The record-union., 1899-02-22
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
SYLLABI.

SYLLABI.
(S. f., No. 37-Department One-Filed
February Is, 1899
John E. Nash. appellant; Ernestine
Kreling, respondent. Damages for ad-
legged unlawful dismissal
In reviewing the charge to jury, 1t
must be held in mind that it's different
parts are to be considered in their n1u-
tual bearings and as explanatory OF
each other, and that the jury is pre-
sumed to be capable of understanding
the proper connection of the several
parts and their application to the facts.
If, thus construed, the charge fairly
and correctly states the law necessary
for the guidance of the jury, the judg-
ment founded on their verdict should
not be reversed because some portion
Of the charge does not in it's detached
form contain all necessary qualifica-
lions which are made sufficiently prom
inent elsewhere. So, though an in
struction may be carelessly drawn and
go to the verge of error, SO long as
upon the whole charge the jury is not
m;sled to the prejudice of the appellant,
the instruction will stand.
Is. F., No. 1073-Department One-F'iled
February IS, 1899
John e. Nash, respondent; Ernestine
Kreling, appellant. Breach of contract.
Affirmed.
A stipulation to reduce valid writ
ten contract to some other form does
not affect its validity, and the stipu-
lation may not be used by either of
h. of in,
the performance of any of the provis-
ions Of the contract.
Is. r, No 745-Department One-Filed
February 10, 1899
Frank Franz and Leo Fuchs, co-part-
ners, respondents. Frank Bieler, appel
liant Breach of covenant. Reversed.
The defendants obligation was to pay
plaintiffs the sum of $1,000 in case he
should resume the designated business
within the defined territory before the
expiration Of ten years. Upon an action
for breach of covenant, the non-pay-
ment OF the money must be alleged. A
complaint not containing such allega-
ton is insufficient and the defect can
not be cured by the answer as there
is no allegation to be aided or cured.
Grim, No. 461-In Bank-Fued Febru-
airy II, 1899
People, respondent: George c. Owens,
appellant Murder Affirmed.
\ challenge of a juror, must specify
the particular ground of challenge.
Exemption from jury duty is not a
cause OF challenge, but the privilege of
the person exempted.
The 1aw=does not require the name of
a juror to be separately placed upon
the assessment roll, but requires that
he should be assessed on the last as
sessnent roll ON property belonging to
him. The interest of each member of
a partnership extends to every portion
Of its property; consequently, MEM
Der of a firm assessed is qualified to sit
as juror.
The appellate court is only allowed to
review an order denying a challenge to
a juror upon the ground of actual bias
when the evidence upon the examina-
ton of the juror is SO opposed to the
decision of the trial court that the
question becomes one of law.
The court may for cause permit a
VI " Dt elldAltHS5cQ dllcI SuCH JuIOi
is sworn and before the jury is COM
pleted.
The doctrine of irresistible impulse is
not recognized in this State. A plea of
irresistible impulse is not of itself a
legal defense to any charge of felony.
Where preferred evidence is imper-
feet by the lack of preliminary proof
which may or may not be supplied by
the party offering the evidence, the OBJ
jector must specifically point out the de-
feet by his objection, and if he fails to
do so, it is waived. and the general OBJ
ject;ons of ''immaterial, inadmissible,
irrelevant and incompetent made
when the evidence is offered to the
jury, are not sufficient to warrant an
on appeal of the INSULT
cheney of such preliminary proof.