twelfth instruction in Missouri

1964The court said: “Pit-man made no specific mention in his will of the power created by the twelfth article, but his will contained a residuary clause devising and bequeathing his own property and that over which he had a power of appointment ir. equal shares to his three children, and if the exercise was valid the minor appointees would be freed from the limitations placed on them in &e case of a default of appointment. * * * The only property subject to a power to which the residuary clause could relate was the trust fund created by the twelfth clause of his mother’s will. * * * We think that

1964The court said: “Pit-man made no specific mention in his will of the power created by the twelfth article, but his will contained a residuary clause devising and bequeathing his own property and that over which he had a power of appointment ir. equal shares to his three children, and if the exercise was valid the minor appointees would be freed from the limitations placed on them in &e case of a default of appointment. * * * The only property subject to a power to which the residuary clause could relate was the trust fund created by the twelfth clause of his mother’s will. * * * We think that

1906Co., 33 Mo. App. 394 ; McAllister v. Barnes, 35 Mo. App. 668 ; Crawshaw v. Sumner, 56 Mo. 517. ] By reference to that instruction, however, it will be noted that after telling the jury a number of things, it concludes: “Or, in other words, until the plaintiff Avas upon the track or in actual danger of a collision Avith the car by going forward, the motorman was not obliged to bring the car to a stop.’’ This is not the law.

1906Co., 33 Mo. App. 394 ; McAllister v. Barnes, 35 Mo. App. 668 ; Crawshaw v. Sumner, 56 Mo. 517. ] By reference to that instruction, however, it will be noted that after telling the jury a number of things, it concludes: “Or, in other words, until the plaintiff Avas upon the track or in actual danger of a collision Avith the car by going forward, the motorman was not obliged to bring the car to a stop.’’ This is not the law.

1906Co., 33 Mo. App. 394 ; McAllister v. Barnes, 35 Mo. App. 668 ; Crawshaw v. Sumner, 56 Mo. 517. ] By reference to that instruction, however, it will be noted that after telling the jury a number of things, it concludes: “Or, in other words, until the plaintiff Avas upon the track or in actual danger of a collision Avith the car by going forward, the motorman was not obliged to bring the car to a stop.’’ This is not the law.

1906It was for the court in the first place to say whether there was any evidence of a conspiracy, and for the jury to determine under proper instructions whether there was one and its purpose (State v. Walker, 98 Mo. 95 ), and upon a retrial of the case that question should be submitted to the jury. [State v. Kennedy, 177 Mo. 98 , and authorities cited.] Defendant complains of the twelfth instruction, upon self-defense and murder in the first degree.

1906It was for the court in the first place to say whether there was any evidence of a conspiracy, and for the jury to determine under proper instructions whether there was one and its purpose (State v. Walker, 98 Mo. 95 ), and upon a retrial of the case that question should be submitted to the jury. [State v. Kennedy, 177 Mo. 98 , and authorities cited.] Defendant complains of the twelfth instruction, upon self-defense and murder in the first degree.

1904We are of the opinion that the plaintiff’s instructions in respect to the care required of him in driving over the defendant’s street at the place where the injury happened in view of the evidence was subject to criticism, but when read and considered in connection with that of defendant we think in their entirety they correctly express the law of the case. [Fusili v. Railroad, 45 Mo. App. 537 ; Smart v. Kansas City, 91 Mo. App. 586 .] The latter qualify and explain the former and in their entirety fully enlightened the jury in respect to the measure of care that was required of plaintiff at t

1903This is well-settled law in this State. [State v. Houx, 109 Mo. 661 ; State v. Lacey, 111 Mo. 513 ; State v. Hamey, 168 Mo. 199 , and cases cited.] Neither is it in conflict with the thirteenth instruction which defined the word ‘ ‘ ravish. ’ ’ That word was properly defined and had only been used in the twelfth instruction in stating the law as to an assault with intent to commit a rape.

1886True, he had a right to dun Doty for his money, but he had no right to do so for the purpose of bringing on an affray in order to afford him a pretext to stab his enemy.” In Adams v. People, supra, Breese, J., said: “ The twelfth instruction for the people was right.

1885The language of the twelfth instruction for the state, “a real substantial doubt,” etc., is condemned in State v. Owens, 79 Mo. 619 .

1884The twelfth instruction is sanctioned by this court in State v. Talbott, 73 Mo. 347 ; State v. Curtis, 70 Mo. 594 .

1884The twelfth instruction is sanctioned by this court in State v. Talbott, 73 Mo. 347 ; State v. Curtis, 70 Mo. 594 .