The opinion
On Rehearing
In brief in support of the application for rehearing counsel for the appellant make the following request:
“If this Honorable Court determines not to grant the application for rehearing and deny same, appellant respectfully requests the Court to make a full statement of the evidence, in the Opinion, showing the voir dire examination of the jurors, Reedie Taylor, John M. Cofer and C. R. Childress ; the affidavits of J. C. Pattillo and Ralph P. Eagerton and the affidavits of said jurors and that a full statement of the evidence as to the introduction of exhibits ‘A,’ ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ by the State and the testimony of C. R. Keener that the writing on warrant No. 554 (Exhibit ‘A’) was the handwriting of Mrs. Wyatt, the appellant, as shown on record page 115, where the solicitor asked the witness, Keener, this question:
“ ‘Q. When you stated that was her handwriting you were referring to warrant No. 554?’ and the witness answered ‘yes.’ Also, as to the introduction of the exhibits ‘A’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’; the affidavits of different citizens showing that exhibits T, ‘J’, ‘K’ and ‘L’ and also the publicity shown to have been given on the trial of this case, together with the editorial of the Union Banner when appellant’s cases were continued, to the end that these matters may be reviewed by our Supreme Court and in compliance with the rule as announced in Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Minderhout, 195 Ala. 420 , 71 So. 91 .”
We will attempt to comply in so far as we are able.
As to the voir dire examination of the venire, the record shows that the court questioned the entire venire fully as to their general qualifications; also as to their relationship to any of the attorneys participating in the trial. The record • further shows the following additional examination by the court, and attorneys, during the voir dire examination of the venire:
“The Court: Do you have a fixed opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the Defendant, if so, hold up your right hand? Have you heard the case talked about and *141 discussed in such a way and manner which has influenced you in any way or which might tend to bias your verdict? If so, hold up your right hands ?
;{< # >{C
“The Court: Is there any reason whatsoever that you know of why you can’t sit on the Jury and a true verdict render according to the evidence? Please indicate at this time. Any other questions now, gentlemen, on the part of the State or the the Defendant?
íjc í¡í j}s jjs ‡ :Je
“Mr. Ellis: I notice in the report of the Grand Jury — how many of you read that article in the Union Banner? It will not disqualify you: I just want to know how many of you read it. The audit was published in the Union Banner. Those who do not hold up their hands I will assume have not read it. It was published in series * * *
“The Court: Hold up your hands again, gentlemen, let’s see how many that was.
“Mr. Ellis: I don’t think that makes any difference, if the Court please. That’s not the point I am making. Now the next question is one that is really vital. You gentlemen have been fair enough and frank enough to admit that you have read those articles and the first thing I want to ask you is do you think that those would bias your verdict or tend to bias your verdict or whether or not you could base it on the testimony that comes from the witness stand? In other words, do you think that that would tend to bias your verdict, if so, tell me so. If you do think that it would bias your verdict I want to ask you to be fair enough to tell us so. I am going to depend upon what you say about it:
“The Court: In other words, gentlemen, if you are biased in your opinion by having read the Union Banner or those articles Mr. Ellis referred to hold up your right hand and indicate to the Court at this time.
“A Voice: Over here.
“Mr. Ellis: What is your name, sir?
“A Voice: Vernon Robinson.
“Mr. Ellis: Mr. Robinson. I think I should thank you for your frankness in admitting that you would be biased and if your Honor please I think he should be excused.
“The Court: Excuse Mr. Robinson.
“Mr. Ellis: Now is there any other gentleman who thinks he would be biased by it. I want to see if your minds are free to disregard that and not be biased by it at all. If you think you would be, kindly be as fair as Mr. Robinson was and tell us so. If you don’t say you would be why we will accept that and go ahead.”
There then follows a further individual examination by appellant’s attorney of the venireman Taylor. We have in our original opinion set out the material portions of this examination,- and will not again repeat it.
Many affidavits were introduced by appellant in her motion for a new tri-al. We of course did not attempt to comment on them or set them out, since the legal principles governing the lower court’s action on the motion fully justified the court’s ruling. Among these affidavits was one from J. C. Pattillo, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Chilton County. In his affidavit Mr. Pattillo stated that he had attended the meeting at the Clanton Laundry. Mr. Pattillo’s statement concerning the purpose and outcome of this meeting is virtually the same as that contained in the affidavit of venireman Reedie Taylor, which has been discussed in the original opinion. Among the people named by Mr. Pattillo as being in attendance at this meeting was Mr. Reedie Taylor.
The remaining part of Mr. ' Pattillo’s affidavit pertains to the qualification of the venire, and it does not differ from the facts disclosed by the record, and already discussed.
The material portions of Mr. Eagerton’s affidavit are as follows:
“At a time prior to the release of the report on Chilton County Board of Revenue I was in Clanton on official business and did see Mr. Reedie Taylor whom I have known for approximately thirty years and who was a student at the business col *142 lege which I operated in Montgomery at one time.
“Being old friend, I stopped and talked with him about things in general and during the course of our conversation 'he ask me if the affairs of his County were as bad as the gossip and rumors had them. I told Mr. Taylor that I was afraid that they were. No names were called and we did not discuss the matter further and after a few minutes I left.”
As to the introduction of Exhibits “A”, “C”, “D”, and “E”, we again note that the appellant admitted her handwriting on the face of all of these exhibits. (See original opinion.)
The question propounded to witness Keener and his answer thereto, as set forth in counsel’s brief followed a series of questions in which it was made abundantly clear that during the examination of State’s witness Keener the State had questioned him only as to the face of Exhibit “A”, the same being warrant No. 554, and the question and answer could therefore rationally apply only to such portion of Exhibit “A”.
Keener gave no testimony as to the authorship of the endorsement on the back of the warrant, such testimony being later elicited from State’s witness Brooks.
The latter part of the request made in counsel’s brief, beginning with “Also, as to the introduction of the exhibits ‘A’, ‘C’, ‘D’, and ‘E’; the affidavits of different citizens showing that exhibits T, ‘J’, ‘K’, and ‘L’, and also the publicity shown to have been given on the trial of this case,” etc., is not sufficiently clear to us to enable a full compliance on our part.
Certainly no further comment need be made as to Exhibits “A”, “C”, “D”, and “E".
Exhibits “I”, “J”, “K”, and “L” were claims filed against the county, and were largely in the handwriting of the appellant, except for the signatures of the claimants. These handwriting portions of the exhibits were received in evidence for comparison purposes. It appears that these claims or some of them had been the subject of comment in the auditor’s report, or were for items which counsel argue would prejudice appellant in the eyes of the jury. We have already written to this point in the original opinion.
The editorial referred to upon the continuance of the case in the court below expressed deep disappointment over the delay, and discouragement over the future processing of the case.
The other publicity referred to was contained mainly in the publication of the auditor’s report in the Chilton County Banner. This report is voluminous, and we will not undertake even to summarize it.
All of the above matters were considered by us on our review, and of course were before the court below. We do. not see that they should in anywise affect our conclusions already announced. All are governed by the legal principles already set forth, and in fact were in general commented upon in our original opinion.
Counsel for appellant have called our attention to a statement in our original opinion which is misleading as to one of the asserted errors advanced by counsel. We have accordingly corrected our original' opinion in this regard. The original opinion is therefore corrected, and the application for rehearing is denied.
Opinion corrected. Application denied..