We think it unnecessary to discuss the matter further but refer to the following authorities which bear somewhat generally on the subject. Hardin v. State, 104 Tex.Crim. R., 283 S.W. 517; Dickey v. State, 99 S.W. 269; Patterson v. State, 105 Tex. Crim. 398, 289 S.W. 398; Gardner v. State, 44 Tex.Crim. R.; Duque v. State, 56 Tex.Crim. R.; Maddox v. State, 76 Tex. Crim. 217, 173 S.W. 1026. The motion for rehearing is overruled.
The statements of deceased made to Wash McGrew and Jim McGrew were properly admitted in evidence as res gestae declarations. As to the incompleteness of the bills complaining of the refusal of special charges, in addition to Crouchette v. State, Tex.Crim. Rep. 271 S.W. 99, we refer to Denton v. State, 76 Tex. Crim. 58, 172 S.W. 796; Maddox v. State, 76 Tex. Crim. 217, 173 S.W. 1026; Jones v. State, 74 Tex. Crim. 205, 167 S.W. 1110; Medford v. State, 86 Tex. Crim. 237; 216 S.W. 175; Lowe v. State, 88 Tex.Crim. Rep.; 226 S.W. 674; Jones v. State, 89 Tex.Crim. Rep., 232 S.W. 847; Middleton v. State, 86 Tex.Crim. Rep., 217 S.W. 1046. The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Rep.; Duque v. State, 56 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Maddox v. State, 76 Tex. Crim. 217, 173 S.W. Rep., 1026. The special charge entirely ignores the foregoing legal proposition.
Upon trial of murder there was no error in excluding testimony with reference to defendant's conduct some five months before the homicide, in taking no offense at what was said about the woman with whom he was infatuated and who afterwards was the cause of the difficulty. Following Maddox v. State, 76 Tex. Crim. 217. 7. — Same — Evidence — Impeaching Witness — Rule Stated.