— Thе record does not present fоr review any ruling of the court on a mоtion of the defendant for a continuance of the case, or on his motion, to reduce the fine impоsed upon him. The bill of exceptiоns
On the cross-examination оf the state’s Avitness Boyd Rice, who Avas thе person alleged to have bеen assaulted by the defendant, he Arаs asked about his taking and carrying aAvay a skiff, Avhich the defendant claimed was his property. It Avas permissible for thе prosecution, in the rebuttal exаmination of the Avitness, to elicit an еxplanation of the circumstance of his taking the skiff, and thereby rebut the infеrence unfavorable to the wifi ness that might have been draAvn from that circumstance if it had remained unexplained. The question as to the Avitness having made arrangements Avith someone for the- skiff Avas appropriate to this end, and the court Avas not in error in overruling the defendant’s objection tо that question. For the same purpose it was permissible for the state tо adduce evidence of the witnеss’ lack of knowledge, at the time hе got the skiff, of the fact that it belonged to the defendant.
The question asked the same Avitness on his cross-examinаtion as to Avhy he did not go to the defendant and tell him about the circumstanсes attending the taking of the skiff was subjeсt to objection, as calling for a statement by the witness of his uncommunicated motive or purpose. — Cagle v. State,
It is not claimed in the argument of counsel for the appellant that the court was in error in any other ruling which is presented for revieAv; and we find no reversible error in any of the court’s rulings.
Affirmed.