ISBN: 1235911640

[EAN: 9781235911644], Neubuch, [PU: RareBooksClub], ARKANSAS. SUPREME COURT,SUBJECTS, This item is printed on demand. Paperback. 234 pages. Dimensions: 9.7in. x 7.4in. x 0.5in.This histor… Mehr…

[EAN: 9781235911644], Neubuch, [PU: RareBooksClub], ARKANSAS. SUPREME COURT,SUBJECTS, This item is printed on demand. Paperback. 234 pages. Dimensions: 9.7in. x 7.4in. x 0.5in.This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1909 Excerpt: . . . party should be shown by his plea of guilty, which has not been followed by judgment, the proof does not go to the competency of the witness. I Greenleaf on Evidence, (16th Ed. ), 375. The universal rule is that it is not the guilt that disqualifies the witness, but that it is the judgment itself that renders him infamous. I Bishop on Cniminal Law (5th Ed. ), 975; I 7Vigmore on Evidence, 521. Counsel for appellant next contend that the court erred in its instructions to the jury. The language of the objection to them as shown in the bill of exceptions is as follows: T0 all of the above instructions, numbered one, six, nine and ten, the defendant duly objected and excepted. Appellant now admits that two of these instructions were correct, and they appear to the court to be a proper statement of the points which they embrace. A general exception to several instructions will not be entertained on appeal if any of them are good. Young v. Ste2. -eizson, 75 Ark. 81; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Morris, 80 Ark. 528; Mathews v. State, 84 Ark. 73. We think the instructions given by the trial court are a full and comprehensive statement of the law applicable to every theory of the case. Hence there was no error in refusing the instructions asked by appellant. Appellant also insists that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. A careful consideration of the testimony convinces us that there was ample evidence to sustain the verdict. Judgment affirmed. BIGHAM v. DOVER. Opinion delivered May 25, 1908. Ex1-IcUr1on--rwo IUIJGMI-INTS--AMENDMENT. --A joint execution upon two separate judgments is void, and is not amendable by elimination of one of the judgments. Appeal from Polk Circuit Court; James S. Shel, Judge; r. . . This item ships from La Vergne,TN.<

2012, ISBN: 1235911640

[EAN: 9781235911644], Neubuch, [PU: Rarebooksclub.com, United States], Language: English Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****. This historic book may have numerous typos and missing… Mehr…

[EAN: 9781235911644], Neubuch, [PU: Rarebooksclub.com, United States], Language: English Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****. This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1909 Excerpt: .party should be shown by his plea of guilty, which has not been followed by judgment, the proof does not go to the competency of the witness. I Greenleaf on Evidence, (16th Ed.), 375. The universal rule is that it is not the guilt that disqualifies the witness, but that it is the judgment itself that renders him infamous. I Bishop on Cniminal Law (5th Ed.), 975; I 7Vigmore on Evidence, 521. Counsel for appellant next contend that the court erred in its instructions to the jury. The language of the objection to them as shown in the bill of exceptions is as follows: T0 all of the above instructions, numbered one, six, nine and ten, the defendant duly objected and excepted. Appellant now admits that two of these instructions were correct, and they appear to the court to be a proper statement of the points which they embrace. A general exception to several instructions will not be entertained on appeal if any of them are good. Young v. Ste2.-eizson, 75 Ark. 81; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Morris, 80 Ark. 528; Mathews v. State, 84 Ark. 73. We think the instructions given by the trial court are a full and comprehensive statement of the law applicable to every theory of the case. Hence there was no error in refusing the instructions asked by appellant. Appellant also insists that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. A careful consideration of the testimony convinces us that there was ample evidence to sustain the verdict. Judgment affirmed. BIGHAM v. DOVER. Opinion delivered May 25, 1908. Ex1-IcUr1on--rwo IUIJGMI-INTS--AMENDMENT.--A joint execution upon two separate judgments is void, and is not amendable by elimination of one of the judgments. Appeal from Polk Circuit Court; James S. Shel, Judge; r.<

2012, ISBN: 1235911640

[EAN: 9781235911644], Neubuch, [PU: Rarebooksclub.com, United States], Language: English Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****.This historic book may have numerous typos and missing … Mehr…

[EAN: 9781235911644], Neubuch, [PU: Rarebooksclub.com, United States], Language: English Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****.This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1909 Excerpt: .party should be shown by his plea of guilty, which has not been followed by judgment, the proof does not go to the competency of the witness. I Greenleaf on Evidence, (16th Ed.), 375. The universal rule is that it is not the guilt that disqualifies the witness, but that it is the judgment itself that renders him infamous. I Bishop on Cniminal Law (5th Ed.), 975; I 7Vigmore on Evidence, 521. Counsel for appellant next contend that the court erred in its instructions to the jury. The language of the objection to them as shown in the bill of exceptions is as follows: T0 all of the above instructions, numbered one, six, nine and ten, the defendant duly objected and excepted. Appellant now admits that two of these instructions were correct, and they appear to the court to be a proper statement of the points which they embrace. A general exception to several instructions will not be entertained on appeal if any of them are good. Young v. Ste2.-eizson, 75 Ark. 81; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Morris, 80 Ark. 528; Mathews v. State, 84 Ark. 73. We think the instructions given by the trial court are a full and comprehensive statement of the law applicable to every theory of the case. Hence there was no error in refusing the instructions asked by appellant. Appellant also insists that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. A careful consideration of the testimony convinces us that there was ample evidence to sustain the verdict. Judgment affirmed. BIGHAM v. DOVER. Opinion delivered May 25, 1908. Ex1-IcUr1on--rwo IUIJGMI-INTS--AMENDMENT.--A joint execution upon two separate judgments is void, and is not amendable by elimination of one of the judgments. Appeal from Polk Circuit Court; James S. Shel, Judge; r.<