*1 presented us what is no to know way questions facts the statement been denied had not review appellant reliance. his sole the right place denial is not thought Cr. R. 453 36 Tex. v. opinion Bigham similar. are at all The facts with this holding. conflict is overruled. rehearing The motion for Denning L.
J. Delivered No. 11823. Rehearing 1928. denied June *2 The states the case. Lubbock, of
Chas. C. for 'Triplett „ appellant. Canton, Attorney, A. A. Dawson of the State’s for CHRISTIAN, offense is Judge. liquor; selling intoxicating the confinement in one punishment penitentiary year. the
Bob testified that went of business Crump appellant’s place sell; him if and whiskey asked said for appellant minutes; him to come back in returned at the thirty appointed time to him a half and delivered fruit of appellant jar gallon for which he testified that paid appellant $5.50. he told he would see he could the for him get whiskey Crump minutes; he, for him back in and to come thirty appellant, got the from a Mexican and delivered it that he whiskey to Crump; Mexican; to the no in the gave Crump’s interest money sale the and to accommodate merely got whiskey Crump.
The defensive of affirmatively submitted. agency Bill of Number the exception presents occurrence: following Several were well the state’s with witnesses and jurors acquainted testified on their dire examination that were voir on they friendly witnesses, terms with said and that they did not know appellant. ask court refused to the permit whether appellant jurors case of a conflict the would the testimony they same give weight to the of witnesses who were to them as testimony strangers they witnesses with whom were they acquainted. would to The court counsel that he ascertain from instructed the appellant’s might jurors their the whether with state’s witnesses acquaintance influence verdict; their whether were biased favor of the state on ac- they witnesses; their the state’s count of with acquaintance and whether of such reason would the acquaintance they prejudge credibility the The court the of witnesses. did abuse discretion which the law him to vested hold within bounds the proper of inquiry their voir dire jurors examination. The upon prospective question the be asked have jurors would them to sought required have the the of witnesses the credibility and passed weight to their before of testimony such witnesses had If the conceded, heard. which is not question proper, interrogation counsel he appellant’s line court advised would enabled exercise might pursue appellant intelligently as well as to peremptory challenges, interpose challenges cause.
While on direct examination for the state testifying that he had relative to a approached appellant purchase whiskey and that back in to come minutes appellant thirty would sell him For purpose impeaching asked on cross examination: “Can appellant tell you time, is that at jury why in answer to as to was, what this conversation the same Bradley now, here didn’t tell you you about ter you come requiring in a back half hour. Why you did omit that in the Preliminary The court the state’s Hearing?” sustained to the objection question. *3 The bill fails to show that the identical fact to have claimed been omitted the witness was his by called to attention on the preliminary Texas, In his Annotated Penal 173, Code of hearing. Section Mr. Branch states the rule as follows:
“To a entitle to a party impeach by proof now states which he something omitted to state on a occasion, former must be shown that the identical fact was to called the attention of the witness on such former occasion.” State,
See also Roberts v.
“The I to Mr. whiskey delivered obtained me from by a a Mexican who was truck on vacant lot back fixing my filling I station. as a simply delivering matter of ac- he that Crump, a commodating having driven long and needed some way, whiskey.” in also testified his counsel response questions by
the Mexican in had driven to place of business and him, he wanted to some appellant, buy In this record, state of the it was not reversible error for the court to refuse state that Mexican permit appellant previously told he was a selling whiskey living. error, no reversible is Finding judgment affirmed.
Affirmed. of the Commission of has foregoing opinion Appeals examined Court of Criminal by Judges Appeals ap- the State. proved by REHEARING. MOTION FOR
ON is that our LATTIMORE, asserts Judge. Appellant court, and cites of this opinions other contrary Jackson he should as the proposition Rep. supporting 115 S. W. his transaction with to explain opportunity have been he to have gotten from whom he claimed Mexican liquor for the pur- was that he acted as agent His sold. defensive in in our opinion error regard He asserts that we were chaser. said the business a statement of his knowledge engaged of appellant: from the testimony Mexican. We quote about for about that I am talking the Mexican known “I had from him for anybody whisky I any never bought three weeks. a He let me it because drink. gave knew was selling else. I answer. it, I never sell but gave that he would me know whisky me I went and got with what In compliance from him.” en- Mexican was further said how fail to see
We plea have lent force to appellant’s could in bootlegging gaged for the as pur- he was agent, acting the liquor getting chaser. bewill overruled. for rehearing motion *4 Bible v. The
Martin 11541. Delivered No.