The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-09-07
s~~~~s~~ **~~*~ #*~*~* ~~~e~~~ HEAD NOTES OF THE DECISIONS
 OF THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT.
. . seseeAA ee.e.. eNeseeA 2

and. therefore where the Judge of a
 City Court has. on application for 2 rem
 edial writ. issued a rule nisi returnable
 the eby sahssss . R snSsE SSppS sS | is without authority to vary, alter or
 amend his iuegment awarding said rule.
 aamus ts Saoase said 1s Ds 5. Application for writ of prohibition;
 objection to judgment awarding rule nisi
 on sns ns of an
 rufe nisi is granted. 1t is no objection
 ths odsr sSsa a ahs
 respondents from doing the acts com
 plained of in the application until the
 of i the % rule i1isi % operating per ss such d pro-
 hibition until the further order of the
 Rule nisi, discharsed and writ of man. 1 damus denied.
 Opinion by Tyson. J.
 ANDERSON V. THE STATE. | Indictment for buying or receiving stolen Court of Jefsrson.
 stolen property: sufhciency of indict. | .nent,-An Indictment which charges that
 the defendant did buy. receive. conceal or aid in the concealment of" certain personal property of a designated value
 and belonging to . certain named per-
 son without avssring that she defendsEt a,I.s
 
 | and had not the intent to restore 1t. to the owner. is insufficient to charge the
 otsnse mads oxDs punishable Is . by the statute, | judgment of conviction.
 | Reversed and rernanded
 Opinion by sharpe J.
 MILLER EFT AL. V. THE STATE. Indictment for Murder-Appeal from Jef- ferson Criminal Court.
 1-.Trial and it's incidents: rule as to severance. .r-The rule of practice which provides thst where two or more persons are jointly indicted for a capital offense, | the right to demand a severance shall be considered as waived. unless claimed at | the time of the arraignment, or at latest when the court sets day for the trial | of the case and makes an order to sum- I mon special venire, in no sense vio- | lative of the statute granting the right of | severance when two or more persons are Jointly indicted; and therefore, if a sev- | erance is not demanded before the day on | which the trial is entered upon, 1t will be
 considered as waived. and the court does | therefore at such time. 2.-Homicide; admissibiIity and reie-
 vancy of eyidence;-Wher two persons | are jointly indicted for the murder of a | police officer, and there Is evidence tend
 Ing to show that at the time of the homi. | eide charged. another ofiicer was killed | of the shooting the defendants had been arrested upon charge of robbery and of
 ors,.s ether fsloniss; & 1t is sompstent ss for the | after they were shot, to testify as to the | course of the bullet which killed the other policeman, whose murder was not | charged in the indictment: such testi- | mony having tendency to corroborate | the other evidence adduced by the prose-
 SS cGsted that n essh tSa S1 of the with the common intent to free them
 selves from their captors.
 l a-Same: same..On trial under an iIi- | dictment which charges two defendants | with the murder of a police officer,
 where there is evidence tending to show
 that at the time e of It the killing of the ofii- | police officer was killed by the same de-
 fendants. and that just prior to the kill
 ing ing the he, defendants had been arrested by
 which had occurred on the same night,
 and two or three hours before the arrest
 and the issue of the identity of each of 1 officers had arrested and who had killed l said officers was a material and promin-
 ss to as To o sb 1 of the killing at the place of the robbery, l tending in any way to Identify the de-
 Snt as hayinS 6eef an a tnS | in evidence. -,.e
 l 4-Same; same.--In such a case, testi- the robbery, though having no tendency | to show that the defendants, or either | of them, were present on the said Occas-
 such a conspiracy between the defendants | to kill both the police officers, as would l make each of them responsible for the l death of each of the officers, and thereby l showing a motive common to both the 1 defendants to escape by means of the
 homicide from arrest which meant for l each of them prosecution and probable l conviction of high felony, is relevant and l admissible in evidence. e1' 6-Same; same.-In such a case, where l the evidence shows that there were a number of shots fired at the place of the killing, testimony as to the number of shells in each of the pistols carried by ! the police officers, which were less than I the number of shots shown to have been | fired, is admissible in evidence as tending | to show that both the defendants fired | 6-Sale; same.-1n such a case, il is | competent to introduce evidence tending | to show that the officers who were killed 1 had, prior to the arrest of the defendants, l received information of the commission | of the robbery, and that the arrest was 1-Criminal proceedings; failure to ob- | ject to irrelevant question.-On the trial | of a criminal case, where an irrelevant | question is asked, and there Is no ground l for the assumption that the question | would elicit competent testimony. If the 1 the answer, If responsive thereto, Will | not be excluded, although it is irrelevant 1 and immaterial testimony.
 S.-Same; trial and its incidents; read | ing of opinion by counsel in argument to | jury.-Where in the trial of a criminal
 case an attorney in his argument to the l jury reads the whole of ar opinion rem | dered in a case decided and reported in l the official reports. and some parts of the | option are proper to be read, general
 objection to the reading of the whole opinion Is properly overruled.