(after stating the facts). The evidence sent up-with the record can leave no reasonable doubt as to the fact that the prisoner is the person who entered the house of W. H. Farmer on the night of January 11, and it tends strongly to show both the intent to murder and to steai, and there are not conflicting intents, and either was sufficient.
The first and fourth exceptions may be considered together,, as the admissibility of testimony excepted to in each rests upon the same principle, namely, that each tends to fix the prisoner with a knowledge of the location, condition and circumstances of W. H. Farmer.
In State v. Howard, 82 N. C., 623, the defendant was indicted for murder. The deceased was robbed on the night of the homicide, and it -was offered in evidence that, twelve months before the homicide, the prisoner said to the witness, “ Don’t you reckon that if any one was to run in on old *423man Babel Autrey (the deceased) he could get a handful of money ? ” The Court said: “ The evidence of this conversation is clearly admissible, if for no other purpose, that it tended to affect the prisoner with a knowledge of the reputation that the deceased had money in his house” — it was in proof that he had that reputation.
We do not approve of the form in which the objection is taken to the testimony of the witness Bishop. It is “ to all the testimony ” of the witness, and seems to have been taken after it was all in, and the whole of it as sent up with the record in useless detail,' though some of it was useless as harmless, but it was not incompetent.
The second exception was to the admission of the statements made by Lewis Jordan to D. A. Jordan for the purpose of corroboration. It is well settled, at least in this State, that it is competent to support the testimony of an impeached witness by showing previous statements made by him consistent with those testified to on the trial. State v. Whitfield, 92 N. C , 831, and cases cited.
The third exception is to the refusal to admit the declarations of the prisoner, made at a time different from those called out by the State. In State v. McNair, 93 N. C., 628, the Chief Justice said : “ It is settled by repeated adjudications, that declarations of a prisoner, made after the criminal act has been committed, in excuse or explanation, at his own instance, will not be received, and they are competent only when they accompany and constitute part of the res gestee.”' This case and the authorities there cited conclusively dispose of the defendant’s third exception adversely to him.
No error. Affirmed.