Arkansas true Democrat., 1859-06-29
ostract of the decisions of the Supreme
 Court of the State of Arkansas. Prepared expressly for the True Democrat. Jy
F. w. HoADLEY, ESQ.

Lipso0m'' ,s ct 'l' Appeal from poin,eu z Graves, ct al. o~' 0.
 "This was a bill filed on the chancerv side ot the court, by appellants against the appellees for partition and distribution of the estate of William R. Lipscomb, de- ceased.
 Upon the hearing of the cause the chan cellor decreed, that the whole of the said estate, and each and every part thereof he taken as personal estate so far as the man. ner of descent and distributions be concern and secured distribution thereof ner stipend to complainants, who were in pn- equal degrees, and per capita to defendants (same Caldwell who were in iual degree From this decree eomplainants appealed
 Held l. That the construction giyep to our statute of descents and distribution in the case ot Kelly, heirs et a., py NcG,;ro and 'c.te ond others, 15 1frk. 59O that personal property, where there were no do.- cendants, should go to colaterals in tba same way itwould have gone to descondonts II any, mat IS to say per cap1a, if in equal degree, and per stlper if in unequal degree without enquirlng as to how the pronertv was acquired by the intestate. is to h.! boi- den, to be a correct interpretation of tho statute' and settles the principal question in this case z " here A. purchases a tract of land of 5. for the purchase of which he oives R hs note, and 5. dies before the note is maid. and after the death of E. and beforo tbn os, ttate IS stted A. and wife gives to inc od. mlnlstrator of the estate of B.. deceased deed of trust of the lands specified. for the amount of S8 900, which sum was placed to the credit of A, that as the charge came to the hands of the administrator of the estate of \. in the nature of personal estate 1t should be so treated in making distribu tlon. Decree of !the court below affirmed. EIyra Howell ct al., Appeat form
 VS' Pope County, Haines Howell, ct al, Ch. C.
 The complainant intermanied with A deceased, in the year 1885, A being then q wldower and having several children by former wife who are the defendants.
 A. dIed Intestate in Pope county in 1854 leaving complainant his widow and her two children, and the defendant his heirs at law. At the time of his decease he was selzed and possessed of certain slaves, real estate, personal property and about S4 ,000 m cash; part of the latter was in the posses slon of 5. one of the defendants and who was partner in a store with deceased.
 Complainant alleges that four of the Anegroes were her own and separate proper- ty, given to her, and bought bv her with bpT lolI
 property during the life time of \ and that since the death of A. that they have been seized by the administrator of A. as part of the estate of A. The bill of com plalnants prayed that the complainant title to the sad slaves be Squieted, established and confirmed to her. and that the residue of the estate after the assignment of her dover be equally divided among the heirs and distributes, etc, and for general relief. The defendants interprosed dcmurrerto to the blii for muluiarousness in its subject mat ter. The court sustained the demurrer. the complanants declined to amend, and the blll was dismissed Compliments ap- pealed.
 The coun held:
 l. If all the purposes of a bill can be ac- complshed by one suit consistently with principles governing the practice of the court of chance1y, it is best for all parties.
 7. By multtafiouSness in a bill is meant the improperly joining in one bill distinct and independent matters, and thereby con founding them
 ;. The objection must be confined to cases, where the case of each particular de- tendant Is entirely distinct and separate in its subject matter from that of the other de- tendants, and is not indispensable that all the partels should have an interest in all the matters contained in the suit: it will be sui- hclent if each party has an interest in some matters m the suit, and they are connected with the others.
 The objection of misioindcr does not ap- ply when all the parties plaintiffs have an interest in the suit, although 1t is not CO., extensive interest. The decree of the court below reversed, and the cause remanded.
 ys ,,''''' /" o'''S'' -Ilpeoi from Joln- The State So"' Cf. Q.
 The appellant was tried and convicted of murder in the second degree. and sentenced to the penitentiary for seven wears. Pend ing the trial he excepted to number of de. ciSionS made by the court. and moved for a new trial, incorporating in the motion some of the exceptions as a ground for q new trial. The motion having been over ruled he excepted and appealed court below granting q stay of execution and ad- hitting him 10 bail until the judgment of ' the roert could be taken upcn the errors complained ot
 The couH held:
 l. That the everything of motion for n continuance cannot be made a ground for granting a new tral
 7. The authority of the judge to order a special term is hot made bv the statute to depend upon the petition or desire of the prisoners to be tried; the public as well as the prisoner having an interest in the matter to be regarded by the judge. Nor does the statute require the prisoners to be notified of the ordering of the special term for their trial. It Is made the duty of the judge to transmit the order to the clerk who is re- quired to enter 1t upon the records of the court, and 1t thus recevesits publicity. and would hardly fail to come to the knowledge of the prisoners, who are in custody of of ticerS of the court
 3. Where dying declaration has been made and reduced to writing, the writing should be produced, and neither copy of the writing nor rarol evidence of the deca- rations can be admitted.
 But where several dying declarations are z made by the same person at different times. and only part of them are reduced to wri- ting, parol evidence may be admitted as to those not reduced to writing.
 1. Acce>Soraries before the fact to the murder being parties to the record, are not competent witnesses for their co-defendants.
 3. If at any time intermediate. between the opening of the cause and the rendorin,r of the var3io+ .i-~ i,,r,r.- sduer themselves to be approached and labored by the parties or their agents, and find for that nartv their verdict will be set aside But if a party after the jury are sworn sneak win juryman, but nothing touching ina bns;.