We will not do so. In State v. McCormick, 145 Wn. 117, 259 P. 29 (1927), the converse argument was made. Appellant there, appealing a conviction of larceny, contended that the trial court erred by admitting testimony of prior conviction for a crime which was not similar to the crime of larceny.
We have uniformly held, and categorically stated, that the record of conviction is admissible upon the question of credibility. State v. Blaine, 64 Wn. 122, 116 P. 660; State v. Stone, 66 Wn. 625, 120 P. 76; State v. Overland, 68 Wn. 566, 123 P. 1011; State v. Turner, 115 Wn. 170, 196 P. 638; State v. Cole, 118 Wn. 511, 203 P. 942; State v. Nichols, 121 Wn. 406, 209 P. 689; State v. Mariana, 125 Wn. 531, 217 P. 4; State v. Arnold, 130 Wn. 370, 227 P. 505; State v. Serfling, 131 Wn. 605, 230 P. 847; State v. Radoff, 140 Wn. 202, 248 P. 405; State v. McCormick, 145 Wn. 117, 259 P. 29; State v. Morgan, 146 Wn. 109, 261 P. 777; State v. Brames, 154 Wn. 304, 282 P. 48; State v. Hulet, 159 Wn. 72, 292 P. 107. The record of the prior conviction was admissible, and was admitted, in this case, for one purpose only, namely, to affect the credibility of the witness.