ed is guilty of contempt, for which he may be summarily fined.-Ex parte Hanson (Kan.) 694. $ 21. Where a witness is guilty of contempt in refusing to answer a pertinent question when ordered so to do, and refuses to pay the fine imposed on him, he may be committed to jail until such fine is paid and the question answered. Ex parte Hanson (Kan.) 694. II. COMPETENCY. Expert witnesses, see Evidence, § 5392. (A) Capacity and Qualifications in Gen eral. $46. Conduct of prosecuting attorney in obtaining evidence of the prosecutrix against defendant by duress held reversible error.-State v. Montgomery (Wash.) 1035. (C) Testimony of Parties or Persons Interested, for or against Representatives, Survivors, or Successors in Title or Interest of Persons Deceased or Incompetent. 159. Under 2 Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St. § 5991 (Pierce's Code, § 937), a woman held incompetent to testify as to her marriage with a decedent.-Weatherall v. Weatherall (Wash.) 822. § 318. Evidence as to the good reputation of a witness cannot be given until his reputation has been attacked.-Bennett v. Seattle Electric Co. (Wash.) 825. § 330. An alleged minor to whom it was claimed defendant illegally sold liquor having denied purchasing such liquor on the date in question, the state was properly permitted to ask him on cross-examination whether he had not been drinking on that evening.-State v. McCormick (Wash.) 1037. (C) Interest and Bias of Witness. $372. Accused may show, on cross-examination of a witness against him, facts showing that the witness' testimony may have been influenced by intimidation or some personal motive.-State v. Tawney (Kan.) 218. § 373. Where a witness for plaintiff gave no testimony showing ill will toward defendant, and no foundation was made for impeachment, he cannot be impeached by defendant showing such ill will.-Fagan v. Lentz (Cal.) 951. § 374. Accused held entitled to show that the prosecution's principal witness, also charged with the offense, and after incarceration, gave testimony tending to exculpate himself and supporting the charge against defendant.-State v. Tawney (Kan.) 218. § 178. Where testimony as to a transaction (D) Confidential Relations and Privileged Communications. $203. Communications made by complaining witness to prosecuting attorney held privileged. -Michael v. Matson (Kan.) 537. $211. Comp. Laws 1907, § 3414, subd. 4, relating to privileged communications, construed, -Madsen v. Utah Light & Rỳ. Co. (Utah) 799. § 211. Certain information given a physician by a patient held not a privileged communication as being necessary to the treatment.-Madsen v. Utah Light & Ry. Co. (Utah) 799. § 212. Certain information obtained by physicians from an examination of a patient held a privileged communication.-Madsen Light & Ry. Co. (Utah) 799. v. Utah § 388. One complaining of the exclusion of evidence of a statement made by a state's witness, inconsistent with his testimony, must show that the statement was the one to which the attention of the witness had been called.-People v. Hogan (Cal. App.) 938. § 388. Under Rev. Codes, § 6083, requiring an objection to a question on cross-examination foundation for impeaching statements, held, that whether witness had not written certain letter should have been sustained until he was shown the letter for identification.-Keane v. Pittsburg Lead Mining Co. (Idaho) 60. WORDS AND PHRASES. "Accomplice."-Greenwood v. State (Okl. Cr. App.) 371. "Act."-Norris v. Cross (Okl.) 1000. "Action."-State v. McCafferty (Okl.) 992. "Action on the case."-Welch v. Seattle & M. R. Co. (Wash.) 166. "Administer."-Chandler v. State (Okl. Cr. App.) 375. "Aggravation of damages."-Swank v. Elwert (Or.) 901. "Alley."-Shultz v. Redondo Improvement Co. (Cal.) 118. "Assault."-William Small & Co. v. Lonergan (Kan.) 27. "Burden of proof."-Hale v. Crown Columbia Pulp & Paper Co. (Wash.) 480. "By virtue of."-State v. McCafferty (Okl.) 992. (Okl.)_992. "Capital stock."-State v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. (Kan.) 685. "Claimants."-North Coast Ry. Co. v. Hess (Wash.) 853. "Competent."-Dever v. Platt (Kan.) 445. "Condition subsequent."-Newlove v. Mercantile Trust Co. of San Francisco (Cal.) 971. "Confession."-State v. Brinkley (Or.) 708. "Consideration."-Grant v. Isett (Kan.) 1021. "Constructive notice."-Miller v. Ash (Cal.) 600. "Contract for the sale of goods."-Courtney v. Bridal Veil Box Factory (Or.) 896. "Corporation."-Tougue v. State Board of Agriculture (Or.) 250; Reclamation Dist. No. 70 v. Sherman (Cal. App.) 277. 100 586 219 100 45 99 44 129 100 426 222 100 53 99 315 132 100 408 228 100 55 101 65 99 67 101 71 99 80 99 81 100 Pg. Vol. Pg. Pg. Vol. Pg. Pg. Vol. Pg. Pg. Vol. Pg. Pg. Vol. Pg. 100 420 246 100 100 435 248 100 762 766 100 91 101 335 185 101 95 19 427188 101 10 100 600 195 98 110 100 594 203 10i |