BURGLARY. Instructions, see "Criminal Law," § 18. § 1. Offenses and responsibility there- See "Gaming," § 1. CARDS. CARNAL KNOWLEDGE. Under Pen. Code 1895, arts. 838, 841, 842, See "Rape." in a prosecution for burglary, defendant held not guilty under the facts, unless the theft he intended to commit on inserting his hand through a hole in a house door was a felony. -Jones v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1157. That defendant received stolen property after it was taken by others in the commission of a burglary was insufficient to make him a principal in that crime.-Bird v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 146. Under Pen. Code 1895, arts. 838, 841, 842, in a prosecution for burglary, defendant held not guilty unless he made the break in the door through which he thrust his arm for purpose of committing theft.-Jones v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1157. Under Pen. Code 1895, art. 841, the insertion of a hand through a break in a house door with the intention of stealing articles less than $50 in value held not to constitute a burglary. -Jones v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1157. § 2. Prosecution and punishment. Where there was no evidence that defendant was present at the burglary, and his evidence tended to show an alibi, he was entitled to an affirmative charge that, unless the evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that he was present participating as a principal, he was not guilty.-Bird v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 146. Under Pen. Code 1895, arts. 838, 839a, it is not necessary that an indictment for burglary of a house other than a private residence shall allege that the house was not a private residence.-Gilford v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 698. In a prosecution for burglary, charge on recent possession held unnecessary.-Gilford v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 698. BY-LAWS. See "Insurance," § 11. As part of contract of insurance, see "Insurance," § 11. Of municipal corporation, see “Municipal Corporations," § 1. BYSTANDERS. CARRIERS. See "Commerce," § 2; "Monopolies," § 1. Harmless error in action against, see "Appeal Jurisdictional amount in controversy in action Opinion evidence in action for injuries to live stock, see "Evidence," § 12. Parol evidence in action for injuries to passen- § 1. Carriage of goods. Contract of affreightment held binding on both carrier and shipper, though not signed by the latter.-Eckles v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 99. It is competent for a railroad company to bind itself by contract to furnish cars at a place not on its own line, but on the line of a connecting carrier.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Kyser & Sutherland (Tex. Civ. App.) 389. Certain testimony held to show that a witness was an agent for a carrier, with authority to bind it by a contract to furnish cars.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. of Texas v. Kyser & Suth Attestation of bill of exceptions, see "Criminal erland (Tex. Civ. App.) 389. CALENDARS. Of causes for trial, see "Trial," § 1. CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS. See "Quieting Title"; "Reformation of Instru- Agreement for division of estate, see "Descent Deed, see "Deeds," § 1; "Escrows." Setting aside fraudulent conveyances, CANDIDATES. For office, see "Elections," § 3. see In an action on an oral contract for delay of carrier in furnishing cars, held error to ignore a subsequent written contract releasing liability, pleaded by defendant and not attacked by plaintiff's pleadings.-Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Underwood (Tex. Civ. App.) 713. Where a carrier was not notified, until after the contract of shipment had been entered into, that the goods were desired for a special purpose, necessitating prompt delivery, it was not liable for special damage caused by failure to deliver promptly.-Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. C. C. Mill Elevator & Light Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 753. A carrier, guilty of unreasonable delay in forwarding a shipment of grain, held liable for the difference between the market price at the time the grain should have arrived and at the time it did arrive.-Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. C. C. Mill Elevator & Light Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 753. In an action against a carrier for damages to a shipment, the burden is on the carrier to show that a stipulation limiting the time within which an action may be brought is reasonable. | to deliver the stock promptly, does not cover -Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. a negligent delay.-Smith v. Chicago, R. I. & Godair Commission Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 871. P. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 9. $ 12. Loss of or injury to goods. Delay of a railroad company in delivering In an action against a carrier for loss of hogs at pens after arrival at their destination goods before delivery, the burden is on defend-held grossly negligent.-Smith v. Chicago, R. ant to account for the loss.-Alexander v. Mc- I. & P. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 9. Nally (Mo. App.) 1. A carrier held not liable for special damages for delay in transporting cattle feed, where it had no knowledge when the contract was executed that special damages would arise.Choctaw, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Bourland (Tex. Civ. App.) 173. In an action by the consignee of corn against the carrier for damage to the corn, held error not to permit defendant to show the amount paid by the consignee in compromise of a claim against him by one to whom he had sold the damaged corn.-St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. McDurmitt Grain Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 355. § 2. - Connecting carriers. Where a carrier receives goods for transportation to a destination beyond its terminus, its common-law liability ends with delivery to the succeeding carrier.-Hubbard v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52. A carrier, contracting to transport goods to a point beyond the termination of its own line, may by contract protect itself against liability for injury and delay not occurring on its own line.-Eckles v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 99. An initial carrier held liable for loss of goods on the line of a connecting carrier. Eckles v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 99. Where a carrier is paid full freight for carriage to a destination beyond the termination of the carrier's line, the contract is to carry the goods through to their destination. and the first carrier is responsible for the delivery of the goods.-Eckles v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 99. Where a carrier agreed to transport freight to a point beyond its own line by means of a certain designated connecting carrier, delivery to a different connecting carrier was a breach of the contract.-Eckles v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 99. § 3. Carriage of live stock. A provision in a contract for the shipment of hogs held to require notice to be given the carrier of a claim arising from the death or shrinkage of the hogs through delay in delivery, and for damages resulting from a fall in the market during such delay.-Smith v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 9. Under a contract for the shipment of live stock, the giving of notice of injuries thereto held a prerequisite to the right to recover for such injuries.-Smith v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 9. A contract by a shipper, in consideration of a reduced rate, exempting the carrier from liability occasioned by failure to deliver the stock in time for a particular market, is reasonable and enforceable.-Smith v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 9. Contracts between a shipper and carrier, fixing the value of the shipment to liquidate damages in case of injury, in order to be valid, must be entered into by the shipper before or at the time the goods are delivered for transportation. -Keyes-Marshall Bros. Livery Co. v. St. Louis & H. R. Co. (Mo. App.) 553. provision in a contract of shipment of cattle Under Rev. St. 1895, art. 320, held, that a that no recovery could be had for damages to the cattle, unless written notice be given of the claim before removal of the cattle from the cars, was void.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Allen (Tex. Civ. App.) 168. § 4. Actions against carriers of live stock. In an action against a carrier for damages to a shipment of live stock, evidence considered, and held not to show that a reduced charge for carriage was agreed to by the parties as consideration for a stipulation liquidating damages in case of injury.-Keyes-Marshall Bros. Livery Co. v. St. Louis & H. R. Co. (Mo. App.) 553. A recital in a bill of lading that the shipment was carried at a special rate, in consideration of a stipulation liquidating damages in case of loss, was insufficient alone to show a carriage at a reduced rate.-Keyes-Marshall Bros. Livery Co. v. St. Louis & H. R. Co. (Mo. App.) 553. A petition in an action against several carriers held sufficient, under Act May 20, 1899 (Laws 1899, p. 214, c. 125).-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Allen (Tex. Civ. App.) 168. In an action against a carrier for damages to a shipment of horses, plaintiff held not entitled to recover certain special damages. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. of Texas v. Allen (Tex. Civ. App.) 168. In an action against a carrier for damages to a shipment of live stock, the measure of damages stated.-Missouri, K. & T. Co. of Texas v. Allen (Tex. Civ. App.) 168. without rough handling is not negligence as The failure of a carrier to transport cattle matter of law.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Garrett (Tex. Civ. App.) 172. In an action against a carrier for injury to live stock, evidence held to warrant submission of question to the jury whether the shipment was on the terms of a written contract between plaintiff and defendant.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Garrett (Tex. Civ. App.) 172. In action against carrier for injuries to cattle in transit, allegation in petition as to contract for sale of cattle held not vulnerable to special exception, though having no place in the petition, in the absence of allegation of notice to defendant.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Wright (Tex. Civ. App.) 191. In action against carrier for injuries to cattle in transit, allegation in petition as to selling price of cattle held obnoxious to special exception.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Wright (Tex. Civ. App.) 191. In action against carrier for injury to cattle in transit, evidence that improper bedding was cause of injury to cattle held inadmissible.Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Wright (Tex. Civ. App.) 191. In an action against a carrier for damages A contract by a shipper of live stock, ex- for cattle detained by the carrier in unsuitable empting the carrier from liability for failure' pens after arrival at destination, the allega tions of the complaint held sufficient to ad- In an action against a carrier for keeping In an action against a carrier for damages In an action for damages to live stock by In an action for damages to live stock by de- Evidence held not to show that there was a In an action against a carrier for injuries to In an action against a carrier for damages An instruction that a shipper was entitled to An instruction authorizing recovery of such § 5. Carriage of passengers. A carrier held, under a contract, only bound Contract of carriage held a through one to a Rev. St. 1899, § 5222, relative to connecting An assault committed by a street car conduc; A passenger may alight from his train at a In an action against a carrier for refusal to A passenger with means of ascertaining It is not sufficient that a street car should Carriers are not insurers of the safety of A passenger held not entitled to recover for In an action for injuries to a passenger, the In an action for injuries to a passenger of a In an action for injuries to a passenger while In an action for injuries to a passenger on In an action for injuries to a passenger, mod- passenger, was prima facie proof that the en On an issue of negligence in maintaining a Undue prominence held not given to the char In an action for injuries to a passenger, held of. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas cover exemplary damages.-Little Rock Tracv. Martin (Tex. Civ. App.) 387. In an action for injuries to a passenger, a phrase by way of illustration in an instruction held not to have rendered it_erroneous.-St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Martin (Tex. Civ. App.) 387. In an action for injuries to a passenger, an instruction held not to have made the defendant an insurer of the absolute safety of passengers. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Martin (Tex. Civ. App.) 387. In an action against a carrier for injuries to a passenger from the discharge of hot cinders from a locomotive, evidence held sufficient to show that the engine was negligently handled and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the escape of the cinders.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Mitchell (Tex. Civ. App.) 841. Carrier held liable for injury to passenger for failure to furnish car capable of being made comfortably warm.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Foster (Tex. Civ. App.) 879. In an action for injuries to a passenger by being struck by a car door, plaintiff held entitled to recover in the event the proof showed some degree of negligence on defendant's part on any one or more of the grounds alleged in the petition.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Leakey (Tex. Civ. App.) 1168. § 7. Contributory person injured. negligence tion & Electric Co. v. Winn (Ark.) 1025. A passenger held entitled to recover for expulsion from a train, owing to refusal of agent to indorse a return trip ticket.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Payne (Tex. Sup.) 330. That a passenger, ejected for refusing an unwarranted demand for fare, had sufficient money with him, held admissible on the question of damages.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Lynch (Tex. Civ. App.) 884. Evidence as to the loss of a passenger's baggage held suflicient to make a prima facie case. -Hubbard v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52. Petition against a carrier for the loss of baggage held not converted into a petition for negligence by mere allegation that the baggage O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52. was lost by negligence.-Hubbard v. Mobile & The mere fact that a passenger received her baggage from a terminal association, and not from the carrier. held not to show that the latter's liability, both as carrier and as warehouseman, had ceased.-Hubbard v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52. In an action against a carrier for the loss of baggage, the burden is on the carrier to show facts reducing its liability to that of warehouseman.-Hubbard v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. of (Mo. App.) 52. In an action for injuries to a passenger, an instruction held erroneous for failure to define plaintiff's negligent conduct, referred to as not constituting a defense in case it was not the immediate cause of the injury.-Little Rock Traction & Electric Co. v. Kimbro (Ark.) 121, 644. In an action for injuries to a passenger, instructions held erroneous as excluding the ques tion whether, in the exercise of reasonable foresight, the conductor should have anticipated that plaintiff would be injured by alighting from the car when in motion, as he did.Little Rock Traction & Electric Co. v. Kimbro (Ark.) 121, 644. In an action against a street railroad company for injuries to a passenger, an instruction on the care required of defendant held defective and misleading.-Little Rock Traction & Electric Co. v. Kimbro (Ark.) 644. A passenger on a street car held justified, by the custom of disobeying an ordinance requiring street cars to stop on the far crossing, to suppose the car, stopping before it had reached the far crossing, had stopped to let her off. -Franklin v. St. Louis & M. R. R. Co. (Mo. Sup.) 930. Passenger, guilty of contributory negligence in attempting to board a moving train, could not recover, whether he was negligent in other respects or not.--Texas Midland R. R. v. Ellison (Tex. Civ. App.) 213. Passenger, boarding a moving train, knowing it was dangerous to do so, held guilty of contributory negligence in law.-Texas Midland R. R. v. Ellison (Tex. Civ. App.) 213. Though a passenger alighted when the train A carrier which agrees to transport a passenger and baggage to destination is responsible throughout the journey for the loss of the baggage by itself or by any other carrier.Hubbard v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52. The status of warehouseman sets in and that of carrier ceases when the passenger has had a reasonable time in which to take his baggage away.-Hubbard v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52. Carrier under a through contract is liable, either as carrier or warehouseman, for a passenger's baggage until it delivers the same.Hubbard v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52. embraces only such articles as are baggage in a technical sense.-Hubbard v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52. A carrier's common-law liability for baggage Carrier held an insurer against every loss of baggage, except one due to the act of God or of a public enemy.-Hubbard v. Mobile & O. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 52. CASE CERTIFIED OR RESERVED. For determination of questions of law, see "Ap- was moving, it was a question for the jury See "Animals." 18. CATTLE. CATTLE GUARDS. Ejection of passengers and in- See "Railroads," § 5. truders. In an action for ejection of a passenger from a street car, on the ground that his transfer CAUSE OF ACTION. was too late, plaintiff held not entitled to re- See "Action." 87 S.W.-77 CERTIFICATE. See "Affidavits." As evidence, see "Evidence," § 10. Of acknowledgment of written instrument, see Of case or question of law for determination, CERTIORARI. Review of discharge on habeas corpus, see Review of proceedings to form school district, 1. Proceedings and determination. CHATTEL MORTGAGES. Right of mortgagee as against attaching credit- § 1. Requisites and validity. Under Rev. St. 1895, art. 3327, held, that on Mortgage of cattle held to sufficiently describe that where the mortgage was recorded.-Sea- Mortgagee held entitled to sue one who con- The measure of a mortgagee's damages for less than the value of the property converted.- § 4. Foreclosure. In a suit to foreclose a mortgage, the court In a suit to foreclose a chattel mortgage, a Testimony describing cattle mortgaged to Petition to foreclose mortgage on cattle held A mortgagee of cattle which belonged to the CITIES. § 2. Construction and operation. 715. 1 CITIZENS. Equal protection of laws, see "Constitutional Privileges and immunities, see "Constitutional |