
    HUGHES v. STATE.
    (No. 8369.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 21, 1924.
    Rehearing Denied June 18, 1924.)
    1. Homicide <@=166 (3) — Proof of defendant’s statements to deceased’s wife as to cause of killing held admissible.
    In prosecution for murder, testimony that defendant had told deceased’s wife that he killed deceased because he had been killing his (defendant’s) dogs held admissible in rebuttal of defendant’s claim that he killed deceased for insulting his (defendant’s) wife.
    2. Homicide <@=I74(I) — Proof of defendant’s efforts to manufacture false testimony for himself, admissible.
    In prosecution for homicide, evidence that defendant, after killing, sought to manufacture false testimony for himself, held admissible.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    3. Homicide <@==>174(8) — Accused’s statement affecting commission or purpose of crime held admissible.
    Statements by accused materially affecting the commission, purpose, or motive of the crime charged are material as original testimony, and statements to deceased’s wife showing purpose and maJiee of defendant held admissible.
    Appeal from District Court, Newton County; V. H. Stark, Judge.
    Seth Hughes was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. B. Forse, of Newton, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Newton county of murder, and his punishment fixed at 15 years in the penitentiary.

There is no dispute of the fact that appellant shot and killed deceased. He admitted this fact upon the trial, but urged as his motive for so doing the fact that deceased had insulted his wife. This theory was combated by the state’s testimony, and the court submitted to the jury the law of murder and also of manslaughter. The record contains two bills of exception which have received the approval of' the learned trial judge,'but in neither of which do we perceive error. The first complains of the testimony of the widow of deceased in reference to a conversation had by her with appellant on the night following the homicide. She testified that appellant told her that he killed deceased for killing his dogs, that» he had killed three, and he had fixed him so that he would not kill another, and that he was glad that he had done it. This testimony was material- and pertinent as appellant’s explanation of his purpose in committing the homicide, and as rebutting his claim, as testified to upon the trial, that the killing was because of an insult offered to his wife. The other bill of exceptions was to the testimony of Henry Watson, who stated that some time after the homicide appellant came to him and told him that he wanted a little help, and to witness’ inquiry as to how he could help him, appellant stated that he wanted witness to testify for him that deceased had told him a few days back that he was expecting appellant to kill him at any time for insulting his wife. Witness further stated that deceased never did tell him any such stuff as that. We think it provable against the accused that he had attempted to manufacture false testimony in his own behalf and that no error was committed in the admission of this testimony.

There were no exceptions to the charge of the court and no other complaints evidenced by any bills of exception. The facts in evidence seem to amply support the jury’s conclusion, and it appearing that a fair trial has been had and that no error is in th'e record, an affirmance will be ordered.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant renews complaint of. the admission of the testimony of Mrs. Davis as to what was said to her by him after the homicide. A number of authorities are cited relating to the law of impeaching testimony. Any statement made by one accused of crime which is material as affecting the commission thereof, its purpose or motive, becomes material as original testimony. Appellant was not under arrest at the time he made the statements to Mrs. Davis, and they were material as showing malice on his part in the killing.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled: 
      <@=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     