{"character_count": 775, "word_count": 142, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9520000219345093], "ccnet_perplexity": [762.7999877929688], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
No. %. Camp ct al V. Gulleu and Wife, Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court

 Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Johnson C.J.

 If the record shows that the bill of parlic- ulars was filed, it is not necessary that it should be so marked. Objections 10 evidence must be made us il IS offered. Where the ,es- timony is closed, motion to reject will be overruled, if any part is admissible. Where an account is flied as set-of, and some of the items seem barred by the statute of llmi- sations, the court should not, on motion, ex- elude the account, as the party may show that 1t is not within he statute. In such case the motion to exclude should not be made until the testimony is closed, an,l then apply to such items only as are barred

 Jordan, for appellants.

 Bertrand, contra.