Under these circumstances we are of the opinion that the Court properly overruled appellant's motion for a new trial. Honea v. State, 103 Tex. Crim. 242; Whitfield v. State, 104 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Purcell v. State, 104 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Henderson v. State, 104 Tex.Crim. Rep.. Other bills of exception are so qualified as to show no error.
See Ballew v. State, 97 Tex. Crim. 325; Watson v. State, 82 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Reese v. State, 87 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Barnard v. State, 87 Tex. Crim. 365; Kirby v. State, 96 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Dyer v. State, 282 S.W. 820; Henderson v. State, 282 S.W. 497. The mere fact that the juror stated that he did not give credit to the Mexican witnesses would not warrant a new trial. It was merely the estimate which the juror placed upon the credibility of the witnesses, a matter which the statute places definitely within the scope of the jurors' decision. See Honea v. State, 103 Tex. Crim. 242. The fact that the trial court gave forms of verdict in the absence of something in their nature or some showing which would suggest prejudice to the accused, none of which appears in the present case, there is no just ground for complaint.
We find no harm in the trial court's exclusion of the testimony in view of the cumulative nature of the proffered evidence. Honea v. State, 103 Tex.Crim. R., 280 S.W. 819 (1925); Littleton v. State, 91 Tex.Crim. R., 239 S.W. 202 (1922). Appellant's grounds of error five through nine are overruled.