Opinion ID: 1683171
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: on objection to dictionary definition of words

Text: In the course of the appellant's cross-examination, he was asked to read a dictionary definition of diabolic and plot. The objection was that the meaning in question was what the witness, not what someone else, understood it to be. The witness read from the book the definition of diabolic and confirmed also the meaning of plot therein, saying in each instance that those were definitions. He was asked if he wished to pick out others, but he declined to do so; nor did he offer his own accepted definition for those words. This Court has recognized that, under the Anti-Dueling Statute, Sec. 1059, Code of 1942, Rec., the words there contemplated are from their usual construction and common acceptation    considered as insults, and calculated to lead to a breach of the peace   . Huckabee v. Nash, 182 Miss. 754, 183 So. 500, and Salvo v. Edens, 237 Miss. 734, 116 So.2d 220. (Hn 5) In cross examination, a wide latitude is allowed. The examiner, in this instance, was trying to ascertain the appellant's understanding of the words. The appellant, however, advanced nothing to the contrary. (Hn 6) There is no complaint that the court used a dictionary definition in the instructions to the jury. Of course that cannot be done, Jarnigan v. Fleming, supra, so held. (Hn 7) It therefore follows that the objection to this examination was without merit.