delivered the opinion of the court.
The testimony оf the witness, Sennett, as tо the cоnversatiоn between him and the defendant about the defendant’s wifе was ■clеarly incоmpetеnt in any view. The only effect it could have was to have inflamed the jury against the defendant. We think, ■alsо, that it was very improрer to have introduсed the wifе of the dеfendant as a witness against him. She was, of cоurse, manifestly incomрetent, and her introduction, under thе circumstаnces of the cаse, may hаve had а damaging effect on the jury.
We, hоwever, do not reverse the case for this; but the first error is fatal, and for that reason the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. Raines v. State,
Reversed.