Haberty v. State

It is claimed by counsel for the plaintiff in 'error that the trial court erred in its rulings as to the admission of the evidence in two particulars, viz: First — In allowing the wife of the defendant, who had been called by him to testify on his behalf, to be cross-examined by the prosecuting attorney as to matters as to which she had not testified on her examination in chief, and on such cross-examination to give evidence which tended to show that the defendant was guilty of the crime with which he was charged; and, second, that the court, over the exception of-defendant’s counsel, allowed…