Appellant's right to a free and impartial trial by unbiased and unprejudiced jurors had been violated. Armstrong v. State, 174 So. 892; National Box Co. v. Bradley, 154 So. 724; A. P. Tea Co. v. Davis, 171 So. 55. The court should have excluded from the jury the testimony of Jeff Hilbun, the county jailer.
The motion by appellant's counsel in the presence of the jury for a view of the scene was clearly prejudicial to the State's case and not warranted under the law. Armstrong v. State, 179 Miss. 235, 174 So. 892 (1937). It was calculated to provoke the comment made by the trial judge.
The appellants next urge upon the Court that the lower court erred in permitting the petit jury to view the house and premises of the prosecuting witness during which time one of the jurors extracted a shotgun pellet embedded in the wall of the dwelling. This Court in Armstrong v. State, 179 Miss. 235, 244, 174 So. 892, 894 (1937), approved the lower court's action in allowing a jury to view an automobile in a homicide case stating, among other things, the following: But in the case at bar, we do not think it amounts to reversible error, for here the view was important because it was impossible by diagrams and pictures to disclose the position of the car door with reference to the range of the bullet which passed through the windshield, and that such evidence was very helpful to the jury in determining the true facts is unquestionable.
Sec. 2066, Code of 1930; 16 C.J. 826, 827; Clark's Criminal Procedure, 457; Springer v. City of Chicago (Ill.), 12 L.R.A. 609; McPherson v. State, 124 Miss. 361, 86 So. 854; Bailey v. State, 147 Miss. 428, 112 So. 594; Jones v. State, 141 Miss. 894, 107 So. 8; Armstrong v. State, 179 Miss. 235, 174 So. 892; Washington v. State (Fla.), 98 So. 605; Kilgore v. State (Ala.), 95 So. 906; O'Berry v. State (Fla.), 36 So. 440; Haynes v. State (Fla.), 72 So. 180; State v. O'Day, 188 La. 169, 175 So. 838; 4 C.J. 797; Stanley v. Powers, 125 Fla. 322, 169 So. 861. The lower court erred in refusing to grant defendant's requested instruction to the following effect: "The court instructs the jury for the defendant that the testimony of an accomplice in a crime should be received and considered by the jury with great caution, suspicion, and jealousy."