For truth and veracity was bad. Defendant voluntarily took the stand in his own behalf, and the court did not err In permitting the state to make this proof. Mcfaddenstate,Tex. Apps. W moralesstate,Tex. Cr. RS. W . However, the court not only permitted the state to prove the bad reputation of some of the defendants witnesses, but also permitted the state to prove that the reputation of Stephens, Calloway, Patrick, and other Nike Shoes Australia witnesses for the state for truth and veracity was good. In this the court erred. There had been no effort on the part of defendant to prove contradictory statements, or that the reputation of the states witnesses was not good. As said in the case of rushingstate,Tex. Apps. W. : Mere conflict between evidence of a witness and that of other witnesses Is not ground for admissibility of evitruth and veracity. North Face Coupon See, also, murphystate,S. W and cases there cited. In this case, admitting this testimony, over objection of defendant, was very harmful. A number of witnesses for defendant had testified North Face Sale that Adams signed the notes at the time defendant had sworn Adams signed them. Some of these witnesses the state was permitted to show that their reputation was bad for truth and veracity. This was legitimate, but then to take the witnesses for the state, who had sworn the note was signed at a different time, when no effort had been made to Impeach them, and bolster up The North Face Sale the states case by proof that their reputation for truth and veracity Is good, is never permissible. Mere conflict between testimony of one witness and others will not authorize introduction of supporting proof. Paynestate,Tex. Cr. RS. W Texas Ry.Raney,texs. W harrisstate,S. W . Appellant also complains of the action of the court North Face Coupons in regard to a certain deed of trust It appears that at the time the notes were given Miller gave a deed of trust on land in Titus county to secure the payment of the notes.Of course, when defendant purchased the notes, the deed of trust to secure the payment of the notes also became his property. The state desired this instrument to be Introduced In evidence. The court permitted the state to place E. G. Senter, defendants attorney, on the stand, and question him In regard to this deed of trust, and learn through him that the deed of trust was then in possession of Mrs. Downing, defendants wife. The defendant had not summoned Mrs. Downing, but the court, at the instance of the state, upon learning that the paper was In the possession of defendants Nike Australia wife, caused a subpoena duces tecum to issue commanding her to appear in court and bring the deed of trust When she appeared in court and stated that she had not brought the deed of trust the court refused to permit defendants counsel to consult, or to permit her to consult with, any attorney, but instructed that, if she did Moncler Outlet not at once surrender to an otticer of the court the deed ot trust, he would adjudge her guilty of contempt, and commit her Cheap North Face to jail until she did it. Getting possession of the paper in this way, it was turned over to states counsel, and they were permitted to Introduce it in evidence, and In the concluding argument of states counsel the following argument was used as shown by bill of exception: Senter gave the deed of trust to Mrs. Downing, and she was brought into court and made to dig It up. The court In qualifying the bill says the language as he understood It was: We had a time getting possession of this deed of trust. They had It and would not give It up till the court got after them and made them dig it up. Objecand they are presented to this court In a number of bills of exception. We have grouped them as they all relate to the same matter. When the defendant was on the stand, he might have been questioned about this deed of trust, and, if he declined to produce It the jury left to draw such inference ns they might from the incident Or the states counsel could have sent to Titus county and