Smith v. State

1. The court did not err in ruling out “ what the other man said,” as complained of in the first ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial. This was clearly hearsay. Counsel for plaintiff in error insists “ that the refusal of *655tlie court to permit counsel for the' defendant to interrogate the witness concerning the fact that the other man claimed the box in question which contained the whisky was harmful and prejudicial to him and his rights. ” Even if counsel is correct in his insistence that tire court erred as complained of in this ground, which we denjq the error was harmless,…