
    (85 South. 867)
    DEEMER et al. v. STATE.
    (8 Div. 764.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    June 15, 1920.)
    Witnesses <&wkey;350 — Objection to Cross-Examination as to- Conviction of Crime Properly Sustained.
    In assault case, the court properly sustained objection to question asked by defendant’s counsel of the party assaulted on the latter’s cross-examination: “How many times have you been convicted of crime?”
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; O. Kyle, Judge.
    Carl Deemer and Jim Gilbert were convicted of an assault with intent to rob, and they appeal.
    Affirmed.
    S. A. Lynne, of Decatur, for appellant.
    J. Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MERRITT, J.

The defendants were tried and convicted under an indictment charging them with an assault with intent to rob, and were sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than two years and not more than three years each.

During the cross-examination of the party assaulted, he was asked by defendant’s counsel: “How many times have you been convicted of crime?” The objection of the solicitor to the question was sustained by the court, and in so ruling the court did not commit error. Abrams v. State, ante, p. 379, 84 South. 862.

This appears to be the only exception reserved during the trial, and, there being no error in the record, the judgment of conviction is ajfirmed.

Affirmed.  