which objection is made, as required by
rule of court, will waive the obejction.
Garrigue v. Keller (Ind.)
870

2. That there is evidence in the record
that a tenant permitted the premises to be
sold for taxes in violation of his covenant
through mistake does not require a rever-
sal of a judgment dismissing his bill for
equitable relief from a forfeiture claimed
on the ground, where there is no statement
of facts found, or of rulings made; since it
cannot be held to have been error to refuse
to give credence to such evidence. Gordon
v. Richardson (Mass.)
867

3. Sundays cannot be excluded in com-
puting the time for signing of bills of ex-
ception under Code Pub. Loc. Laws, art. 4.
$170, allowing it to be done "at any time
within thirty days" after verdict or finding
of fact. American Tobacco Co. v. Strick-
ling (Md.)
909

Assignments of error.

4. An assignment that the court erred
"in charging the jury as certified to in the
printed record," without pointing out the
error complained of, raises no question
which the appellate court is bound to re-
view. Chase V. Waterbury Sav. Bank

5. On appeal from an order overruling a
motion for new trial, appellant is entitled
to have the assignment and specification of
errors contained in his statement used on
the hearing of such motion examined and
considered by the appellate court, although
such order was not assigned as error on ap-
peal, since Id. Rev. Stat. 1887, § 4427, al-
lows an aggrieved party an exception, as a
matter of law, to an order denying his
motion for a new trial. Whitney v. Dewey
(Id.)
572

6. Where a motion for a new trial has
been made, and the statement used on such
motion contains an assignment and specifi-
cation of errors, and an appeal is taken
from the order denying the motion, and the
original brief of appellant contains no
enumeration of errors relied on, but refers
to the transcript and discusses such errors,
and prior to the argument in the appellate
court a supplemental brief is filed by appel-
lant, making a specific enumeration of such
errors, the same will be regarded as a sub-
stantial compliance with the rules of court
requiring an assignment of errors; and the

case will be examined on the merits.
Necessity of exceptions.

Id.

7. In the absence of exception to the con-
duct of the prosecuting attorney in reading
the verdict of a coroner's jury in propound-
ing a question to a witness, the supreme
court will not set aside a verdict of guilty

381

8. The exercise by the trial court of its
discretion as to the setting aside of a ver-
dict as being contrary to the clear weight
of the evidence will not ordinarily be re-
viewed on appeal. Hancock v. Western U.
Teleg. Co. (N. C.)
403
9. The question of the invalidity of an
information may be raised for the first
time in the appellate court. State v. Cole-
man (Mo.)
381
10. Refusal to grant leave to amend the
complaint so as to set up a new issue, after
the introduction of the evidence, is not re-
viewable on appeal. Allen v. North Des
Moines M. E. Church (Iowa)
255

11. Failure of the clerk to indorse the
word "Filed" upon an affidavit is a mere
irregularity which may be amended at any
time before or during trial, and objection
to it cannot be made for the first time on
appeal. State v. Coleman (Mo.) 381
Review of facts.

12. On an appeal to the Louisiana su-
preme court solely under the grant of juris-
diction to that court over suits involving
the constitutionality or legality of a fine or
penalty imposed by a municipal corporation,
the question whether the facts were suf-
ficient to justify the conviction of the ap-
pellant cannot be considered. Crowley v.
Ellsworth (La.)

276

13. A verdict in favor of plaintiff in an
action to recover for injury to a railroad
brakeman while coupling cars through the
alleged negligence of the engineer in fail-
ing to stop his engine as soon as the cars
came together, and hold it stationary until
signaled to move it again, will not be dis-
turbed where the evidence is conflicting, but
plaintiff's evidence that the engine was not
stopped is corroborated by undisputed evi-
dence tending to show that fact. Schus v.
Powers-Simpson Co. (Minn.)
887

14. A finding that there is no such dis-
parity or difference between signatures on
drafts presented to a savings bank and
that of the depositor on file as to create a
doubt or misgiving concerning the genuine
ness of the signatures in the mind of a
competent and reasonably careful bank of
ficer when presented by a person unknown
to him, and that, therefore, the bank is
not guilty of negligence in failing to make
a comparison, is a conclusion of law review-
able by the appellate court, and not a find-
ing of fact. Kelley v. Buffalo Sav. Bank
(N. Y.)

317

15. A judgment will not be reversed be-
cause the sufficiency of an answer was
tested by what was called a motion to
strike, instead of by demurrer, although the
practice is improper, where the motion has
been treated by the parties as in effect a
Lumber Co. V.
demurrer. Wisconsin

Greene & W. Teleph. Co. (Iowa)

968
16. The admission of evidence of a con-
versation between the maker and payee of a
note as to the law by which it shall be gov-
erned, which took place in the absence of
the surety, is not reversible error upon com-
plaint of the surety, where the conversa-
tion merely corroborated the effect of the
was no evi-
contract itself, and there
dence to the contrary. Garrigue v. Keller
(Ind.)
870

17. The excusing of a competent juror on
motion of the court itself is not ground of
error, if a fair and impartial jury was ob-
tained. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v.
875
Montgomery (Ind.)

18. A verdict for damages will not be dis-
turbed on writ of error on the ground
that they were excessive, when the trial
court did not disturb it. Peirce v. Van

Dusen (C. C. App. 6th C.)

705

19. Failure to credit overdue premium
notes on a life insurance policy in entering
judgment thereon, as provided in the con-
tract, is cause for reversal. Union C. L.
Ins. Co. v. Spinks (Ky.)
Remarks or conduct of court or coun-

sel.

See also supra, 2, 7.

264

20. The jury in a murder case cannot in-
fer that a verdict was rendered by a coro-
ner's jury, merely because the prosecuting
attorney asked a witness whether or not he,
as a member of such jury, did not render
such verdict, which question the witness
was not permitted to answer, so as to make
the conduct of the prosecuting attorney
State V. Coleman
ground for reversal.
(Mo.)
381

21. A remark by the trial judge to coun-
sel in the presence of the jury in a criminal
case, indicating that in his opinion the
case is not one depending on circumstantial
evidence, and that he gives instructions on
that subject only in deference to the opin-
ion of the higher court, is reversible error.
Beason v. State (Tex. Crim. App.)

193

22. It is reversible error for the trial
judge to permit, without rebuke, the prose-
cuting attorney to state to the jury, in a
prosecution for burglary, that, if they do
not convict, we might as well tear down
the court houses; that, if defendant is not
guilty, there are too many courts for the

Judicial Notice as to Speed of, see
EVIDENCE, 1.

1. Requiring an automobile to carry a
number does not violate the constitutional
provision against unreasonable searches, or
compel the owner to testify against himself,
or deprive him of property without due
of law. People V.
process
Schneider
(Mich.)

345

Provable claims.

3. Rents which a bankrupt had agreed
to pay at times subsequent to the filing of
the petition in bankruptcy do not consti
tute a provable claim under the bankruptcy
law of 1898, because they are not a "fixed
absolutely owing at the
liability
time of the filing of the petition against
him," and because they do not constitute
an existing demand.

Id.

4. Damages for the breach of a contract
of the bankrupt to pay rents at times sub-
sequent to the filing of the petition in
bankruptcy are not a fixed liability,
absolutely owing, which may be proved in
bankruptcy proceedings under the law of
Id.

1898.

Effect of adjudication.

5. An adjudication of bankruptcy ab-
solves the bankrupt from no agreement,
terminates no contract, and discharges no
liability.

Id.

6. An adjudication of bankruptcy in a
case in which there was no rent due at the
time of the filing of the petition in bank-
ruptcy does not constitute a breach at that
time of the covenants of the bankrupt in
his lease to pay rents accruing thereafter.

Discharge and its effect.

Id.

7. A full discharge of the individual
liability of one partner on a firm debt may
be had in bankruptcy proceedings concern-
ing that partner only. Loomis v. Wall-
771
blom (Minn.)

8. A discharge of individual liability on
a firm debt in bankruptcy proceedings con-
cerning one partner only is a good defense
in an action brought against both partners
to renew a judgment on a partnership debt,
the process in which action was served only
on the partner who had been duly dis-
charged in bankruptcy proceedings, where
it appears that, many years before, the
parties dissolved the firm, and the firm, to
the actual knowledge of the judgment
creditor, made an assignment of all un-
exempt firm and individual property under
a state insolvency law, and that the claim
was properly scheduled, and notice thereof
duly given; and it does not affirmatively ap-
pear that any firm assets now exist.

Id.