rank discrimination is made, in favor of the Corporations, that political thrones would tremble, and dire calamities ensue. The name, and lists having been obtained, and valuation having been measured, this data is collected into available form as the "Assessment Roll," which must be made and authenticated on or before a specific time. 1st Monday in May or it is void. When so made and authenticated, it is as fixed as the judgment of a court-except in Oklahoma.

These comprise the fundamental assessment provisions of all advalorem systems and protect the taxable in the right to make his own listing of his own property, and for his own valuation thereof; and to be served a copy of the schedule if the assessor fixes a value other than that fixed by the laxable. These provisions are for the benefit of the tax payer, and are mandatory, and their observance by the assessor is a pre-requisite to a jurisdiction in him to further act. Without them all assessments and proceedings are void, and no legal tax can be predicated. On this there is an unbroken chain of authority, outside of Oklahoma. However, our court has said but not held, these two duties of the assessor are "directory," and thus left him with no real duty at all, but merely a lot of unofficial directions, for the disorderly conduct of his privateering. Its hard, however, to imagine an officer with only 3 duties and all of them directory, can you do it?

I see no reason why, if such are all directory. that the roll be not omitted, and. let the Sheriff run loose and collect what he wants-as they used to do in West Virginia.

Tax proceedings; being for the taking of property, ex parte, that is, without the party having any say, they are styled in invitum and great strictness as to proceedings, and as to amount is re

Appeal from the District Court of Roger Mills County; C. A. Brown, Judge.

REVERSED.

1. The constitution gives the accused the right to "be informed of the nature and cause of the action against him and have a copy thereof." (Sec. 20 Bill of Rights.) Under this provision he has the right to insist upon having a copy of the accusation delivered to him before his trial; and if he so insists, the trial cannot lawfully proceed until the requirement has been complied with.

2. Under the provisions of Sec. 5848 Rev. Laws, when a panel is formed, or in part formed from jurors whose names are not drawn from the jury box, a challenge may be taken to the panel on account of any bias of the officer who summoned them, which would be good ground of challenge to a juror.

3. It is essential to the fair and impartial administration of justice, that an open or special venire should be summoned by an officer who is not disqualified by reason of interest, bias or prejudice.

4. Declarations of a co-defendant made after the commission of the crime and in reference to it, HELD, hearsay and improperly admitted.

5. Evidence of an offense other than the one charged is admissible only when it tends to prove the offense charged. To be competent and admis

sible it must have some logical connection with the oeffnse charged.

6. "Judges are as much judges for the defendant as for the State, and are supposed to sit fairly and impartially between the rights of the State, on the one hand, and the defendant, on the other. To become a partisan either for the State or defendant is to desert the high position to which the judge is elevated, and assume the role of the advocate."

(Syllabus by the Court.)

CHAS. WEST, Atty Gen. For the State.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY DOYLE, J:

This appeal is prosecuted from a conviction had in the District Court of Roger Mills County, in which plaintiff in error, Dave Koontz, was found guilty of robbery.

October 16th, 1911, the court rendered judgment and he was sentenced to be imprisoned in the penitentiary for a period of Fifty years.

The information on which plaintiff in error was tried and convicted, jointly charged Dave Koontz, Charley Koontz and Hal Buie, alias, A. F. Graham, with the crime of robbery, committed in Roger Mills County on the 19th day of November, 1910, by taking from the possession and immediate presence of H. L. Goode, eight hundred dollars.

Each defendant was granted a separate trial. Charley Koontz was tried first and convicted, and Hal Buie, alias R. F. Graham was next tried and convicted. Plaintiff in error being the last of the trio to be tried.

The evidence shows that on the date alleged, a few minutes after the Cotton Exchange Bank, in the town of Crawford had opened for business that day, Charley Koontz and Hal Buie stepped in and Hal Buic holding a pistol on the cashier,

H. L. Goode, told him and his wife, and Don Roberts who were present to put up their hands, and Charley Koontz stepped into the vault and took between eight and nine hundred dollars. They then compelled H. L. Goode and Dan Roberts. to leave the bank and go with them to where their horses were, and mounting their horses they rode on to the south.

Plaintiff in error lived with his family on a farm between Crawford and Cheyenne, at the county seat.

The theory of the state is that Plaintiff in error, tho not present when the robbery was actually committed, aided and abetted in its commission.

The record is voluminous, consisting of more than eight hundred pages. Upon a careful examination of the same we have concluded that the judgment must be reversed.

Of the various assignments set forth in the petition in error, we shall notice those only which in the new trial granted will be liable to again arise.

On September 5th, 1911, plaintiff in error was arraigned. The next day he entered a plea of not guilty and was remanded to the custody of the sheriff. The case was set for trial September 11th, coming on for trial, on that day, the county attorney obtained leave of court to indorse names of additional witnesses upon the information, and to amend said information by interlination and by striking out certain words, and dismissing as to defendants Charley Koontz and R. F. Graham.

Thereupon the state announced ready and the defendant refused to answer at this time. A de-murrer to the amended information was interposed and overruled. The defendant was not arraigned

upon the amended information and no plea was entered thereon. The case proceeded to trial over the objection of plaintiff in error on the ground that he being confined in the county jail, was not served with a copy of the amended information, The objection was overruled and exception allowed. Plaintiff in Plaintiff in error error then objected to the impaneling of the jury to try said cause. The jury was impaneled and sworn.

When the state opened its case, plaintiff in error objected to the introduction of evidence for the reasons among others, that the defendant has not been furnished a copy of the amended information.

That the defendant was not present in court when the case was called for trial, at which time the court permitted the county attorney to serve a list of the state's witnesses on counsel for plaintiff in error; that the same were not indorsed on the original information, and "the defendant renews his objection to the impaneling of the jury and to the array thereof for the reasons stated in his affidavit and challenge to the panel, because of the bias and prejudice of R. L. Trammell, sheriff, against this defendant."

The objection was overruled, exception reserved.

We think that the action of the court in calling the case for trial before a copy of the amended information was furnished to plaintiff in error constitutes reversible error.

The language of Sec. 20 of the Bill of Rights is: "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and have a copy thereof."

And the statute requires that the names of the witnesses shall be indorsed thereon. The constitutional provision preserves an important right to