The Birmingham age-herald., 1906-06-22

ing the name and the different taxes sepa- rately. and the total Of each, the foot ngs of which are the reports of the es- capped taxes collected.
 4. A bound record of insolvencies, taxes in litigation and errors in assessments, as allowed by the board of revenue, each year.
 5. Cash book and double entry ledger. which is posted separately from the above records and Is a check against any el- TOTS in the records; that is, the records and the ledger and checks against each other.
 For the tax year 1904-5 MT. Halls col lected and paid into the state treasury the sum of $143,9S724
 Probate Judge Gaston collected from April l. 1905. to May l, 1906. in licenses, S65, ,599 and taxes on mortgages $2SS3.
 The books of Superintendent of Educa- tion CoyIngton and of Sheriff Waller are well kept and their accounts are correct.
 Head Note Supreme Court Decision.
 Robert Richardson vs State of Alabama, from Marengo city court.
 l. Questions propounded to witness merely introductory to other questions necessary to elicit material facts are proper.-Stovall vs. State, 1l6 Ala, 4't, Frazier vs. State 1l6 Ala, 422, followed,
 2 When there Is evidence that son- IeSSlOn IS voluntary anu lllhl h' iSN"iN or inducement was offered or threat made to procure 1t, the fact that no proof Is offered as to any act done or not done by one of the two parties who were present when the alleged confession was made, will not require the exclusion of the h. culpatory statement from the jury.
 B. On trial for murder where the evil dence is circumstantial 1t is competent for the state to prove that the defendant trith srtIT An a killing in the vicinity of the crime.
 f. It Is competent to show along with the other circumstances, for the purpose of connecting the defendant with the crime that dogs trained to track human beings were put on the trail at scene ot the crime and that they went thence to a point where defendant is shown to have been after the crime was committed.
 3. When evidence of the trailing by dogs is admitted against the defendant, he should have full opportunity by cross examination to inquire into all the cir cumstances and details of the hunt. that he may If he can, lead the Jury to be- neve the dogs were unskilled or unre- liable.
 S. When defendant shows by cross-ex- animation of a states witness that the dogs several times quit the trail, and that they went into open field where a crowd of men were. 1t is error to al low the witness to state on redirect eX- animation, that "the reason the dogs auis the trail and went out into the field was because here was a body of men out in front and the dogs expected to find the person they had been trailing;" the jury should have been left to draw the inference and the witness could not prop erly draw 1t for them.
 r. Witnesses are not allowed to reason to a jury-they must speak to and of facts the jury must draw the conclusion unaided by opinions, reasonings or in- ference of witnesses.
 8. There Is no basis for a distinction between experts and other witnesses which could take experts out of the general rule against drawing out reasons which conduce to an act or issue to which they depost-R. R. vs. Hi1l 93 Ala, 514 followed: reversed and remanded.
 opinion by Weakley. c. J., Haralson, Dowdell and Denson, J. J., concurring.