The principal contention urged by the appellant here is that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence in his trial for violating federal liquor statutes a conviction for larceny which occurred many years previously. The trial court, of course, charged the jury that this evidence could be considered only “in determining the credibility of [Robinson’s] testimony when he took the stand and testified in the trial of the case today; then it has that limited function only”.

We do not need to decide whether the evidence of this previous conviction dealt with a matter so remote as to render it inadmissible if standing alone, because there was further evidence of a conviction in 1960 for a liquor violation, which the jury could consider in conjunction with the earlier conviction as bearing on the credibility of Robinson as a witness in his own behalf.

The judgment is affirmed.