Murphy v. State

On Rehearing.

The Attorney General urges, vigorously, that we “set out the testimony with which the opinion is concerned, in order that we (he) might be clear as to the true holding of the opinion.”

We had thought that we had made the “true holding of the opinion” clear. But we would perhaps, despite the authority in us (Loveman, Joseph & Loeb v. Himrod, 226 Ala. 342, 147 So. 163), give some heed to the request were it not that the “crucial testimony” — to call it .that — is in our opinion too vile and disgusting to be repeated any place. It should clear the Attorney General’s mind as to the…