
    (93 South. 528)
    STUDEMEYER v. STATE.
    (6 Div. 678.)
    (Supreme Court of Alabama.
    June 1, 1922.)
    Homicide <&wkey;188(3) — Violent disposition of decedent not admissible in advance of showing of self-defense.
    Evidence that deceased was a man of violent and turbulent disposition is not admissible in advance of a showing of self-defense.
    <§==>l''or other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County ; Wm. E. Fort, Judge.
    Charlie Studemeyer was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Palmer H. Bell, of Birmingham, for appellant.
    Brief of counsel did not reach Reporter.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
    Brief of counsel did not reach Reporter.
   SAYRE, J.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree. Appellant reserved a bill of exceptions at the trial, but we find nothing to require extended treat-, ment. Appellant offered to prove difficulties on sundry occasions between deceásed and negroes about the plant where appellant and deceased were employed and a “shooting scrape” in-another county. We presume this was for the purpose of showing that deceased was a man of violent or turbulent disposition or character. The court’s exclusion of this evidence must he approved on two distinct grounds: (1) Appellant did not adopt the proper method of proving character (De Arman v. State, 71 Ala. 361; Lambert v. State, 205 Ala. 547, 88 South. 847), and (2) such evidence was inadmissible in advance of a showing of self-defense (Amos v. State, 96 Ala. 120, 11 South. 424).

There was no error; the sentence of the law must be executed.

> Affirmed.

All the Justices concur.  