1. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, that counsel, upon cross-examination, have a right to a thorough and sifting examination of a witness, the majority of this court are of the opinion that the lower court committed reversible error in refusing to allow counsel for the defendant to ask a.named witness, on cross-examination, how many times he had been in jail, charged with crime. Under the particular facts of the case I cannot agree to this conclusion of my colleagues.

2. The other special grounds of the motion for a new trial are either too incomplete and vague to be considered by this court or are without substantial merit.

Judgment reversed.