Opinion
No. 13793.
Delivered December 17, 1930.
Intoxicating Liquor — Impeachment of Witness.
The evidence offered by appellant to impeach State's witness at the time and in the manner it was offered was not competent and the bill of exception shows no error.
Appeal from the District Court of Hunt County. Tried below before the Hon. R. T. Wilkinson, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for possession of a still and equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor; penalty, confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
Affirmed.
The opinion states the case.
Sam D. Stinson, of Greenville, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
Conviction for possessing a still and equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.
But one bill of exception is in the record. It is quite lengthy, and we have found ourselves unable to determine just what the complaint is founded upon. It is clear that the testimony offered was incompetent at the time same was offered. The person whose statement was sought to be elicited by the defense, objection to which by the State was sustained, — had not been offered as a witness nor had he testified at the time the proposed testimony which seems to have for its purpose the impeaching of said witness, was offered. If witness Partain, the witness referred to, had been offered as a witness by the State, and a proper predicate had been laid, the testimony might have been competent. In the manner and at the time it was offered it was not competent, and there was no error in the rejection of the testimony. The facts are sufficient to support the judgment.
The judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.