
    KENNEDY v. STATE.
    (No. 9821.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 20, 1926.)
    1. Witnesses <§=>337(5) — Where defendant, charged with felony, becomes witness in his own behalf, evidence of previous charges of other felonies is admissible as to credibility.
    Where defendant, charged with felony, becomes witness in his own behalf, evidence that he had previously been charged with other felonies may be properly admitted for purpose of affecting his credibility as witness.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;730(3) — Colloquy between counsel and witness in prosecution for selling liquor held harmless, in view of cautionary instructions and reprimand.
    Colloquy between counsel and witness in prosecution for unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, objected to because witness volunteered statement that purchaser could have bought more whisky from defendant if money had been on hand, held harmless, where court instructed jury to disregard statement and reprimanded counsel.
    Appeal from District Court, Gregg County ; P. O. Beard, Judge.
    George Kennedy was convicted for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    W. C. Shoults, of Longview, for appellant. Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor is the offense; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year. The alleged purchaser and another gave direct evidence that the sale was made. Appellant denied it, and introduced some circumstances corroborating his theory.

Appellant baying become a witness in, bis own bebalf, tbe court committed no error in permitting tbe state’s counsel to prove by tbe appellant that be bad previously been charged with other felonies. The rule is well settled in this state that such testimony is permissible for tbe purpose of affecting tbe credibility ofi tbe witness. See Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C. § 167.

Bill No. 2 deals with a colloquy between counsel and the sheriff, who was a witness for the state. Tbe bill is meager, but, as we understand it, complaint is made of tbe fact that tbe witness: volunteered the statement that the purchaser could have bought more whisky from the appellant if money bad been on band. Tbe court instructed tbe jury to disregard tbe statement, and also reprimanded counsel for arguing with tbe witness. As the matter is presented, we are unable to perceive any harmful error.' Moreover, the evidence is quite sufficient, and the penalty is the minimum.

Tbe judgment is affirmed.  