The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1918-05-18
LEGAL

LEGAL
he did make such statement Held that
| the state was bound by the answer OF
the defendant on cross examination as to
admit the rebutting testimony, But In
view Of the crime charged, the character
meHt testified to, the error was not W suf-
fieient Importance to constitute material
| prejudice requiring reversal.
eide and the defendant testified to curses
and abuse of the deceased by her husband
mony was received that on the same morn
ing she waved goodbye to the husband and
was n his rp noe her
expressing affection and congratulations on
his birthday. Held competent and proper
screams from the deceased seemed to come
from the same place Was asked If the
preliminary examination she had not testi-
/ fled that they did not sound as if they
came from the same place, to which she
replied that she did not know what she had
| said at that time. A question from the
She was asked If she did not answer as
is ie wa nos sustained aed sat to while hi such
objection might properly have been over
sequence or materially to work prejudieial
error.
at such times but was not permitted to an
complain of not being permitted to prove
/ his theory of suicide by the cross examina-
/ ton Of the states witness.
the hanGs q e StHss ID tosetheP
with the Statements of the deceased con-
e esrer was ~s. R esPKea n ssefssns
desiafatloh q the dsessssd; -
| the admission of evidence concerning the
finding of eafbolic acid bottle, in per-
names were not spelled exactly right on
the back of the Information. in sustaining
objections by the state to questions asked
matters touching his relations ana CORE
spondence with her before. their marriage,
deceased and another party who called at
another witness with the deceased touch.
10. Testimony in respect to the dying
declaration examined and found to be euf-
Of the deelsfah At fear Of impendins death
and as to the cfedibility of such declara-
ii. The recital by certain witnesses Of
one or two items not contained in the
written declaration but probably contained
held, in view Of an instruction strictly
limiting the dying declaration to the writ
ten statement admitted in evidence, not
u While dying declaration to be ad..
missible must be made under a sense of
impending death. it il not necessary that
| it so state, is it necessary to show that
Che deceased was apprehensfve of immed-
late dissolution it being seffieient to show
garded his death as impending and certain
as the result of the injury inflicted.
All the Justices concurring.
| tSeal) Clerk Supreme Court.
400
| The Great Western Manufacturing Com
| pany, corporation, Appellant,
a. A. Porter and vff fine Ho.,e Farmers
Union Cooperative Association, APP
Appeal from Sheridan County
Syllabus. By the Court Dawson. J..
1. The plaintiff furnished to a building
| contractor certain machinery supplies for
the Secretary Of the elevator association
bs i hs t sap psd he mas. e Of
| corporation recited
.r, .Direetors Meeting Getting; Oct ;. 1915 :,
write TIE Great western .M sL;,
guarantee the payment of machinery going
into the elevator now under construction
by G. A Porter. under contract"
for monthly meetings at which, ali Officers
should submit statements showing all
transactions since the last meeting. The
action stood unchallenged for several
! months and until the association was
called upon to pay under its guaranty
| HELD, that the minutes of the corpor-
| ate record could not be impeached by the
parol evidence of the directors who did not
| remember the directors meeting or what
| TRANSFERRED thefeat: that the association n
estopped to dispute. the accuracy Of It's
corporate minutes that by inaction Of the
| board of directors at their subsequent
monthly meetings the association ac-
auiesced in and ratified The conduct Of
'H :. Notice 81 an aeeeptsnee Of guaranty
is not necessary. Compliance or perform
ance by the party for whose projection
ing Platter v. Green, 26 Kan. 252
B. Where all the controlling facts TO de-
terfnine liability HfeSestab1ishea and the
defense to the liability wholly fnils. a new
trial IL unnecessary and final judgment on
the liability should be ordered.
| All the Justices concurring..
| A true copy.
Attest: y. A. VALENTINE
!, (Seal) Clerk Supreme Court