Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1912-03-17
(Continued from Page 1 )

l lowing statute:
 "No indictment is insufficient, nol can the trial, judgment or other pro ceeding thereon be affected by any defect which does not tend to the prejudice of the substantial Tights o the defendant on the merits."
 Kirby's Digest, Sec. 22229
 In civil cases the same policy was declared and adopted as the law, viz:
 "No exception shall be regarded un. less it is material and prejudicial tc the substantial rights of the party excepting.
 kirby's Digest, Sec, 6227
 And SO in convictions of misda- m5anor (which may, under our law of one thousand dollars and impr:s- onment for cue year) the statute says:
 "The judgement shall only be re versed for errors of law apparent on the, record, to the prejudice of the appellant
 kirby's Digest, Sec, 2619
 In Havden V. The State, Cochriil c. J., said:
 "The defendant has made go sun- gestion of any prejudice resulting from the failure to make, a record entry of his plea, none appears upon the record and we are unable la conceive that any exists. Knowing doubtless of the formal defect ill tFa record, he has taken the chance of, an acquittal which would have barred further prosecution. The conviction will have the same ef- fect'
 Hayden V. State, B Ark, p. 344.
 In Moore V. sta,e, 51 Ark, p. 132, the Supreme Court said:
 t'Where the objection is technica! and the thing complained of might have ben obviated by the mention of i& at the time the irregularity oc- cured, and it has been productive of no injury, it would be inconsistent "wi,h the intelligence that ought to govern the whole course of judicial proceedings to arre'St the judgment on account of it."
 This was misdemeanor case, it is E true, but as Mir. Justice Cockrill said, in referring to it in Hayden V. The State, supra, ,he principle is tie same, and "the reasons which ob- tained in the former case apply as we'll in this"
 In Cline V. State, 51 Ark, 40, the supreme court, again by Cockrill, Chief Justice, held that where an ih- struotion violated the constitutional inhabition of courts instructing juIies as to the facts, yet that in that case "it was a harmless effor, if error a's all to assume the existence of the fact; and a judgment is never re- versfd for cause from which no prejudice could have resulted.'
 In Lee V. State, 73 Ark, at D. 15o, the supreme court, by Riddick, J., said:
 "The purpose of the statute was to obviate the necessity of reversing judgments of conviction on account of mere errors of form which do net affect the substantial rights of 'he defendant"
 In M. V. R. R. Go. V. Hamilton, S4 Ark, D.. SS, which was civil judg- ment for $2,00O, and where miscon- duct of the trial judge was alleged, the supreme, court held:
 'NWe are unwilling to ser aside judgment supported by abundant evi- dence submitted to the jury upon rroper instructions, unless we can see that the conduct of the judge tended to prejudice the substantial rights of the appellant in the presen- tafion of the defense"
 When improper evidence on behalf of the state is not objected to at the time, the defendant was held to have waived his right TO object alter conviction.
 Morphew V. State, s4 Ark, p. 49o. M The objection was an indictment Improperly joined two offenses IS waived by defendants failure to de- mur to it on that account.
 Mears V. State, S4 Ark, l36.
 Other Decisions
 Errors in selecting or empanellng q grand jury are waived by pleading to the indictment.
 Carpenter V. Stare, 62 Ark, D. aof. So, error in manner of selecting trial jury waived if not accepted to at the time.
 Reisenheimer V. State, 7S Ark, 4o1. .( The righs of the accused in crlm- hal case ''to be, informed of the na- ture and cause of the accusation aoo;nc+ g,;,,o, ord +o have CODY fnere-