The conviction -is for driving a motor vehicle upon- а. public highway while intoxicated; the punishment, 15 days in jail and a fine of $100.
Appellant was arrested about 8 P.M. whilе driving an automobile upon- a public highway. The arresting officer was Texas Highway Patrolman Calvin Harrell.
Patrolman Harrell, as well as Sheriff J. T. Herrington and two of his deputies into whose custody appellant was dеlivered after his arrest, testified and expressed thе opinion that appellant was intoxicatеd.
Appellant denied that he was intoxicated аnd gave his explafiation of' his car weaving on thе highway, as the patrolman testified that it did. He denied thаt he had drunk beer from the partially empty quart beer bottle the patrolman found in his automobile, and tеstified that he did not know.the bottle, was in the car until the оfficer found it.
The testimony of appellant and his witness was to the effect that a case or more of beer was consumed by appellant and his kinsmen prior to 11:30' -A.M.; appellant having drank' two cans. Also, among thé beer openéd in the automobile during the morning was a quart bottle which appellant testified sрewed and spilled on him and'the car when it was opened.
In view of this testimony, we are at a loss to see how appellant could have been рrejudiced because the County Attorney was permitted “to argue with the defendant upon his cross-exаmination as a witness, relative to whether or not the defendant was constitutionally opposed to beer.”
In his argument to the jury the County Attorney, referring to 'Pаtrolman Harrell, argued: “And, he says that the defendant here was drunk. Now, that is what he says. And, I asked him if he was heavily, intoxicated or lightly intoxicated. ..Now, gentlemen, if therе .is any fault to be laid to that testimony it probably should be at my door because of the way I asked that quеstion. Calvin. Harrell is, an honest police officеr and he told you, no, he wouldn’t say that he was heavily intоxicated. But he did say that he was drunk.”
Appellant, objеcted to the argument that Mr. Harrell was an honest mаn; - as being out óf the record, and sought to have'the statement withdrawn from the- jury’s consideration. ■
We do not undеrstand that the county attorney was attempting to bolster the credibility of the officer as a witness, by mattеrs outside the record, as contended by appellant.
' To the contrary, it appears that thе county attorney drew the impression that Mr. Harrell was an honest officer from the answers of the witnesses, before the jury.
The ■ remarks were not such as. to call for reversal. Langley v. State,
The evidence is sufficient tó sustain the conviction and we find no reversible error. ' ■
The judgment is affirmed.