Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1905-11-10
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
State VS.. Malmberq.

State of North Dakota, respondent,
VS.. Ernest Malmberg and John Malm-
berg, appellant. ~
1. On cross examination the ex-
amining party mas an absolute right
within reasonable limits to interrogate
the witness as to specific facts and
circumstances which tend to show i'll
will or other motive for falsifying al
though the witness has denied the ex-
istence of such motives.
2. Where the facts which it is
sought to establish by cross-examina-
ton for the purpose of discrediting the
witness, are such as to detract from
his credit or capacity to testify truly
in the particular case on trial, as dis
tinguished from facts discrediting
him generally, the rule forbidding con-
tradiction of a witness on collateral
matters does not apply.
8. Where a party is seeking to
show that an advance witness testi-
mony should be discredited by reason
of ill-will, or an existing temptation
to falsify in the case on trial, he has
the right to show so much of the facts
and circumstances as may be neces-
sary to fairly inform the jury of the
cause, nature and extent of the al
legged improper influence.
Appeal from the district court of
Barnes county, John F. Cowan, judge,
sitting by request. Young, Wright &
Jones, for appellants. c. N. Erich, at
torney general, and Alfred Zuger,
states attorney of Barnes county, for
respondent.
Engerud, j.: Defendants appeal
from a judgment rendered pursuant
to verdict convicting them of the
crime of maintaining a nuisance as
defined in section zoos, Revised Codes
1899.
On cross examination of the CON-
planning witness the defendants coun-
Sc. sought to show by appropriate
questions that the defendant anu the
witness were members of opposing
factions in the village of Litchville;
that the factional differences had en-
gendered personal hostility between
the witness and defendants, and that
such ill feeling had been further en-
FILTERED by the fact that the witness
had been informed that one of the
defendants was rival of the witness
for the appointment to the position of
postmaster of the village. The trial
court sustained objections made to
these questions, and we think the
ruling was erroneous. If the ill feel
ing and rivalry existed as indicated
by the questions asked they were
clearly important facts for the con-
sideration of the jury in determining
the weight TO be givenlto the witness
testimony. 'a:
Before the questions objected to
were asked, the witness had testified,
but in somewhat evasive manner in
response to questions on cross ex-
animation, that he entertained no un-
friendly feelings towards the. defend
ant and that he did not know at the
time the prosecution was commenced,
or since, that the defendant was
rival candidate for the postofice.
Some OF the questions objected to
called the witness attention to his
testimony at the preliminary examina-
ton where the examiner claimed the
witness had sworn in substance that
he knew that one of the defendants was
rival candidate, and the questions
sought to elicit from the witness an
admission or denial of such testimony.
The other questions objected to were
designed to obtain from the witness an
admission or denial of the facts, as
indicated by the questions, that the
witness and defendants were promi-
nent adherents of opposite factions,
and that the factional differences had
engendered feeling of bitter per-
sonal hostility on the part of the mem
bers of one faction against those of the
other. ...a
The manifest purpose of this line of
cross examination was to overcome
the effect of the witness preceding
statement denying the i'll feeling and
rivalry, and to test the credibility Of
the witness. If he gave an affirmative
answer to the questions, his admis-
sions would tend to discredit him. If
he answered in the negative the de-
| PENDANT might show. IL he could Inv