Case Name: Edward S. Geary vs. The People
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1871-01
Citations: 2 Mich. N.P. R. 35
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edward S. Geary vs. The People.
Judges: 
Reporter: The Michigan Nisi Prius Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 35–36

Head Matter:
Edward S. Geary vs. The People.
Exceptions toa charge must point out specifically the errors complained of.
Thq law of 1809, requiting charges to b| written does not operate to make the charge a part of ' the record so us to be reviewuble as an oniry.
The interest or bios of, a witness may be shown, us bearing upon the credit of the witness.
Error to Eaton Circuit.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Campbell, Ch. J.
Plaintiff in error was charged with an assault with intent to commit' rape, and was convicted of an assault. There was one general exception to the entire charge of the Court, pointing out no particular matters complained of in it.
Held, That exceptions to a charge should be specific enough to show what parts of it are regarded as error, or bow it injuriously affects the rights of the party excepting.
It is claimed under the law of 1869, requiring charges to be written, 'that the charge becomes a part of the record and is reviewable as an entry.
IMd, That there is no change ¿brought about by that law in the nature or functions of a charge, It merely substitutes a written charge for an oral one. But the charge can.only be brought up as it would, have been formerly by exceptions, or case made, and the exceptions must be taken in the same way as before,
The only errors properly assigned relate to the exclusion o.f certain testimony designed to impeach the credit of the complaining witness. She had denied having conversations'with various persons concerning her expectations of receiving some profit out of the trial! When the defendant sought to show that she had made statements to that effect the Court refused to permit the proof to be made.
Held, That the proof should have been admitted. The interest .01* bias of a witness has never been regarded as irrelevant. It goes directly to his credit, and must determine with the jury how far facts depending on his evidence are to be regarded as proven.
The judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted.