¶1ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
¶2Appellant again urges that we were in error in holding that Bill of Exception No. 5 did not reflect reversible error and asserts that the district attorney was outside the record when he told the jury, in effect, that appellant had killed more than one of the “boys” of the deceased’s mother. Our original opinion shows the peculiar circumstances under which this cross-examination became proper, but does not detail fully the cross-examination of the witness Mitchell by appellant’s counsel. As stated originally, the witness first answered that he had never heard the incident concerning the deceased’s brother discussed. He was, however, questioned further as follows: “You just didn’t know it happened ?”; to which he answered, “Oh, yes, you know it has been in the paper.”
¶3*37This, we think, was sufficient evidence to support the argument of the prosecutor.
¶4Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.