Thе plaintiffs in error were convicted under an indictment charging violations of section 19 of the Penal Code (Comp. St. § 10183), by conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten,
A witness for the prosecution, after stating that he was federal prohibition agent for the state of Alabama on December 28, 1921, vnd that on that day Vann Walker came to his office, in the Federal Building in Birmingham, was asked questions calling for what Vann Walker then stated or rеported to him. Objections to those questions on the ground that they called for hearsay testimony were overruled. We are not of opinion that those questions were subject to objection on ¡.he ground mentioned. Cоunts of the indictment contained allegations to the effect that on thе day mentioned Vann Walker reported to_and informed the witness, who was thеn and there a federal prohibition agent for the state of Alabama, an officer of the United States, duly and. legally acting as such in the discharge of his duties as such officer, as to the location of certain stills for thе manufacture of intoxicating liquor in violation of a law of the United States. Testimony of the witness as to his receiving such report or information was аdmissible, though the testimony as to what the informer stated was not legal evidenсe of the truth of his statements. As to the fact of the informer making the report, the testimony called for derived its value solely from the credit to 'be given to the witness himself, with the result that as to that fact the testimony called for and elicited was not hearsay. 2 Jones, Commentaries on Evidence, § 297. It was permissible to prove the making of such a report to the federal prohibition agent, a fact alleged in the indictment.
There was undisputed evidence of the existеnce of a conspiracy between some of the defendants tо injure Vann Walker by whipping him, and that some of the defendants took part in the whipping in pursuance of the conspiracy. The charges made in thе indictment were resisted principally on the ground that such conspiraсy was entered into because of Vann Walker making offensive remarks about a girl, and not because of his furnishing information to a federal official as to the location of illicit stills. An exception was reserved to thе following portion of the court’s oral charge:
“Hawkins, Kay, and Martin do not deny that two of them actually punished him, and that they discussed what was to be done before it was done, and they may well be said to have entered intо a conspiracy.”
It has not been contended that the statement of fact made in that portion of the charge was incorrect. The correctness of the expressed conclusion from the facts so stаted is unquestionable. The quoted statement was made under circumstancеs negativing the conclusion that if conveyed to the jury the impression that thе named defendants did not deny that they entered into a conspiracy charged in the indictment, as other portions of the court’s charge plаinly made known to the jury that the defendants denied their guilt of the charges made, and that to warrant a verdict of guilty against them, or any of them, the jury must find from the evidence that the conspiracy to injure Vann Walker was
As to other rulings complained of, it is enough to say that none of them involved reversible error.
The judgment is affirmed.