The finding of the court below on the hearing with respect to the reservation of an exception to the solicitor's argument, has the weight of a jury verdict. Vandegrift v. Florida, 25 Ala. App. 241, 144 So. 120; Gillespie v. Bartlett Byers, 211 Ala. 560, 100 So. 858; Benton Mere. Co. v. Owensboro Wagon Co., 207 Ala. 49, 81 So. 784; Norris v. Kelly, 249 Ala. 281, 31 So.2d 129. The trial court has discretion in determining whether a remark of the solicitor warrants a new trial.

Where the trial court hears testimony ore tenus without the intervention of a jury, the finding of that court has the same weight on appeal as the verdict of a jury and will not be overturned unless it is so manifestly against the evidence that a trial judge would set aside a verdict of a jury rendered on the same testimony. Vandegrift v. Florida, 25 Ala. App. 241, 144 So. 120; Gillespie v. Bartlett Byers, 211 Ala. App. 560, 100 So. 858; Benton Mercantile Co. v. Owensboro Wagon Co., 207 Ala. 49, 91 So. 784; Norris v. Kelly, 249 Ala. 281, 31 So.2d 129. Regulation of intoxicating liquors, insofar as concerns their importation into a state for delivery or use therein, is not under the protection of the commerce clause of the United States Constitution. Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp., 304 U.S. 401, 58 S.Ct. 952, 82 L.Ed. 1424; Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control, 305 U.S. 391, 59 S.Ct. 254, 83 L.Ed. 243; Const. Amdt. 21, § 2.

When the court reaches a conclusion after having heard the witnesses ore tenus before the court, every presumption will be indulged in favor of the finding of the trial court, and such finding will not be disturbed unless palpably wrong. Vandegrift v. Florida, 25 Ala. App. 241, 144 So. 120; Campbell v. Moore, 124 Ala. 236, 26 So. 906; Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 So. 52; Moore v. Walker, 201 Ala. 629, 79 So. 191; Wilkerson v. Sorsby, 208 Ala. 345, 94 So. 481; Taylor v. Tennessee C., I. R. Co., 219 Ala. 614, 123 So. 78; Johnstone v. O'Rear, 220 Ala. 219, 124 So. 743; In re Fite, 228 Ala. 4, 152 So. 246; Lewis v. Wilkinson, 237 Ala. 197, 186 So. 150; London Assur. v. Hendon, Ala.App., 2 So.2d 917; Id., 241 Ala. 390, 2 So.2d 921. The burden of proof is on the party pleading and alleging payment in suit to set aside mortgage foreclosure. Seed v. Brown, 180 Ala. 8, 60 So. 98; Cross v. Bank of Ensley, 203 Ala. 561, 84 So. 267; Wilkerson v. Sorsby, supra; Sykes v. Poteet, 240 Ala. 122, 197 So. 884. Where mortgagor who requested third party friendly to mortgagor to purchase property of mortgagor at foreclosure sale is present at such sale and stands by while such third party makes purchase at foreclosure sale and remains silent, such mortgagor is estopped by such silence,

His finding on disputed facts should not be disturbed. Nooe v. Garner, 70 Ala. 443; Fulton v. Norris, 162 Ala. 102, 49 So. 1028; Vandegrift v. Florida, 25 Ala. App. 241, 144 So. 120. The domicile of the husband is no longer made the domicile of the wife without exception.