Thompson v. State

(dissenting).—I can not agree that the testimony of the general reputation for truth and veracity of the witness, Lawrence Eobinson, was admissible, and I think the bill sufficiently explicit to call this court’s attention to the error. The first bill reads:

“Be it remembered that upon the trial of the above numbered cause, the State’s witness, A. J. Zilker, being upon the stand, the said witness was permitted, over objections of the defendant, to testify to the following facts, towit: 1 know Lawrence Bobinson and have known him about fifteen years. He has worked for me at the Lone Star Ice…