1. There is in the record no evidence that the sheriff, or the deputy sheriff, ever extended credit for the payment of the fine imposed upon the plaintiff in error; hence the cases cited by counsel for the plaintiff in error are not applicable to this case.

2. Error is assigned upon the ruling that the sheriff, when being examined as a witness, need not answer the following question: “By what authority did you permit him [the plaintiff in error] to leave without bond, when you knew that his fine had not been paid?” In our opinion this question was irrelevant and immaterial, and the court did not err in this ruling. The sheriff had already testified that he did not turn the plaintiff in error out of jail, that he did not extend to him any credit upon his fine, and did not extend credit to any one else for this fine, and that Shaw (the man who the plaintiff in error testified had promised him immunity if he would swear against some other persons under arrest) was not his deputy and had no authority to act for him in any way as an officer.

3. Large discretion is vested in the trial judge in habeas corpus cases, and this court will not interfere with his judgment on the law and the facts, unless his discretion is manifestly abused. Unless the finding is so manifestly contrary to the evidence as to indicate passion or prejudice, it will not be disturbed. Evans v. Lane, 8 Ga. App. 826 (70 S. E. 603).

Judgment affirmed.

dissenting. I deem the right of a rigid and sifting cross-examination, provided for by the code, so important, and it is so clear to my mind that an answer of a certain kind, on the part of the witness who was the respondent to the petition for habeas, corpus, might have corroborated the testimony for the petitioner, that I feel compelled to dissent from the judgment of the majority. I agree with the general proposition that the trial judge was clothed .with almost plenary discretion, but to my mind the fact that the witness had already testified to certain pertinent facts sufficient to sustain his answer to the writ of habeas corpus affords no sufficient reason for denying to the opposite party the right of discrediting those statements. Usually a cross-examination is necessary.ior the very reason that the testimony of the witness whom it is sought to cross-examine has been damaging to the party seeking to cross-examine him.