Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree. Appellant reserved a bill of exceptions at the trial, but we find nothing to require extended treat-, ment. Appellant offered to prove difficulties on sundry occasions between deceásed and negroes about the plant where appellant and *610 deceased were employed and a “shooting scrape” in-another county. We presume this was for the purpose of showing that deceased was a man of violent or turbulent disposition or character. The court’s exclusion of this evidence must he approved on two distinct grounds: (1) Appellant did not adopt the proper method of proving character (De Arman v. State, 71 Ala. 361; Lambert v. State, 205 Ala. 547, 88 South. 847), and (2) such evidence was inadmissible in advance of a showing of self-defense (Amos v. State, 96 Ala. 120, 11 South. 424).

There was no error; the sentence of the law must be executed.

> Affirmed.