We cannot say, therefore, that the argument was so erroneous as to require a reversal. Mincy v. State, 262 Ala. 193, 78 So.2d 262; Pate v. State, 32 Ala. App. 365, 26 So.2d 214; Espey v. State, 31 Ala. App. 351, 17 So.2d 430. Defendant also argues that the verdict is contrary to the great weight of the evidence.
We are of the opinion that charge 25 was wholly abstract and that it was refused without error. Espey v. State, 31 Ala. App. 351, 17 So.2d 430. Defendant's charge 26, on the right of defendant to act in defense of his son, was fully covered by the general charge and its refusal was not prejudicial error. ยง 273, Title 7, Code 1940; Locklayer v. State, 209 Ala. 605, 96 So. 759.