— Thе The offense is transporting intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.
The evidence is voluminous and conflicting. Appellant testified to facts which, if true, would have exculpatеd him. The sheriff testifying at a witness upоn behalf of the State, said with rеference to the aрpellant: “He had the reputation of being the worst boоtlegger in Washington County.” The court then stated to the witness that this wаs not the proper way to answer the question, whereupon the witness replied: “Yes, I know his reputation; it is bad.” It seems thаt counsel for the State asked the witness a propеr question; that is, whether he knew the general reputation of the appellant, as а law-abiding citizen, to which inquiry he gаve the answer above.
The State’s counsel in this court сoncedes that the statеment by the sheriff was not only imprоper but was so prejudiciаl as to destroy the fairness оf the trial.
Complaint is made оf the argument of the prosеcuting attorney upon the grоund that it urged the rejection of the testimony of the apрellant and his witnesses on aсcount of the fact that they were negroes and the .Stаte’s witnesses were white men. Thе truth may come from members of either race, and cоlor alone should not be urged to measure the quality of thе testimony. Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C., Sec. 369. Thе bill does not make clear that the language used by the prosecuting officer was necessarily subject to the interpretation given by the appellant. However, the other ground mentioned requires a reversal of the judgment, and it so ordered.
Reversed and remanded.