Defendant's counsel's admission that his client had been drinking before an accident was not an invitation for the use of incompetent and prejudicial evidence that a police officer had placed a charge against defendant for driving while under the influence of intoxicants. Girard v. Kuklinski, 235 Ark. 337, 360 S.W.2d 115 (1962).

Testimony given by two police officers who investigated an accident, which was the basis of the personal injury action, that, in their opinion, the defendant was drunk was inadmissible, and the testimony of one of the police officers, given over objection, who had placed a charge against defendant for driving while under the influence of intoxicants was likewise incompetent, since there was no proof given that a conviction resulted. Girard v. Kuklinski, 235 Ark. 337, 360 S.W.2d 115 (1962).

In action for personal injuries and property damage resulting from collision between plaintiffs' automobile and defendant's disabled truck, it was error for court to permit driver of truck to be questioned about conviction for speeding month after collision and in telling jury that conviction might be considered as bearing on driver's credibility. Dixie Culvert Mfg. Co. v. Richardson, 218 Ark. 427, 236 S.W.2d 713 (1951).

Questions on cross-examination about previous convictions of drunkenness are permissible to test credibility. Rickett v. Hayes, 251 Ark. 395, 473 S.W.2d 446 (1971).