The defendant appeals from his conviction of theft by taking.
1. Enumerated error 3 is the denial of the defendant’s motion to disqualify for cause a prospective juror who stated that he audited the books for Ware County (which was a co-owner with the City of Way cross of the timber allegedly stolen), and that, as a homeowner and taxpayer, he had a personal interest in the case in that any revenue loss would have to be made up by everyone’s property tax.
Assuming that the prospective juror was otherwise competent to serve, he was not rendered incompetent by his status as inhabitant, citizen, resident, homeowner and/or taxpayer of either the county (Code § 59-714) or the city (Code § 59-715).
Nor is there any provision of law which would automatically disqualify an employee of either the city or the county, neither of which is a party to the case. See
Lewis v. Williams,
Furthermore, it does not appear that any possible error in the judge’s ruling was harmful, since the record indicates that the defendant had used only 2 of his 20 peremptory challenges when this prospective juror’s name was called and had 2 remaining at the conclusion of the call, so that he was able to strike this juror without using all of his challenges. See
Green v. State,
2. The trial judge did not err in refusing to allow the defendant’s counsel to cross examine state’s witnesses with reference to possible illegal cutting and removal of timber by co-indictees from areas on tracts of land contiguous to the tract from which the defendant is charged with taking. Such evidence is irrelevant and immaterial, hence inadmissible, upon the trial of the accused in this case; proof that others may have committed similar offenses or even the offense for which the defendant is tried, does not prove that the defendant was not also implicated.
See Knight v. State,
3. Although the defendant’s testimony concerning a telephone conversation between himself and co-indictee Willie Leapheart (also spelled "Leaphart” in the record), if admitted, might have been admissible "to explain conduct and ascertain motives” (Code § 38-302), "[a] judgment will not be reversed, on an exception to the refusal of the trial court to allow a competent witness to testify, where the record does not show what testimony the witness was expected to give.”
Hall v. State,
4. Where it appears that the defendant’s in-custody
*884
admissions were obtained by the "slightest hope of reward” the same are not admissible in evidence. Thus, alleged admissions to Captain Murrhee procured subsequent to that officer’s statement that he would intercede with the judge in the defendant’s behalf and see that his bond was lowered so he could get out of jail, were improperly admitted in evidence. See Code § 38-411;
Turner v. State,
5. Enumerated error 12 is the refusal to give a requested charge on bribery (Code Ann. § 26-2301 (2) (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249,1305)). Although it may be possible that the evidence of the defendant’s acts would have constituted the crime of bribery, nevertheless the evidence authorized the finding that the defendant was "concerned in the commission of’ the crime of theft by taking and thus "is a party thereto” under one or more of the conditions specified in Code Ann. § 26-801 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1271), even though he did not personally cut, remove or sell the timber. This enumeration of error is without merit.
6. Since the case is to be retried for the reason stated in Division 4 hereinabove, we will not rule on the general grounds of the motion for a new trial on this appeal.
Judgment reversed.