
    KYNOCK v. STATE.
    (No. 9773.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 3, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;>lll9(2) — Bill of exceptions complaining of impeachment, insufficient to show error, when not showing witness’ testimony material.
    Bill of exceptions, alleging error in allowing state to ask witness whether county judge made him start to school, held insufficient, where it failed to show witness had testified to any material -fact.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;l 114(2).
    Court of Criminal Appeals cannot reverse, unless bill of exceptions is sufficiently full to show error.
    3. Witnesses <©=>379(II) — Statement made while under arrest held admissible for impeachment purposes on trial of another.
    In prosecution for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, statement made to officers by companion of accused shortly after their arrest held admissible to impeach testimony of such companion, who had testified for accused though made while witness was under arrest.
    
      Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Lubbock County; Clark M. Mullican, Judge.
    Jack Kynock was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and be appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Bisbop & Starnes, of Lubbock, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for tbe State.
   BERRY, J.

Tbe offense is unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and tbe punishment is four years in tbe penitentiary.

There is no error manifested in defendant’s bill of exceptions complaining at tbe court’s action in permitting Deputy Sheriff Fort to have charge of tbe jury. Speer v. State, 123 S. W. 415, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 297; Galan v. State, 150 S. W. 1171, 68 Tex. Cr. R. 200; Holmes v. State, 156 S. W. 1172, 70 Tex. Cr. R. 214.

Appellant complains at tbe court’s action in permitting tbe state to ask the witness Louie Cobb, the following question: “You didn’t start to school until tbe county judge made you, did you?” to which tbe witness answered, “No, sir.” Tbe objection to this testimony was that tbe witness was a juvenile, that it was on an immaterial matter, was irrelévant, and was not tbe proper way to impeach a witness. This bill of exceptions is wholly insufficient to show any error. It fails to state what tbe witness Cobb had testified to, and is wholly insufficient to show that be was in any manner a material witness, or testified to a material fact in tbe defendant’s favor. We again call attention to tbe fact that, before this court can reverse a case because of a matter complained of in a bill of exceptions, tbe bill must be sufficiently full to show error.

The. same is true of' bill No. 3, reserved by tbe appellant. This bill wholly fails to set out any .facts that will enable this com-t to determine whether error was committed. We think that, while the bills raising the matter are entirely insufficient on their face to show any error, yet, if the matter had been properly presented, that bills 4 and 5 would be wholly insufficient to show that the testimony objected to therein should have been excluded. These bills complain at the court’s action in permitting the state to ask the officers who made the arrest as to what statement Louie Cobb, the party who was with the defendant at the time he possessed the whisky, made to them on the way back to town. Their answer to these questions was to the effect that Cobb- stated that they had gone out there to see some negro women. Cobb had already testified in behalf of the appellant that they were simply driving around and were not going to any place in particular. It occurs to us that this testimony was properly admitted for the purpose of impeaching the witness Cobb. It was at least a direct contradiction of the purpose given by him in his examination in chief, and the fact that he was under arrest at the time would not prevent the state from using, for impeachment purpose, statements that he made on the trial of some person other than himself.

Believing that this record manifests the fact that the appellant has had a fair trial, and that he was convicted under testimony amply sufficient, it is our opinion that the judgment should be in all things affirmed.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the court. 
      <§=For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     