Mills v. State

1. The motion for a new trial alleges that the court erred in charging the jury as follows: “A good deal of evidence has been allowed in this case as to the character of the defendants and which has been admitted for the purpose of illus*835trating to 3rou, if it does, their credibility.” In a note referring to this ground the presiding judge said: “The court certifies that the word ‘defendants’ was used inadvertently and was a slip of the tongue, the court intending to say ‘witnesses’ instead of ‘defendants.’ The whole subject being discussed was upon witnesses’ testimony. The court is of the…