Finklea v. State

Whitpield, C. J., delivered the opinion of the court. The testimony of the witness, Sennett, as to the conversation between him and the defendant about the defendant’s wife was ■clearly incompetent in any view. The only effect it could have was to have inflamed the jury against the defendant. We think, ■also, that it was very improper to have introduced the wife of the defendant as a witness against him. She was, of course, manifestly incompetent, and her introduction, under the circumstances of the case, may have had a damaging effect on the jury. We, however, do not reverse the case for this; but the first error is fatal, and for that reason the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. Raines v. State, 81 Miss. 489, 33 South. 19; Thompson v. State, 84 Miss. 758, 36 South. 389. Reversed.