The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-06-30
FORD V. THE STATE.
,inion by HaraIosn. J.

Indictment for murder-Appeal from
 the Circuit Court of Coffee.
 1. Organization of jury: sNfflciency of order directing sheriff to serve de- fendant with copy of indictment and copy of list of jurors-Where an order of arraignment. after fixing the date for the trial and reciting that the court had drawn, as required by law, the names of thirty persons who, together with the regular jurors for the week in which the day of she trial was set, were to constitute the special venire of the court. then orders the sheriff "to serve the defendant with copy of the indictment in this case and copy of the list of the names of the persons con- stituting the jurors for the trial If this case. at least one entire day before the day set for the trial" such order to serve the defendant with copy of the indictment and copy of the names of the jurors appearing in the record, is a sufficient compliance with the statute Code. Sec. 5273).
 2. Homicide; variance between in- dictment and proof; idem sonanS- Where in an indictment for murder. the name of the deceased is avarrsd to be "Ad Smith alias Adge Smith, and the evidence shows that the decelse Is name was Adger Smith. but that he was generally known and called Adge Smith, there is not fatal variance he- tween the averments of the indictment and the proof as to the names; such names being idem sonans.
 8. Same; charge of court to jury Upon trial under an indictment for murder. a charge Is erroneous and properly refused, which instructs the jury that before they can find the de- fendant grilty as charged in the iL- dictment they must believe beyond reasonable doubt and to a moral cer- tainty and to the exclusion of every other reasonble hypothesis that the Ge- fendant at the time of the killing had the specific intent to take the life tf the deceased, and that such specific intent to take the life of the deceased hy the defendant was deliberately formed and that ths defedant acted upon this deliberately fromed intent when he did take the life of the de- ceased"
 {. Same same-On a trial under an indictment for murder, charges invok- ing the doctrine of self-defcnse, but which pretermit all reference from freedom from fault in provoking or bringing on the difficulty ,are mislead- ing and properly refused.
 5. Same same-Qn trial under an indictment for murder. a charge is properly refused which instructs the jury that eff the jury believe that the accused was not free from fault in bringing on the dif1culty. but abandon ed the same in good faith and that the deceased began open hostile demon strations toward the defendant and that defendant had no reasonable means of escape left open to him with out greatly endangering life or suffer ing grevious bodily harm. then they must acqrSt the defendant.
 6. Same: charge as to self-defense-' On trial under an indictment for murder. a charge which invokes the doctrine of self defense. but which does not include within it's instruction the element of retreat necessary to sustain such a plea. is erroneous and properly refused.
 T. Homicide: admissibilty of evidence relating to fiight-On a trial under an indictment for murder. where the eVi- dence for the State shows that after indtcting mortal wound upon the de- ceased the defendant aed Grnm the