Forest Williams was convicted of the offense of assault with intent to murder, and appeals. •
The state’s evidence tended to show an unjustified assault with murderous intent by the defendant upon one William L. Butler. The defendant’s evidence tended to show self-defense. The issues were properly submitted to the jury.
The case has been here once before, and the decision of the court will be found in 20 Ala. App. 257, 101 So. 367.
There was no error in overruling defendant’s objection to the introduction of testimony as to the conversation betwben the defendant and the assaulted party had at the forks of the road some half mile from the place of the difficulty, where, as here, it was shown that they were continuously together from the time of that conversation to the time of the assault, a short time later. It was part of the res gestae. Shumate v. State, 19 Ala. App. 340, 97 So. 772; Harris v. State, 19 Ala. App. 575, 99 So. 320; Blair v. State, 211 Ala. 53, 99 So. 314.
It was permissible to show the physical condition of the assaulted party at the time of the difficulty. There was no error in overruling defendant’s objections to questions ,to the witness W. L. Butler and Dr. Campbell calling for this information. Lambert v. State, 208 Ala. 42, 93 So. 708; Nolan v. State, 207 Ala. 663, 93 So. 529.
As to whether the threat made at the Metcalf house in the hearing of Mrs. Met-calf was a threat against Butler was, under the facts, a question for the jury. The court did not err in allowing her to testify as to same. Williams v. State, 20 Ala. App. 257, 101 So. 367.
The rules for proving the reputation of one for violence and bloodthirstiness did not authorize the questions as to Butler’s temper. There was no error in the several rulings of the trial court in this regard. Bullington v. State, 13 Ala. App. 61, 69 So. 319; Murphy v. State, 14 Ala. App. 78, 71 So. 967.
Each of the other exceptions reserved by the defendant on account of the admission or rejection of testimony has been critically examined by us, and in none of the rulings underlying same do we find that the trial court committed prejudicial error. The written refused charges have likewise been studiously considered, and we are of the opinion that the proposition of law contained in each of them was either incorrect, abstract, or fully and fairly conveyed to the jury in the trial court’s unusually' full and fair oral charge or in some one or the other of the written charges given at defendant’s request.
The defendant appears to haVe had a fair trial under proper rulings and instructions to the jury by the court. No prejudicial error anywhere appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.