Appellant was convicted for the sale of whiskey in a dry areа and his punishment was assessed by the jury at 90 days in jail and a fine of $750.
The state’s evidence was to the effect that appellant sold a pint bottle of whiskey to an inspector for the Texas Liquor Control Board in a dry area.
The inspector testifiеd that he purchased the whiskey at appellant’s service stаtion on the afternoon of Sunday, July 25th, 1954, paying appellant $4.00 therefor.
The testimony of appellant and his witnesses was to the effect that the inspector came to the service station in thе morning and that appellant did not and could not have made thе sale as claimed by him.
The inspector testified that he was at thе service station but *487 once on the day in question, and was positive it was in the afternoon. A witness who was shown to have been in comрany with the inspector corroborated his testimony.
The comрlaint and information upon which appellant was tried contаined no allegation as to prior convictions.
On cross-examination, appellant was asked: “Mr. Davidson, isn’t it a fact that you рlead guilty in the County Court of Gregg County to two violations of the liquor laws and paid fines?”
Appellant’s objection to such question was sustained, but Bill of Exception No. 2 certifies that the trial court declined the request that the jury be instructed that they should not consider the question оr the asking of the question, and overruled appellant’s motion fоr mistrial.
The effect of the asking of the question was to inform the jury that аppellant had been previously convicted of offenses of a like character to that for which he was on trial. The triаl court properly sustained the objection, but erred in declining to instruct the jury to disregard the improper question.
We have held that in а prosecution for possession of intoxicating liquor in a dry area for the purpose of sale proof of recent рrior convictions for sale of such liquor in a dry area is admissible on the issue of intent. Smiley v. State, 146 Texas Cr. R. 342,
This rule has no application where the prior conviction was for possession for salе or transporting liquor in a dry area. Gaines v. State, supra; McCoy v. State,
Nor is evidence of prior convictions for violations of the liquor laws admissible where, as here, the sole issue is whether or not appellant sold whiskey in a dry area. Balleu v. State, 128 Texas Cr. R. 375,
*488
Priоr convictions for violation of the liquor law are also inadmissible when offered for impeachment purposes, since such offenses are misdemeanors and do not involve moral turpitude. Brаnch’s Ann. P.C., p. 103, Sec. 169; Nattali v. State, 151 Texas Cr. R. 626,
That appellant was prejudiced by the inference regarding prior convictions is reflected in the verdict wherein a jail term of 90 days and a $750 fine was assessed.
We direct the trial court’s attention to the fact that the bill of exception which he approved contains the statement “The Court committed a material error calculated tо injure the rights of the defendant” in declining to instruct the jury to disregard certain questions propounded by the county attorney.
Since the judgment must bе reversed for the error mentioned we pretermit any discussion of the claimed error in the overruling of appellant’s motion for continuance because of the absence of material witnesses.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.