State v. Byrd

The defendant was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes, to wit, whisky.

He complains that he was convicted on the uncoi'roborated testimony of a “spotter,” and calls our attention to State v. Mines, 137 La. 489, 68 So. 837, and State v. John, 142 La. 65, 76 So. 241, 5 A. L. R. 407. But those two cases hold no more than that the fact that a witness may he a spotter, or stool pigeon, or informer, affects his credibility only, and not his competency. See, also, State v. Scallan, 160 La. 162, 106 So. 731. And we know of no rule of law which requires the evidence of such…