The opinion
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
The offense is operating a motor vehicle while his operator’s license was suspended; the punishment, a fine of $100.00.
Highway Patrolman Wolf testified that his attention was directed to the manner in which the appellant was driving his automobile, that he brought the appellant to a halt and asked to *181 see his driver’s license, that the appellant replied that he had no license and, further, gave the witness his name and September 24, 1927, as being his date of birth.
Hearing Officer Thorpe testified that he was deputy custodian of the records of the Texas Department of Public Safety and that he had in his possession the file of Nathan Goolsby, whose license number was 321731; that such record revealed that the said license was originally issued September 7, 1950, had been revoked on March 31, 1951, and was again suspended on August 3, 1956, for a period of one year; that it showed him to be a white male born September 24, 1927, with green eyes, brown hair, five feet, seven inches tall, and weighing 140 pounds, who resided at 534 St. Mary’s Street in San Antonio, and who had been convicted for driving" while intoxicated in Bexar County on August 3,1956.
The appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his own behalf.
We shall discuss the contentions advanced by appellant’s eminent counsel. He first says that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction because the state did not introduce in evidence a certified copy of the judgment of conviction from the Bexar County court in which the appellant was convicted for driving while intoxicated. It is true that, had this offense been for driving while intoxicated as a second offender, such judgment would have been requisite proof, but the crux of the case at bar was that the accused drove a motor vehicle while his driver’s license was suspended and the records of the Texas Department of Public Safety which reflected such suspension were admissible as prima facie evidence of the matters stated therein. Article 3731a, V.A.C.S.; Rice v. State, 163 Texas Cr. Rep. 367 , 292 S.W. 2d 114 , and the statutes therein cited.
Appellant next contends that his identity as being the individual who was convicted in Bexar County was not shown. In Rice v. State, supra, we said:
“The jury had opportunity to observe appellant and if there was any discrepancy in the description of the licensee and his appearance, the jury was in position to discover it.”
In the case at bar, the trial was before the court, but the same rule would apply.
*182 Finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and no reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.