Dickerson v. State, 202 Miss. 804, 32 So.2d 881; Sec. 26, Constitution 1890; Secs. 1691, 2217, 2358, 2536, Code 1942. II. Where the accused makes no objection to the admission of a confession, and no request that the jury be retired during the preliminary inquiry into its admissibility, there is no error in its admission where it is shown to be free and voluntary. Johnson v. State, 196 Miss. 402, 17 So.2d 446; Lee v. State, 137 Miss. 329, 102 So. 296; Randolph v. State, 152 Miss. 48, 118 So. 354; Stone v. State, 210 Miss. 218, 49 So.2d 263; Wright v. State, 212 Miss. 491, 54 So.2d 735. III. The judgment herein, embracing the verdict of the jury, is a judgment of conviction and sentence.

The jury has the same freedom of action in relation to confessions which they have in regard to other testimony. . . . Harvey v. State, 207 So.2d 108 (Miss. 1968); Wright v. State, 212 Miss. 491, 54 So.2d 735 (1951); Fisher v. State, 145 Miss. 116, 110 So. 361 (1926); Johnson v. State, 107 Miss. 196, 65 So. 218, 51 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1183 (1914); Ellis v. State, 65 Miss. 44, 3 So. 188 (1887). (254 So.2d at 754).

Ellis v. State, 65 Miss. 44, 3 So. 188, 7 Am.St.Rep. 634; 2 Wigmore on Evidence (2d Ed.) § 861. The holding of this Court in the Brooks case was reaffirmed in Wright v. State, 212 Miss. 491, 54 So.2d 735 (1951). This rule is now firmly fixed as a part of the case law of this state.

Harvey v. State, 207 So.2d 108 (Miss. 1968); Wright v. State, 212 Miss. 491, 54 So.2d 735 (1951); Fisher v. State, 145 Miss. 116, 110 So. 361 (1926); Johnson v. State, 107 Miss. 196, 65 So. 218, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1183 (1914); Ellis v. State, 65 Miss. 44, 3 So. 188 (1887). The other errors assigned are either without merit or will not likely occur on another trial of this case.

(Hn 10) Moreover, error cannot be predicated upon admission of evidence to which no objection was made. McNutt v. State, 143 Miss. 347, 108 So. 721; Harris v. State, 153 Miss. 1, 120 So. 206; Williams v. State, 171 Miss. 324, 157 So. 717; Dick, Aleck, and Henry, Slaves v. State, 30 Miss. 593; Loftin v. State, 150 Miss. 228, 116 So. 435; Holmes v. State, 146 Miss. 351, 111 So. 860; Carr v. State, 187 Miss. 535, 192 So. 569; Wright v. State, 212 Miss. 491, 54 So.2d 735. We have also held that a motion to exclude inadmissible testimony at the conclusion of the evidence comes too late.

In the case of Williams v. State, 149 Miss. 681, 115 So. 776, the Court held that this evidence was competent and only went to the credibility and weight of the testimony which was for the consideration of the jury. Hinton v. State, 175 Miss. 308, 166 So. 762. Assuming for the sake of argument that Hamilton was an accomplice of the appellant, his testimony was not contradicted, was not improbable, was corroborated, and reasonable. Wright v. State, 54 So.2d 735. (Hn 5) The appellant also argues that the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Joe T. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. I. Cited and discussed the following authorities: Clark v. State, 209 Miss. 586, 48 So.2d 127; Collier v. State, 106 Miss. 613, 64 So. 373; Davis v. State, 108 Miss. 710, 67 So. 178; Grantham v. State, 214 Miss. 756, 59 So.2d 344; Hammond v. State, 74 Miss. 214, 21 So. 149; Harold v. State, 39 Miss. 702, 80 Am. Dec. 95; Johnson v. State, 213 Miss. 808, 58 So.2d 6; McCoy v. State, 91 Miss. 257, 44 So. 814; Moore v. State, 207 Miss. 140, 41 So.2d 368; Musselwhite v. State, 212 Miss. 526, 54 So.2d 911; Shelton v. State, 156 Miss. 612, 126 So. 390; Stone v. State, 210 Miss. 218, 49 So.2d 263; Walters v. State (Miss.), 65 So.2d 465; Watson v. State, 166 Miss. 194, 146 So. 122; Wright v. State, 212 Miss. 491, 54 So.2d 735; Wynn v. State, 63 Miss. 260; Yarbrough v. State, 202 Miss. 820, 32 So.2d 436; Secs. 1995, 3916, Code 1942; Alexander's Miss. Jury Instructions, Sec. 223; Mississippi Digest, Criminal Law, Key No. 1158(4). HALL, J.

II. The State's proof sufficiently identified the tickets. Wright v. State, 212 Miss. 491, 492, 54 So.2d 735. III. The State proved the tickets to be forgeries. Cole v. State (Miss.), 65 So.2d 265; McKinney v. State, 143 Miss. 38, 108 So. 282; Wright v. State, supra.

The jury has the same freedom of action in relation to confessions which they have in regard to other testimony .... Harvey v. State , 207 So.2d 108 (Miss. 1968) ; Wright v. State , 212 Miss. 491, 54 So.2d 735 (1951) ; Fisher v. State , 145 Miss. 116, 110 So. 361 (1926) ; Johnson v. State , 107 Miss. 196, 65 So. 218, 51 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1183 (1914) ; Ellis v. State , 65 Miss. 44, 3 So. 188 (1887). Rhone v. State , 254 So.2d 750, 754 (Miss.