(Emphasis supplied.) It has been held in numerous cases construing the foregoing section of the Oklahoma Statutes that the purchase of the special United States liquor dealer's license is prima facie evidence of an intent thereafter to violate the prohibition law, or more specifically, the provisions of the chapter covering possession or transportation of intoxicating liquors, etc., in the State of Oklahoma. Deeds v. State, 4 Okla. Cr. 210, 111 P. 667; Etchison v. State, 7 Okla. Cr. 106, 122 P. 242; Greenwood v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 342, 131 P. 940; Gentry v. State, 85 Okla. Cr. 296, 187 P.2d 1010; Bishop v. State, supra; Henderson v. State, Okla. Cr. 285 P.2d 866; Wolgram v. State, Okla. Cr. 288 P.2d 203; Curlee v. State, Okla., 309 P.2d 1064. We have examined the record and find no fundamental error, but in view of the fact that Officer Haggard volunteered the foregoing statement in the state's case in chief which tended to reflect on the character of the accused without he having put the same in issue, justifies a modification of the judgment and sentence to a $50 fine and thirty days in jail, and as modified, the judgment and sentence is affirmed.