Blessing v. Hape

Tuck, J., delivered the opinion of this court. A much greater latitude is allowed in cross-examining witnesses tiran on the examination-in-chief. Rules of court are sometimes adopted by which the practice is confined to narrower limits than are allowed at common law. But, as the record in this case does not show that the question proposed by the appellant was irregular, in view of any rule of the court below, the correctness of its decision must be determined upon general principles.

We are not now to decide whether the witness, if he had answered in the negative, could have been contradicted, but merely whether the plaintiff below was properly refused per ³³ mission to ask the defendant’s witness if he was not, at the time of the trial, engaged in a bitter controversy with him, and did not entertain feelings of great animosity and hostility towards him. As tests for the discovery of the truth in the trial of causes, “the situation of the witness, with respect to the parties and to the subject of litigation, his interest, his inclination and prejudices, his means of obtaining knowledge of the facts,” <fcc., may be submitted to the jury to enable them to determine the value of his tesiimony. 1 Greenlf. on Ev., secs. 446, 450. 1 Stark. Ed., 186, 190, Ed. 1842. In the case of Harris vs. Tippett, 2 Camp., 637, a witness was asked, “whether he had not attempted to dissuade another witness, examined for the plaintiff, from attending the trial;” the court allowed the question to be put, but held that the plaintiff' was concluded by his answer in the negative.

And so where a party was indicted tor stealing wheat, his counsel was allowed, on cross-examination, to ask the wilness against him whether he had not been charged wit!) robbing the prisoner, and “whether he had not afterwards said he would be revenged of him and would soon fix him in jail.” Having denied both, it was ruled that his answer must be taken as to the charge of having robbed