This case was before us on a former appeal in which a new trial was granted. S. v. Gardner, 226 N. C., 310, 37 S. E. (2d), 913.
The first assignment of error is based on an exception to the admission of the testimony, over objection, of the Acting Coroner of Buncombe County, Dr. Curtis Crump, who, in response to a question about a telephone call, testified: “I received that telephone call shortly after 3 :30 p.m., and Dr. Gardner, or a man purporting to be Dr. Gardner, stated that he had called his lawyer and his lawyer had advised him to call the Coroner concerning a deceased individual which he had at his house, his home. He gave the report that the .patient had just been left at his home at 918 Haywood Road by a taxi and that the taxi had immediately driven off before he could find out any further information. He stated that the patient had died before any aid could be given by him or he could ascertain what was wrong with her.”
The defendant contends this evidence was admitted without proper identification of the person with whom Dr. Crump talked, over the telephone, shortly after 3 :30 p.m., on 23 October, 1945, for it to be admissible. He further contends Dr. Crump’s testimony was highly prejudicial in that it tended to create the impression that the deceased had been left at the home of Dr. Gardner in the afternoon and not in the *39morning of 23 October, 1945, as set forth in defendant’s statement previously made and offered in evidence by tbe State.
Tbe exception cannot be sustained. Tbe written statement of Dr. Gardner and evidence of oral statements made by bim, to tbe officers at tbe time be gave bis written statement, admitted in evidence without objection, disclose that tbe deceased was left by a taxi driver at tbe borne of Dr. Gardner on Haywood Road about 7 :00 or 7 :30 a.m., on tbe morning of 23 October, 1945. Tbe girl died at approximately 1:30 p.m., that day. Dr. Gardner, stated to tbe officers: “There was quite a delay in bis attempt to get tbe Acting Coroner on tbe telephone.” Tbe defendant called an attorney to find out tbe name of tbe Acting Coroner, and after obtaining tbe information, be said: “He . . . called Dr. Crump, tbe Acting Coroner, and told bim that this girl was there and that she bad died and that be did not know who she was.”
Tbe record further discloses that an undertaker was called and went to tbe borne of Dr. Gardner for tbe body. Tbe undertaker arrived about 4:00 p.m., on tbe day in question. Dr. Gardner answered tbe door bell and stated “That be bad called tbe Coroner and bad permission ... to remove tbe body.” Tbe undertaker communicated with Dr. Crump and then removed tbe body of tbe deceased to bis place of business, where tbe autopsy was performed a few hours later.
We think there was ample evidence tending to identify tbe defendant as tbe person who called Dr. Crump over tbe telephone on tbe afternoon of 23 October, 1945, and that evidence as to tbe conversation at that time was properly admitted. Sanders v. Griffin, 191 N. C., 447, 132 S. E., 157; S. v. Burleson, 198 N. C., 61, 150 S. E., 628; Harvester Co. v. Caldwell, 198 N. C., 751, 153 S. E., 325; Cf. Mfg. Co. v. Bray, 193 N. C., 350, 137 S. E., 151, and Powers v. Commercial Service Co., 202 N. C., 13, 161 S. E., 689.
We have carefully considered tbe additional exceptions and tbe assignments of error based thereupon, and they are without merit.
In tbe trial below, we find
No error.