
    HILSON v. STATE.
    (No. 8079.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 20, 1924.)
    1. Larceny (§=s43 — Testimony of pawnbroker as to caution required with persons of defendant’s race held improperly admitted.
    In a prosecution of a negro for theft, permitting one to whom he had pawned property he was charged with stealing to testify that they surmised something when he came to pawn it, that they had to be very careful about advancing money on jewelry, especially among negroes, because most of them were thieves, held prejudicial error.
    2. Criminal law <©=»720(5), 722(2) — Argument that negro defendant and his witnesses were liars held prejudicial error.
    In a prosecution of a negro for larceny, argument of counsel denouncing defendant and his witnesses as liars and saying that he knew they were liars and had concocted all their testimony, and argument that a particular negro woman who had testified for defendant was “nothing but just a common negro, black whore,” held prejudicial error.
    Appeal from Corporation Court of Texar-kana; E. Newt Spivey, Recorder.
    Mira Hilsón was convicted of misdemean- or theft, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    W. W. Arnold, of Texarkana, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

This appeal is from a conviction for misdemeanor theft carrying a .punishment of confinement in the county jail for one year.

We do not think it necessary to set out the facts, because the state has properly confessed error relative to the matters complained of in bills of exception 3 and 4. The record discloses that appellant is a negro. He-had pawned the property, which he was charged with having stolen, to one Harley.

While Harley was testifying, he was permitted over objection to state that, when appellant came in to pawn the watch, witness surmised something; that they had to be very careful about advancing money on jewelry, especially' among negroes, because most of them were thieves. It i.s not necessary to argue how such a statement co-uld have been harmful to appellant. The mere statement of what occurred discloses the injury.

While the attorney representing the prosecution was making his argument, he denounced appellant and his witnesses as liars, said he knew they were liars and had concocted all their testimony, and stated further with reference to Betty Washington, a negro woman who had given favorable testimony for appellant, that she was “nothing but j.ust a common negro, black whore.” We have been able to discover in the evidence nothing which would justify the language used. If convictions cannot be secured without resorting to such methods, it is a fair conclusion that the state is not entitled to them.

For the errors pointed out, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.  