
    NELSON v. STATE.
    (No. 7812.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 14, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 2, 1924.)
    I.Witnesses <&wkey;269(2) — Cross-examination held not error as impertinent to direct examination, information elicited being pertinent.
    Where defendant’s wife had testified that he had been drinking before his arrest, cross-examination as to his conduct in parading the road with a shotgun, prior to his arrest, which elicited a nonresponsive answer relative to his drunkenness, was not error, since the nonre-sponsive answer was pertinent to the examination in chief.
    2. Witnesses <&wkey;269(2) — Cross-examination of wife held pertinent to direct examination as to trip taken with husband.
    Where, in a prosecution for transporting liquor, defendant’s wife testified he was taking her home from a stay with her mother, cross-examination as to when he reached her mother’s place, where he stayed, and the matters connected with the trip was proper.
    3. Witnesses &wkey;>269'(2) — Cross-examination held proper as affecting good faith of contention on direct.
    Where defendant, charged with the transportation of whisky alleged that he was doing so for medidnal úse of his wife, who was with him, and she testified on direct examination that she had" requested' defendant to get her some whisky for such use, cross-examination of her as to whether she knew what it was for until after he was arrested, which elicited a negative answer, was proper as affecting good faith of the contention.
    4. Criminal law <&wkey;> I! 77 — Refusal of time • for preparing bill of exceptions held not reversible error.
    Erroneous refusal to grant requested time for preparation of a bill of exceptions is not reversible error where no injury results, as where it appears that no basis existed for the proposed bill.
    5. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;233(I) — Examination as to possession of prescription not error.
    Eliciting testimony of defendant over, objection that he had no prescription for the liquor which he claimed to have been transporting for medicinal purposes held not error.
    6. Witnesses &wkey;>277(6) — Cross-examination of accused held not improper as based on paper prepared by his counsel.
    Where defendant testified that he had bought whisky, which he was transporting, while on the road, cross-examination as to whether he had not previously sworn, as ground for a continuance, that he bought it before starting on the trip for medicinal use for his wife, which elicited the answer “that he did not understand it that way at all,” held not error as cross-examination of defendant on a paper prepared by his counsel.
    Appeal from District Court, Van Zandt County; Joel R. Bond, Judge.
    J. L. Nelson was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Wynne & Wynne, of Kaufman, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for the unlawful transportátion of intoxicating liquor, with the punishment assessed at one year in the penitentiary. Appellant was arrested just‘inside the city limits of Wills Point, on the Dixie Highway, about dark on Sunday. He was out of Ms car in tlie road with a shotgun in his hands when the officers reached the place, and was intoxicated. Two half-gallon jars of whisky were found in the car. Appellant’s wife and children were with him. They lived in Dallas. Mrs. Nelson’s sister had died in Rains county, and appellant had taken her there, where she remained for two weeks. He returned to Dallas, and had come back to Rains county to get Mrs. Nelson and the children, and it was on the return journey to Dallas with them that he was apprehended. His brother lived near Point, in Rains county, and appellant had spent the Saturday night preceding with him, and gone after his wife some time during Sunday. Appellant claimed to have purchased the whisky for the use of his yife, and that he was talsinS home to Dallas for medicinal purposes. This issue was submitted to the jury and - determined against such contention.

Complaint is made in bills of exception 1, 3, and 4 that the wife’s .cross-examination involved matters not inquired about on direct examination. She was asked if appellant did not get out of the car before reaching Wills Point and parade up and down the road with a shotgun. She does not appear to have answered that question; if so, her answer was not responsive. She replied: “Yes; he was drinking some — X guess you would call it drunk.” She had testified on direct examination that her husband was drinking, and the only information elicited from her as shown by bill No. 1 was pertinent to the examination in chief. This also seems to be true of bill No. 3. She had testified that her husband had come to take her home. The inquiry as to when he left Dallas, when he reached her mother’s and where he spent Saturday night appears to have been connected with the trip and proper inquiries. It appears from bill No. 4 that the wife was asked, “He (your husband) never told you anything about what he wanted that whisky for until after, he was arrested?” etc., to which she replied that he had not told her. It occurs to us there was no impropriety in this examination. Appellant was defending on tlie ground that he was transporting the whisky for medicinal purposes for his wife, and so testified. She had sworn on direct examination that she needed and used whisky to bathe with and take, and had told her husband to get her some, but had also sworn she had no knowledge that any whisky was in the car until the sheriff took it out. The fact that he had not apprised her of the presence of whisky gotten, as both of them contended, at her request and for her use, was properly developed upon her cross-examination as being upon the good faith of this contention.

In bill No. 2 complaint is made that the court refused to give counsel for appellant time to dictate and prepare a bill of exception.

“The refusal of the trial court to allow time for the proper preparation of bills of exceptions, when requested, is error, but, in order to constitute reversible error, it must further be made to appear that injury * * * resulted from such refusal.” Rosborough v. State, 21 Tex. App. 672, 1 S. W. 459.

For other authorities, see Branch’s Ann. P. C. p. 133, par. 7.

No injury is shown in the present case. The stenographer’s notes appended by the learned 'trial judge show no basis existed for the proposed bill.

After appellant had testified that he bought the whisky for medicinal purposes, he testified, over objection, that he had no prescription from a physician for the same. We observe no merit in this complaint as presented by bill No. 5, nor to objection to the county attorney’s comment on the absence of a prescription as shown by bill No.. 6.

Appellant testified that he tried to buy some whisky at Point, but failed to get it; that he purchased the whisky found in his car from a party by the side of the road after leaving the home of his mother-in-law, and while on the journey to Wills Point. During his .cross-examination he was asked if at a former day of the term he had not filed an application for continuance in which he swore that he expected to prove by his wife that he brought the whisky from Point to use to revive her from sinking spells on the way home. Objection was interposed that it was not admissible to cross-examine the witness upon a paper prepared by his counsel. The objection being overruled, appellant answered “that he did not understand it that way at all.” So far as the bill of exception (No. 7) shows, the matter ended there. We fail to observe any error in the proceeding as shown by the bill.

We have examined bills 8 and 9. There is a qualification appended to No. 9. In our opinion neither of them present error, and we deem it unnecessary to discuss them.

Firlding no errors in the record demanding a reversal, the judgment is affirmed. 
      <®=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     