OPINION
ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.Appellant has urged' that our original opinion is contrary to our prior holdings in Caldwell v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 486, 287 S.W.2d 176 and Hignett v. State, 168 Tex. Cr.R. 380, 328 S.W.2d 300. While the question is, to the writer, a close one, we do find that these cases can be distinguished. In Caldwell, supra, the accused’s wife was actually called into the courtroom and placed on the stand thereby requiring the accused to object to any testimony she might give. In Hignett, supra, the wife was also called as a witness and “later in the trial, the State propounded further questions to other witnesses as to what the appellant’s wife had told them concerning the assault and again forced the appellant to object.”
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this case originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
DOUGLAS, J., not participating.