Volume 14 — Oklahoma Criminal Reports

L. Sioigert, Judge. C. E. Smith was convicted of unlawfully having in his possession certain cider with intent to sell the same, and he appeals. Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Garfield county for unlawfully having in his possession certain cider with intent to sell the same, and sentenced to serve a term of 30 days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $50, and appeals.

<p>1. LARCENY — Indictment—Sufficiency. An information cliarging larceny of live stock should contain an allegation to the effect that the property alleged to have been stolen was taken without the knowledge or consent of the owner, and when no such allegation is set forth, and a demurrer is timely filed, it should be sustained, and a proper information substituted.</p> <p>2. TRIAL — Instructions—Punishment. A trial court has no authority to authorize the jury by his instructions to fix any punishment other than that provided by the statute.</p>

<p> Appeal from. District Court, Pushmataha County; C. E. Dudley, Judcte. </p> <p>Will Flinchum was convicted of larceny of a domestic animal, and he appeals.</p>

<p> Appeal from District Court, Texas County; W. C. Crow, Judge. </p> <p>Cunt Yates and Roy Guffey were convicted in the district court of Texas county for the crime of larceny of domestic animals, and each sentenced to serve a term of one year’s imprisonment in the state penitentiary, and they appeal.</p>

<p>1. WEAPONS — Dfeatfly Weapon — Pointing at Another — Information. An information for pointing a deadly weapon -at another which alleges: “The said Sherman Billings did then and there unlawfully; willfully, and' feloniously point a weapon, to-wit, a Winchester .rifle, at one J. L. Burns, contrary to the form of the statute,” 4tc., is sufficient. A Winchester rifle is a deadly weapon per se.</p> <p>2. SAME! — Evidence. Evidence examined, and held sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction for pointing a deadly weapon at another person.</p> <p>3. SAME — Defenses—Unlawful Search.. If an attempted search • he unlawful, the party whose property is sought to be searched may use such reasonable force, proportioned to the injury attempted upon his property, as is necessary to prevent an unlawful trespass, hut no more; and he cannot do this by using, or offering to use, a deadly weapon, if he has no reason to apprehend a greater injury to his property than a mere unlawful search thereof.</p> <p>4. TRIAL — Instructions—Refusal. Where the instructions of the court are as favorable to the defendant as his own testimony would warrant and substantially cover the law of the case, it is not error to refuse the giving of other instructions which are cumulative.</p>

<p> Appeal from, District Court, Haskell County; W. H. Brown, Judge. </p> <p>Sam Cole was convicted on a charge of attempt to commit adultery, and appeals.</p>

<p>X. LIBEL AND SLANDER — Libel Against Class of Individuals. The law of libel forbids the writing, publication, or circulation of libelous matter against a class as much so as against individuals.</p> <p>2. SAME. In order to render one amenable to prosecution for publishing or circulating libelous matter, it is not necessary that such matter name the individuals or any one of them composing the .class-against whom the matter complained of is libelous.</p> <p>3. ‘ SAME — Information—Sufficiency. For an information held sufficient. to charge libel against the members of the Knights of Columbus living in Canadian county, see opinion.</p>

Pitchford, Judge. Abe Dotson was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm, and he appeals.

<p>1. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION — Habitual Criminals — Sufficiency. An information, in order to charge a crime under the Habitual Criminal Act, should contain allegations of fact setting forth that the offense charged is a second (or subsequent) violation of the law and that the person charged has been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction. In this respect, the information must be definite and certain. An allegation that the person charged has been convicted of violating some prohibition law of the state is too general.</p> <p>2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Criminal Law — Ex Post Facto Laws —Validity. The act of the Legislature, declaring those who have been convicted more than once of violating the prohibitory liquor statute of this state habitual criminals, is not in conflict with section 10, article 1, of the Constitution of the United States nor with section 15, article 2, of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, nor with section 7, article 2, of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.</p> <p>3. CRIMINAL LAW — Habitual Criminals — Statutes. The act of the Legislature adding to the habitual criminal statute offenses against prohibitory liquor law enforcement acts, is not intended ■ to and does not apply to cases wherein full and complete pardons have been granted by the chief executive of the state as provided in the Constitution for all prior convictions.</p> <p>4. SAME — Punishment—Place. All offenders, convicted under the provision of the act of the Legislature adding the violation of the prohibitory liquor law to the habitual criminal statute, should be punished by a fine of not less than $50 and imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 30 days, or by a fine not exceeding $1,000 and imprisonment in the state penitentiary not exceeding five years. Any punishment involving imprisonment for less than one year should be in the county jail. The statute fixes a fine as a part of the punishment in any event.</p> <p>5. SAME — Jurisdiction—Courts. District and superior courts have exclusive jurisdiction to try offenders charged under the habitual criminal statute.</p>

<p>1. EVIDENCE — Other Offenses. Upon the trial of a person charged with larceny of domestic animals, it is competent for the state to prove all the facts and circumstances in connection with the theft and which are calculated to shed light upon the truth of the matter in controversy, even though such facts may disclose the commission > of other crimes. This rule does not permit the indiscriminate proof of other crimes, but is confined to the proof of such facts as may be pertinent to the issue, or are directly connected therewith.</p> <p>2. TRIAL — Failure to Reduce Testimony to Writing — Prejudicial Error — Reversal (a) Under section 1786, Rev. Laws 1910, it is the duty of the trial court to require the court reporter to record raid transcribe all of the proceedings had in the trial of a criminal case when requested so to do by any party in interest or his attorney, and the failure of the court so to do is made prejudicial error without regard to the merits of the matter in controversy.</p> <p>(b) When a record discloses the fact that the court failed to comply with this mandatory provision of the statute, a reversal will follow as a matter of course in this court, unless the whole record discloses facts sufficient to enable the court to determine the merits of the proposition counsel were endeavoring to save.</p> <p>3. NEW TRIAL — Contents of Motion. It is the duty of counsel to state specifically the grounds upon which he expects to base error in the motion for a new trial in order that the trial court may have an opportunity to correct any fatal mistake that may have been made during the trial.</p> <p>4. APPEAL AND ERROR — Review—Assignment of Errors. An assignment of error based upon: the action of the court in overruling the challenge for cause to any juror cannot avail on appeal unless the record affirmatively shows that the defendant had exhausted his peremptory challenges, and that by reason of the action of the court his rights were prejudiced.</p> <p>5. TRIAL — Instructions—Sentence. It is the duty of .a trial court, when requested so to do by counsel for defendant, to instruct the jury to fix the punishment and define to them the correct penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged. In the absence of any such request, however, the court is authorized to • pronounce judgment on the general verdict of guilty.</p> <p>6. APPEAL AND ERROR — Fundamental Error. When a careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances disclosed by the record lead unerringly to the conclusion that an honest jury could reach no other conclusion than that of guilt, this court will not reverse the judgment of conviction in the absence of fundamental error.</p>

C. Crump, Assigned Judge. Maude- Windell, alias Maude Couch, was prosecuted on an information for a second violation of the liquor law, and from a judgment of the district court, sustaining a demurrer to the information, the state appeals.

<p>1. EVIDENCE — Testimony on Preliminary Examination.' In a prosecution for murder, where the testimony of a witness was given at the preliminary examination, and his testimony was taken by the reporter, in the presence of the defendant and his counsel, who cross-examined him, and such testimony is transcribed and filed with the court clerk, held, that if the witness is not-present at the final trial, and the state shows that su'ch witness cannot with due diligence be found within the jurisdiction of the court, the testimony of the witness may be read to the jury; and held, further, that it is immaterial that the ■ names of the witnesses used by the state to prove that defendant had’ been confronted by'the witness, and that the witness was then beyond the jurisdiction of the court, were not indorsed upon the information.</p> <p>2. APPEAL AND ERROR — Trial—Instructions—Requests. Where a party desires the court to give any particular instruction, or desires that the one that is given be made more specific or comprehensive, it is the duty of counsel to prepare and present to the court such desired instruction and request that it be given, and in the absence of such request a conviction will not be reversed, unless this court is of .the opinion, in the light of the entire record, including the instructions given, that the defendant may have been prejudiced by the instruction complained of.</p> <p>3. SAME — New Trial — Instructions. Where a verdict is clearly sustained by the evidence, a new trial will not be granted for slight inaccuracies in the instructions.</p>

Ramsey, Judge. Billy Miles was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquors with intent to sell them, in violation of the prohibitory law, and he appeals.

Cullison, Judge. Walt Cook was convicted of keeping and maintaining a place in the city of Enid for the purpose of selling, bartering, giving away, etc., beer and whisky contrary to the law, and he appeals.

<p> Appeal from District Court/Sequoyah County; John H. Pitch ford, Judge. </p> <p>George Williams ■ was convicted of perjury, and he appeals.</p>

<p>1. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION — Duplicity—Demurrer. An information is bad for duplicity that charges two separate and distinct offenses in one count, and a demurrer thereto should be sustained.</p> <p>2. SAME — Repugnant Allegations. An information containing contradictory and repugnant allegations is bad on demurrer.</p> <p>3. CONSPIRACY — Sufficiency of Evidence. See opinion for evidence held insufficient .to sustain the conviction.</p>

<p>CRIMINAL LAW — Instructions—Reasonable Doubt — Cure by Other Instruction. A specific instruction, which requires the defendant to prove the material elements of his defense beyond a reasonable doubt, is erroneous and prejudicial, and is not cured by a general instruction that the defendant is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt.</p>

<p>APPEAL AND ERROR — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution. Where an appeal from a conviction was taken by filing a petition in error with case-made, but no briefs were filed, a motion to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute the appeal will be granted.</p>

<p>Application by Willie Stover for writ of habeas corpus.</p>

<p>1. CHATTEL MORTGAGES — Disposition of Mortgaged Property— Criminal Offense — Defenses. In the trial of a person charged with unlawfully disposing of mortgaged property, be is entitled to plead as a defense the fact that the property covered by the indictment or information was disposed of according to law and the proceeds applied in the liquidation of a prior mortgage debt.</p> <p>2. SAME — Second Mortgage — Interests of Mortgagees — Consent of Second Mortgagee to Sale. The rights of the first lienholder under a mortgage on chattel property are paramount, and all that the second mortgagee is entitled to under the law is the equity remaining after the first mortgage debt is paid. The law, of course, contemplates that a sale under the first mortgage shall comply with the law, and that no fraud be perpetrated on the rights of the second mortgagee. His written consent, however, to a sale and disbursement of the funds in liquidation of the first mortgage debt, is not required.</p>

<p> Appeal from District Court, Carter County; W. F. Freeman, Judge. </p> <p>L. P. Smallwood was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.</p>

<p>1 INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Unlawful Conveyance — Sufficiency of Evidénce. Evidence in a prosecution for unlawfully conveying whisky, in violation of the prohibitory liquor law, held to sustain a conviction.</p> <p>° SAME — Time of Offense. The date alleged in an information for unlawfully conveying whisky in violation of the prohibitory law is immaterial, as time is not an essential element of the offense, which may be proved on any day prior to the filing of the information, and within the statutory period of limitations.</p>

<p> Appeal from County Court, Tulsa County; ■ J. W. Woodford, Judge. </p> <p>B. S. Beard was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory liquor law, and he appeals.</p>

<p>SODOMY — Form of Offense — Statute—“Crime Against Nature.” Section 2444, Rev. Laws 1910, providing. “Any person who is guilty of the detestable and abominable crime against nature, committed with mankind or with a beast, is punishable,” etc.— includes copulation between human beings per os as well as per anum.</p>

<p> Appeal from District Court, Beaver County; W. C. Crow, Judge. </p> <p>Alfred Ault was convicted of horse theft, and he appeals.</p>

<p>1. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION — Duplicity—Evidence. An information charging murder which alleges that the means used in producing death was a slung-shot or other blunt instrument, the accurate description of which is unknown to the county attorney, and an axe, is not subject to demurrer on the ground that it is duplicitous, for the reason that both such instruments could be used in the perpetration of the erime. The proof in the record under review establishes the fact that such was the condition under which the homicide involved occurred.</p> <p>2. EVIDENCE — Testimony of Absent Witness — Transcript. The transcript of the testimony of a witness who testified at the examining trial is entitled to be admitted in evidence on behalf of the state when the witness who gave the testimony is dead, has voluntarily left the state, or is otherwise beyond the jurisdiction of the court, without the consent of the proper officer.</p> <p>3. EVIDENCE — Confessions—Voluntary Character — Promise of Immunity. (a) A confession made by a person who is in custody is not admissible in evidence against him if it is induced by promises of immunity or other material advantage.</p> <p>(b) A voluntary confession, however, is admissible, and is entitled to go to the jury for what it is worth.</p> <p>4. TRIAL — Trial of Issue of Insanity — Denial of Application, (a) An application made to the court by motion to try the sanity of the accused is properly denied when no doubt of his sanity is raised by the pleadings and the proof offered in support thereof.</p> <p>(b) An examination of the record involving this proposition as it affects' the ease under consideration discloses the fact that counsel did not bring themselves within the doctrine laid down by this court in Marshall v. Territory, 2 Okla. Or. 136, 101 Pac. 139.</p> <p>5. TRIAL — Given Instructions — Requested Instructions. When the instructions of the court fairly cover all the law applicable to the issues in the case, the judgment will not be reversed because ' the court refused to give specific instructions requested. This, of course, contemplates that all material issues shall be submitted to the jury in the genefal charge.</p>

<p>1. HABEAS CORPUS — Extradition Warrant — Aecusation of Crime —Question of Law. The question as to whether the person demanded and detained on an extradition warrant is substantially charged with a crime is a question of law, which on the face of the papers is open to inquiry on writ of habeas corpus.</p> <p>2. EXTRADITION — Warrant—Evidence. The extradition warrant is prima facie proof, but not conclusive proof, that the requirements of the statute were complied with before the issuance of the warrant.</p>

<p>1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Question of Fact. It is the province of the jury to determine questions of fact and decide between conflicting inferences, and the duty of this court to interfere arises only when it can see that the verdict is contrary to the evidence or appears to have been influenced by passion or prejudice.</p> <p>2. SAME — Harmless Error — Instruction. Instruction as to the statutory rule of prima facie evidence examined, and held to be erroneous. .</p> <p>3. TRIAL — Argument. During the closing argument private counsel for the state commented on matters outside the record and outside the proof calculated to prejudice the defendant. Held, that the court erred in overruling objections and in refusing to instruct the jury not to consider the same.</p>

<p> Appeal from District Court, Choctaw County; C. E. Dudley, Judge. </p> <p>Will Fisher was convicted of murder, and he appeals.</p>

F. Freeman, Judge. Steve Talkington was convicted of feloniously maintaining a place for the sale of intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.

<p> Appeal from, District Court, Harper County; W. C. Crow, Judge. </p> <p>John E. Winn was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and he appeals.</p>

<p>1. EVIDENCE! — Opinion'' Evidence — Insanity. ■ As a general rule nonexpert witnesses should not be permitted to give their opinions as to the sanity or insanity of a person whose mental capacity is made an issue in a criminal trial. They may, however, after testifying to facts upon which they base conclusions, testify ■to the impressions made upon them, and state whether the acts and declarations testified to led them to believe that the person in'question was rational or irrational;' that is, whether he was sane or insane.</p> <p>2. SAME; — Exclusion of Evidence — RebuttaL A defendant at the trial cannot be heard to complain of the introduction of testimony im rebuttal of the same character 'introduced by him in chief upon any material issue. It is the duty of the trial court, however, to exclude all testimony .except that which is recognized by the law as competent and material.</p> <p>3. APPEAL AND ERROR — Conclusiveness of Verdict — Sanity, (a) A judgment of conviction will not be reversed on appeal, upon the ground that the same is contrary to the evidence, when there is competent and material evidence in the record sufficient to support the conclusion of the jury in reaching ithe verdict upon which the judgment is based.</p> <p>(b) The fact that proof is offered showing that the defendant at the trial had near relatives, including his father, confined in an asylum, due to given causes, none of which causes are shown to have affected him, and that certain nonexpert witnesses testified that they, believed from the conduct of the defendant that he was insane, barely raises the issue of insanity; and when numerous witnesses who have observed the conduct and acts of the defendant upon many occasions prior to or at the time of the homicide, and immediately subsequent thereto, contradict the testimony offered on that issue by him, it cannot be said that the verdict is contrary to the evidence. The question is properly one for the determination of the jury, and their finding thereon will not be disturbed on appeal.</p> <p>4. APPEAL AND ERROR — Harmless Error — Instructions. Technical errors in instructions given by the court at the .trial will not work a reversal, when it is apparent that a fair and impartial trial was accorded, and no prejudice resulted to him.</p>

<p>APPEAL AND ERROR — Briefs—Affirmance. Where no appearance is made by counsel representing plaintiff in error, and no briefs are filed, and there is no error apparent on the face of the record, the judgment of conviction will be affirmed.</p>

<p>INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Unlawful Possession — Sufficiency of Evi-dencie. Evidence examined, and held sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same.</p>

<p>1. ADULTERY — Open and Notorious Adultery — Sufficiency of Information. An information for ojien and notorious adultery •which charges the offense on a single day is sufficient. It is not necessary to allege such offense with a continuendo.</p> <p>2. SAME — Marriage—Proof. Proof of admissions and declarations of the defendant are competent to prove marriage in a prosecution for adultery.</p> <p>3. SAME — Sufficiency of Evidence. Evidence examined, and held sufficient to sustain a conviction for living in open and notorious adultery.</p> <p>4. ' SAME — Instructions. For instruction held to be a sufficient definition of open and notorious adultery and not confusing or misleading, see body of opinion.</p> <p>5. SAME — Elements of Offense. Requested instructions based upon the theory of the defense that the fact that defendant and the woman with whom he was liying were not husband and wife, and that defendant was married to another woman, must have been known to the community generally during all the time the parties were living in an adulterous relation before a conviction of open and notorious adultery could, be had, held, properly refused. It is sufficient if the adulterous relationship became generally known among the neighbors and acquaintances of the parties before it ceased and prior to the commencement of the prosecution. After that proof of a single day’s continuance of the unlawful relationship is sufficient to sustain a conviction.</p>

<p> Appeal from District Court, Hughes County; Tom D. McKeown, Assigned Judge. </p> <p>Dave Harjoe was convicted of forgery, and he appeals.</p>

<p>IEVIDENCE — Corpus Delicti — Conviction. In a criminal case a conviction cannot be bad on tbe extrajudicial confessions of tbe defendant, without evidence aliunde of tbe corpus delicti, but direct and positive proof of that fact is not indispensable.</p>

<p>CRIMINAL LAW — Failure of Defendant to Testify — Instruction—Statute. Section 5881, Rev. Laws 1910, contains an inhibition to the effect that the failure of a defendant to take the stand in his own behalf shall not be mentioned on the trial. The trial court is not excepted from this inhibition, and when an instruction is given, over his objection and exception, calling the attention of the jury to the fact that he failed to testify in his own behalf, a judgment of conviction cannot be sustained.</p> <p>Matson, J., dissenting.</p>

<p> Appeal from District Court, Choctaw County; C. E. Dudley, Judge.' </p> <p>Isom Williams was convicted of incest, and he appeals.</p>

<p>1. OFFICERS — Warrants Against Public Funds — Anti-Nepotism Statute — “Such Ineligible Person.” A person related within the third degree by affinity to a member of the school district board, for whom a warrant was drawn by said board for the payment out of the public funds of such school district of compensation earned by said person for doing odd jobs of draying for said school district, is not “such ineligible person,” to whom it shall be unlawful for such board to draw a warrant against said public funds, as provided in section 2236, Rev. Laws 1910.</p> <p>%. SAME. “Such ineligible person,” mentioned in section 2236, supra, refers back-to a person appointed as provided in section 2235.</p> <p>3. SAME — “Appointment”—“Employment.” The word “appointment” is ordinarily used in connection with the designation of a person 'to an office or other similar but subordinate employment, and the term “employment” is often used to distinguish an office-from a position of a subordinate degree, such as a clerkship or servant, in continuous service of the employee. Said terms are used in this connection in the foregoing statutes.</p> <p>4. SAME — Sufficiency of Evidence. Evidence examined, and held not sufficient to sustain a conviction for illegally drawing a public school district warrant in violation of section 2236, supra.</p>

<p>' Appeal from District Court, Wagoner County; R. P. de Graffenried, Judge.</p> <p>S. T. James was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appeals.</p>

<p> Appeal from County Court, Bryan County; J. L. Rappolee, Judge. </p> <p>Charley Thompson was convicted of violating' the prohibitory liquor law, and he appeals.</p>

<p> Appeal from District Court, Marshall County; Jesse M. Hatchett, Judge. </p> <p>John Emyhtubby, alias John Wallace, was convicted of rape in the second degree, and he appeals.</p>

<p> Appeal from District Court, Qarvin County; F. B. Swank, Judge. </p> <p>Exie Jones was convicted of forgery in the first degree, and he appeals.</p>

<p> Appeal from, District Court, Greer Cotmty; T. P. Clay, Judge. </p> <p>J. B. McDaniel was convicted of murder, and he appeals.</p>

C: Thurman, Judge. Jasper Reed was convicted of keeping and maintaining a place where intoxicating liquors were kept for sale, and he appeals.

Zwick', Judge. C. B. Newton was convicted of assault and battery, . and his punishment fixed at a fine of $10, and he appeals.

<p>VENUE — Embezzlement. If a person, in one county, is intrusted by another with personal property, to be returned to the owner, and afterwards tabes it to another county, and there embezzles it, he cannot be tried for the crime in the county where he received it, unless he had conceived the intent of committing the crime when he received it.</p>

<p>3. APPEAL AND ERROR — Discretion of Trial Court — Continuance. An application for a continuance is addressed to tbe sound discretion of tbe trial court, and tbe ruling of that court will not be reviewed unless an abuse of discretion is shown.</p> <p>2. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION — Demurrer—Objection to Introduction of Evidence. Objections to tbe sufficiency of an indictment or information should be taken by a demurrer thereto as provided by our Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 5791, Rev. Laws 1910, our code further provides. “When the objections mentioned in section 5791 appear upon the face of the indictment or information, they can only be taken by demurrer, except-that the objection to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject of the indictment or information, or that the facts stated do not constitute a public offense, may be taken at the trial, under the plea of not guilty, and in arrest of judgment.” Section 5799, Rev. Laws 1910. Under this provision, if it apijears .that the facts stated do not constitute a public offense, an objection to the introduction of evidence on that ground is sufficient to raise the question.</p> <p>3. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION — Absence of Preliminary Proceeding — Variance—Objections. Objections to an indictment or information based upon the absence of any essential preliminary proceeding should be made by proper motion or plea before pleading to the merits, and the question of a variance -between the allegations of the original complaint before the committing magistrate and the information can be raised only by proper motion or plea filed before the jury is sworn.</p> <p>4. LARCENY; — Cattle Theft — Sufficiency of Evidence. In a prosecution for cattle theft, the evidence examined and held sufficient to support the verdict.</p>

Hatchett, Judge. Cale Smith was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Cale Smith was convicted in the district court of Bryan county for the crime of murder, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary' for life. He was convicted of killing one Newt Carriker near the town of Bokchito.

<p>Petition by Carl M. Lindberg for writ of habeas corpus to be let to bail.'</p>

<p>1. LARCENY — Property Subject — City Water. Water impounded in the mains and pipes of a city’s water system is the personal property of the city, and, as such, is the subject of larceny.</p> <p>2. SAME — Offense—Use of Unregistered Water. A water consumer who, by false connections, carries water around his meter and consumes it on his property, without the consent of the owner and without having it registered, and with intention thus to deprive the owner thereof without payment therefor, is guilty of larceny.</p> <p>3. SAME — Surrender of Possession. There is no surrender of possession of water by the owner of a water system until the water has passed through the meter, where the consumer is paying for the water used according to the amount registered by the meter.</p>

<p> Appeal, from. District Court, Washita County; Thomas A. Edwards, Judge. </p> <p>W. S. Moore, was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor to a minor, and he appeals.</p>

<p> Appeal from County Court, Otta/wa County; Vem E. Thompson, Judge. </p> <p>Jeff Montgomery was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and he appeals.</p>

<p>APPEAL AM) ERROR — Time for Filing — Dismissal. Where an appeal was not filed in Oriminal Court of Appeals within 120 days after judgment, as required by statute, Attorney General’s motion to dismiss will be sustained, and cause remanded, with direction to enforce judgment and sentence.</p>

<p> Appeal from County Court, Okfuskee County; John L. Norman, Judge. </p> <p>T. A. Griffin was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and he appeals.</p>

<p>1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Review—Statute. The right of appeal is regulated by statute. The time within - which an appeal must ■be lodged with the clerk of this court hnd all the duties imposed upon the person appealing, as well as the privileges granted such person, are defined by section 5991 of the Statutes (Rev. Laws 1910), and these provisions must be substantially complied with. Otherwise this court cannot review a record on the merits.</p> <p>2. APPEAL AND1 ERROR — Case-Made—Extension of Time. An order made by a trial court, extending the time within which to make and serve a case-made, does not automatically • extend the time within which to file the appeal. All such orders should cover both the time within which to make and serve case-made and the time within which to file the appeal, as provided in sections 5991 and 6007, Rev. Laws 1910. Both these sections must be complied with.</p>

Crump, Assigned Judge. Somie McCarter was convicted of assault with intent to kill, and sentenced to serve a term of five years in the penitentiary, and he appeals.

<p>APPEAL AND ERROR — Time for Filing Petition in Error — Jurisdiction. The statute limiting tbe time within which an appeal in a misdemeanor case can be taken to 120 days after -the judgment was rendered is mandatory, and, where not' complied with by filing petition in error with clerk, the Criminal Court of Appeals is without jurisdiction, and the appeal will be dismissed.</p>

<p>APPEAL AND ERROR — lime for Taking. An appeal in a criminal case is taken by filing in this court a petition in error with case-made attached, or a transcript of the record, together with proof of notices of appeal as required by the statute, or in lien of such notices the record to show the issuance and service of summons in error, or the waiver of the same by the Attorney General. When this is not done, within the time prescribed by the statute for taking an appeal, this court does not acquire jurisdiction of the appeal, and such appeal will be dismissed.</p>

<p>APPEAL AND ERROR — Proof of Service of Notice of Appeal — Jurisdiction. Where the state attempted to appeal from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the indictment, and the record shows that no proof of service of notice of appeal was made within the time allowed by the statutes, the Criminal Court of Appeals does not acquire jurisdiction, and appeal will be dismissed.</p>

<p> Appeal from District Court, Stephens County; Frank M. Bailey, Judge. </p> <p>Lee Fowler was convicted of violating the prohibitory liquor law, and he appeals.</p>

<p> Appeal from District Court, Cotton County; Cham. Jones, Judge.. </p> <p>W. H. Campbell was convicted of assault with intent to kill, and he appeals.</p>

<p> Appeal from District Court, Pittsburg County; R. P. deGrdffenried, Assigned Judge. </p> <p>John Henry Prather was convicted of murder, and sentenced to death, and he appeals.</p> <p>This is an appeal from the district court of Pittsburg county, wherein one John Henry Prather was convicted of the crime of murder and sentenced to death. The deceased, Charles Chapman, alias Charles Ross, and Prather were cell-mates in the penitentiary located at McAlester. Their cell was number 60 in the third tier in the negro cell house. On the occasion of this difficulty, Prather had returned from work and was in the cell when Ross returned from his work between 7 and 7:30 in the evening. The evidence on the part of the state shows that as soon as Ross started to enter the cell Prather stabbed him with a dirk knife, which apparently had been made out of one of the steel case knives used in the dining hall at the penitentiary. The wound penetrated the abdomen, and the interior of the wound was larger than the point of entrance, showing that after the knife had been stuck into the body of the deceased, the defendant had apparently twisted it around. The wound was one ordinarily considered fatal. The deceased lived two or three days after being stabbed, and died at the hospital in the penitentiary.</p> <p>According to the witnesses for the state, very little was said by either party at the time of this difficulty. The nearest occupants of cells heard no scuffle or noise of any kind prior to the stabbing, testifying that apparently immediately after Ross started into the cell, he backed out with the remark to Prather, “Are you going crazy? You ought to be ashamed of yourself.”</p> <p>The. deceased made a dying statement to the warden of the penitentiary in which he stated that he and Prather had had no serious difficulty, but that a few days before this cutting Prather had intimated to him that he intended to kill one Boyd, who was then one of the yard guards at the penitentiary. Ross, the deceased, said he remonstrated with Prather, and attempted to get him to refrain from any such conduct as that, advising him it would be best to have a good prison record. Ross stated that after that occurrence Prather seemed to be incensed, and .that he knew of no other reason why he should kill him or stab him. Prather’s defense was that he stabbed Ross in order to protect himself from an assault about to be committed by Ross with a knife. He claims that Ross had threatened to kill him for revenge, because some other negro about the color of Prather had previously murdered his brother. When the deceased was taken to the hospital immediately after the stabbing, no weapon of any kind was found upon hfe person. The knife used by the defendant was found concealed in the toilet In the cell. The defendant at the time of this occurrence was serving a life term for murder. The deceased was serving a 16-year term for assault with intent to kill.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Oklahoma County; William H. Zwick, Judge.</p> <p>A. C. Boswell was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and he appeals.</p>

Pitchford, Judge. F. A. Blanck was convicted of false pretenses, and sentenced to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of two years, and he appeals.

<p> Appeal from. District Court, Washita, County; G. A. Brown, Assigned Judge. </p> <p>James H. Smith was convicted of the theft of two mules, and he appeals.</p> <p>' On July 11, 1913, the county attorney of Washita county filed an information fn the district court of said county charging James Smith with the theft of two mules, the personal property of the Colony Mercantile Company, and alleging that said crime was committed about the 30th of November, 1910. Upon his trial he was found guilty and his punishment fixed at five years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. The evidence shows that the pair of mules were stolen from the Colony Mercantile Company on the night of the 30th of November, 1910; that the mules were found west of Mayfield, Kan., and the harness taken with the mules found at Alva, and also a buggy taken from Weatherford with the mules was found at Alva.</p> <p>The evidence connecting and tending to connect the defendant Smith with the crime, briefly -stated, was as follows:</p> <p>John Samples testified: That at the time in question he lived in Weatherford, and had been in the livery bustness there with the defendant, but was at date of trial in the penitentiary at McAlester, serving a ten-year term for stealing the said mules, That on the night of November 30, 1910, he went south from Weatherford about three-quarters of a mile and waited until Smith came, and they went on to Colony; each riding a bay horse. They reached Colony about 8 o’clock. That they met two rigs on the way, one south of Weatherford at the jog, and the other about four miles north of Colony. That they first took the harness, and afterwards Smith led the mules out while witness held their horses. They then went west two or three miles and met some one driving an automobile, then went on to Weatherford, and witness stopped at the creamery while Smith fetched an old buggy that had belonged to Pete Cates, and witness hitched the mules to it. .That witness drove the mules to Alva and sold the mules, buggy, and harness to one Pruitt for $330. That he kept $30 and deposited, $300 in the bank there in the name of JJ H. Smith. That a short time afterwards he drew out the money and bought a ticket for Geary, and from there went to El Reno, and then went to Hydro, and there telephoned to Smith, and he met him at Hydro and took him to Weatherford, and on the way he gave Smith $100 of the money. That, when he was arrested for stealing the mules, Smith helped to ■ frame a defense for him. That George Lama was to swear that he saw witness at El Reno, and that Smith was to get witness out of the peni-itentary. That Smith wrote him several letters while he was in the penitentiary, which letters were produced and read to evidence. The tenor of the letters is that Smith was the friend of John Samples and was trying to help him by sending him money and trying to get a pardon for him. On cross-examination he testified that Smith that day had been driving Mr. Near; “that he got back before bedtime,” and took Mr. Near to the hotel, and came back to the bam, and then they started on the trip to Colony; that a mile and a half out they met a wagon or buggy and spoke, and within three or four miles of Colony they met another rig; that witness went to one side and Smith to the other, and they spoke to the person driving; that no one went with him on his way to Alva. The transcript of his former testimony was read, contradicting his statements on this trial.</p> <p>Eddy Keyes testified that, when John Samples was prosecuted for stealing the mules, he had a conversation with John Samples and Jim Smith about, his testimony as a witness in Samples’ trial, and they wanted him to swear that he saw John Samples in El Reno about the time the mules were stolen, and it was not true; that he heard Smith tell John Samples to stand pat and npt to turn him, and he would help Samples; that after John Samples had gone to the penitentiary he was present when Jim Smith told Carl Samples to take a team of horses to apply on John’s lawyer fee, and Carl Samples asked witness to go with him to the pasture to get the team, and they went out to the pasture and brought the horses in and put them in Samples’ barn. His cross-examination shows that he had been a bootlegger, had been convicted of theft, and at the time in question was living with a prostitute.</p> <p>Roy Hahn testified that he was cashier of a bank at Alva, and on December 3, 1910,' cashed a check drawn on the First National Bank of Alva for $300, payable to J. H. Smith, and signed by J. H. Pruitt; that John Samples was the man who presented the check.</p> <p>W. M. Griggs testified that he lived north of Colony, and on the night of November 30, 1910, he was on his way home, and about four miles out- from Colony he met Mr. Smith and Mr. Samples, going south; that he was traveling in a hack and they were horseback; that as they passed they separated and one went on one side arid the other on the other side; that he had known Samples and Smith for several years. On cross-examination he stated that Jess Hitt was with him; that he did his trading at Colony, and the next morning attended a sale near there and heard about the mules being stolen; knew that John Samples was arrested for stealing the mules, but never spoke about meeting him and Smith; never told anybody that he had seen Samples and Smith that night until questioned on the witness stand; that Samples and Smith as they passed him said, “How do you do.”</p> <p>Leroy Griggs testified that he lived about three miles northwest of Colony; that on the night of November 30th he met two fellows on horseback about a mile north of Colony, and as they passed both of them said, “How do you do?” and that he recognized John Samples and Mr. Smith' by their voifees; that it was then between 8 and 9 o’clock. On cross-examination he stated that he attended a sale near Colony the next morning and heard that thé mules were stolen and knew about John Samples’ arrest and trial for stealing the mules, but had never said anything to anybody about seeing these men that night.</p> <p>George Lama testified that he lived at EÍ Reno on or about November 30, 1910, and had a conversation with John Samples and Jim Smith after Samples’ arrest, and they wanted him to testify as a witness for Samples that he saw John Samples in . El Reno on the 2d and 3d days of December, and that as a witness he did so testify, and that his testimony was false; that he had been convicted of gambling and carrying a sixshooter.</p> <p>Carl Samples, a brother of' John Samples, testified that he was then serving a three-year sentence in the penitentiary at McAlester for cattle theft in Caddo county; that after his brother Jim was convicted and sent to the penitentiary he had several “talks” with the defendant Smith; that he was sitting in Smith’s barn office and heard Smith say to Norman Henry and others that John Samples ought to have been in the penitentiary ten years sooner, and he stepped up and Smith apologized to him; that Smith told witness he paid part of the lawyer’s fee, and witness told Smith he was just as guilty as John was, and he said at first •he was not, but finally admitted that he was in it; that another time Smith told him he just got $20 out of the mule deal; that Smith told him he had a team that he would give to Connell; that the lawyer and witness went with Eddie Keyes to the pasture and got the horses and turned them over to his father. On cross-examination he stated that on the night the mules were stolen he was down in Caddo county; that he knew when his brother John took the trip to Alva; that the defendant Smith tried to hire him to testify as a witness for his brother John; that Ted Bailey was his brother-in-law and visited him two or three times while he was in jail at Arapaho; that he did not tell Ted Bailey that witness and George Lama were the fellows that took those mules away from Colony.</p> <p>Pete Cates testified that a short time prior to November 30th he sold an old buggy with a tongue in it to John Samples.</p> <p>B. E. Duvall testified that on the evening of November 30th he saw John Samples east of Weatherford riding a black horse.</p> <p>A stipulation by the state and the defendant was filed that in 1910 the 30th of November was Wednesday, and the defendant waived his constitutional right to be confronted with witness Walter F. Dickens, agreeing that the questions and answers might be read as the testimony said witness would give if- he were present. The testimony of the witness is as follows:' That he resides at Red Lake, Minn.; on November 30th lived at Colony, Okla., and was superintendent of Indian school there; was west of Colony on the night of the theft; met two men about 10 o’clock, each riding a small horse, and each leading a mule with harness on; witness was i'n an automobile; had been acquainted with Jim Smith for a long time prior to that; saw Jim Smith the next morning in the vicinity of Colony in company with Mr. Near; witness, told Smith and Near about the mules having been stolen.</p> <p>For the defense, C. E. Near testified that he was a collector for the International Harvester Company; that his territory included Custer county; that he was in Weather-ford on the 29th and 30th of November and made a drive in the afternoon with Jim Smith, and got back about 6 o’clock;-that he went to the Smith barn between 8 and 9 o’clock that evening to outline a drive for the next day, and talked with Jim Smith; that he was at the barn until 10 o’clock or later; that John Samples was there at 9 o’clock, but witness did not see Samples after the train came in; that he walked to the Park Hotel with Jim Smith after 10 o’clock, and Smith went on in the direction of his home; that he left Weatherford with Jim Smith the next morning, and they drove towards Colony; that they met Mr. Dickens west of Colony, and Mr. Dickens spoke of the mules having been stolen the night before; that about 8 o’clock that evening he and Smith got back to Weatherford, and witness stayed at the Park Hotel that night.</p> <p>Charles C. Penn testified that in 1910 he was in the hotel business at Weatherford; that he was acquainted with C. E. Near, and he produced his hotel register showing that Mr. Near registered there on the 29th of November, 1910, and identified the signature; that he knew the general reputation of George Lama for truth and veracity, and that it was bad.</p> <p>Ed Austin testified that he bought out John Samples' interest in the livery business with Smith in July, 1910; that Jim Smith was driving with Mr. Near on the 30th of November and John Samples was around the barn that evening; that he slept at the barn and heard a rig come in during the night; that John Samples was there the next morning in bed with a man by the name of Wright; that there was a rig taken out of the bam that night, and the bam account showed a charge against George Casey. The charge against George Casey was submitted to the jury, and defendant’s attorney, knowing that the county attorney- had a magnifying glass, called for it, and turned it and the book over to the jury with the request that they examine a particular item, the one that Mr. Smith, special counsel for the state, said had been erased, and the jury examined the book with the glass.</p> <p>George Casey testified that he had been acquainted with Jim Smith and John Samples for years; that he was a farmer and lived out from Weatherford; that in the early winter of 1910 he made a drive from Weatherford to his home; that he had been to Clinton and arrived at Weather-ford at 9 o’clock or later in the night; that he got the rig at Smith’s stable, and John Samples did the driving; that it was six miles out; that after John Samples was arrested, he came to witness’ place and asked him if he remembered him driving him home on the night of the 30th of November, and witness said he did not know the date of that drive.</p> <p>Barney Davis, ex-sheriff of Custer county, testified that he was acquainted with the general reputations of George Lama, Carl Samples, and John Samples for truth and veracity, and their reputations were bad.</p> <p>Tom Hudgins testified that he was acquainted with Jim Smith and C. E. Near, and on the 1st day of December, 1910, he met them at a sale near Colony.</p> <p>H. W. Morrison testified that he knew the reputations of George Lama, Carl Samples, and John Samples for truth and veracity, and their reputations were bad.</p> <p>To the same effect was the testimony of George E. Lindley and Walker Moore,</p> <p>said:</p> <p>Mack W. Litzman testified that he had a talk with George Lama after Jim Smith was arrested, and Lama</p> <p>. “We have got to drag him in if we want to clear John Samples.” “No, Jim is not guilty of the charge any more than you are.” And, “Jim is not guilty. John Samples never got them, because Carl and I led them away.”</p> <p>C. L. Gasseway testified that he talked with Eddie</p> <p>Keyes about the Smith case, and Keyes said:</p> <p>“We had to turn against Smith.” “Old man Samples offered me $100 to swear against him, and I called Jim up and told him that if he would furnish me enough money I would get out of the country, and that Samples had offered him $100, and that in Smith’s preliminary he (Keyes) had sworn.to lies against Smith.”</p> <p>Ed Davies testified that he was city marshal at Weatherford; that he was acquainted with the general reputations of George Lama, John Samples, Carl Samples, and Eddie Keyes for truth and veracity, and their reputations were all bad.</p> <p>Tim Murphy testified that he was in Weatherford on the day that the mules were stolen that night; that he saw Carl Samples, John Samples, and Near together;’ that they were on horseback and were going south.</p> <p>Edna Crume testified that she was court reporter for the county court, and as such took the testimony at the preliminary trial of Jim Smith, and afterwards correctly transcribed the same; that George Lama, as a witness, testified in part as follows:</p> <p>“Q. State' whether or not you had any conversation with Jim Smith or John Samples regarding John’s case, wherein he was convicted for stealing the mules from the Colony Mercantile Company. A.. I don’t know that I did. Q. State whether you ever heard them talk about it? A. Yes, sir; I heard them talk about it, but I don’t remember what they said about it.”</p> <p>James H. Smith, as a witness in his own behalf, testified that he had been a resident of Custer county for about 14 years, the last four a resident of Weatherford; that his age was 43 years; that he lived with his family, consisting of a wife and three children; that'John Samples was his partner in the livery business for about five months; that Samples sold his interest to Ed Austin in July, 1910, but after that was about the barn often; that on the afternoon of November 30th he made a drive with C. E. Near, the International Harvester man, getting back about 6 o’clock; that after supper he went back to the barn, and Mr. Near came in about 8 o’clock and arranged his route for a drive the next day; that Mr. Near remained there until about 10 o’clock; that he walked with him to the Park Hotel, and then went on home; that that evening Mr. Casey came in and hired a team to take him home; that John Samples was there and drove Mr. Casey home; that Mr. Casey did not pay, and he charged the same to him on the book that evening; that the next morning he found the man working at the barn and John Samples there; that he drove Mr. Near south; that about four miles west of Colony they met Mr. Dickens, and he told about the mules having been stolen; that he was not acquainted with W. M. Griggs or Leroy Griggs, witnesses who testified for the state, and that he was interested in John Samples’ defense because he thought he was innocent, but did not know until Samples’ trial that Samples had anything to do with getting the mules out of the country.</p> <p>The transcript of the testimony contains about 600 pages, but the foregoing statement is sufficient for the purpose of this opinion.</p>

<p>HABEAS CORPUS — Admission to Bail. On habeas corpus to be let to bail, where it appeared that applicants were held on a charge of having been present at a quarrel in which deceased had been hilled by another who had been admitted to bail in the sum of $5,000, applicants would be granted bail in thel same sum, and, on the giving and approval of a proper bond, discharged.</p>

James M. Dupree was convicted under the statute making it an offense to keep a place for the purpose and with the intent of unlawfully selling, bartering, or giving away intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.

<p>APPEAL AND ERROR — Review—Question of Fact. This court will not reverse a judgment of the trial court for lack of evidence where there is evidence in the record reasonably tending to sustain the judgment.</p>

<p> Appeal from. County Court, Pottawatomie County; Hal Johnson, Judge. </p> <p>John Hester was convicted of violating the prohibitory liquor law, and he appeals.</p>

<p>1. PARTIES TO OFFENSES — “Principal.” All persons concerned in the commission of crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, •and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, though not present, are principals. Section 2101, Rev. Laws 1910.</p> <p>2. INTOXICATING UQUORS^-Unlawful Sale — Sufficiency of Evidence. In a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquors, the evidence considered, and held sufficient to sustain the verdict, and that no material error was committed.</p> <p>3. APPEAL AND ERROR — Case-Made—Copy of Judgment. Where the record of an informal judgment rendered in pursuance of the verdict shows when judgment was rendered, against whom, for what offense, and that sentence was pronounced in accordance with the verdict, it is sufficient against the objection that the case-made does not contain a copy of the judgment.</p>

County Court, Washington County; Robert D. Waddill, Judge. Charles Luppy and William E. Rogers were convicted of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquors iin Washington county, Okla., and sentenced to pay a fine of $150, and to serve 30 days in the county jail, and they appeal.

<p> Appeal from County Court, Grady County; R. E. Davenport, Judge. </p> <p>H. C. Bondurant was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and he appeals.</p>

<p> Appeal from County Court, Muskogee County; Glenn Alcorn, Judge. </p> <p>Ed Franks was convicted of violating a city ordinance, and he appeals.</p>

M. King, Judge. Bill Bragg was convicted of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with the intent to sell or otherwise dispose of it, and he appeals.

<p>1. INTOXICATING UQUORS — Unlawful Sale — Resale. Where one person delivers to another certain intoxicating liquors in exchange for and in consideration of a sum of money then and there paid, the transaction constitutes a sale of intoxicating liquors, and it is immaterial whether the purchaser subsequently delivers a portion of such liquors to other -persons who had theretofore contributed to a purse with which such liquors were purchased, where it appears that the person making such a sale was ignorant of the fact that such liquors were to be subsequently delivered to parties other than the one producing and paying the money.</p> <p>Z. SAME — Accomplice. Where D. delivers intoxicating liquors to R. in exchange for a money consideration, and is so charged and convicted of making an unlawful sale to R., and the evidence on the part of the state discloses that prior to said transaction the fund of money with which said liquor was purchased by R. from D. had been contributed to by R. and three other persons without the knowledge of said D., and that it was the intention of R., after obtaining possession of such liquor, to deliver same in part to said other parties who had contributed to the purse, such delivery to be made also without the knowledge of D., held, that under such circumstances R. is not an accomplice of D. Buchanan v. State, 4 Okla. Or. 645, 112 Pac. 32, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 83, distinguished.</p> <p>3. SAME. Under the facts above stated, the sale of the liquor by D. to R. was independent of any relation theretofore existing between R. and the parties who had contributed to such purse.</p>

McKeown, Judge. Wiley Taylor was convicted of rape in the first degree, and sentenced to serve a term of 18 years in the penitentiary, and appeals.

T. Johnson, Judge. Ed. M. West was informed against for receiving money and profits arising from use of public funds in his hands as county treasurer. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the information, the State appeals.

<p> Appeal from. District Court, Caddo County; J. T. Johnson, Judge. </p> <p>Ed. M. West was indicted for receiving interest and profits arising from the use of public funds in his hands as county treasurer, and, from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the indictment, the State appeals.</p>

<p> Appeal from. District Court, Lincoln County; Tom, D. McKeown, Assigned Judge.. </p> <p>A. G. Parks was convicted of the crime of assault with a dangerous weapon and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of one year and one day, and he appeals.</p>

<p>1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence-Accomplice’s Testimony — Corroboration. A verdict of conviction, based upon the testimony of accomplices, detailing at length the circumstances of the crime charged and supported by the testimony of numerous witnesses, clearly connecting the accused with the offense, is not contrary to the law and the evidence.</p> <p>2. TRIAL — Directed Acquittal. It is not error for the trial court to refuse to advise the jury to return a verdict of not guilty when there is any competent evidence tending reasonably to establish the crime charged.</p>

<p>APPEAL AND ERROR — Abatement—Death of Party, In a criminal prosecution, the purpose of the proceeding being to punish the accused, the action must necessarily abate upon his death, and where it is made to appear that plaintiff in error has died, pending the determination of his appeal, the cause will be abated.</p>

<p>1. DEPOSITIONS — Nonresident Witnesses — Criminal Case. The right to take and use depositions of nonresident witnesses in behalf of the defendant in a criminal ease is statutory. Penal Code, art. 17. The statute regulates the practice in such cases, and its provisions must be substantially complied with.</p> <p>2. APPEAL AND ERROR — Depositions—Application for Commission — Continuance—Modification on Appeal. The information charged two defendants with the crime of murder. On the day they entered their pleas of not guilty, defendants served the statutory notice on the prosecuting attorney, and on the day named in the notice filed application for a commission to take' the deposition of a nonresident witness, which application was overruled. They also filed motion for continuance by reason of the absence of material witnesses, which motion was denied, and the case was called for trial the seventh day after their arraignment. A severance was demanded and granted. Held, that the court erred in overruling the application for a commission to take the deposition, and erred in denying the motion for continuance.</p> <p>Held, further, that the plaintiff in error upon his separate trial having failed to renew the application and motion, and his guilt having been established by facts admitted or so clearly established as to be beyond controversy, this court will not consider .the erroneous rulings such as demand a reversal of the conviction, but, in the exercise of its power to modify any judgment appealécl from by' reducing the sentence, the judgment and sentence of death is modified to that of imprisonment in the state penitentiary at hard labor for life, and as thus modified the judgment is affirmed.</p>

<p>1. TRIAL — Discretion of Trial Court — Physical Examination. In a case of statutory rape in the first degree, where the trial court made an order that the prosecutrix submit to a physical examination to be made by two physicians selected by the defendant and at his expense, it is not a manifest abuse of discretion to refuse to modify said order to provide that said examination should be made at the expense of the county; it being shown that a physical examination of the prosecutrix had already been made by two reputable physicians at the expense of the county at the request of the county attorney, the necessity of a second examination at the expense of the county not having been made apparent. Walker v. State, 12 Okla. Or. 179, 153 Pac. 209, distinguished.</p> <p>2. APPEAL AND ERROR — Improper Cross-Examination — Prejudicial Error. The-fact that the county attorney, on cross-examination of the defendant, asked a few questions which called for incompetent answers, does not of itself establish prejudicial error.</p> <p>.3. SAME — Motion for New Trial — Denial—Reversa!. A motion for a new trial on the ground that the county attorney asked the defendant questions calling for incompétent answers was properly overruled, where it is not clear that prejudice resulted to the defendant therefrom, and the trial judge-promptly sustained objections to such questions. This court would not be authorized to reverse a judgment of conviction solely on this ground, where evidence of guilt is clear and convincing, and the punishment was not prescribed by the jury.</p>

<p>1. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION — Larceny—Sufficiency of Information — Surplusage. An information charging the larceny of live stock, which alleges an unlawful and felonious taking and asportation of the property without the consent of the owner, and . with the felonious intent to deprive the owner thereof and to convert the said property to the use and benefit of the taker, contains all the essential elements of said crime. Matters of sur-plusage not misleading nor contradictory of the material elements as pleaded will not vitiate an information.</p> <p>2. CONTINUANCE' — Absence of Witness — Diligence. It was not error on the part of the trial court to refuse to grant a continuance, or to permit the defendant to_read the testimony of a witness given in his behalf on a former trial, where the record shows that by the exercise of reasonable diligence the attendance-of the witness, who at the time of the trial was within the jurisdiction of the court, could have been obtained.</p> <p>3. APPEAL AND ERROR — Examination of Witnesses — Argumentative Questions. Where objection is made to certain questions asked of the defendant by the prosecuting officer, and the court sustains such objection because said questions are argumentative, this court will not reverse a judgment of conviction merely because several argumentative questions were asked of the defend- • ant, where the matters inquired about were proper subjects of inquiry had the question been put in the proper form.</p>

Appeal from District Court, Cleveland County; K. McMillan, Judge. E. R. Bryce (Brice) was convicted of the crime of obtaining property .under false pretenses, and he appeals.

<p>1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Briefs—Affirmance. Where a defendant appeals from a judgment of cimviction in a felony case, and no briefs are filed, nor oral argument made, this court will examine the information, the instructions of the court, and the judgment; if no fundamental error is apparent, and the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, the judgment will be affirmed.</p> <p>2. ROBBERY — Sufficiency of Evidence. In a prosecution for conjoint robbery, the evidence examined, and held to sustain the verdict and judgment of conviction, and that no material error was committed on the trial.</p>

<p>APPEAL AND ERROR — Supersedeas Bond — Breach—Dismissal of Appeal. When a person who has been convicted of a crime appeals and gives bond to stay the execution of the sentence during the pendency of the appeal, and violates the condition of his bond by leaving the state without leave of court, it is within the discretion of the court whether it will proceed to a decision of the cause, or dismiss the appeal.</p>

<p>APPEAL AND ERROR — Defendant’s Absence from State — Dismissal. Where a defendant has been convicted and appeals from the judgment and sentence, this court will not consider his appeal unless defendant is where he can be made to respond to any judgment or order which may be rendered or entered in the case, and, where he leaves the state and is convicted of crime in another state pending the determination of his appeal, this court will on proper motion dismiss the appeal.</p>

R. Hunt, Judge. J. A. Thomas was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors, and sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and to serve-a term of thirty days’ imprisonment in the county jail, and he appeals.

F. Shutter, Judge. Robert Lee Payne was informed against for the use - of obscene or lascivious language. Demurrer to information sustained, and the State brings error.

M. Rainey, Judge. J. H. Vaughan was convicted of the offense of selling intoxicating liquor, and sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and to serve 30 days in jail, and appeals.

County Court, Tulsa County; H. L. Standeven; Judge. Roy Brown .was convicted of the crime of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, with intent to sell it, and he appeals.

<p>1. HOMICIDE — Instructions—Applicability. When a person is tried upon a charge of murder, he ife entitled to have all of the law applicable to his defense clearly stated to the jury in the charge of the court.</p> <p>2. SAME — Provocation of Difficulty. When the law of ‘seeking” or “provoking” the difficulty is invoked in the trial of a homicide 'case,, it is the duty of the court to give the law applicable to the facts developed. In many instances the abstract statement of the doctrine is sufficient. In others the peculiar facts developed render it essential that the doctrine be amplified, so that the jurv may determine without being misled the rights of the accused as well as those of the deceased under the particular circumstances they are’ called upon to consider. The facts in the case under consideration are reviewed, and held to bring it within the rule of law laid down in Tumbuil v. State, 8 Okla. Or. 459, 128 Pac. 743, and Swan v. State, 13 Okla. Or. 546, 165 Pae. 627.</p>

'Appeal from County Court, Ellis County; S. A, Miller, Judge. Jim Simpson was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and assessed a fine of $50 and 80 days in prison, and he appeals.

<p> Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; George C. Crump, Assigned Judge. </p> <p>Aronce Harris was- convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appeals.</p>

<p> Appeal from District Court, Love County; W. R. Freeman, Judge. </p> <p>John Smith was convicted of assault with intent to kill, and he appeals.</p>

Appeal from County Court, Pawnee County; Geo. E. Merritt, Judge. Fritz. Espig. was convicted of having possession of beer with unlawful intent to sell, and he appeals.

<p> Appeal from County Court, Pmonee County; Geo. E. Merritt, Judge. </p> <p>D. N. Hatfield was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and he appeals.</p>

B.- Wilson, Jr., Judge. Billy Poison was convicted of keeping and maintaining a place with intention of selling intoxicating liquor. He appealed, and died pending the appeal.

<p> Appeal from County Court, Sequoyah County; J. G. McCombs, Judge. </p> <p>Frank Wiswell was convicted of assault and battery, and he appeals.</p>

<p> Appeal from County Court, Noble County; A. Duff Tillery, Judge. </p> <p>P. W. Cress was convicted of contempt, and appeals.</p>

<p>INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Unlawful Sale — Sufficiency of Evidence. Evidence held to sustain a conviction for an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor.</p>

<p>APPEAL AND ERROR — Sentence—Reversal. When a person is tried on a charge of assault with intent to kill, and the state’s proof establishes his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and no proof is offered on behalf of the person accused in mitigation or justifidhtion of his act, but instead a plea of guilty is entered, and the court discharges the jury and imposes punishment in the manner .provided by law, the judgment will not be disturbed upon appeal, unless it can be made to appear that an injustice has been done or some lawful right of the accused denied him.</p>

<p> Appeal from District Court, Major County; James B. Cullison, Judge. </p> <p>Jasper Carl David was convicted of larceny, and appeals.</p>

<p> Appeal from District Court, LeFlore County; W. H. Brown, Judge. </p> <p>Jim Darneal was convicted of the crime of riot, and he brings error.</p>

<p> Appeal from District Court, MeCurtain County; C. E. Dudley, Judge. </p> <p>Jim Noel was convicted of the crime of conjoint- robbery, and his. punishment assessed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of ten years, and he appeals.</p> <p>Plaintiff in error, together with one Earl Holman, were jointly indicted for the crime of robbery committed by them on the 21st day of May, 1914, in that they did “unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously and wrongfully and by means of force and fear take from the possession of J. M; Beasley, and against his will, the sum of $1,800 lawful money of the United States.” This was a case of bank robbery committed prior to the time the special statute punishing such crime was enacted. ■</p> <p>Earl Holman, jointly indicted with the plaintiff in error, obtained a dismissal of his prosecution in' order that he might become a witness against Noel, and Holman' testified that he, together with Noel, robbed the bank of Millerton on the said 21st day of May, 1914; that they held up persons in the bank, by means of the use of pistols, between 1 and 2 o’clock in the afternoon; that there were three people in the bank at the time, one of whom was behind the counters, the other two being apparently customers of the bank; that after the robbery, they mounted their horses and rode back the way they had come from the north. They rode north about six or seven -miles to Little river, where they were overtaken as they were crossing said river and fired at by some members of a posse; that in getting out of the river on the other side Noel lost his hat, and Holman, who was carrying the money at the time, dropped it also near the place where Noel lost his hat; that they were not overtaken, but continued on in a northwesterly direction to their place of abode near the town of Corrinne, in Pushmataha county, a distance of about 40 miles from the scene of the robbery. At the time Holman testified he was a prisoner in the state penitentiary, having been previously convicted of larceny and robbery, and was then under sentence in two cases for a term of six years each. He admitted that the prosecution against him had been dismissed, and that he had promised to testify against his codefendant. The defense relied upon was an alibi, Noel claiming that on the afternoon of the 21st day of May, 1914, he attended the funeral of a boy by the name of Raines in the town of Spencerville, a distance of 35 miles northwest of Millerton, where the robbery occurred. In this he was supported by the testimony of three witnesses from Spencerville.</p>

. Appeal from District Court, Sequoyah County; John H. Pitchford, Judge. E. S. Fain was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period of ten years, and he appeals.

<p>APPEAL AND ERROR — Review—Sufficiency of Evidence. A judgment of conviction will not be reversed on appeal on the ground that the finding of the jury is contrary to the weight of-the evidence, when there is competent proof tending reasonably to support the finding of the jury. The weight of the evidence, as well as the ■ credibility of the witnesses, are problems to be determined by the jury.</p>

<p>1. TRIAL — Unlawful'Transportation of Liquor — Defenses—instruction. (a) A person wbo is charged with unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquor from one place within this state to another place therein and within the jurisdiction of the trial court, and who, as his defense to the charge, offers testimony to establish the fact that he acted innocently and without knowledge that the packages conveyed contained intoxicating liquor, and without sufficient information to put him on notice to this effect, is entitled, to have his defense submitted to the jury by proper instructions-of the court.</p> <p>2. INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Unlawful Transportation — Intent. (b) A person who conveys a package from one place in this state to another place therein, which package contains intoxicating liquor of which he has no knowledge and no information sufficient to put a reasonable man on inquiry, is not subject to the punishment imposed by the statute for unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquor from one place in this state to another place-therein.</p>

Black, Judge. Charley Johnson was convicted of the crime of unlawful possession of- intoxicating liquors, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the county jail for 30 days and a fine of $50, and he appeals.

<p>1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Convictions—Reversal. It is not the policy of the Criminal Court of Appeals to set aside verdicts or judgments of conviction where they are sustained by credible evidence, though there be a sharp conflict between the testimony of the witnesses for the state and for defendant.</p> <p>2. INTOXICATING LIQUORS* — Unlawful Sales — Sufficiency of Evidence. Evidence in a prosecution for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors held insufficient to sustain a conviction.</p> <p>3. WITNESSES — Corroboration of Impeached Witness.' Where the testimony of the prosecuting witnesses had been, thoroughly impeached, the state not attempting to show that their reputation for truth and veracity was good, the admission of evidence to bolster the testimony of one of the prosecuting witnesses was prejudicial to defendant.</p>

<p> Appeal from District Court, Adair County; John H. Pitchford, Judge. </p> <p>Tom Smart was convicted of murder, and appeals.</p>

<p>TRIAL — Instructions—Testimony of Accomplice. When the state uses tbe testimony of an accomplice to establish its ease in chief, the trial court cannot rightfully refuse to charge the jury that they are prohibited by law from convicting the defendant upon this evidence -unless it is corroborated by other testimony tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.</p>

<p>1. EVIDENCE — Testimony of Witness Not Found — Indorsement of Names on Information. In a ixrosecution for murder, where the testimony of a witness was given at the preliminary examination and his testimony was taken by the reporter, in the presence of the defendant and his counsel, who cross-examined him, and such testimony is transcribed and filed with the court cleric, held, that if the witness is not present at the final trial, and the state shows that such witness cannot with due diligence be found within the jurisdiction of the court, the testimony of the witness may be read to the jury; and held, further, that it is immaterial that the names of the witnesses used by the state to prove that defendant had been confronted by the witness, and that the witness was then beyond the jurisdiction of the court, were not indorsed upon, the information.</p> <p>2. HOMICIDE — Degrees—Intent—Evidence of Intoxication. In a prosecution for murder, evidence of intoxication is admissible to show an absence of the premeditated design to kill, for the purpose of determining whether the offense was murder or manslaughter, and a state of intoxication which will reduce the degree of homicide from murder to manslaughter in the first degree must -be of such character and extent as to render the defendant incapable of entertaining or forming a design to effect death, and the question is for the jury to determine.</p> <p>3. SAME — Murder—Manslaughter in First Degree. A person who , commits a homicide while so drunk as to be incapable of forming a premeditated design, to kill, if he had formed no purposa to commit the crime prior to the time he became so intoxicated, is not guilty of murder, but is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree.</p> <p>4. SAME — Instructions—Evidence. In a homiéi'cle - case it is not error to refuse the defendant’s request for - instructions submit: ting the issue of manslaughter in the second degree, where there is no evidence tending to establish that degree of homicide.</p>

H. Linebaugh, Judge. Willie Carnes was convicted of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period of four years, and he appeals. This killing occurred in Atoka county in the month of July, 1914. It was the outgrowth of a quarrel between some full-blood' Indians.

<p>EVIDENCE — Res Gestae. Upon a trial for murder, a spontaneous exclamation made by tbe deceased, without premeditation or design, at tbe time of tbe shooting, and which exclamation tended N to explain the circumstances surrounding the killing, is properly a part of the res gestae, and admissible as such.</p>

<p> Appeal from District Court, Jackson County; Will Linn, Assigned Judge. </p> <p>Ed Perales was convicted of a breach of the peace, and appeals.</p>

P. de Graffenried, Judge. James Brown, alias Jerry Moore, was convicted of murder, and sentenced to suffer death, and appeals. The defendant, James Brown, alias Jerry 'Moore, was convicted in the district court of Muskogee county, Okla., of the crime of murder, and sentenced to suffer death, for killing one Glenn Jacobs in said county on the 19th day of May, 1917.

Branson, Judge. James Sunday was convicted of murder, and he appeals. The plaintiff in error was convicted of the murder of Frank Dandridge, alleged to have been committed on or about the 8th day of March, 1914, by shooting with a Winchester rifle, and he was duly sentenced in accordance with the verdict to imprisonment for life at hard labor. The evidence shows that at the time Frank Dandridge was killed he was living at the home of his brother-in-law.

<p> Appeal from District Court, Carter County; W. F. Freeman, Judge. </p> <p>Tom Wilson was convicted of unlawfully selling in- • toxicating liquor to a minor, and he appeals.</p>

<p>1. TRIAL — Preliminary Examination — Indorsement of Complaint. After a justice of the peace has certified to the court the record of a preliminary examination of an accused person held by him for trial upon a charge' of crime, he may, upon motion to quash the information for failure to indorse upon the original complaint that he found a crime had been committed and that defendant was probably guilty thereof, by leave of the court and before the trial commences, complete such record by making said indorsement where the same is not inconsistent with the tranc-ript of the record as previously made and certified.</p> <p>2, INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION — Preliminary Examina- ' tion — Jurisdiction. Section 17, Bill of Rights, prescribes: “No person shall be prosecuted for a felony by information without having had a preliminary examination before an examining magistrate, or having waived such preliminary examinaton.” Held, that under the constitutional provision the precedent fact that a preliminary examination has been had or waived, constitutes a jurisdictional basis for a prosecution on information in the district court. It is the fact that there was a preliminary examination, or a waiver thereof, and a judicial .determination thereon by the examining magistrate that a felony has been committed, and that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant is guilty thereof, that confers jurisdiction on the district court and authorizes the county attorney to file an information in said court charging the crime committed according to the facts in evidence. on such examination; or for the offense charged in the preliminary information when such examination has been waived by the defendant.</p>

<p> Appeal from County Court, Stephens County; J. W. Marshall, Judge. </p> <p>Henry Blumhoff was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and he appeals.</p>

<p> Appeal from District Court, Muskogee County; Chas. G. Watts, Judge. </p> <p>■ Paul V. Hadley was convicted of murder, and he appeals.</p>

B. Swank, Judge. A. L. (Laney) Reed was convicted of murder, and he appeals. The information charged that on the 24th day of November, in Cleveland county, Laney Reed did then and there kill and murder one William W. Bumgarner, by shooting him with a pistol. It appears that the deceased removed from Arkansas with his family in 1890, and settled in Cleveland county, near Denver.

<p>Appeal from County .Court, Craig County; E. M. Probasco, Judge.</p> <p>Fred Russell was charged with crime, and from adverse judgment the State appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from Superior Court, Muskogee County; H. C. Thurman, Judge.</p> <p>O. J. Cantrell was convicted of violating the prohibitory law and appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Seminole County; A. S. Norvell, Judge.</p> <p>Willie Williams was 'convicted on a charge of carrying concealed weapons, and appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Canadian County; John W. Hayson, Judge.</p> <p>Flossie Williams was convicted of robbery, and she appeals.</p>

L. Swigert, Judge. Berry Janes was convicted in the county court of Garfield county of the offense of selling intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.

<p>Appeal from District Court, Carter County; W. F. Freeman, Judge.</p> <p>A. O. Miller, alias Mike Miller, was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and he appeals.</p>

Baker, Judge. . Phoebe J. Strong was convicted of keeping a female person for the purpose of prostitution, and she appeals.

<p>Appeal from County Court, Okmulgee County; Mark L. Bozarth, Judge.</p> <p>C. E. Butler was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and he appeals.</p>

<p>Application on relation of O. R. Roberts for a writ of prohibition against Hal Johnson, County Judge.</p>

Robertson, Judge. Henry Burgett was convicted for violation of an ordinance of the City of Blackwell, and he appealed to the county court. Prom an order discharging the jury and dismissing the case, the City of Blackwell appeals.

<p>-Application for habeas corpus by W. A. Stringer to be let to bail.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Carter County; W. F. Freeman, Judge.</p> <p>Steve Talkington was convicted of contempt, and he appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Tulsa County; John R. Ramsey, Judge.</p> <p>Henry Wade was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and he appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Nowata County; F. A. Calvert, Judge.</p> <p>Buster Holland was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and he appeals.</p>

L. Robertéon. Judge. Teddy Lynn was convicted of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell it, and he appeals.

<p>Appeal from Superior Court, Muskogee' County; H. C. Thurman,. Judge.</p> <p>B. S. Glover was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and he appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Woods County; Guss Hadwigger, Judge.</p> <p>Paul McHenry was convicted of unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. •</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Okmulgee County; Mark L. Bozarth, Judge.</p> <p>Jim Cook was -convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and he appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Okmulgee County; Mark L. Bozarth, Judge.</p> <p>Jack Jones and E. A. Trout were convicted of the offense of unlawfully issuing warrants, and they appeal.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Jefferson County; E. L. Dillard, Judge.</p> <p>J. M. Pinchback and Duell Bunning were jointly convicted of violating the prohibitory liquor law, and they appeal.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Jefferson County; E. L. Dillard, Judge.</p> <p>Duell Bunning was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and he appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Jefferson County; E. L. Dillard, Judge.</p> <p>Aaron Case was convicted of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and he appeals.</p>

<p>Application of Fred Foster for writ of habeas corpus to be let to bail.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Oklahoma County; William H. Zwick, Judge.</p> <p>R. H. Bryce was convicted of a violation of the prohibition liquor law, and he appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Oklahoma County; William H. Zwick, Judge.</p> <p>C. H. Holden was convicted of violation of the prohibitory law, and he appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Latimer County;C. R. Hunt, Judge.</p> <p>C. Carrignano was convicted of the offense of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.</p>

Robert Lee Payne was informed againt for the use of obscene and lascivious language. From an order of the county court sustaining a demurrer, the State brings error.

<p>Appeal from County Court, Oklahoma County; Wm. H. Zwick, Judge.</p> <p>John Childers was convicted of a misdemeanor, and appeals.</p>

H. Hays, Judge. Bob Terrell was convicted of unlawfully conveying from place to place in a county certain beer and whisky, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the county jail for 30 days, and to pay a fine of $100, and he appeals.

<p>Application of Bob Harper for writ of habeas corpus, to be let to bail.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Pittsburg County; S. F. Brown. Judge.</p> <p>Doc Clowers was convicted of malicious mischief, and he appeals.</p>

<p>Application by Willie Hutchison for writ of habeas corpus.</p>

<p>Application of Charles H. Garnett for writ of habeas corpus.</p>

<p>Petitions by C. F. Caty, Nat Daniels, and Henry Mayes.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Pontotoc County; I. M. King, Judge.</p> <p>John Correll was convicted of violating the live stock quarantine statute, and appeals.</p>

<p>Application by J. H. Russell for writ of habeas 'corpus to be admitted to bail.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Pawnee County; George E. Merritt, Judge.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Payne County ; W. R. Jones, Judge.</p> <p>Seth Everett was convicted of larceny, and appeals.</p>

<p>Application by James Hendrix for a writ of habeas corpus.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Pawnee County; George E. Merritt, Judge.</p> <p>Jim Ammerman was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors, and appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court. Choctaw County; . W. T. Glenn; Judge.</p> <p>C. Pritchard was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and he appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Choctaw County; W. T. Glenn, Judge.</p> <p>George Jones was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory law, and he appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Garfield County; E. W. Swigert, Judge.</p> <p>Eli Miller was convicted of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Oklahoma County; W. H. Zwick, Judge.</p> <p>Prank Sibonaler was convicted of violating the prohibitory liquor law, and he appeals.</p>

<p>Appeal from County Court, Tulsa County; H. L. Standeven, Judge.</p> <p>George Tilley was convicted of violation of the prohibitory law, and appeals.</p>

<p>Application of D. M. Martindale for writ of habeas corpus, directed against James Wooley, as sheriff of Tulsa county.</p>