solicitor challenge in Alabama

1954Code, § 883; Murphy v. State, 37 Ala. 142 .” The rule is further stated by the late Mr. Justice Gardner, afterwards Chief Jus *202 tice Gardner, in the case of Vaughan v. State, 201 Ala. 472 , 78 So. 378, 381 , as follows : “Nor was there error in permitting the solicitor to challenge one juror for cause after having waived this course as to the other jurors.” See also Vest v. State, 201 Ala. 598 , 79 So. 18 ; Davis v. State, 21 Ala.App. 474 , 109 So. 385 .

1954Code, § 883; Murphy v. State, 37 Ala. 142 .” The rule is further stated by the late Mr. Justice Gardner, afterwards Chief Jus *202 tice Gardner, in the case of Vaughan v. State, 201 Ala. 472 , 78 So. 378, 381 , as follows : “Nor was there error in permitting the solicitor to challenge one juror for cause after having waived this course as to the other jurors.” See also Vest v. State, 201 Ala. 598 , 79 So. 18 ; Davis v. State, 21 Ala.App. 474 , 109 So. 385 .

1918Harrison v. State, 79 Ala. 29 . [4] Upon cross-examination there is allowed great latitude.

1918Al Henry Vaughan v. State (present term) 78 South. 378 ; 1 Harrison v. State, 79 Ala. 29 .

1954Code, § 883; Murphy v. State, 37 Ala. 142 .” The rule is further stated by the late Mr. Justice Gardner, afterwards Chief Jus *202 tice Gardner, in the case of Vaughan v. State, 201 Ala. 472 , 78 So. 378, 381 , as follows : “Nor was there error in permitting the solicitor to challenge one juror for cause after having waived this course as to the other jurors.” See also Vest v. State, 201 Ala. 598 , 79 So. 18 ; Davis v. State, 21 Ala.App. 474 , 109 So. 385 .

1954Code, § 883; Murphy v. State, 37 Ala. 142 .” The rule is further stated by the late Mr. Justice Gardner, afterwards Chief Jus *202 tice Gardner, in the case of Vaughan v. State, 201 Ala. 472 , 78 So. 378, 381 , as follows : “Nor was there error in permitting the solicitor to challenge one juror for cause after having waived this course as to the other jurors.” See also Vest v. State, 201 Ala. 598 , 79 So. 18 ; Davis v. State, 21 Ala.App. 474 , 109 So. 385 .

1954Code, § 883; Murphy v. State, 37 Ala. 142 .” The rule is further stated by the late Mr. Justice Gardner, afterwards Chief Jus *202 tice Gardner, in the case of Vaughan v. State, 201 Ala. 472 , 78 So. 378, 381 , as follows : “Nor was there error in permitting the solicitor to challenge one juror for cause after having waived this course as to the other jurors.” See also Vest v. State, 201 Ala. 598 , 79 So. 18 ; Davis v. State, 21 Ala.App. 474 , 109 So. 385 .

1954Code, § 883; Murphy v. State, 37 Ala. 142 .” The rule is further stated by the late Mr. Justice Gardner, afterwards Chief Jus *202 tice Gardner, in the case of Vaughan v. State, 201 Ala. 472 , 78 So. 378, 381 , as follows : “Nor was there error in permitting the solicitor to challenge one juror for cause after having waived this course as to the other jurors.” See also Vest v. State, 201 Ala. 598 , 79 So. 18 ; Davis v. State, 21 Ala.App. 474 , 109 So. 385 .

1954Code, § 883; Murphy v. State, 37 Ala. 142 .” The rule is further stated by the late Mr. Justice Gardner, afterwards Chief Jus *202 tice Gardner, in the case of Vaughan v. State, 201 Ala. 472 , 78 So. 378, 381 , as follows : “Nor was there error in permitting the solicitor to challenge one juror for cause after having waived this course as to the other jurors.” See also Vest v. State, 201 Ala. 598 , 79 So. 18 ; Davis v. State, 21 Ala.App. 474 , 109 So. 385 .

1923Espy v. State, 18 Ala. App. 536 , 93 South. 307 ; Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36 , 95 South. 171 .

1923Espy v. State, 18 Ala. App. 536 , 93 South. 307 ; Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36 , 95 South. 171 .

1923Espy v. State, 18 Ala. App. 536 , 93 South. 307 ; Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36 , 95 South. 171 .

1923Espy v. State, 18 Ala. App. 536 , 93 South. 307 ; Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36 , 95 South. 171 .

1917Under this evidence, the solicitor in his remarks to the jury, and which were objected to by the defendant, did not exceed the bounds of legitimate argument.” When the only remark of the solicitor to which an exception was reserved in this case is contrasted with the remarks upon which the court rested a pronouncement of error and a reversal in Tannehill v. State, 159 Ala. 52 , 48 South. 662 , it will readily appear that the Tannehill Case cannot be employed as an authority to support the conclusion that the matter here excepted to was error.

1911The doctrine announced in Du Bose v. Conner, supra, and Etheridge v. State, 124 Ala. 106 , 27 South. 320 , applies only in cases where the right to introduce the evidence exists in both parties to the suit.

1907This court, in sustaining such action of the court below,-said that special jurors in a capital felony case could not be challenged after being accepted and sworn, and the rule could not be applied to misdemeanors, except as to tales-men ; that as to the regular jurors, who had already been sworn, the right to challenge existed “until, by some positive act, the juror is selected,” and that “the mere calling” and the challenge of other jurors, “without the acceptance or challenge of the particular juror, mere si lence in regard to him,” “is not an absolute waiver.” The court goes on to state th

1900The question whether the defendant was guilty under the facts disclosed, tending on the one side to show that he was, and on the other hand that he was not, was' one for die jury under proper instructions, and not for the court to decide. —Walton v. The State, 67 Ala. 197 .