
    HOCK v. STATE.
    (No. 8279.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 30, 1924.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;l09l (4) — Bill of exceptions, directed at two questions and their answers, presents no error if either question and answer lie permissible.
    A bill of exceptions, directed at two questions and their answers, presents no error if either question and answer be permissible.
    2. Criminal law <®^l 172(2) — Charge as to date of offense held harmless in view of evidence.
    In a prosecution for selling liquor, where the indictment named the date as January 28, 1923, and another case, charging a similar offense on February 6, 1923, was pending, a charge restricting consideration to January 2Sth and within one year prior to February 6th, if erroneous as inciuding a period of limitation going back too far, was harmless, where the state’s testimony was confined to a transaction on January 28th.
    Appeal from District Court, Grayson County; Silas Hare, Judge.
    Martin Hock was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Reasonover & Reasonover, of Denison, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover G. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Grayson c'ounty of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

Two bills of exception appear in the record. One shows that upon an objection offered, the jury were retired and while absent the witness was interrogated regarding a certain transaction. Upon the return of the jhry two questions were asked the witness by the state’s attorney. It appears from the bill that objection w,as made to each -which was overruled and witness permitted to answer. The bill is directed at both. Such practice is not in accordance with the rules. If either question and answer be permissible, such bill would present no error. One of said questions is as follows: “And about the 28th, but you did not say that it was the exact date.” The bill then proceeds:

“And. over the timely objection of counsel for the'defense witness was permitted to answer: ‘No, sir; it was before Eebruary, before the 6th of February.’ ”

There is no statement of the ground of objection and none that we can properly perceive. The bill presents no error.-

The other exception was reserved to the statement in the charge that if the jury believe that the defendant on or about the 28th day of January, 1923, and within one year prior to February 6, 1923, in Grayson county, Tex., sold intoxicating liquor to the party named in the indictment, they should convict. The allegation of date in the indictment in the instant case was January 28, 1923. Another case was pending against appellant charging him with a similar offense on February 6, 1923. As favorable to the .appellant, and in order to make sure that the latter transaction referred to be not considered by the jury or included in their finding herein, the learned trial judge restricted in the charge the consideration of the jury.to a time anterior to the 6th of February. Under the facts this would be proper, and if there appear any error in permitting the jury to include a period of limitation which went back further than- would otherwise be correct, the error would be harmless in view of the fact that the testimony offered on behalf of the state related solely to a transaction occurring on January 28th. The evidence supported the verdict.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.  