Dixon v. State

Bleckley, Chief Justice.

1. No doubt the court erred in admitting the evidence of several witnesses to the previous sayings of Walsh, thereby contradicting a portion of his testimony given in as a witness for the State. He testified he never *755told them so and so; they testified he did. The only relevancy of their evidence was to impeach him. It proved nothing in and of itself pertinent to the case. It was not competent for the State to discredit its own witness by showing that he had made statements out of court which he denied while testifying for the State in court. This is the rule…