The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-02-15

der.-Appeal from the Criminal court of
 Greene.
 ]. Homicide; Admissibility of Evidence as to Threats.-On trial under an indict-
 ment for murder, 1t was shown that the person killed by the defendant was a po- liceman. The evidence for the state tend
 ed to show that on the night of the killing and prior thereto the defendant present- ed a pistol at one B. and made him leave the latters room that later during the night B. preferred a charge against the defendant and requested the police officer who was killed to arrest him; that B. and another person accompanied the deceased to the room where the defendant was; that the deceased announced to the defendant that he was an officer and was there to arrest him and demanded that the door be opened; that suddenly
 the door was opened. the defendant fired several shots. one of which killed the of
 ficer. witness who was in the room
 with the defendant at the time of the
 shooting, testified that she he,rd nothing in the hall Just before the shooting ex- cept when B. asked if the defendant was
 in, and she told B. to go away and have
 no trouble B. testified that he asked if
 the defendant was in the room, and then
 the officer told the defendant to consider
 himself under arrest. On the cross-ex-
 animation he testified that he did not
 threaten the life of the defendant or
 have had trouble with him previous to the
 night of the homicide. There was evi-
 dence that the defendant had said after
 his arrest that if he had known 1t was
 an officer who was at the door. he would
 not have shot him. Held: It was not com potent on the cross-eXamina ton of 1Ae witness in behalf of the defendant who I testified to her having been in the house at the time of the shooting. for the de-
 fendant to ask said witness: If that
 night she heard B. make threats against defendant?"
 ?. Homicide; Charge of Court to Jury
 On a trial under an indictment for the
 murder of one Walton, a charge request ed by the defendant is erroneous and properly refused which instructs the jury
 that reconciliation means the prior de- termination or the part of the defendant
 to take the life of Walton; and If the jury are not satisfied from all the evi- | dence in the case beyond all reasonable doubt, and have an abiding conviction to a moral certainty that defendant had a prior determination to take the life of Walton before he fired the shot. the jury cannot convict him of murder in the first degree.
 5. Same; Charge as to Premedtation- l On trial under an indictment for mur- der, charge is erroneous and properly refused which instructs the jury that Premeditation means to think on or revolve in the mind before hand and
 unless the jury are satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt and have an abiding conviction to a moral certainty, from all
 the evidence in the case. that defendant had time to think and revolve. or turn over in his mind, the probable eonse. quences of his act before he fired the
 shot, and that defendant contrived and designed previous to the firing of the shot
 to take the life of deceased, the jury can not find the defendant guilty of murder in
 the first degree.
 4. Trial and It's Incidents; Argument of Attorney-On the trial of a criminal case the solicitor for the state does not trans gress the latitude allowed in argument by stating to the jury that as the repre- sentative of the state he has no interest In the conviction of any man and would not permit the conviction of an inno- | cent man if he knew it; that he received his salary whether or not there was q
 single conviction and that he had no in.
 terest in the case except to see the law 1 enforced.
 l 5. Trial and Its Incidents; Motion for | Continuance-1n the trial of a crimina case, a motion for continuance of the cause is addressed to the sound discre-
 tion of the trial court and in the absence of palpable abuse of such discretion the ruling of the trial court on said motion
 will not be reviewed on appeal. Affirmed. Opinion by Sharpe, J.