
    THOMAS v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 23, 1911.)
    1. Ceiminal Law (§ 631) — Total—Service oe List oe Jurors.
    The omission to serve on accused in a capital case one day before the trial a copy of the names of 6 jurors in a special venire of 125 names drawn, followed by the court permitting the sheriff to amend his return, but without subsequently serving the venire on accused, necessitated the quashing of the venire, on motion of accused.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 631.]
    2. Witnesses (§ 350) — Impeachment—Proof oe Other Oeeenses.
    It is error to require accused, on trial for murder, to show on his cross-examination that 14 years before he had been charged with an assault with intent to murder.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 1140-1149; Dec. Dig. § 350.]
    3. Criminal Law (§ 673) — Evidence—Cautionary Instructions.
    Where the court permitted the state to show, on the cross-examination of accused, that he had 'been previously charged with another offense, it must limit the effect of the testimony.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1875; Dec. Dig. § 673.]
    Appeal from District Court, Grayson County; J. M. Pearson, Judge.
    Ben Thomas was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Wiley & Baskett and Jos. L. Cobb, for appellant.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other eases see spme topic and section NUMBER in Dee. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DAYIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree; his punishment being assessed at life imprisonment.

1. When the case was called for trial, appellant made a motion to quash the special venire. The facts in that connection show that a special venire of 125 names had been drawn, and a certified copy of those summoned had been served on the appellant, except 6 of the summoned jurors. These 6 were not served upon him, and upon this ground he made motion to quash, and insisted upon the one entire day’s service of the whole number summoned by the sheriff. The sheriff was permitted to amend his return, and the motion to quash was overruled. The venire was not thereafter served on appellant. Under the authority of Kellum v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 82, 24 S. W. 897, this was error. That case seems to be directly in point.

2. The state was permitted, over appellant’s objection, to prove that he had, 14 years prior to this trial, been charged with an assault with intent to murder. Various objections were urged to this — among others, that it was to remote. The objections were overruled, and the appellant required to testify, which he did, to the effect that he had been indicted for that offense 14 years prior to this trial. Under all of our authorities, the admission of this testimony was error. Busby v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 83, 86 S. W. 1032; Bogus v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 126, 114 S. W. 823, 131 Am. St. Rep. 804; Winn v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. R. 539, 113 S. W. 918. These are a sufficient number of cases to illustrate the point and sustain appellant’s proposition.

3. Haying permitted this testimony to go before the jury, the court did not limit its effect, and appellant reserved exception on this point. Under the authorities, the court should have limited the effect of this testimony. Upon another trial, however, this testimony will toe excluded. It is unnecessary to discuss the matter further.

4. It is unnecessary to discuss the refusal of the court to continue the case. The evidence of the absent witness may be obtained upon another trial.

For the errors indicated, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.  