Tweedy ats. Gordon, 74 Ala. 232.. 503 Underhill v. Calhoun, 63 Ala. 216..... 480 U. S. Savings & Loan Co. ats Bank of Florence, 104 Ala. 299.. 205 337 Ward v. State, 78 Ala. 455, 457. Ward v. Ward, 108 Ala. 278.. Ware, Murphy & Co. v. Morgan & Duncan, 67 Ala. 461. Warren ats. Lawson, 89 Ala. 584.. 500 .364, 398 84 104 Warren v. Liddell, 110 Ala. 232.. 99 Washington v. State, 81 Ala. 36. 9 Watson ats. E. T. V. & G. R. R. Co., 90 Ala. 41. 262 Watts v. Sayre, 76 Ala. 397.. 219 Weatherford v. Weatherford, 20 Ala. 548. 637 Weatherly ats. Capitol City Water Co., 108 Ala. 412. Western Ry of Ala. v. Ala. G. T. R. R. Co., 96 Ala. 272....136, 141 Westinghouse Machine Co. v. Wilkinson, 79 Ala. 312... Wilkinson ats. Westinghouse Mac. Co., 79 Ala. 312. Williams v. Spraggins, Buck & Co., 102 Ala. 424. 164 Williams v. State, 54 Ala. 133. 637 Williams v. Woodward Iron Co., 106 Ala. 254. Wills Valley Min. & Mfg. Co. ats. Etowah Min. Co., 106 Ala. 492. Winter Iron Works ats. Pearce, 32 Ala. 68.. Wood ats. Donegan, 49 Ala. 242. Wood ats. Holly Mfg Co., 100 Ala. 351. Wood v. Lake, 62 Ala. 489.. Wood ats. Sumner, 67 Ala. 139. 219 284, 364, 635 .136, 152 300 544 98 217 98 Woodrow v. Hawving, 105 Ala. 240. .66, 463 426 Woodstosk Iron Co. v. Fullenwider, 87 Ala. 584. 896 619 71 634 241 Wright ats. City Council of Montgomery, 72 Ala. 411. 593 259 Young ats. Bonner, 68 Ala. 35. 285 Young ats. Piedmont & A. L. I. Co., 58 Ala. 476. 448 Young ats. Queen Ins. Co., 86 Ala. 424. 446 Young ats. Stocks, 67 Ala. 341.. 624 CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. SPECIAL TERM, 1898. Martin v. The State. Indictment for Murder. 1. Former statements of witness not admissible to corroborate him, until impeached.-Where the defendant, laying a predicate to impeach a state witness, asked whether witness had made a certain statement contradictory to what he testified on the stand, and the witness made a simple denial of such statement, not going into the supposed conversation, it was error to allow the state to prove by the witness in rebuttal what he had said in such conversation. 2. Formed design, not the equivalent of deliberation, &c.-It is error 3. Insanity; burden of proof; statute constitutional.-Our statute (COLEMAN, 4. Sudden passion and malice may co-exist.-Homicide may be committed in the heat of passion suddenly aroused by a blow, and yet be done maliciously; suddenly aroused passion and malice may co-exist, and both cause the act; when that is the case, the homicide, otherwise indefensible murder, is not reduced to manslaughter by reason of the passion. 5. Manslaughter, correctly defined.-Charges instructing the jury that "if the killing was the consequence of passion suddenly aroused by a blow given," or "if they have a reasonable doubt. [Martin v. The State.] as to whether the killing was a result of passion suddenly aroused by a blow from the deceased," they cannot find the defendant guilty of murder, excluded the existence of malice, correctly defined manslaughter, and should have been given. APPEAL from Gadsden City Court. The appellant was indicted and tried for the murder of William Alexander, was convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for life. The defendant pleaded "not guilty" and "not guilty by reason of insanity." The evidence for the State tended to show that the defendant and deceased had some difficulty about a monkey wrench; that the deceased was seen running with the monkey wrench in his hand, and the defendant pursuing him with an ax; that after running some seventy-five yards the deceased turned to the left and fell or dropped to his knees, when defendant cut him in the back with the ax, and struck a second blow on the head, when the deceased fell to the ground, and defendant struck four times after he was on the ground, from which deceased died where he fell; that the defendant was heard to say "here you lie, God damn you;" that deceased struck defendant on the head with the monkey wrench about the time of the first stroke with the ax, and deceased struck a second time as he fell to the ground. The evidence for defendant tended to show that after the killing defendant was found to have two wounds, one on the head, and one in the back, such as could be inflicted with a monkey wrench; that the wound in the back could have been inflicted only from the rear. There was evidence touching the issue of insanity. Defendant's physician testified that he was of a very weak mind, not a maniac, but demented; that he was capable of doing business, and in his opinion knew right from wrong. There was other evidence tending to show that he was subject to spells, at which times he was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, and that when his passions were aroused he seemed to lose his mind entirely. The State's evidence tended to show he knew right from wrong, and was employed to perform work and labor as other men, &c. The court refused the following charges requested by defendant: (1.) "The court charges the jury that in |