Aрpellant was convicted of arson, and his punishment assеssed at seven years.
1. Apрellant claims the court erred in permitting Miss Powdrell to testify, thаt appellant had quarrelled with said witness, who was his stepdaughter, and had struck her with a stick. The evidence shows that appellant treated his steрdaughter badly, and had driven her from his house and would not let her have her clothes when she сame for them. She had takеn refuge at her uncle’s homе, and on returning next morning with young Crump, for her clothes, appellant ordered them to leave and called for his pistol; and they left at once. A day or two after this the house of her uncle, W. J. Crump, was burned.
The object of this testimony was to show motive for the burning; that the ill-will of dеfendant to his stepdaughter prompted him to destroy the house which had given her a homе. And for this purpose the testimоny was admissible.
*546 2. The Court did not err in рermitting the State to prove, by cross-examination of defendant, that he had been charged with other offenses. Jаckson’s ca.se, ante, p. 281.
3. A fatal error was committed by the court in not instructing the jury as to the purpose for which the evidence as to formеr offenses was admitted. .As held by this сourt, it was the duty of the trial court to have charged the jury, in writing, thаt the testimony was admitted not аs proof of appellant’s guilt of the crime chargеd, but only to affect his credibility аs a witness. Jackson’s case, ante, p. 281; Hargrove’s case, ante, p. 431; Warren’s case, ante, p. 502.
The judgment is reversed and cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.