Assignments of error based upon exceptions to the over-' ruling by the court of defendant’s objections to questions addressed to him by the solicitor, upon his cross-examination as a witness in his own behalf, cannot be sustained.
*207These questions were manifestly for tbe purpose of impeaching defendant as a witness; they were competent for that purpose. The principle upon which a new trial was ordered by this Court in S. v. Alston, 94 N. C., 930, cited by defendant in support of these assignments of error, is not applicable upon this record. It is held in that case that “as a general rule it is not admissible, on a prosecution for one offense, to prove that the defendant had before committed another offense.” Defendant in the instant case having become a witness in his own behalf, was subject to cross-examination and impeachment as any other witness. C. S., 1799. S. v. Wentz, 176 N. C., 745; S. v. Cloniger, 149 N. C., 567. It was competent for the solicitor to ask the defendant, on his cross-examination, for the purpose of impeachment, if he had not on a certain occasion violated the prohibition law, and if he had not adjusted in court a charge that he had failed to support his wife. S. v. Holder, 153 N. C., 606; S. v. Thomas, 98 N. C., 599.
Statements of the prosecuting witness that defendant, 'Will Colson, was the man who shot him with a pistol as he stood upon the running-board of the automobile, and thus inflicted the wound upon his head, made immediately after he had fallen from the running-board, to bystanders, were competent as evidence tending to corroborate his testimony as a witness. They were offered and admitted for this purpose only. The court at the time they were admitted so instructed the jury. Defendant’s assignments of error with respect to the admission of this evidence cannot be sustained.
Evidence offered by the State tended to show that E. T. Winslow, a police officer, went to the home of defendant, Will Colson, in Elizabeth City, about 9:30 p.m. on 4 June, 1927, in response to a telephone call; that he was accompanied by another police officer, who had a warrant to be served on defendant; that as the two officers approached defendant’s home they saw a man leave an automobile standing on the street, near defendant’s home; and that a man sitting in the automobile, immediately upon seeing the officers approaching defendant’s home, started the motor, as if to drive away. Officer Winslow went at once to the automobile and ordered the man sitting at the steering wheel not to drive away. He testified that the man in the automobile was defendant Will Colson. He was the only man in the automobile. He knew Winslow, and knew that he was a police officer. Winslow jumped upon the running-board and attempted to cut off the switch, and thus prevent defendant from driving the automobile away. Winslow testified that defendant Colson drew and fired a pistol at him; he felt a burning sensation about his head, and fell from the running-board to the ground. The automobile \vas then driven away.
*208Defendant Colson, as a witness in bis own bebalf, testified tbat be was not tbe man in tbe automobile; tbat be left bis borne tbat nigbt about 8:30 and did not return until after 10:30. There was evidence tending to corroborate bim.
All tbe evidence tended to sbow tbat tbe man in tbe automobile fired a pistol at officer Winslow, thereby inflicting a serious wound upon bis bead. Tbe jury, upon competent evidence found tbat defendant was tbe man in tbe automobile who fired tbe pistol. Not being satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt tbat defendant fired tbe pistol with intent to kill, tbe jury found bim guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon, in accordance with instructions contained in tbe charge of tbe court.
We find no error in tbe instruction complained of by defendant and made tbe subject of bis exception No. 23. This instruction is not susceptible of tbe construction insisted upon by defendant upon bis appeal to this Court, to wit, tbat tbe defendant was guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon, if be simply pushed tbe officer off tbe running board. Tbe court expressly instructed tbe jury tbat if they did not find tbat defendant assaulted tbe witness with a deadly weapon, but “just shoved bim off tbe running-board of tbe automobile,” be would be guilty of only a simple assault. We find
No error.