¶1ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
¶2Appellant disagrees with the opinion expressed originally that he had failed to prove the racial composition of previous grand juries. He calls attention to the evidence of the witnesses Shields and Dennis. We shall discuss their testimony.
¶3Mr. Dennis testified that he was a retired school teacher, that he had been a resident of Austin for 41 years, and he was then asked the following:
¶4“Q. To your knowledge, prior to January 20, 1953, do you know whether or not there has been more than one Negro to serve on a Grand Jury in Travis County? A. Well, I don’t know that there has been. I would not say that there have been more than one Negro on a Grand Jury. ■
¶5“Q. Would you say that you knew there were Grand Juries that had one on them? A. Yes, I knew of Grand Juries that had one.
¶6“Q. But to your own knowledge, do you know of any that had any more than one on it? A. No.”
¶7Mr. Shields testified, without giving his vocation, that he had been a resident of Austin for 26 years and was then asked the following:
¶8“Q. Of your own knowledge, Mr. Shields, do you know of any Negro more than one who has ever served on a Grand Jury, tin Travis County up to January 30, 1953 ? A. No, sir, I don’t; •
¶9*8■ “Q. But you do know of some Grand Juries on which one has served? A. Yes, sir.
¶10“Q. But do you know of any Grand Jury where more than one has served? A. No.”
¶11It will be seen from this testimony that neither witness was shown to have any intimate knowledge of the racial composition of the grand jury panel from which the grand juries were chosen. Neither witness professes to know anything about the personnel of such panels. For all this record discloses, there may have been several Negroes on the panels through the years. Be that as it may, we do not find this evidence sufficient to show such a systematic inclusion or exclusion of members of the Negro race upon prior grand juries as would warrant the conclusion that members of the Negro race were discriminated against in the selection and empanelling of the instant grand jury.
¶12Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.