G. W. Garrison, Plaintiff in Error, VS. Samuel H. Kress, and Claude W. Kress, No. 1969. Appeal from Probate Court of Oklahoma county. Wm. P. Harper, Trial Judge. Affirmed. 1. A contract in writing, if its terms are free from doubt or ambiguity, must be permitted to speak for itself, and cannot by the courts at the instance of one the parties, be altered or contradicted by parole evidence unless in case of fraud, or mutual mistake of facts. 2. The execution of a contract in writing, supersedes all oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument. (Syllabus by the Court) Grant & Mc Adams, for plaintiff in error J. H. Everests, & C. T. Smith for defendant in Error. J. O. Severns, Plaintiff in Error. vs. No. 1725. F. M. English, Receiver, Defendant in Error. (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Filed Oct., 12, 1907.) Error from District Court of Comanche County. F. E. Gillette, Trial Judge. Affirmed. 1. Courts of equity have the power to appoint Receivers, and to order them to take possession of property in controversy and to enjoin interference with the possession of the receiver, whether in the immediate possession of the defendant, or his agent and in proper cases may order the agent or employes of defendant, though not parties to the record, to deliver the specified property to the receiver. 2. The granting of temporary injunctions pendente. lite is largely within the discretion of the court and appellate courts will not vacate such orders on appeal unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion, or the same is granted without authority. (Syllabus by the Court) Ross & Anderson, and Cotteral & Hornor, for plaintiff in error. Parmenter & Myers, for defendant in error. NOTEWORTHY CRIMINAL CASES. Coffman vs. The State. (Texas.) Record-Objections to Questions Asked Witnesses. 1. An assignment that the court erred in sustaining an objection to a question asked a witness for accused in a criminal case will not be considered on appeal, unless what was proposed to be proved by the witness is shown. 2. Impeachment-Feelings Toward Party. In a criminal case, the feelings of a witness toward accused may be shown on her examination, but not as an independent matter pursuant to an offer so to do without designating any particular witness. 3. Opinion Evidence-Admissibility. A witness in a criminal case may on the issue of identity testify that she believed that a person she saw was accused, and that he looked like accused. 4. Witnessss- Competency-One indicted, but not tried for a murder, is not a comptent witness on the trial of another for the same offense, on theory that he aided and abetted in its commission. 5. Prosecution of Accessories-Evidence-Admissibility. On a trial of one for aiding and abetting in a homicide committed by another, the state may show by any legitimate testimony the guilt of the latter. 6. New Trial-Newly Discovered Evidence.-On a trial for homicide, a witness testified that she believed that the person she saw riding a mule shortly before the homicide was accused, but there was no testimony that any one saw the tracks of the mule or that they were traced, the refusal to grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence consisting of the testimony of a witness that he tracked the mule was properly refused. 7. Diligence.-Where a witness in a criminal case, friendly toward accused, was placed on the stand by him three times and was questioned in regard to the case thoroughly, a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, consisting of new testimony of the witness, was properly refused. because of lack of diligence to obtain the the testimony at the trial. 8. Cumulative Evidence.-Where, on a trial for homicide, testimony was introduced relating to distances between points in the vicinity of the homicide, and the situation of objects between points, the refusal to grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, consisting of measurements and views taken on the ground with reference to distances and objects, was proper, especially where the newly discovered testimony was corroborative of testimony on the trial. 9. Evidence-Sufficiency. On a trial for homi cide evidence examined and held to justify a finding that accused aided and abetted another in the killing of decedent, justifying a conviction. 103 S. W. Rep.. 1128. 1. BANKS AND BANKING. Directors and officers of a banking corporation will not be relieved from liability for loss due to mismanagement, on account of ignorance or want of knowledge of those matters which it is their duty to know; and, if they negligently intrust such matters to others, the loss incurred thereby should fall on them, and not upon their confiding depositors and stockholders. 2. In a suit by creditors, who are also directors and officers, upon insolvent banking corporation, to marshal and distribute the assets, and to charge the stockholders with their statutory liabilities to creditors for deficiency of assets, where it appears that the insolvency of the bank is due to the gross mismanagement and neglect of such director and officers, rendering them liable to creditors and stockholders for losses incurred thereby, they may, in a proper case, be postponed as creditors until the debts of all other creditors have been fully paid. (W. Va.) Elliott vs. Farmers Bank of Philippi, 57 S. E. Rep. 242. The negotiability of a note drawn and payable at the same place is not affected by the words "with exchange"-But a note payable with collection charges is non-negotiable, since the payment of the principal sum becomes connected with another and uncertain sum. Buck vs. Harris 102 S. W. 640. (Mo. App.) Where a note was, endorsed to a bank by defendants testator, and after his death, it being protested for non-payment one of his executors, using the funds of the estate, took up the note from the bank and assigned it to plaintiff, together with the chattel mortgage secur ing it, the estate cannot be held on the contract of indorsement, since it was terminated when the note was taken up from the bank. Packard vs. Dumfee, 104 N. Y. Supp., 140. LATEST BANKRUPTCY CASES. DISCHARGE-No Bar to Creditor's Suit. In the case of Flint v. Chaloupka, 18 Am B. R. 293, it is held that a crditor's suit is an action in rem, and not against the debtor personally; his discharge in bankruptcy is no bar thereto. DISCHARGE-Debt Created While Acting in "Fiduciary Capacity." Where complainant's intestate, immediately after having deposited with defendant the sum of $500, as and for his share of the capital of a proposed partnership between them, was taken ill and died within a few days, and pending his sickness defendant deposited the money to his own credit in the bank, and, after the death of the intestate, converted the money to his own use, it has been held, in Haggerty v. Badkin, 18 Am: B. R. 302, that his discharge in bankruptcy is no defense to an action by the administratrix of the intestate to recover the money, as after the death of the intestate, which dissolved the partnership, the defendant held the money, in a fiduciary capacity, within the meaning of section 17 (4) of the Bankruptcy Act. FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS--Sale of Entire Property Who not Bona Fide Purchaser for Value. Where, within the four months period, a bankrupt, a country merchant, sells out his entire property, consisting of a store building and lot, a stock of general merchandize, book accounts and a homestead, for 75 |