The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-03-25
MATHEWS V. THE STATE.

MATHEWS V. THE STATE. Indictment for Murder.-Appeal from the Circuit Court Of Lee.
 l. Homicide; admissibility of statements l of defendant made shortly after the k1lling.-On trial under an indictment for murder, where the witness testihes that no threats were made against the | defendant or any inducements that of- | fered or any hope held out to get him to make any statements about the difficulty, shortly after the homicide occurred, the statements so made by the defendant are | admissible in evidence against the ob- Jection of the defendant that 1t was not voluntary.
 3. Homicide; charge of court to jury as to self-defense.-On a trial under an indictment for murder, where the defend- ant introduces evidence tending to show that he acted in self defense, a charge
 is erroneous and properly refused which instructs the jury that If the jury be- lieve from the evidence that the defend- ant was free from fault in bringing on
 the difficulty and that the circumstances
 We're such as tc, impress on the mind of reasonable man that he was In immi-
 nent danger of suffering great bodily
 harm, and he could not retreat without increasing his peril, that he had a right to strike in self defense, even to the etxent of killing his adversary" such charge pretermitting the element of the honest belief of the defendant in the im- mlnence of the peril.
 g. Same; same.-On a trial under an indictment for murder where the defend ant introduced evidence tending to show that he acted in self defense, a charge IS erroneous and properly refused which instructs the jury that to justify the defendant in taking the life of Link Dal- las, the danger need not have been a real danger, but it Is sufficient if the danger were to a reasonable mind, an apparent danger to life or limb, and there was no way open for him to retreat with out increasing his peril" such charge pretermitting one or more of the constit- uent elements of self defense.
 Affirmed. Opinion by DoWdell, J.
 NOBLE, ct al, V. GILLIAN.
 Bill in Equity by Creditor to set Aside
 Conveyance as Fraudulent.-Appedl
 from the Chancery Court of Lamar.
 l. Bill to set aside fraudulent con veyance; burden of proof as to consider ation.-Where bill is filed by an ex- istlng creditor to set aside conveyance made to hinder, delay and defraud his creditors. and upon the ground that the consideration vas simulated and ficti- tious, the burden is upon the grantee in such conveyance to prove that the con veyance was made in good faith, was founded upon a valuable and adequate consideration. in what the consideration consisted and what and how 1t was paid; ard when the conveyance Is made by a husband to his wife, stricter and clearer proof Is required than when the conveyance is between strangers.
 7. Bill to set aside fraudulent convey ance; equity pleading; denials of answer in response to a bill filed by an exist ing creditor to set aside as fraudulent and void a conveyance made by the com platnant's debtor to his wife, upon the ground that 1t was made to hinder, delay and defraud the husbands creditor and was founded upon @ simulated and fcti- tious consideration, a formal denial by the defendants in their answer of the chaPge of fraud and want of consideration is not sufficient but they must afflrma- lively aver In their answer the facts re- lied on as constituting the consideration of the conveyance attacked, and also the facts showing the good faith of the trans action and the actual payment of an adequate consideration, and how and when and In what the consideration con sisted; no matter of defense being avail able to the grantee ip such conveyance which is not averred in her answer
 a. Equity pleading; set of only avail able under cross pill; adm4ssibility of evidence.-On e bill filed by q creditor to set aside a conveyance as being fraud ulent and void. a claim by the defend- ants against the complainant's debt can be made available as a set off only by a cross bill; and in the absence of a cross bill seeking to set of such claim against the complainants debt, evidence that the complainant owed the defendant such amount is inadmissiole.
 4 Equity pleading; ownership of note sued on must be denied by sworn plea or answer--The execution of note which Is made the foundation Of a suit