gave the following instruction in Oklahoma

1949Cr. 259 , 194 P. 2d 176, 177 , this court stated: “In every criminal prosecution it devolves upon the state to prove, first, the corpus delicti; second, that the crime charged was committed by the accused.

1949At the conclusion of the case, the court gave the following instruction which is assigned as error: “The State has been permitted to introduce evidence tending to prove other acts of sexual intercourse had between the defendant and Joe Deanne Bond, and you are to consider such other acts, if you find the same to be true, for the purpose of enabling you to arrive at your verdict as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant for the specific act charged in the information at the time named therein, so far as the same may throw light upon the charge as set out in the information.” The only eviden

1937It is contended that the court erred in the giving of instruction No. 12, which is as follows: “You are further instructed, particularly in connection with instruction No. 7, that if you believe from a fair preponderance of the evidence that the defendant Jennie Las-ley left her automobile under the direction of her son Prank Coker, or where Frank Coker could use her said car, then the jury may infer that the said Frank Coker, had implied permission and authority to use the same.” Exactly the same issue was involved in the case of Crowell v. Duncan, 134 S. E. 576 , a Virginia case, in which th

1936In Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Oliphant, 172 Okla. 635 , 45 P. (2d) 1077 , where the employee, an experienced electrician, in the performance of his duties, was sent to investigate, and repair, if necessary, defects in the lighting system of a patron, and while attempting to make said repairs came in contact with high voltage electricity and was killed and an action was brought for his wrongful death, the court gave the following instruction: “You are further instructed that to entitle the plaintiff to recover, it is not only necessary that she have established that the defendant was neglig

1936In Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Oliphant, 172 Okla. 635 , 45 P. (2d) 1077 , where the employee, an experienced electrician, in the performance of his duties, was sent to investigate, and repair, if necessary, defects in the lighting system of a patron, and while attempting to make said repairs came in contact with high voltage electricity and was killed and an action was brought for his wrongful death, the court gave the following instruction: “You are further instructed that to entitle the plaintiff to recover, it is not only necessary that she have established that the defendant was neglig

1926Security Insurance Co., New Haven, v. Cameron, 85 Okla. 171. 205 Pac. 151 .

1926Security Insurance Co., New Haven, v. Cameron, 85 Okla. 171. 205 Pac. 151 .

1923In submission of the second question the court gave the following instruction in defining what constituted the completion of the well: “One of the facts for your determination in this case is, when, if. ever, said well was drilled to the point of completion; and you are advised and instructed that by the expression, ‘completion of the same’ as that term is used in contemplation of the contract involved in this action, it meant the drilling of a well to what is known as the ’Bartlesville sand,’ and putting the same in such condition that a fair and reasonable test of its productive capacity cou

1923In submission of the second question the court gave the following instruction in defining what constituted the completion of the well: “One of the facts for your determination in this case is, when, if. ever, said well was drilled to the point of completion; and you are advised and instructed that by the expression, ‘completion of the same’ as that term is used in contemplation of the contract involved in this action, it meant the drilling of a well to what is known as the ’Bartlesville sand,’ and putting the same in such condition that a fair and reasonable test of its productive capacity cou

1921Cr. 29 , 115 Pac. 1030 . *401 Touching this testimony, the court gave the following instruction: ‘(21) Some evidence has been introduced in this case tending to show that the deceased a short time prior to his death made certain statements, after he had given up all hope of recovery and believed he would die, and, should you find that such statements were made, you should determine as to whether or not the deceased was correctly understood by the witnesses, and whether or not what the deceased1 said was correctly detailed by the witnesses, and, should you find and believe that they were so cor

1919Cr. 151 , 104 Pac. 923 ; Shires v. State, 2 Okla.

1919Cr. 151 , 104 Pac. 923 ; Shires v. State, 2 Okla.

1919In connection with this evidence, the court gave the following instruction: “The court further instructs the jury that there has been permitted to be introduced in evidence in this case testimony of certain witnesses with reference to the association, conduct, and relation existing between the defendant and a certain woman prior to the time of the *645 alleged homicide, and in this connection you are instructed that this evidence was admitted for one purpose and one only and should be considered, by you only for such purpose; that is, in determining a probable motive, if any, for the commissio

1911Such an instruction as the foregoing has been held erroneous in a great many clasps by this court, among them the following: Bridges v. U. S., 3 Okla.