
    BULLOCK v. STATE.
    (No. 8410.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 4, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied April 8, 1925.)
    1. Witnesses <&wkey;363(l) — inquiry as to feelings toward person not connected with case on trial held properly excluded.
    Inquiry as to feelings of witness towards person not connected with case on trial and reason therefor held properly excluded.
    2. Witnesses <&wkey;376 — Where accused elicited that witness for prosecution was paid $25, held not error to permit her to testify it was at rate of $5 per day.
    Where accused elicited information that witness for prosecution who procured accused’s arrest had been paid $25 by sheriff for her services, it was not error to permit her to testify that this was at rate of $5 per day.
    
      3. Criminal law &wkey;4!9, 420(1) — Conversation between persons not witnesses nor connected with case was properly excluded as hearsay.
    Conversation between persons not witnesses nor connected with case in any relevant way was properly excluded as hearsay.
    4. Criminal law <&wkey;338(I) — Testimony as to whereabouts of person not connected with case held properly excluded.
    Testimony as to whereabouts of person not connected with case held properly excluded.
    5. Witnesses <&wkey;340(3) — Proof of general reputation for virtue and chastity of witness not proper method of impeachment.
    Proof of general reputation for virtue and chastity of witness for, prosecution was not proper method of impeachment.
    6. Criminal law <&wkey;>4l9, 420(11) — Testimony relating to conversation between witness and person not connected with case held properly excluded as hearsay.
    Testimony relating to conversation, between witness for prosecution and person not connected with case, held properly excluded as hearsay.
    7. Criminal law &wkey;>507(4) — Witness for prosecution who procured arrest held not accomplice.
    Sheriff’s employé, who procured accused’s arrest for possessing intoxicating liquor for sale by purchasing whisky, held not an accomplice in view of Acts 37th Leg.,- 1st Called Sess. 19-21, c. 61, § B, adding section 2e to Acts 36th Leg., 2d Called Sess. 1919, c. 78 (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588%a3).
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Travis County; James R. Hamilton, Judge.
    Steve Bullock was convicted of possessing intpxicating liquor for purpose of sale, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Dickens & Dickens, of Austin, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale is the offense; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The witness Emily Allen testified that the appellant made an agreement to sell her whisky at $10 per gallon, and fixed an appointment on the Bull Creek road. She communicated this information to the witness McCoy, a deputy sheriff. At the meeting, the appellant brought some jugs of whisky and put them in the car used by the witness in going to the place of meeting. She paid him in $1 bills, and McCoy arrested him upon the spot. The witness had only money enough to buy one jug. The other the appellant put near the roadside.

McCoy testified to his knowledge of the arrangement and his presence at the time of the transaction; that he gave Emily Allen •11 $1 bills, and that upon the arrest of the appellant, he took that number of $1 bills away from him.

Miller, the sheriff, testified that Emily Allen was in his employ, and also testified to his presence at the time of the arrest of the appellant. No affirmative testimony is presented ; the witnesses introduced by the appellant being in the main directed to supporting his reputation as a law-abiding citizen, and to attack upon the veracity of the state’s witness.

The witness Emily Allen testified that pursuant to the 'agreement with the appellant, he brought jugs of whisky to the car in which she had gone to the place of meeting, and that one of the jugs was placed by him in her car and another jug placed by the roadside; that she paid him the agreed price for one gallon of whisky and that at that juncture the appellant was arrested by McCoy. It was shown that the jugs contained whisky and that, according to McCoy, the appellant remarked: “Xou have got me this time, it is pretty slick.” Objection was made to this upon the ground that the appellant was under arrest at the time. The remark seems to have been coincident with the offense and- was apparently res gestae of that occurrence. The bills of exceptions are numerous. All of them have been carefully' examined, but the disposition of some of them will be made without a detailed discussion.

Bill No. 10 reveals the fact that Mrs. Roy Sargent had testified to matters undisclosed by the bill, and was asked if she did not “have it in” for Bill Stowe, a friend of Emily Allen, because Stowe had been a witness against the husband of Mrs. Sargent. The witness disclaimed any knowledge of Stowe’s connection with the affair; nor does the bill reveal it. Without permission of the court, there is attached to the bill a transcription of the stenographer’s notes which are not in a shape to be considered.

Appellant’s counsel introduced testimony to show that there were no articles upon the premises of the appellant which might have been used for the purpose of containing or making whisky. State’s counsel introduced rebuttal testimony contradictory of that of the appellant. The error is not apparent. The effort to inquire into the conduct of Bill Stowe was properly excluded. He and his conduct, so far as the record reveals, are entirely unrelated to the case on trial.

Appellant having ■ elicited from the witness Emily Aden that $25 had been paid by the sheriff for his services, the court committed no error in permitting her to testify that this was at the rate of $5 per day. The former conversations between Bill Stowe and Mrs. Georgia Dittlinger were properly rejected. Neither of them was a witness in the ease nor connected with it in any relevant or material way. The bill is but an effort to permit the appellant to bring into the case hearsay testimony through the méans adopted.

The whereabouts of Joe Young was apparently irrelevant. The court committed no error in rejecting the testimony as to h'is whereabouts. The court did not err in holding that the proof of the general reputation of Emily Allen for, virtue and chastity was not a proper method of impeachment. Stayton v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. App. 33, 22 S. W. 38; Flewellen v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 569, 204 S. W. 657, and cases cited.

The evidence sought to be adduced from the witness, Ollie Young, touching the conversation between Emily Allen and Bill Stowe was properly rejected as hearsay. The same is true with reference to efforts revealed by bills 15 and 16.

In refusing to instruct the jury upon accomplice testimony with reference to the witness, Emily Allen, the trial court, in our judgment, was not in error. See Lamm v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 560, 252 S. W. 535; chapter 61, Acts of 37th Leg. 1st Called Session, subd. 2c (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588¼a3).

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed. 
      other cases see same topio and KEY-NUMBER In all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     