The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-10-12
JACKSON v. THE STATE.

! Murder. decided May IL, 1905. Al SO.
| Rep.~17s)
of weapon-Evidence that a policeman
examined DECEASED Immediately after he
was shot by defendant and found no
wea pom on deceased wis admissible 20
! show that deceased had no weapon
during the difficulty.
. Criminal law: character; gener
| al reputation: particular acts-Where.
! in criminal prosecution. character
| Is properly in issue, it must he proved
| by general reputation, and not by ev'
| dence of particular acts or conduct.
| g. Homicide; habits of deceased:
| ccrrying weapons; know ledge by de-
ftndant-The fact that deceased was
| in the habit of carrying concealed
| Weapon was admissible in prosecu-
! ten for homicide only when coupled
with an offer to- prove that defendant
| rad knowledge of the fact before the
| homicide.
| L. Same; appearance of deceased
| Evidence as to how the appearance
and manner of deceased when intox-
| il ated would impress a stranger or
| one who had but slight acquaint. .
| ance with him. and that IT would
lake him resort 10 prompt action In
defending himself against deceased
| was admissible.
| 5. Criminal law; polling jury-It
was proper for the court to refuse to
permit accused or his counsel to poll
| the jury and to require such duty 70
be performed by the clerk.
| g. Homicide; instructiors-An in
! struction, that 1t was not necessary
that there should be actual danger of
death, or great bodily harm in order
| to justify the taking Of human lie.
but. If the circumstances attending the
| firing of the. fatal soht were such as
| to impress defendant with reason
allie belief at the time OF the firing
| that it was necessary in order 10 pre-
| vent death or great bodily harm TO MS
rerson, defendant was entitled to an
| acuuittal, unless he was not free from
i properly refused for failure to hypoth-
esize defendants belief that he was IN
imminent peril
Il I. Same; duty to retreat-Wher 81
II in a prosecution for homicide. the
question OF defendants duty to re-
| treat was for the jury under all the
evidence, instructions on self -defense
ignoring such duty were properly re-
fused.
3. Criminal law: verdict; motives
Of turors-Where the jury on being
poiled. assented to their verdict con-
victing defendant. Of manslaughter. II
was proper for the court to refuse te
,ermit item to be asked concerning
the motives which Influenced them Oh
the reasons. by which they were gov
! erned in rendering such verdict.
-! Q. Same; new trial; denial: revie"
. The denial Of a motion for new
trial in criminal ease cannot be re-
viewed on appeal
Appeal from Jefferson Criminal
Court
, Heard before Hon. Dan. A. Greene.
: hfirmed-Opinion by Harals"n' >.
Weakley. C. J., and Dowdell and
!. Simpson, JJs concur.
!. HOOKS V. HUNTSVILLE RY.. LIGHT
, AND POWER co.
Action for Damages for Personal In
iury-(Decided April rs, 1906. Al
So. Rep. 273)
+ I. Appeal; harmless error: ruling
, on demurrer-Where there was no eV-
idence to support a count of the com
plainant to which pleas OF contripu'
.. tory negligence were interposed over
: ruling demurrers to such pleas, II err
, ror, was without 'injuy.
2. Street railroads: injuries to per
cons on track. contributory negli'
, | pence-Where the evidence clearly
shows that one walked on the track
I of a street railway in the way OF
I car without stopping, looking ana u.s.