She was held to be a competent witness for this purpose. Under the third classification are: Fish v. Bloodworth, 36 Okla. 586, 129 P. 32; Sands v. David Bradley Co., 36 Okla. 649, 129 P. 732; Thomas v. Halsell, 63 Okla. 203;, 164 P. 458; Johnson v. Walters, 59 Okla. 233, 158 P. 914; Wade v. Sumner, 30 Okla. 784, 120 P. 1011; St. Louis S. F. Ry. Co. v. Bloom, 39 Okla. 78, 134 P. 432; Fulkerson v. Kilgore. 10 Okla. 655, 64 P. 5; Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. McIntire, 37 Okla. 684, 133 P. 213; Smith et al. v. Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co., 42 Okla. 577, 142 P. 398; Guthrie v. Mitchell, 38 Okla. 55, 132 P. 138. In the first of these cases the principle is thus illustrated:
And when the agency is established then the husband or wife may testify. Armstrong, Byrd Co. v. Crump, 25 Okla. 452, 106 P. 855; Wade v. Sumner, 30 Okla. 784, 120 P. 1011. But what was the "transaction" concerning which the husband proposed to testify in this case? It was not the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant.
However, Brown has not shown that reaching a verdict in "less than twenty minutes" is jury irregularity or misconduct. In Wade v. Sumner, 30 Okla. 784, 120 P.2d 1011 (1911), the jury had reached a verdict in less than five minutes. The Supreme Court said: