
    Estes v. The State.
    
      Indictment for selling Vinous, Spirituous or Malt Liquors contrary to Law.
    
    1. Evidence; admissibility of writing to impeach witness. — In tbs' trial of a criminal case, where a note purporting to have been written by the defendant and which the evidence tends to show was written by a witness for the defendant, who had testified in conflict with the State’s witness as to the defendant’s guilt, and further that he did not write the note, is admissible in evidence as tending to show interest on the part of said witness, and as tending to discredit him as a witness.
    Aptkal from the Circuit Court of Jackson.
    Tried before the Hon. J. A. Bilbro.
    The appellant in this case, Robert Estes, was indicted, tried, and convicted for selling vinous, spirituous or malt liquors without a license and contrary to law..
    On the trial of the case Jim Rosson, a witness, testified to having purchased whiskey from the defendant in Jackson county on Sunday night, August 26, 1902.
    George Coffee, a witness for the defendant, testified that he was with the witness Rosson up to 11 or 12 o’clock on the Sunday night said Rosson testified to having purchased the whiskey from the defendant; that Ros-son left him at no time long enough to have gone to the defendant’s house and gotten whiskey. On the cross-examination of this witness, George Coffee, he was shown a note which purported to have been written by the defendant to tke witness, Jim Rosson, in which tlie witness Rosson was told what to say when be went before the grand jury. The solicitor then asked the witness Coffee if he wrote that note and sept it to the witness Rosson? The witness anstvered that he did not; that the note was not in his handAvriting, and that he did not give it to Will Rouse, a negro trusty at the jail, and tell him to give it to Jim Rosson. The State then introduced Will Rouse and the sheriff, Avho testified that the note in question Avas given by George Coffee to Will Rouse Avho gave it to the sheriff. There Avere other Avit-nesses introduced Avho testified that the note was in the handAvriting of the witness Coffee. The State then offered to introduce said note in evidence. The defendant objected to its introduction on the ground that it was not legal eAddence against the defendant and not legal evidence for any purpose. The court overruled the objection and alloAved the note in evidence, and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted. The grounds on which the court alloAved the note to be introduced in evidence, and die instructions of the court to the jury in reference thereto, are set forth in the opinion.
    Wili-iotte & Nathan, for appellant.
    Massey Wilson, Attorney-General, for the State,
    cited PolJc v. State, 62 Ala. 237; England v. State, 89 Ala. 76.
   HARALSON, J.

There Avas no error in admitting in evidence the note purporting;to have been Avritten by defendant. The evidence tended to sIioav that it was Avrit-ten by the Avitness, Coffee, who had testified in contradiction of the State’s Avitness, Rosson, and that he had not written the note. The defendant objected to its introduction on the ground that the note Avas not legal evidence, the court overruled the objection, and allowed said note to be introduced, “on the ground that it Avas proper for the consideration of the jury, as tending to sIioav interest on the part of the Avitness, Coffee, and as tending to discredit him as a witness, if the jury should believe, from the evidence, that said Coffee wrote the note.” The court further guarded the introduction of the note, by stating to the jury, that if “they believed it was written by Coffee, it was not to be' considered as evidence against the defendant, or as tending in any way to show his guilt.”

We find no error in the rulings of the court.

Affirmed.  