1979), however Thomas is distinguishable readily because there no objection was made to the witness who testified in rebuttal. In Sullivan v. State, 149 Miss. 412, 115 So. 552 (1928), this Court stated: Appellant next insists that the court erred in admitting testimony of the witness, Dogan, as to shots being found in the fence and side of the house, which testimony was offered by the state in rebuttal.

It is manifest that such an argument cannot prevail. See Skates v. State, 64 Miss. 644, 1 So. 834; Cunningham v. State, 94 Miss. 228, 48 So. 297; Johnson v. State, 106 Miss. 94, 63 So. 238; White v. State, 142 Miss. 484, 107 So. 755; Bailey v. State, 147 Miss. 428, 112 So. 594; Sullivan v. State, 149 Miss. 412, 115 So. 552; Sanders v. State, 150 Miss. 296, 116 So. 433. ETHRIDGE, P.J.

The converse of this proposition is also equally as well settled, and if the explanation given by the defendant or by the eyewitnesses is unreasonable or if it is contradicted by the physical facts or circumstances, then a jury verdict of guilty will stand. McGehee v. State, 138 Miss. 882, 104 So. 151; Grady v. State, 144 Miss. 779, 110 So. 225; McFatter v. State, 147 Miss. 133, 113 So. 187; Sullivan v. State (Miss.), 115 So. 552. There are numerous inconsistencies in the testimony offered for the defendant, and these inconsistencies are not explained nor are they attempted to be explained by him.

J.R. Griffin, Asst. Atty Gen., Jackson, for appellee. I. The rule laid down in Weathersby v. State, 165 Miss. 207, 140 So. 481, and cases of similar import, does not apply. Weathersby v. State, supra; Pitts v. State, 211 Miss. 268, 51 So.2d 448; McGehee v. State, 138 Miss. 822, 104 So. 150; Durr v. State, 175 Miss. 797, 168 So. 65; Stubblefield v. State, 142 Miss. 787, 107 So. 663; McFatter v. State, 147 Miss. 133, 113 So. 187; Grady v. State, 144 Miss. 778, 110 So. 225; Sullivan v. State, 149 Miss. 412, 115 So. 552; Ivey v. State, 154 Miss. 60, 119 So. 507; Herrin v. State, 201 Miss. 595, 29 So.2d 452; Fortner v. State (Miss.), 56 So.2d 17; Scott v. State, 185 Miss. 454, 188 So. 546. II. The admission of testimony of Velton Fanning with reference to conduct and statements of the deceased prior to the alleged homicide was not error. Bangren v. State, 198 Miss. 359, 22 So.2d 360.

If the facts relied upon to change such presumption are unreasonable and improbable, or if they are contradicted by physical facts and circumstances in evidence, then the jury may find a verdict either of murder or manslaughter, according to the circumstances and facts in evidence. Stubble-field v. State, 142 Miss. 787, 107 So. 663; McFatter v. State, 147 Miss. 133, 113 So. 187; McGehee v. State, 138 Miss. 822, 104 So. 150; Grady v. State, 144 Miss. 778, 110 So. 225; Sullivan v. State, 149 Miss. 412, 115 So. 552; Ivey v. State, [154] Miss. [60,] 119 So. 507." To the same effect is Weathersby v. State, 165 Miss. 207, 147 So. 481.

If the facts relied upon to change such presumption are unreasonable and improbable, or if they are contradicted by physical facts and circumstances in evidence, then the jury may find a verdict either of murder or manslaughter, according to the circumstances and facts in evidence. Bennett v. State, 152 Miss. 728, 120 So. 837; Stubblefield v. State, 142 Miss. 787, 107 So. 663; McFatter v. State, 147 Miss. 133, 113 So. 187; McGehee v. State, 138 Miss. 822, 104 So. 150; Grady v. State, 144 Miss. 778, 110 So. 225; Sullivan v. State, 149 Miss. 412, 115 So. 552; Ivey v. State, 154 Miss. 60, 119 So. 507; Durr v. State, 175 Miss. 797, 168 So. 65. Taking the evidence as a whole, the testimony of the witnesses, and the physical facts and circumstances, the question of whether the killing was murder or justifiable homicide was one for the jury.

Second: The question of the reasonableness of appellant's actions in his claimed apprehension that he was in danger of losing his life or suffering great bodily harm from the fist fight was ultimately for the jury to determine even though the jury may have believed that he acted without malice. Thornton v. State, 178 Miss. 304, 170 So. 541; Smith v. State, 167 Miss. 85, 147 So. 482; Brumfield v. State, 150 Miss. 552, 117 So. 529; McFatter v. State, 147 Miss. 133, 113 So. 187; McGehee v. State, 138 Miss. 822, 104 So. 150; Sullivan v. State, 149 Miss. 412, 115 So. 552; Stubblefield v. State, 142 Miss. 787, 107 So. 663; McDowell v. State, 189 Miss. 617, 198 So. 564; Hodges v. State, 192 Miss. 322, 6 So.2d 123; Staiger v. State, 110 Miss. 557, 70 So. 690; Cotton v. State, 31 Miss. 504; Fore v. State, 75 Miss. 727, 23 So. 710. The rule that it is within the province of the jury to determine the reasonableness of the grounds upon which the accused acts when he claims self-defense has long been the settled law, and instructions in regard thereto have been approved by this court in a long line of cases.

See also Queen v. State, 152 Miss. 723, 120 So. 838; Cartwright v. State, 71 Miss. 82, 14 So. 526; Hare v. State, 4 How. (Miss.) 187; Haley v. State, 123 Miss. 87, 85 So. 129; Allen v. State, 172 Miss. 472, 159 So. 533; Lewis v. State, 109 Miss. 586, 68 So. 785; Wade v. State, 155 Miss. 648, 124 So. 803, 85 A.L.R. 1406; White v. State, 142 Miss. 484, 107 So. 755; Johnson v. State, 106 Miss. 94, 63 So. 338; Skates v. State, 64 Miss. 644, 1 So. 843; Turner v. State, 176 Miss. 862, 170 So. 642; Adams v. State, 175 Miss. 868, 167 So. 59; Wells v. State, 162 Miss. 617, 139 So. 859; Sanders v. State, 150 Miss. 296, 116 So. 433; Bailey v. State, 147 Miss. 428, 112 So. 594; Sullivan v. State, 149 Miss. 412, 115 So. 552; Miss. Code of 1930, Sec. 583. Greek L. Rice, Attorney-General, by R.O. Arrington, Assistant Attorney-General, for appellee.

If the facts relied upon to change such presumption are unreasonable and improbable, or if they are contradicted by physical facts and circumstances in evidence, then the jury may find a verdict either of murder or manslaughter, according to the circumstances and facts in evidence. Bennett v. State, 152 Miss. 728, 120 So. 837; Stubblefield v. State, 142 Miss. 787, 107 So. 663; McFatter v. State, 147 Miss. 133, 113 So. 187; McGehee v. State, 138 Miss. 822, 104 So. 150; Grady v. State, 144 Miss. 778, 110 So. 225; Sullivan v. State, 149 Miss. 412, 115 So. 552; Ivy v. State, 119 So. 507. Outside of the self-serving declarations (which were inadmissible, yet admitted without objection on the part of anyone) this case is precisely the case of Jackson v. State, 163 Miss. 235, 140 So. 683, at the time the state rested its case.

If the facts relied upon to charge such presumption are unreasonable and improbable, or if they are contradicted by physical facts and circumstances in evidence, then the jury may find a verdict of either murder or manslaughter, according to the circumstances and facts in evidence. Bennett v. State, 152 Miss. 728, 120 So. 837; Stubblefield v. State, 142 Miss. 787, 107 So. 663; McFatter v. State, 147 Miss. 133, 113 So. 187; McGehee v. State, 138 Miss. 822, 104 So. 150; Grady v. State, 144 Miss. 778, 110 So. 225; Sullivan v. State, 149 Miss. 412, 115 So. 552; Ivey v. State, 119 So. 507. One of the instructions for the state, defining murder, does not require belief to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" before a verdict of murder could be returned.