedings to support or enforce.
An answer of a garnishee held a sufficient an-
swer of no indebtedness to prevent a judgment
under Code 1896, § 2191.-Wohl v. First Nat.
Bank (Ala.) 231.

Under Civ. Code 1896, § 2196, providing that
the answer in garnishment proceedings may be
contested, where the garnishee alleged that he
held property as receiver of bankrupt property,
and the answer was not contested, it must be
taken as true.-McAfee v. Arnold & Mathis
(Ala.) 870; Same v. Wallenhaupt (Ala.) 873.

*A garnishee's answer merely denying all in-
debtedness to the defendant held insufficient, un-
der Code 1906, § 2342.-Arky v. Cameron (Miss.)
54, 170.

GAS.

Grant of franchise by municipal corporation to
gas company, see "Municipal Corporations,"
§ 3.
Liability of gas company for negligence of in-
dependent contractor, see "Master and Serv-
ant," § 11.

ers.

*A bill in a suit to set aside chattel mortgages
as executed to defraud creditors held to suffi-
ciently allege fraud in the execution of the mort-
gages. Lamar & Rankin Drug Co. v. Jones
(Ala.) 763.

for laying of pipes and mains having been pass-
ed in accordance with the requirements of the
city charter is valid.-Morris v. Municipal Gas
Co. (La.) 1001.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

§ 2.

When an interpreter is called to translate
testimony given by witnesses before the grand
jury, so long as he confines himself to the dis-
charge of the duty for which he is called, his
presence is unobjectionable.-State v. Firmatura
(La.) 691.

*An interpreter summoned by the grand jury
is not disqualified to serve by being called as
a witness to the facts under investigation, nor
by reason of his being a deputy sheriff and
taking an active part in the effort to discover
the author of the supposed crime under consid-
eration.-State v. Firmatura (La.) 691.

GRANTS.

Of public lands, see "Public Lands."

GUARANTY.

See "Principal and Surety."

GUARDIAN AD LITEM.

Of infant, see "Infants," § 2.

GUARDIAN AND WARD.

Guardian ad litem of infant, see "Infants," § 2.
Habeas Corpus for release of minors committed
to guardianship of state reform school, see
"Habeas Corpus," § 1.

§ 1. Sales and conveyances under order

of court.

A sale of minors' land located in "section 35"
under authority of Ann. Code 1892, § 2205
(Code 1906, § 2422), held void where the land
is described in the petition and the decree for
the sale as being in "section 3."-Theobald v.
Deslonde (Miss.) 712.

*Under Ann. Code 1892, § 2205 (Code 1906, §
2422), a sale of minors' land held void for fail-
ure to cite their next of kin.-Theobald v. Des-
londe (Miss.) 712.

HABEAS CORPUS.

§ 1. Nature and grounds of remedy.
Under Code 1896, 84838, habeas corpus held
the proper remedy to investigate the existence
of jurisdiction under which one is in custody.
but not to question the propriety of the exer-
cise of jurisdiction.-Fourment v. State (Ala.)
266.

Habeas corpus held not to lie for the dis-
charge of one indicted under Cr. Code 1896, §
5153 (Cr. Code 1907, § 7446), providing that
any person disqualified by law who enters on
a public office must be fined, etc.-State v. Al-
bright (Ala.) 470.

In proceedings to commit certain minors to
the guardianship of the State Reform School.
under Acts 1905, p. 66, c. 5388, § 9, judgment
that the minor is a suitable person to be
committed to such school held insufficient to
support a commitment, and a discharge may be
secured on habeas corpus.-Belch v. Manning
(Fla.) 93.

*One arrested for the alleged violation of an
ordinance imposing an illegal license tax is en-
titled to be discharged on habeas corpus.-State
v. Lewis (Fla.) 630.

jail at hard labor for 12 months, and though
Where petitioner was sentenced to the county
petitioner had actually suffered only about one-
more than 12 months had expired since sentence
half of the term of imprisonment and during
the balance of the term was at liberty with his
own consent, he was not entitled to discharge.—
Terrell v. Wiggins (Fla.) 727.

lief.

§ 2. Jurisdiction, proceedings, and re-
Return to writ of habeas corpus held to make
a prima facie case that the prisoner is under
legal restraint.-Young v. State (Ala.) 580.

*Gen. St. 1906, § 1704, relating to writs of
error, does not apply to writs of error in habeas
corpus proceedings; but in such cases the ap-
pellate court can obtain jurisdiction over the de
fendant only by the service of a writ of scire
facias ad audiendum errores.-Belch v. Man-
ning (Fla.) 91.

*In habeas corpus for the custody of a child.
certain decree held proper.-Wallace v. Wallace
(Miss.) 398.

HARMLESS ERROR.

In civil actions, see "Appeal and Error,” §§
17-19.

In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,"
§ 40; "Homicide," § 17.

HAWKERS AND PEDDLERS.

Class legislation relating to, see "Constitutional
Law," § 4.

HEARING.

By arbitrators, see "Arbitration and Award,”
§ 2.
In probate proceedings, see "Wills," § 3.
On appeal or writ of error, see "Criminal Law,”
$ 39.

HEARSAY.

In civil actions, see "Evidence," § 6.
In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,"
§ 12.

HEIRS.

Sce "Descent and Distribution."

HIGHWAYS.

See "Municipal Corporations," §§ 5, 6.
Accidents at railroad crossings, see "Rail-
roads," § 5.

Cross-examination to discredit witness in pro-
ceedings to lay out highway, see "Witnesses,"
$ 3.

See "Exemptions."

Authority of judge to take acknowledgement of
mortgage of, see "Acknowledgment," § 1.
Entry on public lands, see "Public Lands," § 1.

§ 1. Transfer or incumbrance.

Where the owner of a homestead is a married
man to which the constitutional exemption from
forced sale is applicable, a deed by him alone
does not convey any interest in the homestead.-
Thomas v. Craft (Fla.) 594.

In Const. art. 10, relating to conveyance of
homesteads, the words "alienable" and "alienat-
ing" are used in the sense of conveying any bene-
ficial interest in the exempt homestead during
the life of the owner; and joint consent by deed
or mortgage duly executed by the husband and
wife is the only method of alienation.-Thomas
v. Craft (Fla.) 594.

*Exemptions apply only to property owned by
the head of a family, and are for its benefit and
inure to the widow and heirs of the homestead
er, and the provisions as to alienation extend
only to the homestead, and the observance of
the restrictions are as essential when the aliena-
tion is to the members of the family as to oth-
ers.-Thomas v. Craft (Fla.) 594.

§ 2. Abandonment, waiver, or forfei-
ture.

*The owner of a homestead in the country
held not to have abandoned it by moving tem-
porarily to a village for the educational ad-
vantages to his children.-Gilmore v. Brown
(Miss.) 840.

The fact that the owner of a country home-
stead, who had moved to a village, voted and
held office there, held only evidence to be con-
sidered in determining whether the homestead
had been permanently or temporarily left, and
not to be conclusive of its abandonment.-Gil-
more v. Brown (Miss.) 840.

§ 3. Protection and

rights.

enforcement of

A tenant in common who, in partition, is
awarded a share of the land, a lien being de-
clared thereon for rent due the co-tenants, may,
before sale of such share to enforce the lien,
claim his homestead exemption right.-Woods
v. Bowles (Miss.) 414.

HOMICIDE.

Admission of accused to bail, see "Bail," § 1.
Admissions of accused as evidence, see "Crimi-
nal Law," § 12.

instructions, see

Argument and conduct of counsel, see "Criminal
Law," § 21.
Argumentative
"Criminal
Law," § 26.
Continuance in general, see "Criminal Law,"
§ 17.

Conviction of manslaughter under indictment
for murder as bar to prosecution for murder,
see "Criminal Law," § 4.

Duplicity in indictment for assault with intent
to kill, see "Indictment and Information," § 2.
Examination of witnesses, see "Witnesses," § 2.
Materiality of evidence, see "Criminal Law,"
§ 10.
Objections to evidence in general, see "Criminal
Law," § 20.

Opinion evidence, see "Criminal Law," § 13.
Province of court and jury, see "Criminal Law,"
§ 22.

Reception of evidence in general, see "Criminal
Law," § 19.

Relevancy of evidence, see "Criminal Law," § 8.
Remarks and conduct of judge, see "Criminal
Law," § 18.

Rendition of verdict in general, see "Criminal
Law," § 30.

Requests for instructions, see "Criminal Law,"

$ 29.

Requisites and sufficiency of indictment for, see
"Indictment and Information," § 1.

Sufficiency of instructions in general, see "Crim-
inal Law," §§ 23-28.

1. Murder.

*If one accused of murder and another went
to the house where the homicide occurred, and
an offense was committed by one of them from
causes disconnected with the common object for
which they went there, the responsibility for
such offense rests solely on the actual per-
petrator, and accused cannot be convicted sim-
ply because he happened to be present when
the offense was committed.-Way v. State (Ala.)
273.

*If accused aided or abetted another in a

homicide, it is unessential to accused's guilt
that he know of the existence of malice on the
other person's part.-Way v. State (Ala.) 273.

*If accused aided or abetted another in a
homicide, it is unessential to accused's guilt
that the other person know of such aiding or
abetting.-Way v. State (Ala.) 273.

*On a trial for murder, the refusal to instruct
as to malice aforethought held erroneous in
view of the evidence.-Burnett v. State (Miss.)
248.

stepchild, an instruction held reversible error in
On a trial of accused for the murder of his
view of the evidence.-Hayes v. State (Miss.)
249.

*Where defendant attempted to procure R. to
kill a third party, and started with R. to the
point where the killing was to occur, but was
arrested, the act was an attempt to commit a
crime within Code 1906, § 1049.-Stokes v.
State (Miss.) 627.

Credibility of witnesses, see Witnesses," § 3.

In a prosecution for killing a resisting prison-
er, an instruction held erroneous as omitting
reference to accused's right to meet force with
force and erroneously involving the doctrine of
self-defense.-Birt v. State (Ala.) 858.

In a prosecution for killing a resisting prison-
er, an instruction held erroneous as not present-
ing the law as to justification, notwithstanding
the accused's motives in making the arrest,
etc.-Birt v. State (Ala.) 858.

In a prosecution for killing a resisting prison-
er, an instruction as to the authority of an
officer making an arrest and requiring an ac-
quittal in case of reasonable doubt as to the
necessity of killing the decedent held improperly
refused.-Birt v. State (Ala.) 858.

§ 12.

Instructions as to self-defense.
Charges on a trial for murder in the first
degree held free from any reversible error.-
Watson v. State (Ala.) 232.

In a prosecution for homicide, an instruction
on self-defense held properly refused.-Lawson
v. State (Ala.) 259.

In a prosecution for homicide, instructions on
self-defense, omitting to hypothesize a belief by
defendant in an imminency of peril were prop-
erly refused.-Lawson v. State (Ala.) 259.

*A requested charge in a murder case_held
properly refused as misleading.-Hays v. State
(Ala.) 471.

*A charge that one was guilty of murder if he
killed with a previous design to take life held
erroneous.-Poe v. State (Ala.) 521.

In a murder case, a requested charge on self-
defense held erroneous, as authorizing defend-
ant to kill regardless of his own freedom from
fault in provoking the difficulty.-Millender v.
State (Ala.) 756.

In a murder case, a requested charge as to
self-defense held erroneous as justifying a kill-
ing whether in self-defense or not.-Millender
v. State (Ala.) 756.

A requested instruction held involved and con-
fusing and properly refused.-Hill v. State
(Ala.) 864.
§ 13.

Instructions as to defense of
habitation.

*In a prosecution for manslaughter, a request-
ed instruction that defendant's house was his
castle, and stating his right to defend it against
attack, etc., is properly refused where it does
not state defendant's belief in the facts hypoth-
esized.-Hill v. State (Ala.) 864.
§ 14.

Instructions as to grade or de-
gree of offense.
An instruction that, if defendant fired only
to stop deceased and did not intend to kill him,
he was not guilty of murder in either the first
or second degrees, held erroneous.-Lawson v.
State (Ala.) 259.

*Where, in a prosecution for murder, neither
assault and battery nor assault with intent to

commit murder were involved, instructions au-

thorizing a verdict for assault and battery and
for assault with intent to murder were properly
refused. Stallworth v. State (Ala.) 518.

*On trial for assault with intent to kill, in-
struction held erroneous, because omitting the
requirement that there must have been an intent
to kill on the part of the defendant, and only
requiring an intent, to perpetrate an act immi-
nently dangerous to another.-Feagle v. State
(Fla.) 182.

In a prosecution for homicide, certain in-
struction held not objectionable in view of the
issues presented.-Sullivan v. State (Miss.) 248.
§ 15. Verdict.

*Where four persons are jointly indicted for
murder in the first degree, and the verdict finds
A. guilty of murder in the first degree, and B.,
C., and D. guilty of murder in the second de-
gree, the verdict is responsive to the charge.-
McDonald v. State (Fla.) 176.

with an unlawful killing from a premeditated
Where in an indictment one person is charged
design, and others are charged with being pres-
ent, aiding, and abetting, the jury can find one
of them guilty of murder in the second degree
if the evidence justifies it.-McDonald v. State
(Fla.) 176.

*A verdict: "We, the jury, find the defend-
ant guilty of aggravated assault with intent to
murder. So say we all"-is held fatally defect-
ive.-Washington v. State (Fla.) 417.
§ 16. New trial.

Where the evidence does not make out a case
of murder in the third degree, but sustains a
higher degree of murder, the verdict for murder
in the third degree must be sustained.-Johnson
v. State (Fla.) 174.

§ 17. Appeal and error.

Though it would have been more regular, on a
murder trial, had the coroner's inquest been of-
fered, in the first place, to prove the cause of
death, questions asked the coroner did not con-
stitute prejudicial error, where they did not con-
tradict or add anything to the inquest, after-
wards introduced.-State v. Montgomery (La.)
997.

*On a trial for homicide, the error in an in-
struction held not reversible.-Prince v. State
(Miss.) 537.

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

See "Divorce"; "Marriage."

Authority of judge to take acknowledgment of
Competency of husband as witness in proceed-
married woman, see "Acknowledgment," § 1.
ings for alimony, see "Witnesses," § 1.
Competency of wife as witness in prosecution
against husband, see "Witnesses," § 1.
Conclusiveness of adjudication in action for
separation, see "Judgment," § 9.

Declarations as evidence in action for separa-
tion, see "Evidence," § 5.

Right of widow to redeem from mortgage exe-
cuted by husband, see "Mortgages," § 6.
Right of wife to recover for death of husband,
see "Death," § 2.

Rights of survivor, see "Executors and Admin-
istrators," § 3.

§ 1. Disabilities and privileges of cov-

erture.