497, 243 So.2d 769 (1971), and Cooper v. Town of Valley Head, 212 Ala. 125, 101 So. 874 (1924), there is no discussion of preservation, and in Felder v. City of Huntsville, 42 Ala.App. 488, 168 So.2d 490 (1964), the Alabama Court of Appeals reversed the conviction even though the defendant had stipulated that the ordinances existed and that they could “be introduced in evidence in this case without further proof.” It appears that many of, if not all, the cases cited in Ex parte Maxwell rested on the premise that the failure to “plead and prove the ordinance” is a defect affecting the subject-matter jurisdiction of the circuit court. That premise, however, is no longer valid. See, e.g., Ex parte Seymour, 946 So.2d 536 (Ala.2006); see also Ex parte Bell, 978 So.2d 33, 34-35 (Ala.2007) (<HOLDING>). I agree with Judge Burke that a generalized
recognizing that cases holding that proof of venue is jurisdictional are inconsistent with ex parte seymour and have therefore been overruled recognizing that special venue statutes are supplemented by the 28 usc  1391 venue provisions applicable to all civil cases holding that a defendant did not waive his right to be present at an ex parte encounter between the judge and juror because he was not present at the time of the communication and therefore had no opportunity to object when the error was committed recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional recognizing the hazards of ex parte communication with a deliberating jury