Tbe defendant in Alabama

1933State v. Beeson, 155 Iowa, 355 , 136 N. W. 317 , Ann.

1933State v. Beeson, 155 Iowa, 355 , 136 N. W. 317 , Ann.

1929Havard McMillan v. State, 218 Ala. 602 , 119 So. 652 .

1929Havard McMillan v. State, 218 Ala. 602 , 119 So. 652 .

1927Rep. 79 ], and the authorities therein cited.” Tbe rule declared in Lunsford v. Dietrich, 93 Ala. 572 , 9 So. 311 ( 30 Am.

1925Blacksher Co. v. Northrup, 176 Ala. 190 , 57 So. 743 , 42 L.

1925Blacksher Co. v. Northrup, 176 Ala. 190 , 57 So. 743 , 42 L.

1925Co. v. Stewart, 179 Ala. 309 , 60 So. 927 : “The principle of these cases is that, where a person is injured at a point on the railroad •track or the right of way adjacent thereto, in ■ or very near a populous city, town, or village, where the company has by silent acquiescence permitted the free use of its way by the public, and this use is open, notorious, habitual, and long continued by a large or considerable number of people, so that at the time and place of the injury the presence of some one was likely and reasonably to be expected by the company’s servants, then evidence of these facts

1925Dean & King v. Elyton Land Co., 113 Ala. 276 , 21 So. 213 ; Folmar v. Copeland, 57 Ala. 588 ; East v. Pace, 57 Ala. 521 ; Banks v. Windham, 7 Ala. App. 616 , 62 So. 297 .

1925Dean & King v. Elyton Land Co., 113 Ala. 276 , 21 So. 213 ; Folmar v. Copeland, 57 Ala. 588 ; East v. Pace, 57 Ala. 521 ; Banks v. Windham, 7 Ala. App. 616 , 62 So. 297 .

1925Dean & King v. Elyton Land Co., 113 Ala. 276 , 21 So. 213 ; Folmar v. Copeland, 57 Ala. 588 ; East v. Pace, 57 Ala. 521 ; Banks v. Windham, 7 Ala. App. 616 , 62 So. 297 .

1925Dean & King v. Elyton Land Co., 113 Ala. 276 , 21 So. 213 ; Folmar v. Copeland, 57 Ala. 588 ; East v. Pace, 57 Ala. 521 ; Banks v. Windham, 7 Ala. App. 616 , 62 So. 297 .

1925Dean & King v. Elyton Land Co., 113 Ala. 276 , 21 So. 213 ; Folmar v. Copeland, 57 Ala. 588 ; East v. Pace, 57 Ala. 521 ; Banks v. Windham, 7 Ala. App. 616 , 62 So. 297 .

1922Crawley v. State, 16 Ala. App. 045 , 79 South. 804 .

1921State ex rel., etc., v. Sayre, 142 Ala. 641 , 39 South. 240 ; Kidd v. Burke, 142 Ala. 625 , 38 South. 241 ; Davis v. State, 46 Ala. 80 . [4] The defendant, petitioner in this proceedings, is now in the penitentiary of this state, serving a life sentence under a void indictment, void trial, void conviction, and void sentence.

1921State ex rel., etc., v. Sayre, 142 Ala. 641 , 39 South. 240 ; Kidd v. Burke, 142 Ala. 625 , 38 South. 241 ; Davis v. State, 46 Ala. 80 . [4] The defendant, petitioner in this proceedings, is now in the penitentiary of this state, serving a life sentence under a void indictment, void trial, void conviction, and void sentence.

1921Tbe record recites : “This paper contained language insulting, abusive and derogatory of Conrad Austin and the men working under him, of whom defendant was one.” Pretermitting the character of language alleged to have been used, the court properly sustained the objection to the introduction of this newspaper in evidence, as from its date it was too remote as to time of the difficulty to be admissible, and there was nothing to show that the paper or the objectionable language alleged to have been contained therein had come to the knowledge of the defendant so recently as to be “at or near the t

1921Tbe record recites : “This paper contained language insulting, abusive and derogatory of Conrad Austin and the men working under him, of whom defendant was one.” Pretermitting the character of language alleged to have been used, the court properly sustained the objection to the introduction of this newspaper in evidence, as from its date it was too remote as to time of the difficulty to be admissible, and there was nothing to show that the paper or the objectionable language alleged to have been contained therein had come to the knowledge of the defendant so recently as to be “at or near the t

1921It is given as a remedy to those entitled to invoke its aid, and who would otherwise be remediless.’ Supervisors v. United States, 4 Wall. 435, 446 .” Tbe rule as thus recognized is given very general application by the courts in this country. 36 Oye. 1157, with cases cited in the note; 1 Words and Phrases, 647, 648; 1 Words and Phrases, Second Series, 371, 372.

1921This principle of law was also recognized by this Court in Tarver v. Commissioners’ Court, 17 Ala. 527 , where it was said: “It is true the language of the act is that it shall be lawful for the commissioners’ court to levy a tax, etc.; but it is well settled that the word ‘may’ or the words ‘it shall be lawful’ are peremptory when used in a statute, where the public or individual has the right de jure, that the powers conferred by the act shall be exercised.” The Tarver Case has found frequent citation in subsequent decisions of this court.

1921State ex rel., etc., v. Sayre, 142 Ala. 641 , 39 South. 240 ; Kidd v. Burke, 142 Ala. 625 , 38 South. 241 ; Davis v. State, 46 Ala. 80 . [4] The defendant, petitioner in this proceedings, is now in the penitentiary of this state, serving a life sentence under a void indictment, void trial, void conviction, and void sentence.

1919Tbe court denied relief on the amended original bill, and awarded relief to the cross-complainants consistent with tbe prayer of their cross-bill. [1, 2] Tbe principles to which tbe amended prayer refers tbe bill may be found stated in 3 Story’s Equity Jurisprudence (14th Ed.) §§ 1663-1666, and which have been illustrated in readily accessible decisions of this court, among which may be noted Dickinson v. Bank, 98 Ala. 546 , 14 South. 550 , and Belling-er v. Lehman, 103 Ala. 385 , 15 South. 600 .

1919Tbe court denied relief on the amended original bill, and awarded relief to the cross-complainants consistent with tbe prayer of their cross-bill. [1, 2] Tbe principles to which tbe amended prayer refers tbe bill may be found stated in 3 Story’s Equity Jurisprudence (14th Ed.) §§ 1663-1666, and which have been illustrated in readily accessible decisions of this court, among which may be noted Dickinson v. Bank, 98 Ala. 546 , 14 South. 550 , and Belling-er v. Lehman, 103 Ala. 385 , 15 South. 600 .

1919Tbe rule is stated in Braxton v. State, ante, p. 167, 82 South. 657 . [1] On cross-examination of a state’s witness, defendant’s counsel asked this question; “You were rewarded for all that by being turned loose without a bond, weren’t you?” This question was objectionable, in that it called for the conclusion of the witness.

1917Cas. 477. [11] Tbe objection after answer, to tbe evidence,' came within the rule of Seaboard Air Line v. Mobley, 194 Ala. 211, 219 , 69 South. 614 .

1917Cas. 477. [11] Tbe objection after answer, to tbe evidence,' came within the rule of Seaboard Air Line v. Mobley, 194 Ala. 211, 219 , 69 South. 614 .

1917Bell v. State, ante, p. 36, 75 South. 181 .

1915Tbe rule of pleading in such cases is well stated by Justice Dargan in Jones v. Powell, 15 Ala. 824 : “In declaring on con tracts, the declaration must show a binding agreement between the parties, which has been violated.

1915Tbe defendant was indicted under tbe name of “Willie Walling,” and be filed a plea of misnomer alleging, among other things, that bis true name was “William Thomas Walling.” (1) Ignoring, as tbe law requires, tbe middle name, “Thomas,” given in tbe plea (Smith v. State, 8 Ala. App. 192 , 62 South. 575 ), tbe solicitor’s demurrer to tbe plea, which demurrer tbe court sustained, upon tbe ground, as stated in tbe demurrer, that tbe names “Willie” and “William” are one and tbe same in law. (2, 3) While the statement that the names “Willie” and “William” are one and the same in law is not always no

1914Tbe objection was a mere general obejction, and presents nothing for review.—Reynolds v. Dismuke, Adm’r, 48 Ala. 209.

1914Tbe objection was a mere general obejction, and presents nothing for review.—Reynolds v. Dismuke, Adm’r, 48 Ala. 209.

1914Tbe work may have been performed while tbe plaintiff was illegally restrained of bis liberty by tbe defendant, but nevertheless tbe work was done, tbe defendant willingly received tbe benefits of tbe work, and tbe law raises an implied contract to pay for tbe work.—Patterson v. Prior, supra; Patterson v. Crawford, supra. (5) Tbe defendant seems to have objected to tbe allowance by amendment of count 3 to tbe complaint.

1913It is further settled that on appeal, Avhen error is predicated upon an exception to the action of the trial court in sustaining an objection by the other party to questions propounded to a Avitness, the trial court will not be put in error, unless it appears that it was made knoAvn to tbe court what testimony it was expected .to elicit by the question, and unless it further appears that it was material to the issues in the case. — Harris v. Basden, 162 Ala. 369 , 50 South. 321 ; Snodgrass v. Galdwell, 90 Ala. 319 , 7 South. 834 ; Insurance Co. v. Moog, 78 Ala. 284 , 56 Am.

1913Ed. 1110 , and Boyd v. U. S., 116 U. S. 616 , 6 Sup. Ct. 524, 29 L.

1913Ed. 1110 , and Boyd v. U. S., 116 U. S. 616 , 6 Sup. Ct. 524, 29 L.

1913It is further settled that on appeal, Avhen error is predicated upon an exception to the action of the trial court in sustaining an objection by the other party to questions propounded to a Avitness, the trial court will not be put in error, unless it appears that it was made knoAvn to tbe court what testimony it was expected .to elicit by the question, and unless it further appears that it was material to the issues in the case. — Harris v. Basden, 162 Ala. 369 , 50 South. 321 ; Snodgrass v. Galdwell, 90 Ala. 319 , 7 South. 834 ; Insurance Co. v. Moog, 78 Ala. 284 , 56 Am.

1913Ass’n. v. Agee, 99 Ala. 571 , 13 South. 279 , and cases cited; Hoffman, Ahlers & Co. v. Ala. Dist.