Washington Reports Vol 69

Author : Washington . Supreme Court
Publisher : Rarebooksclub.com
ISBN 13 : 9781230008295
Total Pages : 282 pages
Book Rating : 4.0/5 (82 download)

DOWNLOAD NOW!

Download or read book Washington Reports written by Washington . Supreme Court and published by Rarebooksclub.com. This book was released on 2013-09 with total page 282 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1912 edition. Excerpt: ...the demands of the plaintiff. There is some testimony to show an express promise, but the evidence to sustain an implied promise is so convincing that we think it would be unjust in the extreme if we should hold that those who, because of negotiations invited by appellant's agents, had let the time for protecting themselves under the statute go by, could not recover. Judgment afiirmed. MOUNT, Gosa, PARKER, and Caow, JJ., concur. Opinion Per Psnxna, J, 69 Wash, No. 10304. Department One. July 29, 1912. THE STATE or Wnsnmcron, Respondent, v. Bnannr Pnmmnn, Appellant.1 CRIMINAL LAW--'I'BIAD--COMMEX'T on Fscrs. In a prosecution for incest, in which the female, testifying for the defendant, contradicted an afiidavit previously made by her, it is unlawful comment on the facts in violation of Const., art. 4, 16, for the court, in the presence of the jury, to order the witness into the custody of the sheriff and to direct the filing of an information against her for perjury. Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Gay, J., entered December 16, 1911, upon a trial and conviction of incest. Reversed. Daniel London, for appellant. John F. Murphy and Thomas J. L. Kennedy, for respondent. Panxaa, J.----The defendant was convicted in the superior court of the crime of incest, from which he has appealed to this court. While several errors are assigned by counsel for appellant, the principal ground upon which a reversal of the judgment and a new trial is sought is that the trial court committed error prejudicial to appellant by remarks in the presence of the jury amounting to a comment upon the facts, in violation of 16, art. 4, of our state constitution, providing that: "Judges shall not charge...