Thе affidavit for the arrest of the defendant, charging him with the commission of the offense therein named, seems to have followed the requirements of the Code, (§ 4600), and was not subject tо the demurrer interposed to it.
2. In the bill of exceptions reference is made to а motion to quash the affidavit on which defendant was tried, but no motion to this effect is set out in the transcript, and no question, therefore, as to the ruling of the court on the motion is presented for review. — Wiggins v. Witherington,
3. The prosecutor had testified to facts tending to show the guilt of the defendаnt. The defendant introduced Ed Bright, who testified to the general character of the defendant, as a peaceable and law abiding citizen, and tiiat it was good. The witness was asked by counsel for defendant, “to go on and state what was said and done by Hooton [thе prosecutor] and the defendant at the time,” (the witness saw the defendant with a pistol' сoncealed about his person). On objection of the solid-' tor, the court refused to allow the witness to answer: The record does not show what answer from the witness was exрected, so that this court can pass intelligently on the ruling and we cannot, thereforе, consider it. — Tolbert v. State,
The other questions asked this witness by defendant,— “to stаte what Hooton said at that time,” and “whether or not Hooton went and got a gun and came back with it, and what he said about killing defendant?” — call for evidence entirely irrelevant to the issue, as to whether defendant was carrying a pistol concealed abоut his person.
4. On the cross examination of this witness, the solicitor asked him: “If they, [defendant and thе witness] had not been to a still house that day, and whether or not they did not have a bottle оf whiskey with them, and whether they did not go to church in the neighborhood with the pistol in the buggy?” Objection was interposed by defendant, that the question called for illegal, irrele
5. The defendant being examined as a witnеss for the purpose of laying a predicate to show the bad character of the witness ITooton, — the prosecutor, — was asked by his counsel “To state whether he knеw the general character of the witness, I-Ienry Hooton, in the neighborhood where hе lived?” The State made a general objection to the question, and the court sustainеd it. This question was according to the regular and proper mode of examining into the character of the witness sought to be impeached, and the court erred in refusing to аllow it. — Holland v. Barnes,
The defendant as a witness, was further asked by his counsel, “To state whether he knew the gеneral character of the witness, Henry Hooton, in the neighborhood where he lived, аs a turbulent, violent, boisterous man?” The court sustained an objection to this question and in this there was no error. It was improper for the purpose for which asked. — Authorities supra.
6. The soliсitor asked the defendant on the cross, if he carried the pistol concealed at a different time from that when the prosecutor swore he saw him with it concealed on his person. The defendant objected, because the evidence callеd for was illegal and irrelevant, and this objection was overruled. The witness answered, that he had not carried it concealed at the time inquired about, or during that day. If there was еrror in allowing the question answered, it was error without injury.
7. The defendant, in order to impeaсh the witness, Hooton, proposed to introduce in evidence an indictment found by the grand jury against him at the spring term of the court, 1902, for an assault with intent to murder, an objection to which by the State was sustained. It was entirely irrelevant and immaterial for the purpose it was offered. — Campbell v. State,
Reversed and remanded.