1. "The refusal to declare a mistrial on account of a voluntary answer of a witness is not reversible error unless the trial court fails to apply proper corrective measures." Haynes v. State, 80 Ga. App. 99 (2) (55 SE2d 646)
. In the present case the court, after overruling the defendant's motion for mistrial, instructed the jury to disregard the testimony which had the effect of putting the character of the defendant in issue. Under the decisions of this court and the Supreme Court, exemplified by Osteen v. State, 83 Ga. App. 378
, 381 (63 SE2d 692
); and Manchester v. State, 171 Ga. 121 (7) (155 SE 11)
, the grant of a mistrial is largely within the discretion of the trial court and such discretion will not be disturbed unless abused. No abuse of such discretion is shown in the present case.
2. The evidence adduced on the trial of the case, while not without conflict was sufficient to authorize the verdict.
The defendant was tried and convicted of the offense of shooting at another. On the trial of the case a witness for the State volunteered that "moonshine" could be bought at the defendant's place of business, and on motion for mistrial such testimony was ruled out and the jury instructed to disregard it. Witnesses for the State testified that the defendant shot a twelve gauge shotgun towards them, and that the gun was fired twice. The defendant admitted shooting the gun once but contended that he shot it into the air. Other witnesses for the defendant testified that they were present but heard only one shot, and one witness for the defendant testified that some of the pellets from the shotgun shell struck the roof of the porch above the defendant's head.