The court said, "This evidence should have been allowed, and the court erred in sustaining the solicitor's objection," and the judgment was reversed. The Lodge case was followed in Bennefield v. State, 134 Ala. 157, 32 So. 717, and both cases were followed in Peinhardt v. State, 37 Ala. App. 693, 76 So.2d 176. In the instant case, the court sustained the objection to the proper, preliminary question, "What is the state of your feelings toward this young man?
We are aware that there are several cases wherein the trial court was deemed to have erred in failing to permit a witness to testify as to the feelings existing between the defendant and another person. Bennefield v. State, 134 Ala. 157, 32 So. 717 (1901); Lodge v. State, 122 Ala. 97, 26 So. 210 (1898); Wallis v. State, 51 Ala. App. 499, 286 So.2d 909, cert. denied, 291 Ala. 801, 286 So.2d 912 (1973); Peinhardt v. State, 37 Ala. App. 693, 76 So.2d 176, cert. denied, 262 Ala. 10, 76 So.2d 179 (1954). However, a close reading indicates that this evidence was offered in Bennefield, Lodge, and Peinhardt to show bias toward the defendant on the part of the witness, and in Wallis to show such bias on the part of the victim.
Whether the court was in error in sustaining defendant's objection as shown above is a question very close to some which have been resolved in favor of the party asking the question. Wallis v. State, 51 Ala. App. 499, 286 So.2d 909, cert. denied, 291 Ala. 801, 286 So.2d 912 (1973); Peinhardt v. State, 37 Ala. App. 693, 76 So.2d 176, cert. denied, 262 Ala. 10, 76 So.2d 179 (1954); Bennefield v. State, 134 Ala. 157, 32 So. 717 (1901); Lodge v. State, 122 Ala. 97, 26 So. 210 (1898); Polk v. State, 62 Ala. 237 (1878). In the cited cases, the trial court was reversed for not allowing defendant to show by a witness ill will or hard feelings by another or others (between two others in Wallis and Peinhardt; between the witness and the accused in Polk; and between the parent of a minor witness and the accused in Lodge and Bennefield). Assuming that they would be precedents for holding that defendant should have been allowed to show that there were hard feelings between Satterfield and other residents of the community or on the part of other residents of the community toward Satterfield, we find nothing in the cases cited that would necessarily support the conclusion that evidence that Satterfield "had had hard feelings with any other family in the community" would be admissible in evidence.
We think the Court's action in this respect was error. In Peinhardt v. State, 37 Ala. App. 693, 76 So.2d 176, cert. denied 262 Ala. 10, 76 So.2d 179, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in sustaining objection to the following question: "Q. Mr. Tucker, you know and you are aware of the fact that the state of feeling between Sheriff and Fred Peinhardt is not good, is that correct?
Slater v. State, 230 Ala. 320, 162 So. 130, 132; State v. Scoles, 39 Ala. App. 59, 94 So.2d 223; Champion v. State, 266 Ala. 283, 95 So.2d 801; Amerson v. State, 40 Ala. App. 540, 117 So.2d 406. But the offense is correctly designated in the affidavit, and both the verdict and the judgment are referable to the affidavit. Peinhardt v. State, 37 Ala. App. 693, 76 So.2d 176, and cases cited; Baldwin v. State, 233 Ala. 138, 170 So. 350. We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Patton v. State, 39 Ala. App. 308, 98 So.2d 621; Peinhardt v. State, 37 Ala. App. 693, 76 So.2d 176; Fendley v. State, 36 Ala. App. 149, 53 So.2d 397; Rogers v. State, 34 Ala. App. 617, 42 So.2d 642; Yates v. State, 245 Ala. 490, 17 So.2d 777. See also McElroy, Law of Ev. in Alabama, 2nd Ed. Sec. 39.07.
"It is therefore considered and ordered by the Court that the defendant be and is hereby adjudged guilty as charged, and that a fine of $50.00 be and is hereby assessed against her as punishment for said offense, together with the costs of this prosecution." The affidavit is not before us, as it was in Peinhardt v. State, 37 Ala. App. 693, 76 So.2d 176. We can only look to the recitals of the judgment as to the crime charged.
When the judgment entry does not contain the offense correctly designated, it is not bad if the offense was correctly designated in the complaint. Peinhardt v. State, 37 Ala. App. 693, 76 So.2d 176; Id., 262 Ala. 10, 76 So.2d 179; Battle v. State, 21 Ala. App. 584, 110 So. 323; Ex parte Harper, 22 Ala. App. 60, 112 So. 96. PRICE, Judge.