University of Missouri School of Law

University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series Volume 1 November 1913 Article 2 1913 By Way of Explanation Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/ls  Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation By Way of Explanation, 1 Bulletin Law Series. (1913) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/ls/vol1/iss1/2 This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact bassettcw@missouri.edu. BY WAY OF EXPLANATIONIt seems proper that this first number of the Law Serieqof The University of Missouri Bulletin should contain a fewwords of explanation with regard to the character of this seriesand the object with which it is put forth. This bulletin willappear four times a year, and during the first year it will besent to all members of the Missouri bench and bar whose ad-dresses can be obtained. Thereafter it will be sent only tothose who signify a desire to have their names continued on themailing list. An opportunity to signify such desire will begiven at the end of the present academic year.The bulletins of this series will contain two departments.In each bulletin will appear an article, written by a member ofthe faculty of the School of Law, dealing with some specialphase of Missouri law. The other department will be one ofnotes on recent Missouri cases, which will be in charge of aboard of student editors under the chairmanship of a memberof the law faculty. Students will be elected in their second andthird years to this editorial board by the faculty of the Schoolof Law as a result of general excellence in their law schoolwork.The publication of the series i's undertaken for the purposeof presenting to the members of the Missouri bench and barthe results of legal study and research, having to do withproblems of Missouri law, which are carried on at the lawschool. It is the sincere hope of the law faculty and the boardof student editors that the results of this work will prove bothinteresting and instructive to their readers. The editor-in-charge will be very glad to receive suggestions, criticisms orcomments from readers of these bulletins. He will also beglad to learn the names and addresses of lawyers of the statewho are not receiving copies of the first numbers of this publi-cation.

English

By Way of Explanation

University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series Volume 1 November 1913 Article 5 1913 Notes on Recent Missouri Cases Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/ls  Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Notes on Recent Missouri Cases, 1 Bulletin Law Series. (1913) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/ls/vol1/iss1/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact bassettcw@missouri.edu. LAW SERIESOF THEUNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI BULLETIN.Published Four Times a Year by the University of Missouri School of Law.CHARLES K. BURDICKEditor-in- Charge.Board of Student Editors.WENDELL BERRY. GEORGE C. WILLSON, JR.ARNOLD JUST. MYRON WITTERS.CURTIS BURNAM ROLLINS, JR. KEEHN BERRY.NOVEMBER, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN.NOTES ON RECENT MISSOURICASES.RIGHT OF COMMENT ON TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINALCASE.-At common law the accused in a criminal case was incompetentto testifyin his own behalf.' Statutory conferment of competency in theUnited States began in 1864, and in only one state, Georgia, does the com-mon law disqualification now remain in effect.2 In Missouri it was re-moved by the statute of 1877. 8 That statute provided that "no person:shall be incompetent to testify in criminal cases by reason of being theperson on trial or examination." Such a statute does not violate the,constitutional provision against compulsory self-incrimination, since thetender of testimony is always voluntary and constitutes a waiver of ex-.emption.4 And since the statute contained no limitation on the right ofthe state to cross-examine a defendant who took the stand, it was held thathe might be treated as any other witness and fully questioned concerning1. Bishop's New Crim. Pro., § 1181.2. Wigmore on Evidence, § 488; and 1 579 where the statutes are collected andcompared.3. Laws 1877, p. 356.4. Bishop's New Crim. Pro., 1 1183.(35)

Notes on Recent Missouri Cases

University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series Volume 1 November 1913 Article 1 1913 Title Page Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/ls  Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Title Page, 1 Bulletin Law Series. (1913) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/ls/vol1/iss1/1 This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact bassettcw@missouri.edu. THEUNIVERSITY OF MISSOURIBULLETINLAW SERIESVOLUME 1 NUMBER 1CONTENTSESTATES TAIL IN MISSOURIBYMANLEY 0. HUDSONProfessor of LawNOTES ON RECENT MISSOURI CASESBYTHE STUDENT EDITORSUNIVERSITY OF MISSOURICOLUMBIA, MISSOURINovember, 1913

Title Page

The recent case of Gray v. Ward calls attention to the problems which arise in the application of the Missouri statute abolishing estates tail as created by the statute De Donis Conditionalibus. It is believed that all of these problems have not been solved in the decisions of the Missouri Court and this study is undertaken to determine what principles have been adopted, and what further principles should control the Court in the application of this statute of entails

Hudson, Manley O.

Estates Tail in Missouri

University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series Volume 1 November 1913 Article 4 1913 Masthead Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/ls  Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Masthead, 1 Bulletin Law Series. (1913) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/ls/vol1/iss1/4 This Masthead is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact bassettcw@missouri.edu. LAW SERIESOF THEUNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI BULLETIN.Published Four Times a Year by the University of Missouri School of Law.CHARLES K. BURDICKEditor-in- Charge.Board of Student Editors.WENDELL BERRY. GEORGE C. WILLSON, JR.ARNOLD JUST. MYRON WITTERS.CURTIS BURNAM ROLLINS, JR. KEEHN BERRY.NOVEMBER, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN.NOTES ON RECENT MISSOURICASES.RIGHT OF COMMENT ON TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINALCASE.-At common law the accused in a criminal case was incompetentto testifyin his own behalf.' Statutory conferment of competency in theUnited States began in 1864, and in only one state, Georgia, does the com-mon law disqualification now remain in effect.2 In Missouri it was re-moved by the statute of 1877. 8 That statute provided that "no person:shall be incompetent to testify in criminal cases by reason of being theperson on trial or examination." Such a statute does not violate the,constitutional provision against compulsory self-incrimination, since thetender of testimony is always voluntary and constitutes a waiver of ex-.emption.4 And since the statute contained no limitation on the right ofthe state to cross-examine a defendant who took the stand, it was held thathe might be treated as any other witness and fully questioned concerning1. Bishop's New Crim. Pro., § 1181.2. Wigmore on Evidence, § 488; and 1 579 where the statutes are collected andcompared.3. Laws 1877, p. 356.4. Bishop's New Crim. Pro., 1 1183.(35)

Masthead

The constitution of the State of Missouri, 1875.

Constitution of the state of Missouri: as revised, amended and adopted in convention, begun and held at the city of St. Louis, on the sixth day of January, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five. Together with the ordinances of said convention. 1865.

University of Missouri

Not a member yet