Opinion
5 Div. 826.
April 20, 1922.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
The court erred in holding charge A free from fault, as it makes no reference to freedom from fault in bringing on the difficulty. 89 Ala. 82, 8 So. 134; 59 Fla. 360, 52 So. 374; (Ala.) 82 So. 628; 17 Ala. App. 155, 82 So. 645; 161 Ala. 37, 49 So. 876; 69 So. 604; 135 Ala. 13, 33 So. 672; 160 Ala. 66, 49 So. 336; 156 Ala. 44, 47 So. 302; 100 Ala. 80, 14 So. 864.
Hill, Hill, Whiting Thomas, of Montgomery, and Reynolds Reynolds and T. A. Curry, all of Clanton, for appellee.
In addition to the cases cited by the Court of Appeals, we call attention to the following cases as supporting their decision: 191 Ala. 21, 68 So. 57; 201 Ala. 441, 78 So. 819; 188 Ala. 71, 66 So. 81.
Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in Robert Teel v. State, 92 So. 518, reversing the judgment of conviction for refusal by the trial court of the charge therein designated "A." To the authorities cited by the Court of Appeals in support of said charge may be added the following more recent decisions of this court: Richardson v. State, 191 Ala. 21, 68 So. 57; Glass v. State, 201 Ala. 441, 78 So. 819; O'Rear v. State, 188 Ala. 71, 66 So. 81.
Writ denied.
ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and MILLER, JJ., concur.