long-prevailing rule in Alabama

1953Co. v. Campbell, 203 Ala. 296 , 82 So. 546, 549 , the long prevailing rule is stated as follows: ‘Under the scintilla of evidence rule (Tobler v. Pioneer Min. & Mfg.

1953Co. v. Campbell, 203 Ala. 296 , 82 So. 546, 549 , the long prevailing rule is stated as follows: ‘Under the scintilla of evidence rule (Tobler v. Pioneer Min. & Mfg.

1962Looking upon the testimony relating to the conduct of the defendant in this case, we .cannot escape a long prevailing presumption in the criminal jurisprudence of Alabama, to-wit: “Malice may be presumed from use of a deadly weapon unless circumstances of killing disprove malice.” Wallace v. State, ante, p. 65, 124 So.2d 110 ; Dixon v. State, 128 Ala. 54 , 29 So. 623 .

1962Looking upon the testimony relating to the conduct of the defendant in this case, we .cannot escape a long prevailing presumption in the criminal jurisprudence of Alabama, to-wit: “Malice may be presumed from use of a deadly weapon unless circumstances of killing disprove malice.” Wallace v. State, ante, p. 65, 124 So.2d 110 ; Dixon v. State, 128 Ala. 54 , 29 So. 623 .

1953Co., 166 Ala. 482, 517, 518 , 52 So. 86 ; Amerson v. Corona Coal & Iron Co., 194 Ala. 175 , 69 So. 601 ), questions for the jury were whether or riot the' headlight was burning, whether due signals were given of the approach of the train to the crossing, of the conditions that would enable or prevent defendant’s engineer seeing plaintiff’s intestate approach the train, heedless of his danger, and, after such knowledge, whether defendant’s engineer in a due and orderly way did what a reasonably prudent and careful engineer should and could have done under the circumstances and with proper signa

1953Co., 166 Ala. 482, 517, 518 , 52 So. 86 ; Amerson v. Corona Coal & Iron Co., 194 Ala. 175 , 69 So. 601 ), questions for the jury were whether or riot the' headlight was burning, whether due signals were given of the approach of the train to the crossing, of the conditions that would enable or prevent defendant’s engineer seeing plaintiff’s intestate approach the train, heedless of his danger, and, after such knowledge, whether defendant’s engineer in a due and orderly way did what a reasonably prudent and careful engineer should and could have done under the circumstances and with proper signa

1953Co., 166 Ala. 482, 517, 518 , 52 So. 86 ; Amerson v. Corona Coal & Iron Co., 194 Ala. 175 , 69 So. 601 ), questions for the jury were whether or riot the' headlight was burning, whether due signals were given of the approach of the train to the crossing, of the conditions that would enable or prevent defendant’s engineer seeing plaintiff’s intestate approach the train, heedless of his danger, and, after such knowledge, whether defendant’s engineer in a due and orderly way did what a reasonably prudent and careful engineer should and could have done under the circumstances and with proper signa

1953Co., 166 Ala. 482, 517, 518 , 52 So. 86 ; Amerson v. Corona Coal & Iron Co., 194 Ala. 175 , 69 So. 601 ), questions for the jury were whether or riot the' headlight was burning, whether due signals were given of the approach of the train to the crossing, of the conditions that would enable or prevent defendant’s engineer seeing plaintiff’s intestate approach the train, heedless of his danger, and, after such knowledge, whether defendant’s engineer in a due and orderly way did what a reasonably prudent and careful engineer should and could have done under the circumstances and with proper signa

1944In this state the rule governing the admissibility of wearing apparel of both deceased and accused was recently restated in the case of Teague v. State of Alabama, ante, p. 339, 16 So.2d 877, 879 , upholding the long prevailing rule, as follows: *647 “The clothing of deceased, as well as that of the accused, are usually held admissible on trials of homicide.