The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-27

two calendar weeks Is Sunday. the day previous is the last Juridical day. and 1t Is presumed that the term did not con tinue longer than the end of Saturday.
 . Time for signing bill of exceptions Where the time for signing bill of ex- captions Is extended. and the bill Is not signed until the day after the expiration of the extended period. 1t Is iHeffectual as basis for assignment of error, and will be stricken on motion.
 3 Pieadlrg and practice; when tudg- ment upon demurrer insufficient. .-The re- citai is judgment entry that the defend ants demurrers to the complaint being duly considered by the court are sus- tained." Is merely the entry by the clerk of the courts action upon such demurrer. and constitutes no judgment thereon, and Is insufficient to present such, ruling to the Supreme Court for review on appeal.
 Affirmed.
 Opinion by Sharpe, J,
 STEVENS ct. al. V. THE STATE. Indictment for murder-Appeal from the
 Circuit Court of Walker.
 1. Trial and its incidents; sufticiency of sentence of court on conviction for man slaughter, Where. on a trial under an indictment for murder. the jury returns verdict of guilty of granddaughter in the first degree, fixing the punishment of the defendant at Imprisonment in the penitentiary for two years, a sentence of the court which follows the minute entry showing the returns of tho verdict of the jury. and after reciting that the defendant had nothing to say why the sentence of the law should not be pro- nounced upon him. then reads: Tt is therefore. considered by the court and 1t f~f fi,a ,,Sn e.f. ,f hn that the said defendant (naming ,lim) be imprisoned in the penitentiary of the State of Alabama for a term of two years. is valid and sufficient to show that the judgment of the court was invoked and pronounced upon the guilt of the defen- dant.
 2. Same; sufficiency of verdict of jury Where two defendants are jointly indicted and tried for murder, verdict of the jury that "We the jury find the desen- dants guilty of mapslaughter in the first degree and fix the punishment at two years imprisonment, if defective by reason of ambiguity. such ambiguity is removed by the jury stating. in answer to questions asked by the court in the presence of the defendant. that the word defendants" included both the defen- dants. and 1t is permissible for the court to remove any ambiguity by making such inquiries of the jury.
 3. Homicide; conspiracy; admissibility of evidenee.--On trial under an indict- ment for murder, where it is shown that the killing occurred just after a suit be- tween the defendants mother and the deceased had been continued, and there was evidence tending to show a conspira- cy between the defendants, their father and their brother-in-law to kill the de- S~ f.v. kha kata fo show that just before the continuance of the case, when the defendants' mother asked for subpoenaes for witnesses, the brother-in-law of the defendants stated to the justice before whom the case was pending that he need not issue the sub poenaes, that i've intend to fix 1t up in our own way" 1t being shown that just after this statement the deceased walked out of the room with the defendants and their said hrother-in-law and the killing occurred few minutes afterwards.
 {. Same; same; same.-in such a case, where it is shown that on the night be- fore the killing, the defendants stayed at the house of their brother-in-law, who went with them the next day to the trial, and where the brother-in-law, on direct examination, testified that there was no conspiracy between him and the defen- dants, 1t is competent for the State to ask him on cross examination, as to whether or not on the evening of the kill ing, he told a certain named person that tho defendants would be at the place of the trial "and hell would be raised: and upon the witness denying having made such statement, 1t Is competent for the State. for the purpose of impeach- rnent to prove by such person that the statement was made by said witness
 5. Same: same; same.-In such case. after one of the defendants had testified that he was at the place of the difficulty as a witness in the suit pending between his mother and the deceased and knew what the contract was between his mother and the deceased. 1t Is competent for the State, on cross examination,i to ask such defendant what was said con- tract; such question being directed to the credibility of witness's testimony.
 G. Homicide; charge of court to jury On trial of two defendants under an indictment for murder, where there IS evidence tending to show that there was conspiracy existing between the defen- dants to kill the deceased, and that one of the defendants did not shoot at the deceased at all. a charge which instructs the jury that the other defendant. had the same right to act n setf-detense as Il he had been first attacked, even though the evidence shows that the deceased had attacked his brother and he had interfer- ed to prevent the deceasd from further attacking him. is erroneous and properly refused.
 '. Same; same.-In such case charge Is free from error which instruets the jury that If you believe from the evidence beyond reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy between the de- n fahH n of Vester Henson Cthe deceased) or dc him great injury and the father of defen- dant fired the fatal shot that killed the deceased, then they would be equally guilty with the father. if the shooting by the father was done in carrying out the conspiracy previously entered Into by him.
 X. Same; same.--In such case, 1t is not errer for the court to instruct the jury as a part of It's oral charge that If you believe from the evidence be- yond a reasonable doubt that these defer dants entered into conspiracy to kill the deceased. and the deceased was Killed with a pistol, you would find then guiltv of murder in the second degree if 1t was done unlawfuliy and witt malice"
 g. Same; same.-In such a case, where there was evidence tending to show tha' while there were several shots fired al inc deceased by the defendants with uistols that the fatal shot was fired by inc father of the defendant from rifle and that there was a conspiracy be- tween the defendants and their father to kill the deceased, charge which instructs the jury that If they believe that the deceased was killed by a shot from a rifle and not with pistol won must acquit the defendants, is nrrnnanns in that 1t pretermits all refer