The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-08-24

lllknt was produced by anything other ,nan a sense of guilt, the flight would
 Ds no evidence Of guilt; and If. upon
 -..I the evidence, 1t is reasonably
 AUubtful whether the flight was from ! -onsclous guilt, the jury should not re- 1 .drd it as evidence of guilt"
 | 10. Same; charges relating to argu-
 ment of counsel properly refused-1t is
 not error for the court to refuse to give charges having no other purpose
 than to respond to or offset arguments
 made before the jury by the prosecut- ing attorney.
 | H. Same; as to right of defendant to | carry shot gun-On a trial under an in- dictment for murder. where the evil dence shows that the deceased was shot I by the defendant with shot gun while | the defendant was in the public road, but there is no question made as to the l defendants right to carry a shot gun.
 a charge which has reference only to | the mere right of the defendant to | carry a gun along the road, is abstract and properly refused.
 1 12. Same; charge as to malice-On
 trial under an indictment for mur-
 der, charges which assume that malice can not enter into a homicide which re-
 suited from sudden passion. are erron-
 eous and properly refused. | from use of deadly wespon-A charge
 is erroneous and properly refused which instructs the jury that the Flaw does not presume the existence of malice from the use of a deadly weapon, when all the facts and circumstances of the
 killing are in evidence; but in cases l where they are in evidence, the law makes no presumption as to the exist
 ence of malice, but 1t Is then a ques- | l,,r t~ uy | or not the killing was the result oi
 malice, and the jury can not hnd such to be a fact until the State has proven 1t beyond all reasonable doubt"
 | IA. Same; right to kill in defense oi son-Before a father can kill In defense of his son, there must exist the same | circumstances and conditions as would | excuse the son from committing the | homicide, and if the son was at fauit l in commencing the difficulty, sush facs | precludes any right of the father to kill in order to protect or defend the | son: and. therefore, on 0 trial under an 1 indictment for murder, where one of the defenses set up Is that the Killing
 was to protect the defendants son. charges which predicate the defend-
 ants acquittal upon the jury finding | that the fatal blow was struck py the l defendant in defense or protection oi his son, without hypothecating the
 sons freedom from fault in bringing on the difficulty, are erroneous and prop erly refused.
 15 SanlR; self-defense--On trial un-
 der an indictment for murder. charges which predicate the defendants acqut tai upon the jury's not being satisfied | beyond all reasonable doubt as 70 whether the killing was done Tn seir- defense. but which fail to set forth the | ingredient of self-defense, are errohe' ous and properly refused.
 1S. Same; same-On trial under an indictment for murder, charge is erroneous and properly refused which instructs the jury that '"The court charges the jury that the danger wnicn will excuse one for killing another Tn self defense must not be actual: IL need only be apparent. Yet IF the Jury believe from the evidence in this case | that the defendant was not the one wno provoked the difficulty with the de- cessed. and that the appearances sur rounding the defendant at the time or the killing were such as to produce a reasonable belief that his life was m danger and that the defendant coulo not have fled from the scene OF the difficulty without increasing his dah. ger, then the law holds the defendant blameless. and the jury should ma lhe defendant not guilty. .Au IT. Same: reasonable doubt-On the
 trial of a criminal case. a cnarse nSs a serts a correct proposition and should he given at the request of the defeno- ant. which instructs the jury that pc | fore they can convict the defendant the avidence must be so strong as 10 con- vince each juror of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. and if after con sidering all the evidence a single Juror has a reasonable doubt of the de1eho. ants guilt arising out or any par. -,
 tha evidence. then they can not con-
 yict him l." and the refusal to give sucn charge at the request of the defendanss '
 ,iII work a. reversal of the judgment or conviction.
 Reversed and remanded.
 Opinion by Sharpe. J.
 TIMOTHY v. THE STATE.
 ,,ot,,aot for Murder. Appeal from
 the City Court of Montgomery 1Jomicide: admissibility in eVi-
 aance of extracts from works on Meu- ;oaI Iurisprudence. .-On a trial unoer ah indictment for murder, the evidence .or inc State tended to show that the oe fendant and tho deceased were III roor, topether alone and that the oe-
 fendant shot the deceased. The de!ehu- a nt testified that the deceased accluens- ally shot herself while handing ne
 nistol the ball entering near the eye
 and passing, with a slightly upward
 range. through her head. There were
 no Indications of powder burns or stains or particles on the face or tne deceased. As tending to show tnat
 such indications would have existed had the pistol been in the hands or the deceased when the shot was fired, the state offered and, against the defend, ant's objection, was allowed to reao from a standard work on Medical Ju- rIsprudence an account of certain ex- periments made by two third persons with guns at various distances, to oe- termine how far from the target weapon would have to be to leave any
 powder marks upon it, and also read and introduced the conclusions or the author from such experiments, as to
 the distance at which there would De
 no powder burns. Held; That such evidence was incompetent and inadmls- sible and it's admission would work reversal of the judgment of conviction. Reversed and remanded.
 Opinion by Mcclellan, c. J.
 LEDBETTDR V. THOMAS. | Action of Trover Against Ballee Tor Conversion and Injury to Antmal.- Appeal from Anniston City Court. i. Trover; what constitutes conver-
 sion by bailee.-Where a person hires I N-N n1