107 So. 222 | Ala. Ct. App. | 1926
Appellant was convicted of the offense of assault with intent to murder.
It would not be of service to discuss the testimony. That for the state and for the appellant was in conflict, and was properly submitted to the jury.
Under the authority of the opinion in Thornton v. State,
It seems that the court, in the portion of the oral charge made the basis of the exception which has been by appellant's counsel, conveniently for us, designated assignment of error No. 6, sought to give, and did give, to the jury the same erroneous proposition of law, which caused the same court to suffer reversal in the cases of Green v. State,
We fail to see the vice in the portion of the oral charge of the court, made the basis of appellant's assignment of error No. 4, so strenuously contended for in the excellent brief filed by his counsel on this appeal.
The written refused charges made the basis of assignments of error 7 and 8 were each bad, in that they each ignored the question of freedom from fault in bringing on the difficulty. Lane v. State,
For the errors pointed out, let the judgment be reversed, and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.