case can afterwards be submitted to them, for it is hard to conceive how it can be true that a cause is taken from the jury and yet is submitted to them for decision."

However inharmonious the Oklahoma statute may be, the Supreme Court of this Territory has properly and satisfactorily decided quite a number of cases of demrrer to evidence, whether pursuant to the statute or the current and general accepted practice. In Sanders vs. Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry Co., 10 Okla. 325, the court said: "A demurrer to evidence which does not reasonbly support the allegations of the petition. and which will not support a verdict should be sustained." And on the other hand in Belcher vs. Whitlock 6 Okla. 691, it was said: "Where the plaintiff's petition states facts sufficient to constitute à cause of action, and the testimo. ny introduced by him in support thereof tends fairly to establish every material fact alleged, a demurrer to the evidence should be overruled." And again in a late case it said: “In an action for damages for an assault and battery, where the plaintiff and one other witness testified that the assault and battery was committed, a demurrer to the evidence on the ground that there was no cause of action proved was properly overruled, inasmuch as plaintiff would be entitled to nominal damages even though no actual injury had been shown." Willet vs. Johnson, 13 Okla. 563.

From these decisions and a number of others that might be cited from the Oklahoma Supreme Court, jus tice seems to have been attained pursuant to the local statute however laborious the task of counsel in securing the results obtained. However, we believe that an easier method of realizing the same result may be had with less labor to court and counsel by adopting in place of the cumbersome demurrer to the evidence simply the motion to direct a verdict in proper cases.

NOTEWORTHY CRIMINAL CASES.

Donahue vs. State.

1. Grand Jury.-The fact that the grand jury that returned an indictment was called during an adjourned term of the court is not a sufficient ground for quashing such indictment.

2. Qualifications of Grand Jurors.-Plea in Abatement. Where an indictment purports to have been returned by a legal grand jury, questions concerning the qualifications of its members and of their being regularly charged and sworn, except such as could have been presented by a challenge, if opportunity had existed, cannot be raised by a motion to quash the indictment, but should be raised by a plea in abatement.

3. Separate Counts.-Aider.-Where the first count of an indictment properly sets out empaneling of the grand jury in the proper county, and the second count recites that "said grand jury further find and present," such second count is aided by the first and is sufficient. 4. Murder.-"Means Unknown." -An Indictment charging that the murder was committed "by means and ways unknown to this grand jury" is good.

5. Good and Bad Counts.-Presumption.-A judgment of conviction, upon an indictment containing good and bad counts, is presumed, in the absence of the evidence, to rest upon the good ones.

6. Insanity. Newly-Discovered Evidence.-A new trial will not be granted in a murder case because of newly-discovered evidence as to defendants insanity where no plea of insanity has been made in the cause. 165 Ind. Sup. Ct. 148.

Koch vs. State

A sealed verdict in a criminal case, is held not subject to amendment to correct defects, after the jurors have been allowed to separate.

King vs. Grinder.

3 L. R. A., N. S.

The power to compel an accused person who offers himself as a witness on his own behalf to write in the witness box, at the direction of the judge, a specimen of his handwriting for comparison with a document in evidence is denied.

10 Canadian Crim. Cases, 333.

Mays vs. State.

Trial.-Misconduct of Counsel in Argument.-Remarks of the district attorney in his closing argument, in which he attempted to picture to the jury the graveyard, the new made grave, etc., the gray-headed father and the broken-hearted mother shedding tears over the grave of their only son, slain by the defendant, while objectionable, were not reversal error.

Eby vs. State.

96 S. W. 329.

Assault and Battery with Intent.-Se'f-Defense.Where the evidence shows that defendant accosted the prosecuting witness's sister, contrary to such witness's desire, and such witness pursued defendant a short distance down an alley, both firing at each other almost simultaneously, the defendant has the right to an instruction that even if he was in the wrong in accosting said sister, still, if he in good faith retreated and withdrew from his position, he was thus restored to his right of self-defense, and might thereafter lawfully repel his assailant's attack.

165 Ind. Sup. Ct, 112.

State vs. Legg.

Whether a killing with a deadly weapon was intentional, or the result of an accident, is held to be a queзtion for the jury, where the evidence tends in an appreciable degree to establish both theories. (Homicide by misadventure is the subject of a note to this case.) 3 L. R. A., N. S.

Commonwealth vs. Snell.

An indictment for murder, is held not to be bad for failure to allege the time and place of the commission of the crime, where the caption gives the name of the court and county and the time of the finding of the indictment. (An extended note of authorities accompanies this case) 3 L. R. A., N. S.

Commonwealth vs. Tircinski.

Evidence that deceased was known by accused to be a violent, passionate and dangerous man is held to be admissile upon the trial of one for killing a person who had assaulted him immediately before the striking of the fatal blow.

Terrell vs. State.

2 L. R. A.. N. S.

An indictment charging the commission of a crime. on a certain day in the year "18903' is held fatally defective notwithstanding a statutory provision that no indictment shall be deemed invalid for stating imperfectly the time when the offense was committed.

State vs. Ryan.

2 L. R. A. N. S.

One who induced another to part with money as a wager on a pretended event which was not to take place,

with the intention of appropriating it to his own use, is held to be guilty of larceny.

1 L. R. A. N. S.

O'Neil vs. Sate.

One who diagnoses disease by microscopic examinaof the blood, and professes to cure by means of light is held to be within the provisions of a statute requiring a licence to practice medicine.

3 L. R. A., N. S.

Bowers vs. United States

Where an indictment charged that defendant "did unlawfully and feloniously steal and take a certain letter directed, etc., x x x from the post office of the United States at Paris, Arkansas, which said letter then and there contained an article of value, to-wit: A United States postal money order of the value," etc., is sufficient under section 5469, R. S., without any averment of ownership of the property or any more precise description of contents, as this is not a case of ordinary larceny but under a statute designed to protect the sanctity of the mails; under the statute defining the offense, value was not material, and what was averred was sufficient to apprize the accused of what he had to encounter at the trial of the charge against him.

THE LAW, Vol. 3 page, 143.