And as we have indicated above, the refusal of the trial court to grant such request has been held by the Court of Appeals to constitute reversible error. This holding, in our opinion, runs directly counter to the holdings of the Court of Appeals in Stewart v. State, 38 Ala. App. 497, 88 So.2d 580, and in Kent v. State, 34 Ala. App. 443, 41 So.2d 194. The holding of the Court of Appeals in Young v. State, 41 Ala. App. 284, 130 So.2d 249, is not in conflict with the holdings of that court in Stewart and Kent, supra. We have found no decision of this court or the Court of Appeals wherein it has been held reversible error for the trial court to refuse to permit the interruption of the examination of a witness on direct to permit counsel for the defendant to examine the witness on "voir dire."
Under the circumstances it is clear to us that the contention embraced in Point III of the defendant's brief affords no basis for reversal. Cf. Hendersonv. United States, 218 F.2d 14, 17, 50 A.L.R.2d 754 (6 Cir. 1955), certiorari denied 349 U.S. 920, 75 S.Ct. 660, 99 L.Ed. 1253 (1955), rehearing denied 349 U.S. 969, 75 S.Ct. 879, 99 L.Ed. 1290 (1955); Stewart v. State,38 Ala. App. 497, 88 So.2d 580 ( Ct. App. 1956). Lastly, the defendant's brief urges in Point IV that "the errors above complained of, in their aggregate, deprived the defendant of a fair trial," citing State v. Orecchio, 16 N.J. 125, 129 (1954) where this court said:
When the State shows an assault by defendant with a deadly weapon in sufficient proximity to inflict a deadly wound, a prima facie case [of assault with intent to murder] is made out, unless the evidence which proves the attempt to kill overcomes its prima facie proof." Stewart v. State, 38 Ala. App. 497, 500, 88 So.2d 580, 583 (1956). See also Ray, 147 Ala. at 9, 41 So. at 520.
And as we have indicated above, the refusal of the trial court to grant such request has been held by the Court of Appeals to constitute reversible error. This holding, in our opinion, runs directly counter to the holdings of the Court of Appeals in Stewart v. State, 38 Ala. App. 497, 88 So.2d 580, and in Kent v. State, 34 Ala. App. 443, 41 So.2d 194. The holding of the Court of Appeals in Young v. State, 41 Ala. App. 284, 130 So.2d 249, is not in conflict with the holdings of that court in Stewart and Kent, supra. "We have found no decision of this court or the Court of Appeals wherein it has been held reversible error for the trial court to refuse to permit the interruption of the examination of a witness on direct to permit counsel for the defendant to examine the witness on 'voir dire.
The jug was sufficiently identified to permit its introduction into evidence. Stewart v. State, 38 Ala. App. 497, 88 So.2d 580. Defendant testified he was at his home in Florida on the night of August 27, 1964, and did not go to or near the home of Mrs. Julia Thornton in Alabama.