support rule in Kansas

1986K.S.A. 1984 Supp. 22-3201(4) provides: “(4) The court may permit a complaint or information to be amended at any time before verdict or finding if no additional or different crime is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced.” *561 In State v. Osburn, 216 Kan. 638, 641 , 533 P.2d 1229 (1975), this court stated: “The decisions of this court support the rule that prior to the commencement of the trial the prosecutor should be given a wide discretion in amending the original information.

1986K.S.A. 1984 Supp. 22-3201(4) provides: “(4) The court may permit a complaint or information to be amended at any time before verdict or finding if no additional or different crime is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced.” *561 In State v. Osburn, 216 Kan. 638, 641 , 533 P.2d 1229 (1975), this court stated: “The decisions of this court support the rule that prior to the commencement of the trial the prosecutor should be given a wide discretion in amending the original information.

1922That takes this action out of the rule declared in Lonnon v. Batchman, 103 Kan. 266 , 173 Pac. 416 , and puts it under the rule declared in Grocer Co. v. Lackman, 75 Kan. 34 , 88 Pac. 527 , and the other decisions of this court that support that rule.” (p. 703.) If, in the case before us, we had simply the signatures of the three persons and enclosed in á bracket at the right the words: “Members Board Rural High-school District No. 4, of Shawnee County, Kansas,” and this only, we would have practically what was before the court in Lonnon v. Batchman.

1922That takes this action out of the rule declared in Lonnon v. Batchman, 103 Kan. 266 , 173 Pac. 416 , and puts it under the rule declared in Grocer Co. v. Lackman, 75 Kan. 34 , 88 Pac. 527 , and the other decisions of this court that support that rule.” (p. 703.) If, in the case before us, we had simply the signatures of the three persons and enclosed in á bracket at the right the words: “Members Board Rural High-school District No. 4, of Shawnee County, Kansas,” and this only, we would have practically what was before the court in Lonnon v. Batchman.

1922That takes this action out of the rule declared in Lonnon v. Batchman, 103 Kan. 266 , 173 Pac. 416 , and puts it under the rule declared in Grocer Co. v. Lackman, 75 Kan. 34 , 88 Pac. 527 , and the other decisions of this court that support that rule.” (p. 703.) If, in the case before us, we had simply the signatures of the three persons and enclosed in á bracket at the right the words: “Members Board Rural High-school District No. 4, of Shawnee County, Kansas,” and this only, we would have practically what was before the court in Lonnon v. Batchman.

1920That takes this action out of the rule declared in Lonnon v. Batchman, 103 Kan. 266 , 173 Pac. 415 , and puts it under the rule declared in Grocer Co. v. Lackman, 75 Kan. 34 , 88 Pac. 527 , and the other decisions of this court that support that rule.

2016Under Harttmann, if the wife left without justification, no longer providing her services to the household and no longer affording herself of the home being provided to her, she was no longer entitled to the husband’s support under the doctrine of necessaries. 12 Kan. at 181 .

1976Ed. 2d 470 , 90 S. Ct. 501 .) *114 The appellant makes no showing in this court to support a claim that he was surprised or unduly hampered in conducting his defense at the second trial.

1904(Insurance Co. v. Bank of Pleasanton, 50 Kan. 449 , 31 Pac. 1069 ; Insurance Co. v. York, 48 id. 488, 29 Pac. 586 ; Insurance Co. v. Wood, 47 id. 521, 28 Pac. 167 ; Insurance Co. v. Gray, 43 id. 497, 23 Pac. 637 ; Insurance Co. v. Barnes, 41 id. 161, 21 Pac. 165 .) Plaintiff could ask a reformation of this clause to correct the mistake and make the clause conform to the intention of the party making it, and upon the trial support his claim of mistake by parol evidence. (11 Encyc.

1904Pl. & Pr. 378; Schaefer v. Mills, ante, p. 25, 76 Pac. 436 .) Counsel for the insurance company submitted in writing certain propositions of law, and asked that the court declare the law in the case in accordance therewith.

1891In defining the clause “necessary charges,” Chief Justice Parker took occasion to say, in the case of Stetson v. Kempton, 13 Mass. 272 : “ The proper construction of the terms must be, that in addition to the money to be raised for the poor, schools, etc., towns might raise such sums as should be necessary to meet the ordinary expenses of the year; such as the payment of such municipal officers as they should be obliged to employ, the support and defense of such actions as they might be parties to, and the expenses they would incur in performing such duties as the laws imposed, as the erection