For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am,Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

་

907 (2) (Utah) Where the evidence on the 956(1) (Okl.) In view of Rev. Laws 1910, opening of a default by a defendant in a civil § 4757, vesting trial judge with discretion to action is not before the reviewing court, it will permit pleadings to be filed out of time, his be presumed to have been sufficient to justify decision thereon can only be reversed, where the trial court's action.-Peterson v. Eureka it appears to have been abused to prejudice of Hill Mining Co., 176 P. 729. complaining party.-Funnell v. Conrad, 176 P. 904.

907(3) (Wash.) In the absence of a statement of facts, bill of exceptions, or exceptions to the findings of fact in a proceeding to confiscate an illegal shipment of intoxicating liquor, the finding of the trial court must be presumed to be correct. (Per Holcomb and Mitchell, JJ.)-State v. Twenty Barrels of Whisky, 176 P. 673.

907(4) (Cal.) Where no evidence, except certain exhibits, appears in the transcript, Supreme Court must assume that all findings are supported by ample proof.-Shuken v. Cohen, 176 P. 447.

927(3) (Cal.App.) In reviewing the ruling of a court upon a motion for nonsuit, every inference which can be reasonably deduced from the testimony must be drawn in support of the ruling.-Walker v. Southern Pac. Co., 176 P.

175.

966(1) (Okl.) Discretion of court in granting or refusing a motion for continuance will not be reviewed unless abused.-Scott v. Iman, 176 P. 81.

966(1) (Okl.) Unless it is clearly apparent that trial court's discretion in ruling on application for continuance has been abused, the Supreme Court will not interfere and grant a new trial or reverse the cause therefor.-Columbian Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Wirthle, 176 P. 406.

970(2) (Kan.) A judgment will not necessarily be reversed for exclusion of opinion evidence to show that a fire in a building started in a certain place and had been caused by an electric meter; the admission or exclusion of such evidence being largely within trial court's discretion.-Kirkham V. Leavenworth 930(1) (Cal.) A jury will be presumed to Light, Heat & Power Co., 176 P. 979, have rendered a verdict according to the evi-977 (3) (Okl.) On appeal from trial court's dence after having sworn so to do under Code order granting application of one of the parCiv. Proc. 8 604.-Campbell v. Bradbury, 176 ties for a new trial, where record does not show that court erred upon some unmixed question of law its action will not be disturbed.-Everly v. Northcutt, 176 P. 921.

P. 685.

930(1) (Cal.) On appeal from judgment for plaintiff in personal injury action after trial court denied motion for new trial on ground that verdict was excessive, the testimony will be viewed most favorably to plaintiff.-Brinck v. Bradbury, 176 P. 690.

930(1) (Cal.App.) In determining whether evidence sufficiently supports the findings, the appellate court will give to the evidence such interpretation as the jury gave it, and adduce from it such inferences as the jury adduced, if such interpretation and deduction were such as reasonable men might make in the discharge of their duties as jurymen.-McCollum v. Barr, 176 P. 463.

930(2) (Cal.App.) Where the court instructed the jury to pay no attention to the answer to a certain question, it will be presumed on appeal that the jury obeyed the court's instruction.-McCollum v. Barr, 176 P. 463.

991 (Nev.) Court's refusal to bar an attorney from appearing for plaintiffs on ground that he had been previously hired by defendants, where based upon conflicting testimony on question of fact as to whether he was so employed, will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.-Nelson v. Smith, 176 P. 261.

994 (3) (Cal.App.) Whether oral testimony is inconsistent with acts of the witnesses is for the trial judge, who has the duty of resolving facts and reconciling the inconsistencies. Smith v. F. L. Moore Motor Truck Co., 176 P. 367.

995 (Cal.App.) Appellate courts will not review evidence, where only disputed point in 931(1) (Cal.App.) In viewing circumstances case rests wholly upon the determination of bearing on defendant's intention in going on facts about which there was a very clear and premises claimed by him as homestead and unequivocal conflict in the evidence.-Smith v. erecting house, appellate court, in support of F. L. Moore Motor Truck Co., 176 P. 367. judgment, must give them interpretation ac-1001(1) (Cal.) It is not the province of an corded by trial court, if reasonable, though dif- appellate court to review the conclusion of the ferent interpretation favorable to defendant jury, if there is any rational basis in the testimight also have been reasonably given them.- mony for the verdict.-Whitelaw v. McGilLakas v. Archambault, 176 P. 189. liard, 176 P. 679.

931(1) (Colo.) On reviewing the sufficien-1001(1) (Colo.) Where there is sufficient cy of evidence to support judgment, appellate competent evidence to support verdict for court will draw every inference fairly deduci- plaintiff and to uphold finding upon each of ble from the evidence in favor of the judgment, the material issues involved in the cause, the especially where, in a case tried by the court, Supreme Court will not disturb the verdict.no findings of fact or conclusions of law were Rio Grande Southern R. Co. v. Campbell, 176 filed.-Colorado Tent & Awning Co. v. Denver P. 275. Country Club, 176 P. 494.

1001 (1) (Kan.) A verdict and judgment supported by sufficient and competent testimony will not be disturbed on appeal merely because the testimony may have been somewhat discredited by cross-examination of witnesses for prevailing party.-Brecheisen v. Clark, 176 P. 137.

(F) Discretion of Lower Court. 948 (Ariz.) There is a wide discretion in the trial court, as to whether he will order specific performance or not, and while that discretion is subject to review upon appeal, the pre-1001 (1) (Okl.) Where the evidence reasumption is, in the absence of the evidence, that sonably supports the verdict of the jury, the there was no abuse of discretion.-Kimball v. Supreme Court cannot interfere, or disturb it, Statler, 176 P. 843. on appeal. Strong v. Day, 176 P. 401. 949 (Okl.) The courts have an inherent 1002. A verdict based upon conflicting evipower to inquire into their jurisdiction, and, dence will not be disturbed by the Supreme without a showing that the exercise of such Court. discretion has been abused, it will not be dis--(Colo.) Engelbach v. Kellogg, 176 P. 472; turbed on review in Supreme Court.-Adair v. Montgomery, 176 P. 911.

954(1) (Idaho) Discretion of court in granting or refusing an injunction will not be reviewed unless abused.-Harriman v. Woodall, 176 P. 565.

(Nev.) Nelson v. Smith, 176 P. 261.

1002 (Cal.App.) In action on note, where there was substantial evidence to support verdict for defendant based on conflicting evidence as to execution of note, appellate court will not interfere.-Bearce v. Davis, 176 P. 62.

1002 (Colo.) Evidence being conflicting but sufficient to clearly justify jury finding as to negligence and contributory negligence, finding will not be disturbed on appeal.-Colorado Springs & I. Ry. Co. v. Kelley, 176 P. 307.

1002 (Okl.) Where the evidence was conflicting, but there was sufficient evidence upon which jury could reasonably predicate the verdict, and if the instructions given were free from error, the Supreme Court will not reverse. Boorigie Bros. v. Quinn-Barry Tea and Coffee Co., 176 P. 391.

1002 (Okl.) Upon controverted matters of fact Supreme Court will not grant a new trial, where there is competent evidence which reasonably tends to support the verdict.-Peters Branch of International Shoe Co. v. Blake, 176 P. 892.

1003 (Kan.) Verdict contrary to contradicted evidence of appellant will be reversed, as against the objection that the jury might have disbelieved such testimony, where the fact involved was essential to appellee's action, and he had produced no evidence to prove the same. -Zeeb v. Bahnmaier, 176 P. 643.

disturb such decree.-Robertson v. Robertson, 176 P. 387.

1012(1) (Ariz.) The court on appeal should reverse the judgment of the lower court only when there is a want of evidence to sustain it or when the judgment is so manifestly against the weight of the evidence as to show it to be the result of bias or prejudice.— Wright v. Young, 176 P. 583.

(H) Harmless Error.

1033(5) (Cal.) In action for damages against agent for purchase of school land, for failure to inform him as to the necessary steps to procure the land, instruction as to measure of damages held favorable rather than adverse to defendant.-Hoffman v. Patterson, 176 P. 162. 1033(5) (Cal.) Court's refusal to define the preponderance of evidence was not prejudicial to defendant, where court did instruct that plaintiff was required to produce proot "which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind" and was required to prove his case by such evidence as "satisfies and produces conviction in the mind of the jury"; the instruction given being more favorable to defendants than they were entitled to.-Campbell v. Bradbury, 176 P. 685.

1008 (2) (Ariz.) Jury trial being waived, court occupied same relation to facts as jury, and its judgment will not be reversed on the ground that it was not justified under the evi-1033(7) (Cal.) Defendant's contention that dence, where there is evidence in the record of findings of trial court as to plaintiff's last three a substantial nature tending to support it. causes of action are indefinite and unintelligible Wright v. Young, 176 P. 583. cannot avail him on appeal, findings being in nis own favor.-Reher v. Reed, 176 P. 170.

1008 (2) (Okl.) When a jury is waived, and issues of law and fact are submitted to trial court, its finding will not be reviewed by Supreme Court, if the evidence reasonably tends to support it.-Scott v. Iman, 176 P. 81.

1033(7) (Cal.App.) Variance in evidence and findings showing and finding agreement looking to division between defendant and plaintiff, realty brokers and partners, on basis of net 1009(2) (Okl.) In equity proceeding Su- profits, complaint alleging agreement calling for preme Court will weigh the evidence, but will division on basis of gross profits, held harmnot disturb findings and judgment of trial less to defendant.-Howard v. D. W. Hobson court if the evidence reasonably tends to sup-1033(8) (Okl.) In suit in nature of suit in port them.-Elliott v. Bond, 176 P. 242.

1010(1) Findings supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed on appeal. (Ariz.) McKenzie v. Moore, 176 P. 568; (N. M.) Murphy v. Baca, 176 P. 816. 1010(1) (Ariz.) It is the duty of the trial court to give full consideration to the evidence and pass upon its weight and sufficiency, and the court on appeal cannot say that its conclusions were wrong, where there is evidence of a substantial nature tending to support the judgment.-Wright v. Young, 176 P. 583.

Co.. 176 P. 715.

equity, where judgment on proof submitted permits plaintiff to elect between two methods of relief, and he elects to accept judgment against certain defendants for a lesser sum than he would have had against them under other method, they cannot complain of election. -Henderson v. Arkansas, 176 P. 751.

1039(8) (Ariz.) Error of trial court in failing to require plaintiff, an injured servant, to amend his complaint to state particulars of accident more clearly, was not reversible error, where answer supplied all defects in complaint in such respect.-Calumet & Arizona Mining Co. v. Chambers, 176 P. 839.

1010(1) (Cal.) Question whether excessive force has been used by defendants in regaining possession of property momentarily interrupted 1040(2) (Okl.) Where district court errois one of fact for trial court or jury, and, evidence sustaining finding, Supreme Court cannot interfere with conclusion reached.-McLean v. Colf, 176 P. 169.

1010(1) (Cal.App.) If there is substantial evidence to support a conclusion reached by the trial court as to sufficiency of the evidence, the finding will not be reviewed, even where the law requires proof of the fact to be clear and convincing.-Howard v. Stephens, 176 P.

65.

1010(1) (N.M.) Where judgment is supported by substantial evidence, it will not be disturbed.-Funke v. Presley, 176 P. 815.

1011 (1). An appellate court will not turb a finding which rests on conflicting dence. -(Cal. App.) King v. Papazian, 176 P. 49; (Colo.) Riverside Reservoir & Land Co. v. Bijou Irr. Dist., 176 P. 117; (Nev.) Allen Clark Co. v. Francovich, 176 P. 259.

neously sustains demurrer to petition to vacate a judgment on a day when its rules do not permit a hearing, but petition does not state sufficient ground for vacation, the error is harmless, and the order and the resulting judgment of dismissal will not be disturbed on appeal.-Holbert v. Patrick, 176 P. 903.

1042(4) (Nev.) Court's refusal to strike out an irrelevant and immaterial paragraph in complaint was not prejudicial to defendant.-Pruett v. Caddigan, 176 P. 787.

1043(6) (Wash.) There was no prejudice in excluding a deposition where the result must have been the same if it had been admitted.dis- Mohney v. Davis, 176 P. 31. evi-1046 (5) (Okl.) Where, during direct examination of plaintiff's witness, it appeared that he was intoxicated, and court ordered him to jail, his withdrawal from cross-examination was not prejudicial error of which defendant could complain, where defendant thereafter made no effort to have witness recalled for 1011(1) (Okl.) In a law case, where the evi- cross-examination.-Dickinson v. Abb, 176 P. dence is in conflict, but where there is sufficient 523. legal evidence to reasonably sustain the judg-1050(1) (Cal.App.) In an action to forement, the Supreme Court will not disturb it. -Zauk v. Attaway, 176 P. 216.

1011(1) (Okl.) Where the evidence is in conflict, but its weight reasonably supports

close a deed of trust securing corporate bonds, evidence by a bondholder relative to the number of bonds issued, although inadmissible as not the best evidence, was rendered harmless

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

objected to, and that a copy of such bonds set forth in the complaint was substantially the same as the bonds to which witness referred. -Equitable Trust Co. of New York v. Western Land & Power Co., 176 P. 876.

1050(2) (Colo.) In action for injuries to hay stacker, if fact that horse used in operating stacker was young and not well broken had no bearing on negligence charged, admission of evidence of fact was harmless, in absence of evidence that team had anything to do with injury.-Drake v. Slessor, 176 P. 301.

failure of defendant to warn plaintiff of a danger of which defendant knew was negligence held not prejudicial to defendant.-Drake v. Slessor. 176 P. 301.

1066 (Wash.) In action by corporation officer for fraud of other officers in sale of stock to him, instruction that corporate officer was charged with notice of all facts shown by the records of the corporation was not prejudicial, where the facts on which recovery was sought were not facts disclosed by the corporation's records.-Mohney v. Davis, 176 P. 31.

In action for injuries to hay stacker, admission of immaterial testimony, which could not 1067 (Cal.App.) Where court instructed have affected the jury, as to the stakes by which jury that plaintiff was required to prove every the stacker was fastened to the ground, was material allegation in his complaint, its failure not prejudicial error.-Id. to instruct that such proof must be by a preponderance of the evidence was not of sufficient importance to justify a reversal.-McCollum v. Barr, 176 P. 463.

1050(2) (Kan.) In an action to recover balance due under a compromise and settlement procured by fraud, admission of evidence that plaintiff was in poor health and straitened circumstances, where issue being tried was the false representations of defendant, though immaterial, was not prejudicial.-Carver v. Kansas Fraternal Citizens, 176 P. 634.

1052(7) (Cal.) A general verdict for plaintiff imports a finding in his favor on all averments of complaint material to his recovery; and where evidence supporting one cause of action was untainted, error in the admission of evidence as to another cause of action was immaterial.-Price v. Bekins Van & Storage Co.,

P. 180.

1071 (1) (Nev.) Where there are sufficient findings on issues made in the case to support the judgment, it is immaterial that there is no finding, or an erroneous finding on some other issue, which if made, or differently made, would not compel any different conclusion from that reached by the findings which were actually made. Nelson v. Smith, 176 P. 261.

1071(6) (Cal.App.) In an action by an administrator to quiet title to land conveyed by deceased, a decree for plaintiff, based upon findings that deed was not delivered and that deceased had regained title by adverse possession, will be reversed, where there was no finding on issue of failure of consideration; there being evidence that deceased had been paid $1,000 on purchase price.-Keohane v. Keohane, 176 P. 386.

1073(8) (Nev.) That the judgment as to appellant was not in the form as provided by statute was not prejudicial.-Pruett v. Caddigan, 176 P. 787.

(I) Error Waived in Appellate Court.

1078(1) (Colo.) An error assigned, but not argued, will not be considered on appeal.Riverside Reservoir & Land Co. v. Bijou Irr. Dist., 176 P. 117.

1062 (2) (Wash.) Where corporation officer sought recovery on seven causes of action, assigned by innocent individuals, three assigned by other officers, and one of his own, for fraud inducing purchase of corporate stock, failure to submit issue whether the corporation had title to the land, as bearing on measure of damages, was not prejudicial, where the jury found for plaintiff on the seven causes. and against him upon the others, and he did 1097(6) (Colo.) The opinion of the Court of not complain of amount of damages in the seven causes.-Mohney v. Davis, 176 P. 31.

(K) Subsequent Appeals.

Appeals reversing judgment and remanding case is the law of the case on review of subsequent trial by Supreme Court on writ of error, where there was no material difference in the evidence produced upon former hearing and that upon subsequent trial.-Simonian v. Henry, 176 P. 826.

1064(1) (Kan.) Where defendant leased to plaintiff land, and thereafter an oral agreement was made canceling the lease, plaintiff retaining the right to harvest the crop and to pay for the use of the land, and dispute arose &s to the compensation, an instruction that 1099(8) (Wash.) Decision on former appeal, each party had burden of showing that the in servant's action for injuries, of sufficiency of contract which he claimed was made, held that, evidence to take to jury fact question whether as the issues were made up, the defendant was defendant was a partner in employing firm, esthe attacking party, and the burden rested on tablishes law of case on subsequent appeal; him, except as removed by special considera- there having been no new evidence at second tions, so that no prejudice arose as to him, trial.-Randall v. Gerrick, 176 P. 675. because of the instruction.-Williams v. Kansas Flour Mills Co., 176 P. 639.

1064(1) (Nev.) In action involving validity of location on public mineral land, an erroneous instruction as to defendants' right to locate on the land in question does not justify a reversal where, eliminating the finding made on such instruction and the issue to be determined there by, plaintiffs' right to location was determined by finding on other issue not affected by the instruction.-Nelson v. Smith, 176 P. 261.

1064(2) (Cal.) In personal injury action, an instruction as to measure of damages recoverable, if erroneous by reason of assuming that plaintiff suffered pain and anxiety, was harmless, where plaintiff's foot was twisted at right angles to proper position, the bone broken and protruding, and the back permanently injured. -Brinck v. Bradbury, 176 P. 690.

1066 (Colo.) In action for injuries to hay stacker, there being no direct charge of negligence in failing to warn, instruction that any

XVII. DETERMINATION AND DISPO-
SITION OF CAUSE.

(B) Affirmance.

1126 (Cal.App.) Where, when time for filing opening brief expired, it was extended, no further extension was asked or granted, cause was placed on calendar and notice given attorneys, and at call of calendar there was no appearance by either party, and cause was ordered submitted on record, consisting of clerk's and reporter's transcripts, the appellate court might affirm on assumption appeal has been abandoned.-Bearce v. Davis, 176 P. 62.

(D) Reversal.

1170(3) (Cal.) Where complaint and findings in action to recover land were defective, in not describing the part in defendant's possession, and defendant asserted a right to the whole disputed tract, the right to which was

adjudged to plaintiff, the defect must be disre- | garded, as not being prejudicial, in view of Code Civ. Proc. § 475, and Const. art. 6, § 4. -Friedman v. Southern California Trust Co., 176 P. 442.

direct a new trial, unless Rev. Codes, § 7118, relating to harmless errors, requires an affirmance.-De Young v. Benepe, 176 P. 609. APPEARANCE.

See Parties, 6.

1170(3) (Cal.App.) Failure to draw complaint so it was clear whether action was for malicious prosecutions or for false imprison-10 (Wash.) Where defendant appeared ment, and insufficiency of complaint to state specially and moved to quash service, its obcause of action on either theory, was not ren- jection, upon hearing of motion, to amendment dered harmless by Const. art. 6, § 42, pro- of plaintiff's complaint, did not constitute a viding that judgment will not be reversed for general appearance, where no affirmative relief error in pleading not resulting in a miscarriage was asked thereby; such objection being in of justice.-Evans v. Wixom, 176 P. 873. no wise inconsistent with special appearance. Alaska Pacific Nav. Co. v. Southwark Foundry & Machine Co., 176 P. 357.

properly restricted appearance objects to service of summons upon him by answering and going to trial after such objection has been overruled does not lose the right to invoke the judgment of a reviewing court as to correctness of ruling.-Vann v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 176 P. 652.

Const. art. 6, § 42, providing that judgment will not be, reversed upon ground of error as to any matter of pleading not resulting in mis-24(13) (Kan.) A defendant who upon a carriage of justice, will be liberally construed, but will not be permitted to destroy pleading as a necessary element in legal procedure.-Id. 1170(3) (Wash.) Where both parties relied upon an estoppel, and the entire matter was gone into on the trial, the appellate court will not reverse because the pleadings had the technical fault of omitting to put in words the legal 25 (Okl.) In action by Seminole freedman conclusion that the opposing party was to quiet title to her allotted lands, where, on topped to assert its claim under Rem. Code suggestion of her death, the court, without no1915, § 1752.-National Bank of Tacoma v. tice to defendants, revived action in name of Puget Sound Lumber Co., 176 P. 553. her father, enrolled as a Creek, who filed supplemental pleadings, the irregularity in making order of revival was waived by defendants' general appearance.-Dickinson v. Abb, 176 P. 523.

es

1170(5) (Cal.App.) Where variance between contract declared on and that shown and found could not have misled defendant to its prejudice in maintaining its defense on merits, such variance is immaterial, by Code Civ.Proc. $469,26 (Okl.) Where a default judgment is renand cannot overthrow judgment for plaintiff. -Howard v. D. W. Hobson Co., 176 P. 715. 1170(5) (Okl.) Where examination of entire record does not show that misdirection of jury probably resulted in miscarriage of justice or a substantial violation of any constitutional or statutory right of defendant, within Rev. Laws 1910, § 6005, judgment against defendant will be affirmed.-Silurian Oil Co. v. Morrell, 176 P. 964.

dered without summons or upon fatally defective process, defendant, during that term, may appear by motion and have judgment vacated on that ground, and that motion contains matters constituting a general appearance does not render order vacating the judgment erroneous.--Fried v. First Nat. Bank, 176 P. 909.

ARBITRATION AND AWARD.

ARCHITECTS.

1170(6) (Cal.App.) In servant's action for See Municipal Corporations, ~719. injuries, irregularity committed by trial judge on request of jury in sending in to them written instructions, also in omitting to send transcript of oral instruction, held not prejudicial See Mortgages, 151. to either party; injury not being presumed from irregularity under Const. art. 6, § 42.Fererira v. Silvey, 176 P. 371.

ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL.

See Criminal Law, 720-722%; Trial, 109-110.

ARMY AND NAVY.

1170(7) (Okl.) On appeal from judgment for insured where Supreme court was of opinion, after an examination of entire record, that admission of evidence that insurer's agent knew of incumbrances when fire policy was issued, See Eminent Domain, 145; Railroads, did not result in a miscarriage of justice, within Rev. Laws 1910, § 6005, it could not reverse. -Continental Ins. Co. v. Norman, 176 P. 211.

91.

ARREST.

See False Imprisonment, 20; Sheriffs and
Constables, 99, 100.

II. ON CRIMINAL CHARGES.

1170(7) (Okl.) Where examination of entire record does not show improper rulings on evidence probably resulted in a miscarriage of justice, or a substantial violation of any constitutional or statutory right of defendant, 63(1) (Wash.) Officers without warrant within Rev. Laws 1910, § 6005, judgment against defendant will be affirmed.-Silurian Oil Co. v. Morrell, 176 P. 964.

have no right to intercept travelers on a public highway at night for purpose of finding some one in act of violating law; an arrest for misdemeanor without warrant on information or suspicion being an unlawful act.-Mitchell v. Hughes, 176 P. 26.

ARREST OF JUDGMENT.

1170(10) (Cal.) Where complaint and findings in action to recover land were defective in not describing the part in defendant's possession, and defendant asserted a right to the whole disputed tract, the right to which was adjudged to plaintiff, the defect must be disregarded, as not being prejudicial, in view of See Criminal Law, 968–971. Code Civ. Proc. § 475, and Const. art. 6, § 42. -Friedman v. Southern California Trust Co., 176 P. 442.

1170 (10) (Cal.) In suit to foreclose mechanic's lien permitting amendment of answer to conform to court finding held without material injury to plaintiffs, within Const. art. 6, $42.-Bowen v. Desser, 176 P. 453.

170 (10) (Mont.) When the record discloses that the jury has disregarded a specific instruction, the Supreme Court will not inquire whether the instruction is correct, but will

ARSON.

See Criminal Law, 7222.

3 (Cal.App.) Intent to defraud insurer, which cannot exist without knowledge of the insurance, is of the essence of the offense under Pen. Code, § 548, of willfully burning insured property to defraud insurer.-People v. Rose, 176 P. 694.

37(3) (Cal.App.) Circumstances held to warrant inference that defendant, charged with

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

burning property to defraud insurer, knew of
policies held by his wife on the property.—
People v. Rose, 176 P. 694.

ASSAULT AND BATTERY.

See Attorney and Client, 58; Indictment See Mandamus, 101.
and Information, 189; Master and Serv-
ant, 258, 282, 302.

See Municipal Corporations, 450-583; Tax- with mercantile association for stipulated fee
ation, 448.

See Appeal and Error, 1062; Banks and
Banking, 261; Carriers, 58; Divorce,
257; Evidence, 354; Garnishment,
51, 216; Insurance, 208; Mortgages,
159, 415; Pledges, 4, 31; Set-Off and
Counterclaim, 21; Vendor and Purchas-39 (Cal.) Where the judgment of conviction
er, 101, 214; Work and Labor, 28.

See Mechanics' Liens, 304; Work and client, he was subject under Rev. Codes. $$
Labor.