points error in West Virginia

1947We do not deem it necessary to discuss further the various other points of error assigned, as all of them appear to have been assigned and passed upon in the cases of State v. Taylor, supra, and State v. Burke, supra. This- brings us to a consideration of the evidence in the case.

1947We do not deem it necessary to discuss further the various other points of error assigned, as all of them appear to have been assigned and passed upon in the cases of State v. Taylor, supra, and State v. Burke, supra. This- brings us to a consideration of the evidence in the case.

1940The indictment is in form identical with the one involved in State v. Matthews, 117 W.

1932The plaintiff in error cites the case of Butts v. United States, 273 Fed. 35 , wherein it was held that it is not the duty of a government official to incite to and create crime for the purpose of prosecuting and punishing it.

1930Hayhurst v. H ayhurst, 71 W.

1926State v. Noble, 96 W.

1926Attention of counsel may properly be called, however, to the important rule announced in point two of the syllabus of York, Admr. v. Meek, 96 W.

1925State v. Henaghan, 73 W.

1917We have also carefully examined all the other points of error assigned in the petition relating to the defendant’s motion to strike out the evidence as to each count of the declaration, the giving of plaintiff’s instructions to the jury, defendant’s interrogatory propounded and those not submitted to the jury, motion for a new trial overruled, etc., and so far as we can see every point is fully met and decided adversely to the contentions of defendant’s counsel by the opinion of the court delivered on the former hearing, and by the cases of McClary v. Knight, 73 W.

1914One of the points of error made by counsel, not exactly in harmony with their other theories, and which we think calls for reversal of the decree of May 26, 1911, is that the court gave personal decrees in favor of plaintiff against Tumlin, before having first reduced the partnership assets to money and applied the same pro tanto to thp discharge of the partnership liabilities, contrary to the rules applicable to partnership settlements, as lastly laid down in the recent cases of Bartlett & Stancliff v. Boyles, 66 W.

1914Va. 327, 331 ; Steele v. Moore, 71 W.

1892Taking them in their order, they are Staats v. Board, 10 Gratt. 400 ; Wild v. Serpell, Id. 405; Hale v. Branscum, Id. 418; (Flanagan v. Grimmit, Id. 421, important as relatiug to a ministerial tax sale made by the sheriff under act of 1814, as contrasted with those judicial sales;) and Smith v. Chapman, Id. 445, in which last case Judge Lee, familiar with the subject, gives a full exposition of these laws and the policy which led to them, and lays down the doctrine, ever since adhered to with only a seeming exception or qualification in the case of Twiggs v. Chevallie, 4 W.

1889There has been much difference of opinion- as to the scope of the hearing of a writ of cer tiorari, as will be seen in the opinion in Dryden v. Swinburn, 15 W.