White v. State, 40 Ala. App. 378, 114 So.2d 325; Irons v. State, 42 Ala. App. 349, 165 So.2d 125, Id., 276 Ala. 705, 165 So.2d 126; Embry v. State, 283 Ala. 110, 214 So.2d 567. Where a defendant places his character in issue, the scope and extent of the cross-examination of his character witnesses is largely within the trial court's discretion, and a conviction will not be reversed because of such cross-examination unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. Dufresne v. State, 40 Ala. App. 476, 116 So.2d 385, Id., 270 Ala. 737, 116 So.2d 388; White v. State, 41 Ala. App. 54, 123 So.2d 179, Id. 271 Ala. 702, 123 So.2d 186. Where evidence is admitted, over objection, on condition that connecting evidence be later introduced, and such connecting evidence is not introduced, the objecting party must move for exclusion of the conditionally admitted evidence in order to put the trial court in error. Raymond v. State, 154 Ala. 1, 45 So. 895; Henry v. Frohlichstein, 149 Ala. 330, 43 So. 126; Alpin v. Dean, 231 Ala. 320, 164 So. 737.

The State should not be barred from prosecuting a defendant because of any relationship the district attorney had with the defendant, if the prosecution is done by an impartial party and a change of venue should not be granted. State v. Miner (Vt.), 258 A.2d 815; Littlefield v. State, 36 Ala. App. 507, 63 So.2d 565; Id. 258 Ala. 532, 63 So.2d 573; Mathis v. State, 280 Ala. 6, 189 So.2d 564; Id. 386 U.S. 935, 87 S.Ct. 963, 17 L.Ed.2d 807. Any error in admission of evidence is cured by withdrawing the evidence and instructing the jury to disregard it. Dufresne v. State, 40 Ala. App. 476, 166 So.2d 385; 7 Ala. Digest, Criminal Law 1169(5). It is not reversible error to admit in-court identification of an accused by a witness who has previously viewed him in a lineup, when the in-court identification has an independent source. Robinson v. State, 45 Ala. App. 236, 228 So.2d 850.

GOODWYN, Justice. Petition of Wilfred Dufresne for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Dufresne v. State, 116 So.2d 385. Writ denied.

Additionally, any problem presented by the question's possible negative inference upon the jury was cured by the trial judge's immediate instructions removing the matter from consideration by the jury. Crump v. State, 43 Ala. App. 136, 181 So.2d 620 (1965), cert. denied, 279 Ala. 686, 181 So.2d 624 (1966): Dufresne v. State, 40 Ala. App. 476, 116 So.2d 385, cert. denied, 270 Ala. 737, 116 So.2d 388 (1959). III

We think the action of the trial court was proper and effectively cured any possible error committed by the District Attorney in posing such questions. Mott v. State, 40 Ala. App. 144, 109 So.2d 309; Dufresne v. State, 40 Ala. App. 476, 116 So.2d 385; Coe v. State, 53 Ala. App. 457, 301 So.2d 223; Gavin v. State, 52 Ala. App. 469, 294 So.2d 169; Pelham v. State, 23 Ala. App. 359, 125 So. 688. We have carefully searched the record for errors injuriously affecting the substantial rights of appellant and have found none.

Mullins v. State, 31 Ala. App. 571, 19 So.2d 849; Echols v. State, 256 Ala. 387, 55 So.2d 530; Johnson v. State, 49 Ala. App. 356, 272 So.2d 282; Vaughan v. State, 201 Ala. 472, 78 So. 378. The trial court has discretion to decide, in the context of the matter at issue whether the trait or reputation evidenced by the act assumed in the question was relevant to that raised by the defense and tended to impeach the credibility of the witness. Bodine v. State, 18 Ala. App. 514, 93 So.2d 264; Houston v. State, 50 Ala. App. 536, 280 So.2d 797; Dufresne v. State, 40 Ala. App. 476, 116 So.2d 385. No prejudicial error can result to a defendant from a question put by the State when the defense's objections are upheld or when no harmful answer is actually elicited from the witness. Driggers v. State, 36 Ala. App. 637, 61 So.2d 865; Thompson v. State, 39 Ala. App. 569, 105 So.2d 146; Fuller v. State, 45 Ala. App. 133, 226 So.2d 677. Rebuttal testimony of specific prior acts of hostility by the defendant against the victim is admissible for the purpose of showing motive, malice, or intent.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Claud D. Neilson, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. The admission of voluntarily prejudicial evidence is not reversible error, where the trial court directly, specifically, instructs the jury to disregard it. Miller v. State, 34 Ala. 483, 41 So.2d 432; Wyatt v. State, 35 Ala. App. 147, 46 So.2d 237, Id. 254 Ala. 74, 46 So.2d 847; Dockery v. State, 269 Ala. 564, 114 So.2d 394; Tyson v. State, 46 Ala. App. 398, 243 So.2d 382, Id. 286 Ala. 741, 243 So.2d 384; Dufresne v. State, 40 Ala. App. 476, 116 So.2d 385, Id. 270 Ala. 737, 116 So.2d 388; Graham v. State, 40 Ala. App. 471, 115 So.2d 289; Mott v. State, 40 Ala. App. 144, 109 So.2d 309. Argument of counsel to jury will not cause a reversal unless: (a) It is made as a fact; (b) The fact must be unsupported by any evidence; (c) It must be pertinent to the issue, or its natural tendency must be to influence finding of the jury. Jordan v. State, 40 Ala. App. 693, 122 So.2d 148; Adams v. State, 32 Ala. App. 626, 29 So.2d 148.

The ruling was all that appellant requested from the court. In our opinion this case is governed by the principles set out in Tyson v. State, 46 Ala. App. 398, 243 So.2d 382; Dockery v. State, 269 Ala. 564, 114 So.2d 394; Dufresne v. State, 40 Ala. App. 476, 116 So.2d 385. Under Rule 45 we hold that no injury or prejudice resulted to the substantial rights of defendant in this instance. Aside from the above, on page 67 of the transcript, it appears that this same testimony of the arrest of appellant on the 14th on another charge was brought out by appellant.

"The jury may reasonably infer intent to steal from the mere presence of the accused in the shop in circumstances showing a breaking and entering in the night. 12 C.J.S. Burglary § 55; 9 Am.Jur., Burglary, § 26; 2 Wharton's Crim.Law Proc., § 408; Settle v. State, 26 Ala. App. 287, 158 So. 775; Dufresne v. State, 40 Ala. App. 476, 116 So.2d 385; Ex parte Seyfried, 74 Idaho 467, 264 P.2d 685; State v. Johnson, 77 Idaho 1, 287 P.2d 425, 51 A.L.R.2d 1386; Commonwealth v. Ronchetti, 333 Mass. 78, 128 N.E.2d 334; Washington v. United States, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 58, 263 F.2d 742."

The error, if any, was cured by the rulings and instructions of the trial court. Dufresne v. State, 40 Ala. App. 476, 116 So.2d 385; Reaves v. State, 33 Ala. App. 296, 33 So.2d 376, certiorari denied, 250 Ala. 81, 33 So.2d 378. In addition to the matters urged upon us for reversal in brief of appellant, we have carefully searched the record for errors affecting the substantial rights of Lowe and have found none.