
    HOUSER v. STATE.
    (No. 5807.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 5, 1920.
    Rehearing Denied June 9, 1920.)
    1. Witnesses ©=>249 — Volunteered statement by witness that he thought defendant was automobile thief improper.
    In prosecution for theft of automobile, statement, volunteered by a witness, after testifying that when he saw defendant and another driving the car he spoke to defendant, who nodded, that he thought he would stop defendant, as he was certain defendant was an automobile thief, held improper.
    2. Criminal law ©=>l170>/2(6) — Volunteered statement of witness directed not to be considered was harmless.
    In prosecution for theft of automobile, where the trial court instructed not to consider a witness’ volunteered statement that when he saw defendant in the car he thought he would stop him, as he was certain he was an automobile thief, such statement did not constitute reversible error.
    3. Witnesses ©=>248(2) — Answer of witness that he remembered dates because he knew lawyers would frame up alibi improper.
    In prosecution for theft of automobile, answer-of a witness, to the question of defendant’s counsel as to how he came to recollect dates, that it was because he knew “you lawyers would have an alibi framed up for him, and I fixed for it,” held improper as unresponsive.
    4. Criminal law ©=>Il70'/z(6) — Unresponsive answer of witness harmless to defendant in view of instructions.
    In prosecution for theft of automobile, unresponsive answer of witness to question as to how he came to recollect dates that it was because he knew defendant’s lawyers would have an alibi framed up for him, so that he fixed for it, held harmless to defendant, and not reversible error, in view of court’s instruction not to consider it.
    5. Criminal law ©=>695(2) — General objection to evidence properly overruled.
    Where the trial court could not know what were the grounds of objection by defendant to a statement made by a witness, general objection thereto was properly overruled.. •
    6. Criminal law ©=>1091 (10) — Grounds of objection to evidence should be stated in bill of exceptions.
    The grounds of an objection to evidence should be stated in a bill of exceptions to its admission, in order to present error for review.
    7. Witnesses ©=>270(2) — Cross-examination of witness improper as irrelevant.
    In prosecution for theft of automobile, question to a witness on cross-examination whether he swore defendant stole the car, and answer that the witness believed defendant stole it, but would not swear to it, held improper, as not shedding light on the issues.
    8.Criminal law ©=>(137(5) — Error in answer on cross-examination invited by query.
    In prosecution for theft of automobile, where defendant asked a witness on cross-examination whether he swore defendant stole the ear, he thereby invited the error in the witness’ answer in the negative, but that he believed defendant stole it.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Tar-rant County; Geo. E. Hosey, Judge.
    Charley Houser was convicted of theft of an automobile, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Mays & Mays, of Ft. Worth, for appellant.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the criminal district court of Tarrant county, for theft of an automobile, and his punishment fixed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

It appears from the record that a man named Baker parked a new Ford car near a movie playhouse, in the city of Ft. Worth, about 8 o’clock one night, and that shortly thereafter the same was taken. About 9 or 9:30 o’clock on said night Harry Hamilton, a detective in the office of the criminal district attorney, saw appellant and another party in possession of the car, driving out of the city of Ft. Worth, and in the direction of the home of appellant, who lived in Wise county. Mr. Hamilton recognized appellant, and started after him; and when opposite the car Hamilton spoke to appellant, and then drove on ahead, intending to stop and wait at some convenient place until appellant should come up, but appellant ran the car near the curb, and both parties therein hurriedly alighted and went down an alley. Mr. Hamilton carried the car to the police station, where it was turned over to Mr. Baker, the owner, some time about II or 12 o’clock that night. A few days later appellant was arrested, and charged with the theft. Upon his trial, his defense was an alibi; and his grandmother and his sister testified to the effect that he was not in Ft. Worth, but was in Wiise county, on the night of the theft. The state introduced other witnesses, who testified to seeing appellant in Ft. Worth on the same night the automobile was taken.

Several bills of exceptions were reserved to the testimony of Mr. Hamilton. In the first of these, complaint is made of statements appearing in Mr. Hamilton’s narration of the facts leading up to the recovery of the car. • This witness stated that when he saw appellant and the other party driving the ear, he spoke to appellant, who nodded, and witness then volunteered the statement that he thought he ivould stop him (meaning appellant), as he was certain he was an automobile thief. Appellant promptly objected to the last statement; and the court at once sustained the objection, and instructed the jury not to consider what this witness had said about thinking appellant to be an automobile thief. The statement made by the witness was not proper, hut as the trial court sustained the objection, and instructed the jury not to consider it, we are unable to see what else could have been done, and do not think the matter presents reversible error.

By another bill, complaint is made of various matters, the only one worthy of consideration being the objection to a statement by Mr. Hamilton, who was asked upon cross-examination by appellant’s (attorney what day it was that he saw appellant in possession of said car, to which he replied that it was on a Thursday. Thereupon, appellant’s counsei asked him how he came to recollect these dates, and the witness replied, “Because I knew you lawyers would have an alibi- framed up for him, and I fixed for it.” Counsel for appellant objected to this statement, and reserved his bill of exceptions. Looking to the qualification upon said bill, we find that the trial court states that he promptly instructed the jury not to consider the said answer. This answer was manifestly improper, and not in response to the question; but, as it was not the statement of any fact harmful to appellant, and as the court instructed the jury not to consider it, we do not think it such error as to necessitate a reversal of the case.

Appellant’s bill of exceptions No. 3 contains his objection to a statement made by the witness Hamilton as to what occurred at the police station, when he vvent to report the finding of said car. No ground of objection is stated in this bill, and it is clear that the trial court could not know what the grounds of the objection, were, and therefore properly overruled the general objection. The grounds of an objection should be stated in a bill of exceptions, in order to present error for review.

.. Appellant’s fourth bill of exceptions is substantially the same as his second bill, which is above disposed of.

Bill of exceptions No. 5 complains that while counsel for appellant was cross-examining witness Hamilton, this question was asked by him, “Do you swear defendant stole that car?” to which the witness answered, “No; I believe he stole it, but would not swear to it.” -Appellant asked the court to instruct the jury not to consider said statement. In our opinion the character of the cross-examination was manifestly improper. Neither the question nor its answer shed any legitimate light upon the issues before the court and jury, but the knowledge of the theft called for by the question is so closely akin to the belief thereof given in the answer that we think, if any error appeared, it would be held invited by the character of the query.

Binding no reversible error in this record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 
      <S=>For other cases we same topic ana KEY-NXJMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     