The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-03-09
PARHAM vs. THE STATE.


 son, JJ., concur.
 PARHAM vs. THE STATE. Murder. (Decided June 3oth 190e.--
 42 So. Rep. 1.)
 l. Criminal law appeal; record.- The record not showing the difference between the copy of the indictments served upon the defendant and the true indictment, defendants objection to being put upon trial on the grounds that no true copy of the indictment had been served on him, cannot be re- viewed, on appeal.
 g. Same-The record failing to show what answer was expected to a ques- tion to which an objection was sus- tained, such ruling cannot be reviewed, upon appeal.
 3. Same; appeal: harmless error; ob- lection to question.-Where the answer to the question was contained in the subsequent testimony of the witness, it was harmless error to sustain an ob- lection to the question when asked.
 4 Same; review; rulings on evil dence.--It not plainly appearing from the question that evidence sought to be elicited by 1t was relevant and ma terial, in order to have a review of the sustaining of objection to the question:. 1t should appear of record what answer was expected.
 s. Same; harmless error; form of question.--A witness having stated in detail what defendant said, without objection, anything objectionable in the form of a question about threats made by defendant against deceased, was harmless error.
 6. Same; evidence; opinion,--It is objectionable as calling for an opinion, to ask whether deceased was afraid to go about alone at night.
 T. Same; evidence; hypothetical ques- tions.-Where the question was not confined to the pool of water testified about and the conditions of the indeft- mite pool were not shown to be the same as the pool in testimony, hypo- thetical question as to a pool of water becoming co1ored is objectionable.
 S. Witnesses; examinations. general auestions.-A question, referring to a time a week before the alleged homi- eide, what did defendant say to de- ceased when he left her that morning?" being so general that Irrelevant evil dence would be responsive to 1t, was objectionable.
 g. Same: credibility; materiality of avidence.-It being shown without dis pute that witness was In the employ of the railroad company near whose tracks the body was found, it was im- material, as affecting his credibility on account of bias or interest, whether he voluntarily ascertained the facts as to the appearance of the body about which he testified or whether he ascar- tained them as part of his duty as railroad employe to get up evidence where body was found on or near the track.
 10. Witnesses; credibility; evidence. The fact that a witness who testified to threats made by defendant against deceased. was a member of the coro- ner's jury which investigated the case, and said nothing about his Knowledge of such threats while on the jury, al- though the jury was charged to look up all the evidence bearing on the case. was not an additional circum- stance of a discrediting nature to the evidence allowed to be introduced that he knew of such threats while a mem her of such jury and sad nothing about 1t, was tmmaterial and properly disallowed.
 II. Homicide; malice; evidence For the purpose of showing a dispo- sition on part of defendant to harm de- ceased. and also to show malice. it was competent to permit testimony that about a week before the homicide de-  quit following him around he was go- Ing to kill her.
 l2. Same threats; proof of corpus delicti-If there is sufficient evidence of the corpus delicti to require a sub mission of that question to the deter imitation of the jury, threats made by defendant against deceased become ad- missil'
 IS. Same evidence; instructions at inquest.-On a trial for murder in- structions given the jury at the inquest are immaterial and not admissible.
 4. Same; degrees; instructions--It Is the duty of the court, under Section 1857, Code 1896, to instruct the jury with respect to the degrees of mur- der, and it Is not error for the court to do so on the ground that, under the evidence. the defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree. or nothing.
 Is. Same: means of killing; instruc- tions-Where one count of the indict- ment alleged that the means by which the murder was committed was un- known to the grand jury, a charge that if the jury believed from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that deceas- ed came to her death at the hands of the defendants, 1t does not matter what sort of weapon she was killed with, or how it was used, defendant would be guilty under the count, was prop CT.
 16. Criminal law; instructions; req sonabie doubt.-Charges that If the jury believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty; though they also believe it is possible he may not be guilty, they must convict; and that the doubt to warrant an acquitta; must be actual and substantial. not . z.s-S possible