Territory v. Paul
Montana Supreme Court
Appeal from First District, Jefferson County. 1. The court erred in not allowing appellants the right to impeach the character of McDougal for truth and veracity, and refusing appellants, after Worthington had testified that he was acquainted with that character in the neighborhood where he resided, the question, “ is that reputation good or bad,” and in passing upon the competency of the witness and rejecting his testimony instead of allowing the jury to pass upon the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from First District, Jefferson County. 1. The court erred in not allowing appellants the right to impeach the character of McDougal for truth and veracity, and refusing appellants, after Worthington had testified that he was acquainted with that character in the neighborhood where he resided, the question, “ is that reputation good or bad,” and in passing upon the competency of the witness and rejecting his testimony instead of allowing the jury to pass upon the sufficiency of thé same. Bates v. Barker, 4 Cush. 109. 2. American authorities agree upon the propriety of the following…
1Opinion of the CourtKnowles, J.
The principal assignment of error in this case is the rejection, by the court, of the testimony of Worthington, who was called by the defendants for the purpose of impeaching-the witness for the Territory, McDougal.
Counsel for the defense introduced the witness, Worthington, and asked him the following questions:
1. “ Are you acquainted with the general reputation of the witness, McDougal, in the neighborhood where he lives, for truth and veracity ? ” Ans. “ I am.”
2. “ Is that reputation good or bad ? ”
This question was objected to by the prosecution, and the objection sustained.
3. “ From what…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. DiedtmanMontana Supreme Court · 1920
- State v. LabbittMontana Supreme Court · 1945
- State v. SmithMontana Supreme Court · 1959
- Wallace v. HayesMontana Supreme Court · 2015