Case ID: ala-app_12/html/0241-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PELHAM, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maxwell v. The State.
    
      Violating Prohibition Lato.
    
    (Decided February 4, 1915.
    67 South. 771.)
    1. Witnesses; Impeachment; Interest. — Where tlie question of the payment of witnesses was fully gone into on the cross and re-direct ■examination of the witnesses, it was not prejudicial error to exclude the fact that the principal witness against the defendant had been a witness against other • persons in other cases instituted by the same concern, as the only bearing of such evidence was on the issue ■of whether such witness had been paid to testify.
    2. Same; Examination; Rebuttal. — Where witnesses for the defendant, who was being prosecuted for a violation of the prohibition law, had testified that witnesses for the prosecution had stated that the prosecuting witness was paying ten dollars a head for turning up “blind tigers,” and was promising better jobs, it was competent to show in rebuttal by the prosecuting witness that he had not paid or offered to pay thát witness or any other witness any money or offered better jobs.
    Appeal from Anniston City Court.
    Heard before Hon. Thomas W. Coleman, Jr.
    John Maxwell Avas convicted of violating tfie prohibition laiv, and fie appeals.
    Affirmed.
    It appears from tfie testimony that Abbott, tfie principal Avitness for tfie sate, Stone, and other witnesses. were employed in tbe Profile Cotton Mills, and that tbe officers of tbe mill were endeavoring to break np tigers about it. Abbott bad testified to- purchasing liquor from tbe defendant, and other witnesses introduced by the defendant bad stated that Abbott bad told them that they were paying $10 a bead for those who turned up tigers, and that Stone was tbe one authorizing tbe payment, and was also promising tbe ones a better job. Stone was permitted to testify in rebuttal that be bad not paid or offered to pay Abbott, or any one else, any money or give them a better job for turning up tigers.
    T. C. Sensabaugi-i, for appellant.
    No brief reached tbe Reporter.
    Wm. L. Martin, Attorney General and T. H. Seay, Assistant Attorney General, for tbe State.
    Counsel discuss errors noted but without citation of authority.
   PELHAM, P. J.

Tbe fact that tbe witness Abbott bad been a witness in other cases made by one Stone against other parties than tbe defendant could have no other bearing on tbe issues before tbe court than a purpose to show that tbe witness was paid, or bad been promised pay, to testify in tbe case at bar, and tbe court permitted tbe defendant’s counsel to ask tbe witness all questions on cross-examination reasonably calculated to have a tendency to elicit testimony on that subject. On redirect examination tbe matter was gone into fully, and tbe witness stated that be bad received no pay or promise “in any way, shape, or .form” if be would “testify or turn up a tiger.” The various rulings of tbe court on admitting and rejecting tbe testimony of tbe witness Abbott were without error or abuse of discretion.

The questions asked tbe witness Stone by tbe solicitor on rebuttal and permitted by tbe court against tbe objection of defendant’s counsel were proper, and the responsive answers given to them were relevant and admissible for the purpose of contradicting the evidence that had been brought out by the defendant. The evidence elicited was strictly in rebuttal of matters the defendant had previously introduced into the issues, and the court committed no error in permitting the questions to be answered.

No other question is presented other than those we have discussed.

Affirmed.