His principal ground is that the verdict was not authorized by the evidence, and it was flagrantly and palpably against the evidence. It is strenuously insisted by counsel that the jury overreached its prerogative and lost its head, not because of appellant's guilt as shown in the record from the evidence touching his plea of self-defense and apparent necessity, but rather on account of his attending church on the Sabbath armed with not only one weapon but two. Learned counsel in their interesting and well-prepared brief rely on a number of this court's decisions for reversal, namely, Sayler v. Com., 264 Ky. 53, 94 S.W.2d 281; Ellison v. Com., 254 Ky. 208, 71 S.W.2d 417; Gill v. Com., 235 Ky. 351, 31 S.W.2d 608; Fuson v. Com., 230 Ky. 761, 20 S.W.2d 742; White v. Com., 260 Ky. 516, 86 S.W.2d 286, where we decided that the verdict was flagrantly against the evidence. We still adhere to that doctrine.