
    3537.
    HOLLOWAY v. THE STATE.
    Even though a witness be successfully impeached by proof of general had character, yet where his testimony as to the transaction in dispute is corroborated in material particulars, the jury have a right to believe that as to that particular transaction he is telling the truth.
    Decided November 7, 1911.
    Indictment for sale of liquor; from Pike superior court — Judge Daniel.
    May 22, 1911.
    Meadows testified, that Stocks, chief of police, gave him 25 cents and an empty bottle to get whisky from the defendant, and he went into her house and bought whisky from her, pajdng her 10 cents for it, and returned the bottle, with this whisky in it, and 15 cents in change, to Stocks, who was waiting in front of the-house; also that his own character was bad and sometimes he would not believe himself on oath. Stocks testified, that he searched Meadows, found he had no whisky or money, gave him 25 cents and an empty bottle, and waited outside while Meadows went in the defendant’s house, and in a few minutes Meadows returned the bottle to him, with whisky in it, and 15 cents; that the defendant pleaded guilty in the mayor’s court; and that Meadows’s character was bad and he would not believe him on oath. These were the only witnesses introduced for the State. The defendant made the following statement to the jury: “Ben Meadows came to my house a few days before, this time, and had a basket and some whisky in it. He came in, got something out of the basket, and went out. I never sold him any whisky in my life. I was ironing when he came in, and he asked me for some whisky, and I told him I did not have any, and he went out.”
    
      Henry O. Farr, for plaintiff in error.
    
      J. W. Wise, solicitor-general, contra.
   Bussell, J.

The motion for a new trial raises only the question whether under the evidence the conviction was legal. We are inclined to agree with the main witness himself, and also with the policeman, that the former’s character is bad, and that, as a general proposition, his testimony would be unworthy of credit; but the circumstances of corroboration are such as might authorize the inference that the witness was telling the truth as to the transaction testified to in the instant case. Strozier v. Carroll, 31 Ga. 557; Powell v. State, 101 Ga. 20 (5), (29 S. E. 309, 65 Am. St. Rep. 277); Haynes v. State, 17 Ga. 465. The only question involved was one to be determined by the jury, and by the jury alone. There is no limitation on the power of a jury to credit a witness, unless the facts testified to by him be, according to the common knowledge of mankind, inherently impossible. Pyles v. State, 3 Ga. App. 29 (59 S. E. 193); Jolly v. State, 5 Ga. App. 454 (63 S. E. 520). Judgment affirmed.  