ON THE NEVADA REPORTS Volumes 1 to 30 Inclusive SHOWING THE PRESENT VALUE AS A PRECEDENT AND AN AS DETERMINED THROUGH CITATION AFFIRMING, APPLYING, CRITICISING, DENYING, DOUBT- AFFECTED BY SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, THE COURTS OF BY JAMES M. KERR. San Francisco: BANCROFT-WHITNEY COMPANY Law Publishers and Law Booksellers Davis v. Thompson, 1 Nev. 21, same case on petition for rehearing. 1 Nev. 22-27. GELLER v. HUFFAKER. No citation. 1 Nev. 27-32. STEEL v. STEEL. Arbitration Submission to. Cited in Krliss v. Hotaling, 96 Cal. 622, 31 Pac. 741, as to distinction between submission to arbitration under statute and at common law statute must be strictly pursued. Statute to be strictly pursued. Cited in Readdy v. Tampa Elec. Co. 51 Fla. 296, 41 So. 537, to point statutes governing arbitration in derogation of common law and must be strictly pursued; Burkland v. Johnson, 50 Neb. 865, 70 N. W. 391, to point that submission to arbitration not conforming to statutory provisions cannot be enforced by judgment thereon. 1 Nev. 33-36. PEOPLE v. BONDS. Instruction in criminal case Refusing without giving reason. Cited in State v. McNamara, 3 Nev. 79, as being error, in criminal ase, to refuse an instruction which is proper to be given, because already given, without stating the reason to jury; Gerhauser v. North British, etc., Ins. Co. 7 Nev. 199, as to holding error for court to refuse instruction in criminal cause without giving reason, disclosed dictum and denied; State v. Ferguson, 9 Nev. 118, to point that where instruction in a criminal cause is refused because already given, that fact should be stated and noted; State v. O'Connor, 11 Nev. 425, to the point that refusal in presence of jury, of an instruction in criminal cause proper to be given, is error, which is not cured by giving same instruction in other language. 1 |