
    (108 So. 620)
    SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. v. SAVAGE.
    (7 Div. 648.)
    (Supreme Court of Alabama.
    May 27, 1926.)
    Certiorari <&wkey;>68.
    Supreme Court, on application for writ of certiorari to Court of Appeals, will not indulge in inquiry involving the examination of a question of fact.
    Petition of the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision • there rendered in Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Savage, 108 So. 619. Writ denied. •
    @=^Por other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    
      Cabaniss, Johnston, Cocke & Cabaniss and Sumner E. Thomas, all of Birmingham, and Prank B. Embry, of Pell City, for appellant.
    Starnes & Starnes, of Pell City, for appellee.
    In view of the decision it is not necessary that brief be here set out.
   PER CURIAM.

The evidence may have been without conflict as to the interest of the witnesses Florida and Ramsey in this or like causes which would affect the credibility of their testimony, and appellant may have been entitled to the charge (7) which the court refused (to which proposition appellant cites Bynon v. State, 117 Ala. 80, 23 So. 640, 67 Am. St. Rep. 163, and other cases), still the inquiry thus proposed would involve this court in the examination of a question of fact, as this court has held on sevei'al occasions (Ex parte Steverson, 177 Ala. 384, 58 So. 992, and cases there cited), and will not be indulged on applications for certiorari to the Court of Aqxpeals. Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Minderhout, 195 Ala. 420, 71 So. 91. Without, therefore, deciding anything as to the question raised against the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the petition is denied.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE, GARDNER, and MILLER, JJ., concur.  