
    WALLACE v. STATE.
    (No. 8952.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 29, 1925.)
    
      1. Criminal law &wkey;l 159(3) — Jury’s finding on controverted evidence, that accused' was intoxicated while driving automobile, will not be disturbed.
    Tn prosecution under Acts 38th Leg. (2d Called SessJ), c. 23, for driving automobile on highway while intoxicated, jury’s finding on controverted evidence that accused was intoxicated will not be disturbed on appeal.
    2. Criminal law &wkey;457 — Testimony that witness saw that accused was intoxicated is not conclusion.
    In prosecution under Acts 38th Leg. (2d Called Sess.), e. 23, for driving automobile on highway while intoxicated, testimony that witness saw that accused was intpxieated is not a conclusion.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;364(3) — Statement made by accused immediately after automobile collision, that he had $1,500 to fight case, is part of res gestae.
    In prosecution under Acts 38th Leg. (2d^ Called Sess.), c. 23, for driving automobile on' highway while intoxicated, statement by accused immediately after colliding with another car, that he had $1,500 to fight case, is part of res gestae and admissible to throw light on accused’s sobriety.
    4. Criminal law &wkey;>l09I(3) — Statement of grounds of objections cannot be taken as certificate that facts forming basis of objection are true.
    Statement in bill of exceptions of grounds of objection to cross-examination cannot be taken as a certificate that facts which form the basis of the objection are true.
    ©=oFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NTJMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from District Court; Yan Zandt County; Joel II. Bond, Judge.
    C. V. Wallace was convicted of driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Defendant was convicted for driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated. Punishment one year in the penitentiary.

The prosecution is under chapter 23 (2d Called Sess.) 38th Leg. A car driven by defendant collided with one driven by J. E. Thomas. The state’s evidence warranted the jury in finding that defendant was intoxicated at the time. If the testimony offered by defendant had been accepted as true, a verdict of acquittal would have been justified. The jury settled this controverted issue, and under the facts presented we would be unauthorized to disturb their finding.

Witness Thomás testified that the car driven by defendant was “zigzagging” as it approached the point of collision; that after the accident, and while talking to defendant, witness saw that defendant was intoxicated. This latter statement was objected to as a conclusion of the witness. ’The objection is without merit. Stewart v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 627, 44 S. W. 505; Henderson v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 271, 91 S. W. 569; Underhill’s Cr. Ev. (3d Ed.) § 278. However, during his examination, Thomas recited many details of defendant’s conduct supporting the statement that he was intoxicated. What has been said applies to the objection urged against the evidence of the witness Caldwell.

We perceive no objection to the reception in evidence, that immediately after the accident defendant said he had $1,500 to fight the case. It was res gestae of the accident, and threw light on defendant’s condition of sobriety or otherwise.

Complaint is made that upon cross-examination, over objection, defendant was compelled to answer that the next day after the accident he had paid a fine in connection with the transaction in question. The grounds of objection were that no connection was shown between the fine and the offense upon which this 'prosecution is based, but in effect got before the jury defendant’s admission that he had violated the law. The grounds of objection cannot be taken as a certificate that the facts which form the basis of the objection are true. See Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C. § 209. The bill gives us no further information than already shown. The inquiry objected to may have become pertinent by some statement of defendant on direct examinátion. 'The bill as presented shows no error. Section 207, Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C. •

The judgment is affirmed..  