Supreme Court Rule 1; Purvis v. Ennis, 258 Ala. 174, 61 So.2d 451; Crossley v. Davies, 253 Ala. 275, 44 So.2d 439; Wetzel v. Hobbs, 249 Ala. 434, 31 So.2d 639; Halle v. Brooks, 209 Ala. 486, 96 So. 341. Permitting counsel in closing argument to read or quote from statutes or the decisions of appellate courts lies within the discretion of the trial court. City of Anniston v. Oliver, 28 Ala. App. 390, 185 So. 187; Kilcrease v. Harris, 288 Ala. 245, 259 So.2d 79; Freeman v. Hall, 286 Ala. 161, 238 So.2d 330; Alabama Elec. Co-op. v. Partridge, 283 Ala. 251, 215 So.2d 580. The type of questions propounded to witnesses qualified as experts is committed to the discretion of the trial court.

It is permissible and discretionary with the trial judge to permit counsel in argument to read to the jury the law as it is written in the Code or in published decisions of the appellate courts of the State, pertinent to questions involved in the case on trial, and containing correct exposition of the law applicable thereto. City of Anniston v. Oliver, 28 Ala. App. 390, 185 So. 187. Reviewing court should not encroach upon trial court's discretion in matters of argument of counsel and should leave much in such matters to enlightened judgment of trial court, with presumptions in favor of its ruling. British Gen. Ins. Co. v. Simpson Sales Co., 265 Ala. 683, 93 So.2d 763. Where the evidence fails to pinpoint the exact spot on railroad track at which cow was struck, fails to establish the direction in which the train which struck the cow was proceeding, fails to establish definitely that it was at night that the cow was struck by the train, and shows that the greenery along the track shown on the photograph was absent when the cow was struck, plaintiff's objection was properly sustained to question asked by defendant of its claims agent.

"[N]otice to the [Commission] of the defect which caused the injury, or of facts tantamount to notice of such defects, or proof of circumstances from which it appears that the defects ought to have been known and remedied, is essential." City of Anniston v. Oliver, 28 Ala. App. 390, at 392, 185 So. 187, at 189 (1938). There was evidence that the bridge was inspected every two years and that it had received all needed repairs prior to the accident.

The court's duty is to state the law and tell the jury how to apply the law to the facts. McArdle v. State, 408 So.2d 491 (Ala. 1981); City of Anniston v. Oliver, 28 Ala. App. 390, 185 So. 187 (1938). The trial court did not err in refusing the instructions.

While it is the duty of the jury to try the facts and apply those facts to the law, it is the duty of the Court to determine questions of law, to declare the law, and to direct the application of the law to the facts. Southern Railway Co. v. Terry, 268 Ala. 510, 109 So.2d 919 (1959); City of Anniston v. Oliver, 28 Ala. App. 390, 185 So. 187 (1938). It is a well established rule in a condemnation proceeding that where only a part of a tract is taken the owner is entitled to the difference between the value of the entire tract immediately before the taking and the value of the part remaining after the taking, and that the jury should consider such facts and circumstances which would lessen the value of the remaining part in any way. State v. McLemore, 387 So.2d 827 (Ala. 1980); State v. Moore, 382 So.2d 543 (Ala. 1980); Kayo Oil Co. v. State, 340 So.2d 756 (Ala. 1976); State v. Huggins, 280 Ala. 538, 196 So.2d 387 (1967); St. Clair County v. Bukacek, 272 Ala. 323, 131 So.2d 683 (1961).

Not infrequently counsel are permitted to argue legal propositions, even to read legal propositions to the jury. However, as stated in City of Anniston v. Oliver, 28 Ala. App. 390, 185 So. 187 (1938): But such permission is discretionary with the trial judge, and his refusal to permit such reading is not reversible error.

"`It is essential to an orderly administration of justice that juries should obey the instructions of the court. If the court is in error in giving instructions, the jury should, nevertheless, obey the instructions, and the injured party would have recourse by appeal to this court, which is the proper forum to pass upon the actions of the trial court.'" The Court of Appeals, in commenting on the discretion of the trial Court in allowing an attorney to read a Code section to the jury, stated, in City of Anniston v. Oliver, 28 Ala. App. 390, 185 So. 187: "The reason for this is obvious.

There just was no reference in the oral charge to subsequent negligence. The jury is bound by the theory of the law as charged by the judge, and they have no right to depart from it, even though the theory may be erroneous. New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co. v. Curtis, 264 Ala. 137, 85 So.2d 441; or as stated in City of Anniston v. Oliver, 28 Ala. App. 390, 185 So. 187, 190, "It is the duty of the court to declare the law, and it is the duty of the jury to follow the law as given them in charge by the court." The case of Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Lowe, 223 Ala. 542, 137 So. 448, 449, is exactly in point.

In any event, the charges were proper when considered in the light of the allegations of the complaint and the issues presented thereby, as to which defendant elected to go to trial. City of Decatur v. Gilliam, supra; City of Anniston v. Oliver, 28 Ala. App. 390, 185 So. 187; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Gorman, 237 Ala. 146, 185 So. 743; Howell v. Southern R. Co., 189 Ala. 658, 66 So. 633; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Young, 168 Ala. 551, 53 So. 213; Ogburn v. Montague, 26 Ala. App. 166, 155 So. 633; Id., 229 Ala. 78, 155 So. 636; Cannon v. Louisville N. R. Co., 252 Ala. 571, 42 So.2d 340. FOSTER, Justice.

Chester Austin and Clifford Emond, both of Birmingham, for appellee. Counsel have a right to argue their contention of legal principles involved, although said contention might be erroneous. Sovereign Camp W. O. W. v. Stewart, 233 Ala. 421, 172 So. 278. It is permissible for counsel to read as part of argument their contention of the law, either in codes or published decisions. City of Anniston v. Oliver, 28 Ala. App. 390, 185 So. 187. Prospective jurors may be examined with reference to any and all matters touching their qualification, interest or bias. Code 1940, Tit. 20, § 52; Alabama Clay Products Co. v. Matthews, 220 Ala. 549, 126 So. 869. The inquiry should be liberal and extend to any and all matters touching such qualification. Dyer v. State, 241 Ala. 679, 4 So.2d 311. Continuance because of absent witness is within sound discretion of trial court and will not be reviewed except for clear abuse.