The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1900-05-19

for q new trial that the court erred in
permitting too broad an inquiry into
the character and occupations OF sew
eral Of the defendants witnesses. On
the question. how far inquiry may go,
to affect credibllity Of witnesses, the
rulings Of the courts are legion, all
| however. concedlng that much Is left
| to the discretion OF the trial Judge.
Greenleaf says, u Green, sec. 44S).
that lin order TO determine the just
weight and value Of q witness testi-
mony, It is proper TO show by cross
| examination the situation Of the Wit
ness with respect TO the parties, and to
the subject Of litigation; his interest.
motives, inclination, pre1udic2B, mea1s
/ Of obtaining correct and certain
knowledge OF the facts to which he
bears testimony, the manner in which
he has used those means his powers OF
discrimination, memory and descrip-
ton"
Same author further says, Csec. 1860.
at cannot but be material for the jury
to understand the character Of n Wit
ness, whom they are called upon to be-
iieve; and TO know whether although he
has not been convicted OF any crime,
he has not in some measure rendered
himself less credible by his disgraceful
! conduct" And again, (sec. 1850, NOR
| does there seem to be any good reason
| why q witness should be privileged
| from answering a question touching
his present situation, employment and
! associates, IL they are OF his own
choice" and again. (sec. 45O, where
the inquiry relates TO transactions
comparatively recent, bearing directly
upon the present character and moral
purinclplcs Of the witness. and there-
tof % n n
his testimony by the Jury learned
judges have Of late been disposed to al
low It."
Sir James Stephens in his Law OF
Evidence. says: Where n witness is
cross examined he may be asked any
| questions which tend TO test his accu-
racy, veracity or credibillty, or to shake
his credit by inQuirIng into his charac-
ter, when 1t does not go to the extent
Of exposing him to criminal prosecu-
ton"
In Real vs. People. AZ N. Y, $50. cited
by Rice in his Criminal Evidence, PIP.
367-S, Judge Grover reached and an
nOunced the following conclusions:
THAT a witness upon cross-eNamina-
ton, may be asked whether he has
been In jail. penitentIary or state prls-
on; or In any other place that would
tend to impair his credIblllty, and how
much of his life he has passed in such
places"
It seems. to me these citations justify
the latitude given counsel in cross-eX-
aminIng Dukes" Riley, and the habi-l
tues OF his place. There have heen
gamblers recognized as truthful and
possessed Of business integrity. And
to distinguish gambler from this
class, reputable In these respects, lac
80 10 t, a i.shnuV,p ,NVs
"tin-horn" gambler.
In Com. VS.. Leslie. ~, s. W.. (Ily.),
1886, accused as a witness in his own
behalf, was asked II he was not
gambler, and did not male his living
that way: II he did not travel With and
belong ito sleIght.of-hlnd show. and
whether he did not frequent the house
Of ill-fame where the killing was done.
think while the latitude allowed in
the cross-eXamlnations was broad, 1t
was, nevertheless, clearly within reas-
enable limits, and essential to place the
witnesses before the Jury In such way
as would expose to the jury their true
character
have been over the evidence of the
st. Clair woman. and think there was
no substantial error committed in ad-
hitting her testimony as to powder,
fuse. ETC., In which the defendants, and
particularly Friday, were, according to
her testimony, interested. Such testi-
mony tended to show that II these
men went to the Hervey house It was
with the intent to commit burglary.
Complaint Is also made OF the invita-
ton to defendant, Mooney, to put on
a mask, This is assigned us another
ground for a now trial. This Is ana
Joyous think, to the case of asking
prisoner to stand up. or expose his per-
son. Such requests he can comply
with or not, as he may see fit. II he
declines, or voluntarily complies, no err
ror results from the question. MouEey
might have been asked when testify
Ing to put the mask on. and the simple
interrogatory would not have been err
rOr. So think in argument when In
connection with the reference TO the
mask counsel says: land / invite him
to put It on" II was not going beyond
the limits OF permissible argument,
Objection is also made to certain
statements made during the argument,
and the making OF these statements Is
alleged as ground for new trial. In
Arnold vs.. Com, dSy.t, 1858, ". S9i,
counsel used very much such argument
as complained Of In this case. In his
opening the prosecuting attorney said
"hc did not desire to have any mans
blood on his hands; nsked the jury TO
perform their full duty, lest some ones
blood might rest upon their hands in
case Of q too lax administration of the
law" The court said Il was omlnently
proper 10 call the jury's attention to
tha responsibilities resting upon them.
and to the duties they, MS members OF
tribunal, created by law to ascertain
facts from evidence. nrO required to
perform AND In this cnHO counsel, In
closing his argument Appealed TO thn
fury for n substantial penalty In order
to. suppress luwlcnRnoss, repeating n
conversation he had with n resident OF
another county, In which he was told
that IN that county only two murders
had BEEN committed In nifty years, and
that the men who had committed them
wrrO hung by thr neck. and that this
had the pffect II completely stamp out
the commission Of murder In that
county Tho repetition OF this CONVEX
sutton by counsel was condemned by
the court, but was held not TO Consti-
tutr reversible error
'THln holding NJ the Kentucky court is
much like tho holdings Of our, own court
In shawn'R case, 10 w Vh l. Here
counsel said 10 tho iuryi 'tt you sem
lpnce him 10 the prnltcntlnry for life It
viii not BE- tlVu yoarp until he VIII be let
out again 10 enter upon II now course at
crime" Apruppp VI this remark aud
nH n comment thereon our supreme
court gRyHl 1.-THE choice between the
Two modvn Of punishment In case the
lnry finds tho crlmp 10 he murder in
iAp MAJ degree In absolute with the
lury, aud Il IA dttlrut 10 limit the
Considerations which ahnll govern o
iury, II deduclblh from the nature Of
liz crime uud lla perpclrAior M mani
fsHlpd hy the evidence
IN view ~ lhp Kentucky decision and