It was error to overrule defendant's demurrer to the indictment and his motions for a continuance and mistrial. Tapscott v. State, 18 Ala. App. 67, 88 So. 376; Whitfield v. State, 21 Ala. App. 490, 109 So. 524; Riggan v. State, 21 Ala. App. 482, 109 So. 888; Bertalsen v. State, 20 Ala. App. 539, 103 So. 480; Shields v. State, 20 Ala. App. 639, 104 So. 685; Stowers v. State, 21 Ala. App. 501, 109 So. 561; Schroeder v. State, 17 Ala. App. 246, 84 So. 309; Marshall v. State, 18 Ala. App. 526. 93 So. 380; Burnett v. State, 18 Ala. App. 318, 91 So. 893; Lyles v. State, 18 Ala. App. 62, 88 So. 375. It was error to sustain objection to defendant's question to the witness calling for the name of the lady with him at the time he purchased whisky from defendant.

The solicitor's question on cross-examination of defendant's witness, whether defendant had been previously tried and received a sentence of forty-nine years, was ground for a mistrial. Stephens v. State, 250 Ala. 123, 33 So.2d 245; Riggan v. State, 21 Ala. App. 482, 109 So. 888; Patterson v. State, 21 Ala. App. 464, 109 So. 375; Moore v. State, 30 Ala. App. 552, 9 So.2d 146; Harrison v. State, 144 Ala. 20, 40 So. 568; 16 C.J. 534. The question and comment of the solicitor with respect to defendant's conviction of petit larceny in the State of Florida warranted a mistrial. Code 1940, Tit. 7, §§ 434, 435; Pointer v. State, 24 Ala. App. 23, 129 So. 787. The solicitor's argument that a twice-convicted thief is not entitled to consideration, was highly improper, and the action of the court in overruling the objection to it constituted reversible error.

PER CURIAM. Petition of Clovis Riggan for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Riggan v. State, 21 Ala. App. 482, 109 So. 888. Writ denied, on authority of Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50, 51, 93 So. 706.

"Upon the trial of the defendant on the indictment the state will not be permitted to introduce evidence of other and prior offenses not connected with the offense for which the defendant is then being tried. Lyles v. State, supra; Abrams v. State, 17 Ala. App. 379, 84 So. 862; Riggan v. State, 21 Ala. App. 482, 109 So. 888; Stowers v. State, 21 Ala. App. 501, 109 So. 561; Miller v. State, 21 Ala. App. 495, 109 So. 528; Schroeder v. State, 17 Ala. App. 246, 84 So. 309. It follows from what has been said that the court properly overruled defendant's demurrer to the indictment and his motion to strike."

wrong, if, at the time she committed the act charged, her mind was deranged to such an extent as to destroy the power to choose between right and wrong, she is not responsible for her act. Parsons v. State, supra; Boyle v. State, 229 Ala. 212, 154 So. 575; Cobb v. State, supra. At no time in a criminal case does the burden of proof shift from the State to satisfy the jury from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty, notwithstanding the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity; and if, upon all the evidence, the jury have a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt, it is its duty to acquit her. Russell v. State, 201 Ala. 572, 78 So. 916; Townsend v. State, 18 Ala. App. 242, 90 So. 58. Evidence of another crime wholly disconnected from the one charged in the indictment is inadmissible. Gassenheimer v. State, 52 Ala. 313; Robinson v. State, 5 Ala. App. 45, 59 So. 321; Mitchell v. State, 22 Ala. App. 300, 115 So. 149; Abrams v. State, 17 Ala. App. 379, 84 So. 862; Riggan v. State, 21 Ala. App. 482, 109 So. 888; Hill v. State, 194 Ala. 11, 69 So. 941, 2 A.L.R. 509. Wm. N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and Frank N. Savage, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

We will not. We think the law applicable is as stated by this court in the opinion in the case of Riggan v. State, 21 Ala. App. 482, 109 So. 888, certiorari denied Id. by our Supreme Court, 215 Ala. 107, 109 So. 889, viz.: "This question was improper and unfair, and had no place upon the trial * * *. The court took this view of the question and promptly sustained the objection interposed by defendant.