The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-05-31
ot . . . . ' . . ' ' ' '
PARNELL vs.. THE STATE.

PARNELL VS.- THE STATE.
 Indictment tor Murder.-Appeai from the
 Circuit Court of Pike.
 ]. indictment; when snown to be prop erly presented-Where record discioses that grand jury was composed of hfteen persons and that IL returned into open court certain indictments upon each or which was entered "a true bill" signed by the foreman of the grand jury, which were ordered to be filed in open court in the presence of the grand jury, and there were indorsements on each or the fndlct- mnts "a true bill" signed by the fore man. and that 1t was filed in open court on certain date. il is sufficiently shown that such indictments were properly re- turned and presented to the court as re- guired by statute Code. Sections oO22' 5029).
 2. Organization of jury; sufficiency of judgment of conviction in criminal case It ,s no objection to judgment of con victiop in capital case that It fails to show the order of the court to the sherin to summon the special jurors drawn for the trial of the defendant; the statute Code. Section 50o4) not requiring juds- ment entry to disclose such order
 g. Homicide; organization of 1ury.-In the drawing of juries for the trial oi a defendant charged with capital or fense. it is not necessary that the Judge, when drawing from the jury box the slips of paper on which the names of the ju- TOTS were written. should call aloud the names of the persons as they are drawn from the pox Code, Section SvV5,) ana the statute is sufficiently compiled Wlth if the judge publicly draws from the oox the slips of paper on which the names or the jurors are written and hands them to the clerk without calling aloud the nam of the persons thereon, ana dlrectS lne clerk to allow the defendant and his at torney to see the names and the slps on which they are written at any uiile; and to make list of them at once anu hand it to the defendant or his attorney.
 t<n tVyAn proof of immateriaI fact.-It is not com petent for the purpose of laying preol- cate to impeach witness, to asK Iun, about matters entirely ipmaterlal anu wholly irrelevant to any issue in the case. ;Ss
 B. Same; same: charge of court as 10 lm peachment.-Where court in us genera charge as to the impeachment or w.t. ness, instructs the jury how they were to consider such witnesse testimory' anu simply explained to the jury their duty in considering contradictory statements of the witness, if they found he had made them such portion of the court genera charge is not subject to objection upon the ground that 1t was charge upon lne effect of the evidence. -
 6. Indictment for murder; when error in instruction as to murder Tn the HIse degree without injury.-Where a deien- dant is charged under an aho,rii'S. and is con yicted of murder in the second degree error committed by the. court Tn denn- ing murder in the first degree ana Tn an nouncing the law in respect thereto, IS error without injury to the defendant ana will nos. under the statute Code, Sec.ion 4333) work reversal of the Judgment or conviction. .
 2. Homicide; charge of court to jury On a, tflal under an indictment TOT mut der. where the court, as preolcate TOT its instruction as to the law or man slaughter, recalls their attention to what he had previously charged as to sel1 -ue- fense by saying "I have instructed you, if you find the defendant was not iree from fault, or that there, was no impend- ing necessity for him to strike the oioW, or that he could have withdrawn, that he cannot be excused upon the ground Of self-defense." such statement, though not as full and accurate as it might nave been, contains, no reversible error; It De, ing intended merely as reference to ana as being what he had substantially pre- viously charged.
 8. Charge as to manslaughter.-On trial under an indictment for murder, charge as to mansaughter which in structs the jury that "manslaughter in the first degree Is where a man voiun- tarily, fretly and of his own accord, puts in force against a person such an lnstru- mentality that by the manner Of it's use and character of the instrument used, would ordinarily produce death or great bodily harm without just cause or excuse therefore: and 1t is immaterial whether there was positive intention to kill at the time the blow wac struck: Is nos prejudicial to the defendant. and the giyS ing of suct a charge. though subject Co criticism as being too favorable to defen- darit, will not work a reversal of the judgment.
 Affirmed Opinion by Haralson, J.