Smith v. State

What could have been the purpose of this line of cross-examination of Murray? Murray was not inquired of concerning these other companies in his examination in chief, and, had plaintiff in error’s counsel attempted it, it would have been incompetent.

It would have been just as competent for plaintiff in error, as reflecting upon the improbability of his guilt, to have called witnesses to prove that he was connected with other concerns for which receivers were not appointed.

Counsel for the state insist that this testimony was highly significant; that by such testimony he was attempting to show…