like instruction in Arkansas

1959Neg. §§ 331-334.” .(Emphasis ours) In Tignor v. State, 76 Ark. 489 , 89 S. W. 96 , it is said: “ . . . though the burden the proving acts of mitigation máy devolve on the accused, it is sufficient for him to show facts which raise in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.” In Parsley v. State, 148 Ark. 518 , 230 S. W. 587 , the Court held that although only a general objection was made to a like instruction, no specific objection was required.

1959Neg. §§ 331-334.” .(Emphasis ours) In Tignor v. State, 76 Ark. 489 , 89 S. W. 96 , it is said: “ . . . though the burden the proving acts of mitigation máy devolve on the accused, it is sufficient for him to show facts which raise in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.” In Parsley v. State, 148 Ark. 518 , 230 S. W. 587 , the Court held that although only a general objection was made to a like instruction, no specific objection was required.

1959In Lovejoy v. State, 62 Ark. 478 , 36 S. W. 575 , it was held that preponderance of the evidence and reasonable doubt are not synonymous.

1959In Lovejoy v. State, 62 Ark. 478 , 36 S. W. 575 , it was held that preponderance of the evidence and reasonable doubt are not synonymous.

1959Neg. §§ 331-334.” .(Emphasis ours) In Tignor v. State, 76 Ark. 489 , 89 S. W. 96 , it is said: “ . . . though the burden the proving acts of mitigation máy devolve on the accused, it is sufficient for him to show facts which raise in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.” In Parsley v. State, 148 Ark. 518 , 230 S. W. 587 , the Court held that although only a general objection was made to a like instruction, no specific objection was required.

1959Neg. §§ 331-334.” .(Emphasis ours) In Tignor v. State, 76 Ark. 489 , 89 S. W. 96 , it is said: “ . . . though the burden the proving acts of mitigation máy devolve on the accused, it is sufficient for him to show facts which raise in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.” In Parsley v. State, 148 Ark. 518 , 230 S. W. 587 , the Court held that although only a general objection was made to a like instruction, no specific objection was required.

1948Appellee had previously brought suit in the circuit court on a like claim, but for a different period, and obtained judgment against appellant which was affirmed by this court on July 8, 1946, in the .case of DeSoto Life Insurance Company v. Jeffett, 210 Ark. 371 , 196 S. W. 2d 243 .

1948Appellee had previously brought suit in the circuit court on a like claim, but for a different period, and obtained judgment against appellant which was affirmed by this court on July 8, 1946, in the .case of DeSoto Life Insurance Company v. Jeffett, 210 Ark. 371 , 196 S. W. 2d 243 .

1929Church, 114 Cal. 295 , 46 Pac. 2 , the court said: “The conveyance olf land bounded by a highway is presumed to carry title to the median line of the way, but there is no reason in a like presumption to include land which has formed, but forms no longer, part of a highway; * * * there is therefore no more reason to say that any part thereof passed under the designation of those lots in the deed, than for extending the scope of that description to adjacent land — if such there had been — which never was impressed with the highway use; more especially since neither party claims that plaintiff ow

1929Church, 114 Cal. 295 , 46 Pac. 2 , the court said: “The conveyance olf land bounded by a highway is presumed to carry title to the median line of the way, but there is no reason in a like presumption to include land which has formed, but forms no longer, part of a highway; * * * there is therefore no more reason to say that any part thereof passed under the designation of those lots in the deed, than for extending the scope of that description to adjacent land — if such there had been — which never was impressed with the highway use; more especially since neither party claims that plaintiff ow

1929Church, 114 Cal. 295 , 46 Pac. 2 , the court said: “The conveyance olf land bounded by a highway is presumed to carry title to the median line of the way, but there is no reason in a like presumption to include land which has formed, but forms no longer, part of a highway; * * * there is therefore no more reason to say that any part thereof passed under the designation of those lots in the deed, than for extending the scope of that description to adjacent land — if such there had been — which never was impressed with the highway use; more especially since neither party claims that plaintiff ow

1929Church, 114 Cal. 295 , 46 Pac. 2 , the court said: “The conveyance olf land bounded by a highway is presumed to carry title to the median line of the way, but there is no reason in a like presumption to include land which has formed, but forms no longer, part of a highway; * * * there is therefore no more reason to say that any part thereof passed under the designation of those lots in the deed, than for extending the scope of that description to adjacent land — if such there had been — which never was impressed with the highway use; more especially since neither party claims that plaintiff ow

1908Co. v. Hickey, 81 Ark. 579 .

1903Corp. Cases, 452; Noonan v. People (Ill.), 55 N. E. 679 ; McPike v. Alton, 58 N. E. 301 .

1903Corp. Cases, 452; Noonan v. People (Ill.), 55 N. E. 679 ; McPike v. Alton, 58 N. E. 301 .