
    (89 South. 866)
    DILL v. STATE.
    (6 Div. 764.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    June 14, 1921.)
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; H. P. Heflin, Judge.
    Ered Dill, Jr., was convicted of seduction and he appealed.
    Reversed and remanded.
    John W. Altman, of Birmingham, for appellant.
    While the ease of Herbert v. State, 16 Ala. App. 213, 77 South. 83, holds that the evidence objected to was admissible, this case as to this was overruled by the Supreme Court (201 Ala. 532, 78 South. 886), and the court erred in admitting the testimony (137 Ala('59, 34 South. 840; 100 Ala. 130, 14 South. 472 ; 86 Ala. 54, 5 South. 419; 109 Ala. 45, 19 South. 491; 68 Ala. 599). Counsel discuss other matters, but in view of the opinion it is not deemed necessary to here set them out.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Joseph R. Tate, Sol., John C. Morrow, Asst. Sol., and Gibson & Davis, all of Birmingham, for the State.
    Counsel discuss the authorities cited by counsel of appellant, with the insistence that the true rule is stated in 16 Ala. App. 213, 77 South. 83.
   SAMFORD, J.

Aftfer proof of the act of intercourse which was claimed by the state to have been the basis for the charge, the state was permitted, over the timely objection, -and exception of defendant, to prove six other subsequent acts. However much this court might be inclined to the views expressed in Herbert v. State, 16 Ala. App. 213, 77 South. 83, that ease, on this point, has been overruled by the Supreme Court in Herbert v. State, 201 Ala. 480, 78 South. 386, and this court, by virtue of the statute is bound by it.

There are other questions presented by the record, but they will not probably arise upon another trial.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.  