
    SMITH v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 12, 1913.
    Rehearing Denied Dec. 3, 1913.)
    1. Witnesses (§ 287*) — Redirect Examination — Explanation of Cross-Examination.
    Where, in a criminal case, a witness for the state was asked on cross-examination whether he did not tell accused’s sister that he had done her brother wrong, and that he would get out of the way for $10, he was properly permitted on redirect examination to tell what did occur on the occasion in question.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 930, 1000-1002; Dec. Dig. § 287.*]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 673*) — Instructions — Limiting Effect of Impeaching Testimony.
    Where, on a criminal trial, a witness for the state denied making statements contradictory of his testimony, whereupon witnesses were permitted to testify that he made such statements, an instruction that this testimony was admitted for the purpose of affecting the credibility of the first witness, if, in the opinion of the jury, this did affect his credibility, and for no other purpose, was properly given.
    [Ed. Note, — For other cases, see Criminal Law. Cent. Dig. §§ .1597, '1872-1876; Dec. Dig. § 673.*]
    3. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 236*) — Criminal Prosecution — Sufficiency of Evidence.
    The testimony of a witness that he purchased whisky from accused was sufficient to support a conviction for illegally selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, though accused sought to impeach such witness; the jury evidently believing his testimony.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 300-322; Dec. Dig. § 236.]
    Appeal from District Court, Cooke County; C. F. Spencer, Judge.
    George Smith was convicted of illegally selling intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    A. M. Green, of Gainesville, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am, Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was convicted of illegally selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, and his punishment assessed at one year’s confinement in the penitentiary.

There is-only one bill of exceptions in the record, and it relates to the testimony of Oscar Bennett. On direct examination Oscar Bennett testified he purchased a half pint of whisky from appellant, and paid him 50 cents for it. On cross-examination appellant asked him if he did not go to the sister of appellant, Ella Smith, and tell her he had done her brother wrong, and, if she would give him $10, he would get out of the way. Then on redirect examination the state asked the witness, and he was permitted to tell, what did occur on the occasion that he talked with Ella Smith. In this there was no error; appellant having first questioned this witness about the matter, and brought it into the case.

The appellant then introduced the witnesses Ella Smith and Sam Jones, who testified that the prosecuting witness, Oscar Bennett, did come to Ella Smith, and make the statement. The court instructed the jury: “The witnesses Ella Smith and Sam Jones, while testifying, testified to certain statements claimed by them to have been made by the witness Oscar Bennett to the effect, in substance, that he did not buy any whisky from defendant, and you are charged that this testimony was admitted for .the purpose of affecting the credibility of the witness Oscar Bennett, if, in your opinion, it does affect his credibility, and for no other purpose.” Appellant, in his motion, complains that the court erred in thus restricting this testimony, and cites us to the case of Howard v. State, 25 Tex. App. 693, 8 S. W. 929. The charge criticised in that case is far different from the one given in this case, and the charge as here given is not erroneous.

The only other ground alleges the insufficiency of the evidence. A witness swears positively he purchased whisky from appellant, and, while appellant sought to impeach him, and by such means cause the jury to give but little, if any, credence to his testimony, yet the jury evidently believed him, and not the impeaching witnesses.

The judgment is affirmed.  