*1 BAXLEY v. STATE itself; from the still and thence on to 701.) of same tracks back to defend- return those BAXLEY v. STATE. similarity the mule tracks lot and the of ant’s when 30, June compared actual feet of with of the defendant the the 4, Oct. Denied mules; upon flight approach &wkey;>l3l Jury These and other (4)— asking of the officers. Judge’s spoken this record dire if had like nature shown defendant’s witness them any about case error. held not preclude sort as to the correct- of doubt submitting ruling asking court in оn voir dire ness of this ease parties, whether either of one of whom de- two fendant had known was summoned Shade refusing in action of the court witness, his had them all about grant presented a in a man- new trial is not the case held not ruling authorizing ner a review affirmatively of them had answered p. 722; 1915, on this court excused, none if answers and and App. Crawley parties named it would clear eases and cited. any improper acts, in the to the and if judg- affirmative, No in be entitled court would duty, his information so that he ment circuit affirmed. court 90UW to the end §§ under Code that as may had, impartial a § 6. Const. . <&wkey;1144(8) cov- law —Order spring term, 1919, At the circuit regular, ering presumed will be venire Tallapоosa appellant court appears. contrary unless unlawfully for was indicted manufacturing the offense of Where liquor spirituous since Jan- order not need to did the pearing that uary 25, indictment 1919. This was filed ap- it not oрen in court on March 1919. At will be term, 1920, (September 27, fall 1920) court said regular all therein put upon and was convict- (Acts p. 708), particularly where charged, judgment ap- and from ed he to circuit pealed to this court on Octоber court rule 30. court record 1921, filed March of testi- Homicide —Admission April 14, and on the cause was mony deceased and passed to the call of the Seventh division joint defendant held not error. on which a June date submissiоn on prosecution, a In a 14, 1921, briefs had. June the deci- joint defendant and between the affirming sion of this court was relevant as deceased rendered, clearly the lower 27, defendant, limit- the court so applicatiоn rehearing testimony, 1921, an for could not com- was ed the plain. by appellant. filed Simultaneous with the application rehearing, for filed — <&wkey;45l(l), 4. Criminal a motion ance, recall of affirm- motion exclude cause, sеt submission of aside the late; too made after held testi- answer grant complete a certiorari the rec- mony fact. held statement of collective by showing ord the action the court below prosecution murder, a In for sustaining plea to defendant’s demurrers a witness against tive fact he acquit. of autrefois and demurrers wall a collec- appears interposed set are out us the record. question eliciting that, a ruling tо the to exclude motion it came late. obtained, murrers was it could avail thus nothing, as the demurrers <&wkey;242Refreshing witness’ rec- 5. Witnesses — and, sustained, taken, well there were no error doing. about former ollection the court statement held not error. prolong unwilling We to further murder, prosecution permitting for a In by doing thing a useless this cause motion the recollection of a to refresh solicitor by asking is therefore denied. him what witness about opiniоn We in a trial and he had told adhere to the decision the solici- morning room that held not tor error. this case. think the defendant was ac- a corded fair and free from &wkey;j268(l) Witnesses Question asked de- — any error. The faсts were the deter- witness far as to how fendant’s mination sufficient to into the store held back cross-ex- support the verdict. amination. rehearing Application for must therefore murder, prosecution In overruled. crоss-examination denied, application Motion far back into store overruled. as how where the <§=>For other oases see same *2 18 ALABAMA APPELLATE REPORTS
278 in the Folkes down you so didn’t morning, testify thereto. While pened found The witness ly manslaughter judge, fere not ly store?” did Joe and therе was in which the they assault and witnesses might ders, as ceased, timony, but, tending ty; charge that, “If 8. Criminal law killing legitimate If “Let duty state’s ant’s held cretion in less abuse of discretion is shown. Refused After Joe Certiorari denied 208 Ala. refused indicted Great bеlieve Baxley appeals. the state’s should being examined, the solicitor said: A.H. you see under cannot convict with permitted to fighting, and Joe Baxley and Luther Folkes were them the have disbelieved their me refresh in the former it statement occurred others, and the witness the testifying as to conditions as he him, getting off you in the from Circuit discretionary power in the as jury Pearce, Judge. defendant’s have found the the position of the jury state’s witnesses for the murder of one establish right selecting jurors at killing, battery, Etheridge the details tell me in the room there spattered and Luther Folkes appellate that at have Baxley evidence <&wkey;>l they cases must Folkes lie &wkey;3789(4) presence little of witnessеs of Folkes and of cross-examination. the witness best your recollection; defendant, “I place thereon, testify Tatum and several of defendant’s and' could see held refused as trial of Sanders, you state’s evidenсe consists and from the disbelieved* self-defense, the base shelf of the you portion witnesses,” as follows: the time the reasonable saw the Court, was found very well, thereof, up courts will not inter- not reasonable of the аnswered, him, of Mr. Tatum —Trial could unless an defendant rest with the as to what although not —Instruction body believing exculpatory testified to Houston Coun- of the Sanders Alex misleading. and that asked, homicide disturbed, see.” ease flesh the truth the еvidence was doubt, they might S. B. San- within the rwhich the didn’t guilty guilty and that gun they may doubt over the Starling selection abuse, guilty, a truth of consists proper- there.” defend- “What joint- as wall, could fired hap- they then jury say, you tes- dis- un- the al- to of I presumably negative; rule 30. challenged manner ther of the the nected each overruling his 213; 10 Ala. relative script questions fendant time in 74 sel defendant’s ther or “Has The details without formerly acquitted of examining 37 jury have a filed. 115 Ala. State. degreе, not believe defendant’s witnesses. they South. 235. South. appellant. There SAMFORD, Harwell G. The action of Farmer, their parties named of discuss answers several one, spoken excepted to judgment entry was cannot that juror relative to Henry did not record with the behalf, special jury, notwithstanding as might citation of as to to a 687, not admissible. was was highly prejudicial Code Napier suggested jury Merrill was entitled 191 Ala. witness. convict in turn the other veniremen had bеen 16 Ala. 20 being Nichols you a result need J. impugn dire, after objection. known have a reasonable Davis, Atty. cases'.there trial. South. the former the court in 22 any juror 'No assignments ; & thereon, you organized, authority. South. action аll about venire. 85 South. Farmer, If the any improper acts con- effect action or Chilton juror called to contain the disclose in the If, taken a witness summoned to this was each shown 232; Cyc. following cited; although they may 585; it аnswers of the court duty 312. The tran- was affirmative, in furtherance difficulty statute, Gen., the qualifying complies 78 it?” The de- acquittal-was action of the question, but court at La. information,, 81 Ala. Dothan, to this other time in- excused orders, Napiеr, doubt, the be to clear entitled under 63 Ala. defendant. the usual and while question: in such second hand, Coun- ease, case, were with *T89; then fur- etc., Sec- sec- but the hi- 20 or 5 Digests and oases see ©ssITor RILEY LOUISVILLE N. R. & CO.
Ala. nor’s hold to McConnell ness details Case, there wore mony, Ala. App. the es for the amination. 14 was within the mitting case terposed came Had collective fact. xn’oceedings *3 tion 6 of the Constitution of Alabama. Wat could and should have found the defendant swer, ord fected in this case did not need to der in fact Acts tails of a former Ala. Folkes v. Folkes v. “I saw blood where it was Moreover, tween the tial This was all this defendant was 567. clearly ceased was tions 7279 and son v. [4, 5] [3] [6] [2] The how far hack into good facts of Ala. jury, of the state witness. Linnehan v. end authorities in the case at bar the Tom Fowler on In the In the cases Case, The court and therefore the motion by be in State, the solicitor to limited this 471, 22 50 South. an ground and its dependent So. 789. 85 it will he in the case late. There was no for the state State, supra. State, of one witness. defendant who testified as it does not the homicide. The wall,” point. in this case at to on the Adair, relevant Michie’s and it not defendant Eolkes and the de Besides, no killing Ala. cited question witnesses refusal Ala. Anderson v. asked defendant’s wit of the court. bar App. 89, of the witness does not the store he could see Besides, triаl before appear McDaniel’s cross-examination as In other and several Digest, p. refresh the recollec the Code of ground to circuit court rule predicated who the statement of a chargе App. 119, It Mills’ charge there were bar, to him under sec es eliciting appellant’s Segar’s Case, will be observed were called and other testi against been testified as to injuriously that all of the from this rec might error in Case, cases jury might 8 is of cross-ex entitled to. to Eolkes. to exclude interposed, State, Case, witness regular. was in the de held to have a of Tatum, Eolkes. rors Price’s the or maining charges refused to the defendant impar to the chárge of the court. brief Con of per 509. for. 204 Affirmed. an be af to have disbelieved the into pensation viding and should be taxed as an item of clerk’s fees or and retained collected p. 374, in neither Court 37 preme X>ellate amendment, forcefully presented manslaughter, the cases cases leading, under the facts in this case. posed counsel. ary power grave question lieved the guilty. !. Costs hearing court, paid county as cost. ing delinquent RILEY al. v. LOUISVILLE Application overruled. [8] This office, Under By authority paid tending thereafter coynty fully 1919, p. 884, must rest with the trial in a trial find no error principles Oourt changed courts will not To within 30 salary nor 4&wkey;l74(2) et But, South, of officers of Jefferson сited and error necessary. is affirmed. provisions Application case was the the clerk for covered in the selection of treasury, will be observed that say 20 South. selected 20 South. violative of Const. recognized long fees authorized we do not consider for clerk of circuit compensation Legislature, by witnesses, by involved the method and the Court of vii judgment by establish Denied Oct. necessity, great days —(cid:127) 1), is not Rehearing. as no abuse trеasurer, least, iu Commission for collect- and hence a commission of rule 38 of of defendant’s witness not unmindful of the exculpatory in examination of officers should be second constitutional 235), as authorized colleсtion of the able and clear brief of interfere embodied but, been convicted of self-defense, Hubbard v. the discretion re (Lester during 4, 1921.) by increase in the clerk of circuit Loc. court reversed. judge, charge princiрle, basis of com- & N. R. CO. —Brief law collected county, pro- Florida (92 South. they cost. appellant’s discretion Acts court, charge Appeals with this power his term v. Supreme and- the both and so the re- is mis on re- § State, State, disbe taxed Gen. paid they Su ap ju tg^oEor other eases see KEY-NUMBER iu all and Indexes 1 198Ala. xlii.