The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1902-07-16
ALLEN v. THE STATE.


Indictment for laroeny--Appeai from the
City Court Of Montgomery.
l. orsanisatien CT jsry: defendant not
entitled TO have jury completed 70 twelve
men before passing upon them.--After the
State has preemptorliy challenged several
jurors in the organization Of q petit jury,
II Is not error FIR the court to require
the defendant to pass upon the remaining
jurors. before summoning others to sup
ply the place OF thsse VINO had been chal-
lenged.
: .. same: eject Of defendant waving
objection to jury Where In the organisa-
ton Of petit Try for the trial OF
criminal case. arc: the defendant has
challenged some of the jurors. one Of the
remaining jurors states to the court what
would constitute a legal excuse for his
not serving upon the jury. and thereupon
the court tells such juror 70 stand aside
and the defendant objects. II the court
upon such objection OF the defendants
lets such juror remain upon the jury, the
defendant can not subsequently, challenge
said juror upon the ground which he
stated az an excuse, and IL IL not error
for the court TO refuge to allow the defen-
dant to challenge said Juror for cause;
the defendant by his objection and the
exclusion Of the juror by the court having
waived objection 70 him for such cause.
3. Evidence: when error In introduce
ing Irrelevant evidence made harmless
by subsequent evidence.--Where. at the
time Of the introduction OF evidence II 10
prima fncie Irrelevant. the error Of the
court In refusing TO exclude such evidence
Is harmless and viii not work q reversal.
II the relevancy thereof is made to appear
from its connection with the evidence
subsequently, introduced.
L Same; where portion Of conversation
n introduced In evidence. all Of such con-
versation can he brought out By other
gide.--Where. in the trial Of criminal
case. the defendant asks as witness about
conversation which was alleges TO have
taken place between the witness and
smother in reference to the defendant. II
Is not r1or for the court to permit the
state TO bring out the balance OF the
conversation upon tho examination Of said
witness In rebuttaL
g. Larceny; admissibiiity Of evidence
In q trial under an indictment TOT
larceny, where there II evidences tending
to show that the defendant sold the
property alleged to have been stolen for
money and q flask Of wiiiskey, 1t Is not
competent for the defendant 20 prove by
another witness that he and such wit
ness, about the time OF the alleged
larceny, were IN Gne Ikautt VI putShAoau6
whiskey from q certain bar room, and
that they often went to said bar room
from the purpose OF purchasing whiskey
s. Same; charge OF court az 30 owner
| ship--on trial under an indictment foI
| larceny from a warehouse OF railroad
| company, where 1t Is shown that the
goods stolen were consigned to mer-
eantiie flrm and were in said company's
| warehouse awaiting delivery to said firm
o charge is erroneous and properly re
| fused which instructs the jury that II
| the Jury believe that the tobacco descfib.
/ ed In the indictment belonged to Echloss
| q Kahn, and not to the western Railway
| of Alabama, then they must and the de-
| PENDANT not guilty, "the ownership OF ths
/ property stolen being properly laid In trs
| Indictment IN the Railway Company
Z. Same; charge to the jury.-on a tvia
| under an Indictment for larceny, chayg'
Is erroneous and properly refused which
instructe the jury that III the jury yoult
not be willing TO act upon the eviisac'
| In this case If II was In relation TO fmat
/ tiers Of the most solemn Importance Y
your own interest you must find the &c
PENDANT not guilty.
/ Afirmed.
Opinion by HARRISON. J.