Appellant introduced a great deal of evidence tending to show mental derangement on divers and sundry occasions. Among other instances, a conversation with his brother-in-law, in which he imputed a want of chastity to his wife, and said deceased was familiar with her. He talked to other parties about the matter, and talked to various parties about a mob trying to kill him. He stated he was going to resign his position as county judge, and went so far as to see some of the commissioners, asking them to select a certain party in his place after his resignation. His reason given for resigning was to accept a more lucrative position in the trial of railroad cases. It is unnecessary to make a full and complete statement of all the circumstances detailed in the record, covering 167 pages of facts, but we deem the foregoing sufficiently explicit to present the questions of law raised in the record.
Appellant’s first bill of exceptions complains of the district judge of Robertson county changing the venue upon his own motion, upon the grounds (1) that Williamson county is not an adjoining county, but the counties of Leon, Limestone, and Falls each adjoin Robertson county, and that the venue should have been changed to one of the latter counties; (2) that the statute contemplates, if a change of venue is made, it shall be to a county adjoining the one where the offense is committed; (3) that Williamson county is a long distance from Robertson county, and that defendant’s trial will be among strangers, and by reason of said fact it will be difficult for him to have said trial in Williamson county, and he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial. The judge in his qualification to the bill states that Williamson county is on the same line of railroad as the town of Franklin, the county seat of Robertson county, where a great number of the witnesses resided.
We have heretofore held that the statute with reference to the change of venue leaves it within the sound discretion of the trial court to change the venue whenever he is satisfied that a trial alike fair and impartial to the accused and the state cannot be had in the forum where the crime was committed. We have also held that this is a judicial, and not a personal, discretion, and, unless there is a flagrant violation of it, we will not disturb his finding. The question here involved was passed upon by us in Nite v. State, adversely to appellant’s contention. And see, also, Boyett v. State. He also filed a motion in the district court of Williamson county, asking said court to retransfer the cause to Robertson county. The court overruled the motion, and we do not see any error in this action. The judge not having violated his discretion in transferring the case to Williamson county, we see no error in the court’s refusal to retransfer the same.
