The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-08-17
SANDERS V. THE STATE.

Indictment for Murder. Appeal from the
 Circuit Court of Perry.
 l. Organization of jury; sufficient ser vice of venire upon defendant.-The ser vice of a list of jurors to try the defend ant in d capital case is a sufficient com pliance with the order of the court for the service of copy of the venire for such trial as provided by statute. Code. Section 5273) although the paper served may not 6e-a full copy of the venire, in that the list so served is not in the form of mandate, and is not served by the clerk
 2. Trial and its incidents; action of jul TOTS upon which order of trial court is not had will not be reviewed.-The fact that two of the jurors drawn to try a capital case converse with bystanders i'm mediately after the jury was mpaneled and sworn upon which no ruling of the trial court was invoked, constitutes no ground for the reservation of an excep- tion, since it Is only the rulings of the trial court that can be reserved for re- view on appeal to the Supreme Court.
 8. Evidence; when particulars of a difficulty admissible in evidence.-Where the defendant upon the cross examination of witness brings out the particulars of a previous difficulty. it is competent for the State upon redirect examination
 
 relating to the same particulars of such previous difficulty.
 4. Same; evidence as to conversations, Where one party draws out part of a conversation, the other party is entitled to prove the whole of it.
 5. Homicide; admissibility of evidence On a trial under an indictment for mur- der, where it is shown that the defendant and the deceased had diff tdlty the day H. for the State to prove that after such quarrel the defendant left the place where 1t occurred. presumably going home to dinner. and that on his return in the af- ternoon he brought a pistol with him. such evidence tending to show prcpara- tion for the homicide next day, and pre- meditation in respect of it.
 6. Same; same.-In such a case it is competent for the State to prove that the defendants brother who was present dur ing the quarrel between the deceased and the defendant, and who was engaged in the difficulty the following day in which the killing took place. also had pistol when he returned to his work in the af- ternoop of the first day.
 '. Same; evidence as to fight.-On a trial under an indictment for murder. where it is shown that the defendant fled the country immediately after the homi- eide. 1t is not competent for the defcnd- ant to prove. as tending to show that his flight was not due to consciousness Of guilt, that three weeks after the hom- icide a mob was formed and an attempt was made by it to lynch the defendant s brother who was jointly indicted with him, and TWO other men charged with aiding the defendant to escape, all of whom were then confined in the county jail
 S. Trial and its incidents; jury should take indictment in the jury room with them-In the trial of a criminal case. it is necessary that the jury should take the indictment with them on their re- tirement to consider of their verdict; and the fact that the defendant was jointly indicted .or murder for the same of fense and that the verdict of the jury which tried his cn-defendant was en- dorsed in sad indictment. does not rem der it improper for such indictment to be taken by the jury in their retirement
 Affirmed Opinion by Mcclellan, C. J.
 STATE, ex rel. ROBLEE Y. BAINE. Quo Warranto Proceedings. from
 the Circuit Court of Jefferson.
 ek,1