The Northwestern Reporter Volume 166 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1918 Excerpt: ...could have resulted therefrom. 9 V. It developed In the cross-examination of Lena Henkle that she had been married and divorced. Later in the trial counsel for defendant tendered the original decree In evidence, and on objection It was excluded. The ruling is to be approved, for the fact of the. divorce was all that was apparently material, and that only on the credibility of Mrs. Henkle; it not being claimed that anything in the decree threw any light thereon. 10 VI. One Downs, who had been sheriff of the county, testified as to the general reputation of a witness, Mrs. Moseley, for general morality and for truth and veracity. On redirect examination the county attorney Inquired: "Were you sheriff at the time May Moseley's husband was tried for murder?" An objection was sustained, but appellant contends that the mere asking of the question was prejudicial error. The county attorney should not have made the Inquiry, but the mere asking of the question, not persisted in, cannot be regarded as prejudicial. See cases collected in the dissent In State v. Weaver, 166 N. W. 379, decided at the present term of court. 11,12 VII. Exception Is taken to several rulings on the admissibility of evidence in the course of the cross-examination of Lena Henkle. As there was no answer to one of the questions propounded, the ruling, even if erroneous, was not prejudicial. Another question asked was this: "Now, after you had gotten your divorce from your husband, Rigon, or whatever you call him, you continued to live with him as his wife for about a year after that, didn't you?" Over objection she answered: "No, sir." This Inquiry touched her manner of life, and was permissible as bearing on her credibility as a witness. She had been refusing to a...