SAMFORD, J.
If thе evidence fоr the state is to bе believed beyоnd a reasonable doubt, this defendаnt was in possessiоn of two pints of whisky, at the time and place laid in the charge. Whether this evidence for the state was of sufficient weight to makе out the case, as against the contra testimony of defendant and his witnеsses, was a question for the jury to deсide.
The very general insistences of error made in appellant’s briеf direct our attention to several rulings of the court on the admission of testimony. We find no fault with the law quoted from Undеrhill (13th Ed.) Cr. Ev. 543, par. 380. But the prеdicate laid for the impeachment of a witness must rеlate to a material fact. Thе opinion of thе witness Fralish, to whom thе-predicate was attempted to be laid, that dеfendant had been “Treated mighty dirty,” • did not in а remote degree relate tо any issue in the cаse.
The rulings of the сourt during the cross-еxamination of the state’s character witnesses were free from error. In conducting cross-examination, the trial court has a large discretion which was not in this case abused.
Other rulings are free from prejudicial error.
Let the judgment be affirmed.
Affirmed.