
    TORAN v. STATE.
    (No. 8963.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 28, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;>l086(l4) — Refused charge not considered in absence of exception to refusal.
    Trial court’s refusal of special charge is not reviewable, where record failed to show that any exception was reserved thereto.
    2. Criminal law <@=»l I70i/2(5) — Asking defend-, ant how many cases he had pending held not reversible error, where objection thereto sustained, and, if a fact, was available to impeach defendant.
    Asking defendant, “How many cases you got pending in this court at this time? ” held not to call for reversal, where objection thereto was sustained, bill does not certify that no cases were pending, and, if cases were actually pending, such fact was available to impeach defendant.
    3. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;236( 13)— Evidence held to show liquor purchased from defendant was intoxicating. .
    Repeated statements by purchaser that liquor purchased from defendant was whisky, that he only took one swallow of it, but knew that four or five swallows would have made him. drunk, and that another party who drank more of it, got drunk on it, held to show that liquor was intoxicating.
    Appeal from District Court, • Chambers County; J. M. Combs, Judge.
    
      Richard Toran was convicted'of selling-intoxicating liquors, and lie appeals.
    Affirmed,
    E. B. Pickett, Jr., of Liberty, for .appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State'.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for the sale of intoxicating liquor. Punishment is one year in the penitentiary.

■[1] One special charge was refused. The record fails to show that any exception was reserved to this action of the court. It is indispensable that this appear from,the record. Linder v. State, 94 Tex. Or R. 316, 250 S. W. 703.

Upon cross-examination of appellant the district attorney asked the following question: “How many eases you got pending in this court at this time?” Objection to the question was sustained, but appellant avers the asking of the question calls for a reversal. We cannot agree that this result should follow. It is not certified in the bill that no cases were pending in the court against appellant. He was being tried in the district court, and, if other cases were pending against him in that court, the presumption would obtain that they were felony charges upon indictments. Such fact; if it existed, was available to the state to impeach appellant as a witness. Section 167, p. 101, Branch’s P. O The question was awkwardly framed, but we do not believe the mere asking it calls for a reversal.

There is.no merit in the contention that the evidence fails to show the liquor bought from appellant to be intoxicating. The alleged purchaser repeatedly says it Was “whis-ky”; that he only took one swallow of it, but kno-ws that four or five swallows would have made him drunk. He further says that another party who drank .more of it did get drunk on. it.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      <g^Por other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     