Kirby v. State, 16 Ala. App. 467, 79 So. 141. Parol testimony regarding matters in writing is not admissible. Garner v. State, 26 Ala. App. 246, 158 So. 543. Confession reduced to writing and approved and signed by defendant is properly admitted. Dodd v. State, 26 Ala. App. 367, 160 So. 267; Shelton v. State, 217 Ala. 465, 117 So. 8. Wm. N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and John O. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

In action for false imprisonment evidence as to character of plaintiff is immaterial. Davis v. Sanders, 133 Ala. 275, 32 So. 499; Phillips v. Morrow, 210 Ala. 34, 35, 97 So. 130; 22 Am.Jur. 426, § 112. Defendant may not justify an illegal arrest by facts subsequently ascertained. Cunningham v. Baker, 104 Ala. 160, 16 So. 68, 53 Am.St. Rep. 27. Statute relating to competency and credibility of witnesses as affected by conviction of crime contemplates only convictions for violation of State laws. Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 434; Norris v. State, 229 Ala. 226, 156 So. 556; Dodd v. State, 26 Ala. App. 367, 160 So. 267. Where mental suffering and humiliation are elements of recoverable damages, plaintiff may properly testify to his own feelings of humiliation. Third persons may testify as to plaintiff's nervousness.

A conviction in a capital felony cannot be had on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Code, Tit. 15, § 307; Chaney v. State, 4 Ala. App. 89, 58 So. 685; Bird v. State, 36 Ala. 279; Jacobs v. State, 17 Ala. App. 305, 84 So. 785; Davis v. State, 21 Ala. App. 309, 107 So. 726; Gandy v. State, 21 Ala. App. 384, 108 So. 656; Dodd v. State, 26 Ala. App. 367, 160 So. 267; Slayton v. State, 27 Ala. App. 422, 173 So. 632; Smith v. State, 21 Ala. App. 70, 105 So. 397; Alexander v. State, 20 Ala. App. 432, 102 So. 597; Commander v. State, 28 Ala. App. 42, 178 So. 241; Adams v. State, 23 Ala. App. 477, 127 So. 254; Spain v. State, 24 Ala. App. 599, 139 So. 575. Wm. N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and John O. Harris and Geo. C. Hawkins, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

Furthermore, no application of ARAP 45 can be made as no error was preserved. ARAP 45; Stonoker v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 380 So.2d 342 (1979); Lowery v. State, 33 Ala. App. 446, 35 So.2d 360, cert. denied, 250 Ala. 627, 35 So.2d 362 (1948); Dodd v. State, 26 Ala. App. 367, 160 So. 267 (1935). II

This is the rankest sort of hearsay and should not have been admitted over the appellant's timely objection. The State contends that under Dodd v. State, 26 Ala. App. 367, 160 So. 267 (1935), the admission of the above mentioned hearsay was harmless error. Strickland v. State, 269 Ala. 573, 114 So.2d 407 (1959) appears to be a case that would also support the State's contention. As the present case is being reversed on other previously mentioned grounds, we will not reach the question of harmless error at this time.

It, therefore, was proper for the trial judge to refuse to grant the affirmative charge, and we find he properly placed the question within the province of the jury to determine the credibility, weight or probative value to be accorded such evidence. Hodge v. State, 32 Ala. App. 283, 26 So.2d 274 (1946); Dodd v. State, 26 Ala. App. 367, 160 So. 267 (1935); Luther v. State, 47 Ala. App. 647, 259 So.2d 857 (1972); Magouirk v. State, 49 Ala. App. 420, 272 So.2d 625 (1973). The cases are too numerous to cite holding that a general affirmative charge in favor of an accused cannot be given when the evidence affords an inference adverse to him or where there is any evidence, however weak or inconclusive, tending to make out a case against the accused.

Aiola v. State, 39 Ala. App. 215, 96 So.2d 816; Waid v. State, 39 Ala. App. 255, 97 So.2d 39; Simmons v. State, 40 Ala. App. 98, 108 So.2d 184. It is for the jury to determine the credibility, weight, or probative force to be accorded an accomplice's testimony. Dodd v. State, 26 Ala. App. 367, 160 So. 776. The scope of cross-examination is within the discretion of the trial court. Sowell v. State, 30 Ala. App. 18, 199 So. 900.

Judgment may not be reversed nor new trial granted on ground of improper admission or rejection of evidence unless in court's opinion, after examination of entire cause, it appears that error complained of has probably injuriously affected accused's substantial rights. Newton v. State, 32 Ala. App. 650, 29 So.2d 353; Dodd v. State, 26 Ala. App. 367, 160 So. 267; Rule 45, Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of Alabama. PRICE, Presiding Judge.

Lotz v. State, 23 Ala. App. 496, 129 So. 305; Harris v. State, 21 Ala. App. 67, 105 So. 389; King v. State, 23 Ala. App. 55, 120 So. 466; Slayton v. State, 27 Ala. App. 422, 173 So. 632; Sorrell v. State, 249 Ala. 292, 31 So.2d 82; Fuller v. State, 34 Ala. App. 211, 39 So.2d 24; Lindsey v. State, 170 Ala. 80, 54 So. 516. Whether or not there is testimony sufficient to corroborate the evidence of an accomplice is a question of law for the court. Dodd v. State, 26 Ala. App. 367, 160 So. 267; Slayton v. State, supra; Mitchell v. State, 28 Ala. App. 119, 180 So. 119. John Patterson, Atty. Gen., and Robt. Straub and Edmon L. Rinehart, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

Horsley v. State, 19 Ala. App. 263, 96 So. 937; Fidelity-Phoenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Murphy, 231 Ala. 680, 166 So. 604. Great Latitude is allowed on cross-examination, but error is committed when the privilege is abused. Deemer v. State, 17 Ala. App. 449, 85 So. 867; Dodd v. State, 26 Ala. App. 367, 160 So. 267; Davis v. State, 21 Ala. App. 637, 111 So. 314. Hill, Hill, Whiting Harris, of Montgomery, for appellee.