¶1 If his Honor committed error in failing to stop tbe solicitor when be argued that tbe fact that Lewis Lunsford returned $8 to the prosecuting witness was substantive evidence of the guilt of tbe defendant Tom Lunsford, this error was cured by tbe subsequent explicit charge to tbe jury that the evidence could not be considered except for the purpose of impeaching tbe witness, unless tbe money was returned at tbe request of tbe defendant, and that there was no evidence of such request. Bridgers v. Dill, 97 N. C., 222; S. v. Crane, 110 N. C., 530; Wilson v. Mfg. Co., 120 N. C., 95; Michie’s Dig., V. 1, p. 758.
¶2 Tbe evidence itself was clearly competent for tbe purpose of impeachment, because when considered in connection with tbe evidence that tbe witness was trying to settle tbe matter out of court and prevent a criminal prosecution, it tended to prove an attempt to compound a felony. We are also of opinion it was fit to be considered as substantive evidence of guilt.
¶3 It is true Tom and Lewis testified that Tom knew nothing of tbe return of tbe money, but tbeir evidence does not conclude tbe matter. If it did we would have to order tbe discharge of tbe defendant because be swore be did not steal tbe money. There is, however, circumstantial evidence tending to connect tbe defendant with tbe return of tbe $8.
¶4 Tom and Lewis are brothers and tbe prosecuting witness tbeir nephew. There is evidence that tbe defendant said to tbe prosecutor some time before tbe trial, “Make it up,” and Lewis said to him in tbe presence of tbe defendant a week before tbe trial, “Go home and let’s make it up. It’s kinfolks, Let’s make it up.” This statement of Lewis was apparently acquiesced in by tbe defendant as be remained silent in tbe presence of a proposition to “make it up.” Tbe defendant testified that Lewis .first came to him about making it up, and while be did not agree to do so be did agree to leave it to Mr. Abernathy to pay the prosecutor;
¶5 It was also in evidence that one of tbe sons of tbe defendant found ten one-dollar bills in a fence corner near defendant’s bouse, that another son found one dollar in a branch near by, and another son found on tbe ground three one-dollar bills which defendant dropped from bis pocket; that these different amounts were returned to tbe prosecutors,'making, *120 with the $8 paid by Lewis, $22, the amount stolen. This at least justifies the argument that Tom and Lewis were trying to stop the prosecution by the return of the money, and that Lewis was the active agent.
¶6 No error.