Dеfendant was found guilty by the verdict of a jury upon an information charging him with the offense of selling intoxicating liquor. Frоm judgment pronounced upon said verdict, and from denial of his motion for new trial, he has appeаled!
Appellant seeks to predicate error upon claimed mis
*541
conduct of the state’s attorney in propounding a certain interrogatory to a charаcter witness called by appellant. The assignment of error upon this point is entitled to no considеration because it entirely fails to refer to any specification of error upon which it is basеd. See Rule 4, Supreme Court Rules. Further, misconduct of counsel must be presented by affidavit as distinguished from settlеd record. Section 2536, R. C. 1919; State v. Wilcox, 48 S. D. 289,
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidencе. To review it in detail would serve, we think, no good purpose. We have examined the record with care and are satisfied that the evidence on behalf of the state, if believed by the jury, was ample to support their verdict.
The sale of which appellant was convicted was charged to 'havе been made to one Reeves, a minor. Reeves was called as a witness upon the state’s сase in chief, and the following questions were propounded to him by the state’s attorney and the following answers received over proper objection:
“Q. You have purchased liquor there befоre, have you? A. I have.
*‘Q. On these previous occasions that you had been at Degner’s farm state whеther or not you had purchased any liquor? A. I had purchased it before.”
Appellant predicates error upon the admission of these answers on -the theory that they were proof of independent offenses and consequently inadmissible, and cites, inter alia, State v. Runyan, 49 S. D. 406,
We incline to the view that the testimony when offered was inadmissible, and that it was error to receive it. It is undoubtedly the general rule that prоof of the commission by defendant of independent and disconnected offenses of a similar nature is not admissible to establish the commission of the crime charged. State v. Runyan, supra; State v. Hanks, 55 S. D. 63,
In thе instant case defendant subsequently took the stand. He admitted a transaction with reference to а certain liquid with a certain person at the time charged! in the information. Defendant’s version of the trаnsaction, however, was, in substance, that a man came to his house; that the man did not look as Reеves looked at the time of the trial, but had' farmer’s clothes on, needed a shave, and that defendаnt thought he was “one of the Grannon boys,” but would not say positively that it was not Reeves; that the individual in question wanted to know if he could get some cider; that defendant said he did not have much left, but he -could have whаt there was; that defendant went to the cellar and gut the cider, put it in two bottles which he put on the tablе, and then blew out the lantern which he had taken to - the -cellar and went to hang it up; that when defendant returned from hanging up the lantern the man was gone with the 'bottles and $2 had -been left on the table; that -there hаd been no previous -conversation about sale or about paying for the cider; that defendаnt took the $2 and laid it in a cupboard; that the liquid which defendant got from the cellar and put in the bottles whiсh the man took away was nonintoxicating sweet cider. In other words, defendant admitted that he had a transaction with a third person with regard to liquor at the time in question, but defendant’s position was, first, that he believеd the man in question was a neighbor boy and not Reeves, though he would not swear it was not Reeves; secоnd, that the liquor was sweet cider and not intoxicating liquor; and, third, that the transaction was not a sale at аll but, at most, a mere gift. After defendant had given that testimony we think it would have been competent for the witness Reeves to testify that he had been at defendant’s place three or four times before and hаd' purchased intoxicating liquor on such occasions. If that is true, then, upon the whole record, prejudicial error does not arise merely because the testimony of Reeves was given out of order and prior to defendant’s testimon)''.
The instructions are not set out in the record and no exception was taken thereto by appellant.. We therefore assume that the *543 learned trial judge (if appellant so requested) properly instructed •the jury with reference to this testimony, and properly limited the consideration thereof to the specific points with reference to which it was material.
Undеr all the circumstances appearing upon this record, we are convinced- that the admission of such evidence, even if erroneous at the time, could not be said ultimately to constitute prejudicial error.
The judgment and order appealed from are affrmed: