Avas error in Alabama

1915While this was error (Toney v. State, 10 Ala. App. 220 , 65 South. 92 ), yet it Avas error without injury, since the state was, as shoAvn, entitled to the affirmative charge on the plea of former jeopardy, and the error will not therefore work a reversal of the judgment. —Barber v. State, 151 Ala. 57 , 43 South. 808 ; Bienville Water Supply Co. v. Mobile, 125 Ala. 178 , 27 South. 781 ; Bowling v. Mobile & Montgomery Ry.

1915This Avitness was asked by defendant’s counsel on cross-examination the folloAving questions, to> which the court sustained objections interposed by the solicitor: “Isn’t it a fact that George Peters has a great deal of enmity towards this defendant, and that he sent you and Bosworth both before the grand jury?” “What did George Peters have to do Avith your going before the grand jury?” In this the court Avas in error. —Prince v. State, 100 Ala. 144 , 14 South. 409 , 46 Am.

1915While this was error (Toney v. State, 10 Ala. App. 220 , 65 South. 92 ), yet it Avas error without injury, since the state was, as shoAvn, entitled to the affirmative charge on the plea of former jeopardy, and the error will not therefore work a reversal of the judgment. —Barber v. State, 151 Ala. 57 , 43 South. 808 ; Bienville Water Supply Co. v. Mobile, 125 Ala. 178 , 27 South. 781 ; Bowling v. Mobile & Montgomery Ry.

1915In this the court Avas in error. —Willingham v. State, 10 Ala. App. 161 , 64 South. 544 ; Hammock v. State, 8 Ala. App. 367 , 62 South. 322 .

1915In this the court Avas in error. —Willingham v. State, 10 Ala. App. 161 , 64 South. 544 ; Hammock v. State, 8 Ala. App. 367 , 62 South. 322 .

1915In this the court Avas in error. —Willingham v. State, 10 Ala. App. 161 , 64 South. 544 ; Hammock v. State, 8 Ala. App. 367 , 62 South. 322 .

1915In this the court Avas in error. —Willingham v. State, 10 Ala. App. 161 , 64 South. 544 ; Hammock v. State, 8 Ala. App. 367 , 62 South. 322 .

1915While this was error (Toney v. State, 10 Ala. App. 220 , 65 South. 92 ), yet it Avas error without injury, since the state was, as shoAvn, entitled to the affirmative charge on the plea of former jeopardy, and the error will not therefore work a reversal of the judgment. —Barber v. State, 151 Ala. 57 , 43 South. 808 ; Bienville Water Supply Co. v. Mobile, 125 Ala. 178 , 27 South. 781 ; Bowling v. Mobile & Montgomery Ry.

1915While this was error (Toney v. State, 10 Ala. App. 220 , 65 South. 92 ), yet it Avas error without injury, since the state was, as shoAvn, entitled to the affirmative charge on the plea of former jeopardy, and the error will not therefore work a reversal of the judgment. —Barber v. State, 151 Ala. 57 , 43 South. 808 ; Bienville Water Supply Co. v. Mobile, 125 Ala. 178 , 27 South. 781 ; Bowling v. Mobile & Montgomery Ry.

1912That evidence Avas admissible as having-some tendency to show the relations existing between the defendant and the deceased prior to and at the time of the fatal shooting. — Hudson v. State, 61 Ala. 333 ; Spraggins v. State, 139 Ala. 93 , 35 South. 1000 .

1912Hence there Avas error in the allowance of an attorney’s fee for this latter service.— Tompkins v. Drennen, 95 Ala. 463, 466 , 10 South. 638 .

1912That evidence Avas admissible as having-some tendency to show the relations existing between the defendant and the deceased prior to and at the time of the fatal shooting. — Hudson v. State, 61 Ala. 333 ; Spraggins v. State, 139 Ala. 93 , 35 South. 1000 .

1908This Avas error. — Acts 1898-99, p. 225; Byrne v. Haines, Minor, 286; Porter v. Burleson, 88 Ala. 343 ; Rhea v. Holston Salt & Plaster Co., 59 Ala. 182 ; Warwick et al. v. Brooks, 67 Ala. 252 ; Manhattan Fire Ins.

1908This Avas error. — Acts 1898-99, p. 225; Byrne v. Haines, Minor, 286; Porter v. Burleson, 88 Ala. 343 ; Rhea v. Holston Salt & Plaster Co., 59 Ala. 182 ; Warwick et al. v. Brooks, 67 Ala. 252 ; Manhattan Fire Ins.

1908This Avas error. — Acts 1898-99, p. 225; Byrne v. Haines, Minor, 286; Porter v. Burleson, 88 Ala. 343 ; Rhea v. Holston Salt & Plaster Co., 59 Ala. 182 ; Warwick et al. v. Brooks, 67 Ala. 252 ; Manhattan Fire Ins.

1908This Avas error. — Acts 1898-99, p. 225; Byrne v. Haines, Minor, 286; Porter v. Burleson, 88 Ala. 343 ; Rhea v. Holston Salt & Plaster Co., 59 Ala. 182 ; Warwick et al. v. Brooks, 67 Ala. 252 ; Manhattan Fire Ins.

1908Co. v. Fowler & Co., 76 Ala. 372 .

1908Co. v. Fowler & Co., 76 Ala. 372 .

1906We prefer to follow the lead of McLane v. Miller, supra, and hold that, in such case, no action can be brought for the residuum of a claim, a part of Avhich has been utilized by way of recoupment in a former suit.” In the case of McLane v. Miller, supra, it Avas said: “That the plaintiff having in a former action, where he Avas defendant, insisted on a rebatement of the hire which he Avas to pay for the slaves, and having ob tainecl it, for the reason that his possession was determined by the defendant’s act, he is concluded, so far as that extends, from again obtaining satisfaction for the sa

1906We prefer to follow the lead of McLane v. Miller, supra, and hold that, in such case, no action can be brought for the residuum of a claim, a part of Avhich has been utilized by way of recoupment in a former suit.” In the case of McLane v. Miller, supra, it Avas said: “That the plaintiff having in a former action, where he Avas defendant, insisted on a rebatement of the hire which he Avas to pay for the slaves, and having ob tainecl it, for the reason that his possession was determined by the defendant’s act, he is concluded, so far as that extends, from again obtaining satisfaction for the sa

1906The last cited overrules Parsons’ Case, 22 Ala. 50 , which held that to excuse under circumstances like those shown in the case at bar Avas error.

1904The declaration deposed to- Avas not a mere claim of ownership such as- might have been admissible as res gesta:, explanatory of possession, but as pointed out in the objectoin, it Avas a declaration respecting the source of plaintiff’s alleged title and being so Avas not a proper subject of proof. — Ray v. Jackson, 90 Ala. 513 ; Daffron v. Crump, 69 Ala. 77 ; Vincent v. State, 74 Ala. 274 .

1904The declaration deposed to- Avas not a mere claim of ownership such as- might have been admissible as res gesta:, explanatory of possession, but as pointed out in the objectoin, it Avas a declaration respecting the source of plaintiff’s alleged title and being so Avas not a proper subject of proof. — Ray v. Jackson, 90 Ala. 513 ; Daffron v. Crump, 69 Ala. 77 ; Vincent v. State, 74 Ala. 274 .

1904The declaration deposed to- Avas not a mere claim of ownership such as- might have been admissible as res gesta:, explanatory of possession, but as pointed out in the objectoin, it Avas a declaration respecting the source of plaintiff’s alleged title and being so Avas not a proper subject of proof. — Ray v. Jackson, 90 Ala. 513 ; Daffron v. Crump, 69 Ala. 77 ; Vincent v. State, 74 Ala. 274 .

1904The declaration deposed to- Avas not a mere claim of ownership such as- might have been admissible as res gesta:, explanatory of possession, but as pointed out in the objectoin, it Avas a declaration respecting the source of plaintiff’s alleged title and being so Avas not a proper subject of proof. — Ray v. Jackson, 90 Ala. 513 ; Daffron v. Crump, 69 Ala. 77 ; Vincent v. State, 74 Ala. 274 .

1904The declaration deposed to- Avas not a mere claim of ownership such as- might have been admissible as res gesta:, explanatory of possession, but as pointed out in the objectoin, it Avas a declaration respecting the source of plaintiff’s alleged title and being so Avas not a proper subject of proof. — Ray v. Jackson, 90 Ala. 513 ; Daffron v. Crump, 69 Ala. 77 ; Vincent v. State, 74 Ala. 274 .

1904The declaration deposed to- Avas not a mere claim of ownership such as- might have been admissible as res gesta:, explanatory of possession, but as pointed out in the objectoin, it Avas a declaration respecting the source of plaintiff’s alleged title and being so Avas not a proper subject of proof. — Ray v. Jackson, 90 Ala. 513 ; Daffron v. Crump, 69 Ala. 77 ; Vincent v. State, 74 Ala. 274 .

1904The evidence Avas incompetent. — Going v. Alabama Steel & Wire Co. (in MS) 37 South 784 .

1904The evidence Avas incompetent. — Going v. Alabama Steel & Wire Co. (in MS) 37 South 784 .