
    (115 So. 802)
    No. 29077.
    STATE v. CHILDERS.
    Feb. 13, 1928.
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    I. Criminal law &wkey;>365 (I) — Wife’s testimony that she was hit by shot fired at husband and had 'her baby with her held admissible as res gestee.
    In trial for assault by shooting at prosecuting witness, testimony of latter's wife that she was' hit by shot and had her baby with her held admissible as part of res gestse.
    2. Assault and battery <§=>84 — Wife’s testimony that she was shot held admissible to show that defendant fired at husband within shooting distance with loaded pistol.
    In trial for assault by shooting at prosecuting witness, testimony of latter’s wife that she was hit by shot held admissible to show that defendant was in shooting distance, that he fired in husband’s direction, and that pistol was loaded.
    3. Criminal law &wkey;>4l69(l) — Admission of. wife’s testimony that she had her baby with her when hit by shot fired' at husband held not prejudicial error.
    In trial for assault by shooting at prosecuting witness, admission of testimony of latter’s wife, who was hit by shot, that she had her baby with her held not prejudicial error.
    4. Witnesses <&wkey;>337(4, 5) — Defendant’s testimony that he was indicted for another offense and attempted to have prosecuting witness removed from jurisdiction held admissible to affect his credibility.
    In trial for assault by shooting at prosecuting witness, defendant’s testimony on cross-examination that he was under indictment for concubinage and had attempted to have prosecuting witness removed from court’s jurisdiction held admissible to affect his credibility.
    5. Criminal law <&wkey;'683(I) — Testimony that prosecuting witness obtained pistol from witness after shooting to defend himself against further attack held admissible in rebuttal. ■
    In trial for assault by shooting at prosecuting witness, from whose car defense showed that pistol was taken shortly after shooting, state’s testimony that he obtained pistol from witness after shooting for purpose of defending himself against further attack held admissible in rebuttal.
    6. Witnesses <&wkey;346 — Question to accused as to whether he agreed to help out in charge against another if latter would testify for accused held proper for impeachment.
    In trial for assault by shooting at prosecuting witness, it was proper for state to ask accused, for purpose of impeaching him as witness, whether he had agreed to help out certain person in charge against latter if he would help out accused by his testimony.
    Appeal from Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court, Parish of Bossier; Harmon C. Drew, Judge.
    J. E. Childers was convicted of assault, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    MurfC & Perkins, of Shreveport, for appellant. •
    Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., R. H. Lee, Dist. Atty., of Minden, and E. R. Schowalter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   ST. PAUL, J.

The defendant was convicted of assaulting one E. L. Scott by shooting at him. His appeal presents four bills of exception.

Bill of Exception No. 1. — The wife of the party assaulted was asked whether she was hit by the shot fired at her husband, and to show her wound. The trial judge correctly ruled that the evidence was admissible as part of the res gestas, and to show that the defendant was in shooting distance, that he fired in the direction of her husband, and that the pistol was loaded. The question whether she had her baby with her was not objected to, and was not prejudicial; it was part of the res gestae.

Bill of Exception No. 2 — The defendant was asked, on cross-examination, whether he was not under indictment for concubinage [miscegenation] and had he not attempted to have the prosecuting witness removed from the jurisdiction of the court. This was admissible to affect the credibility of the defendant as a witness in his own behalf.

Bill of Exception No. 3. — The party assaulted, in his direct examination, swore that he had no pistol on him when he was assaulted “and after the defense had shown that he [Scott] was in the habit of carrying a pistol, and that a pistol was taken from his car a short time after the shooting,” the state was permitted to "show by one Mrs. Mattie Slack that he obtained said pistol from her after the shooting and for the purpose of defending himself in case of further attack. The trial judge says that this was properly rebuttal testimony, and the bill as taken, and as set forth in the record (as above said), shows that it was.

Bill of Exception No. 4. — It was proper for the state to ask the accused, for the purpose of impeaching him as a witness in his own behalf, whether he had agreed with one Ferguson, that he (the accused) would help out Ferguson in a charge against Ferguson, if he (Ferguson) would help out the accused by his evidence in this case.

Decree.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.  