Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/55

 tionable to defendant, could have been gotten rid of by a peremptory challenge.

4. Introduction of Handwriting Solely for Comparison Not Admissible in Territorial Courts.

Where letters purporting to have been written by the defendant were offered in evidence by defendant for the sole purpose of comparison of the handwriting with disputed writings put in evidence by the territory, and which letters were excluded, held, not error. Writings not in evidence for other purposes cannot be compared with disputed writings, under the common-law rule adopted by the supreme court of the United States. The trial court, in making such ruling, was a territorial court of subordinate jurisdiction, and, as such, was bound by the federal precedents. Should the same question arise in a case commenced after this state was admitted into the Union, we shall feel at liberty to establish a more liberal rule, if we shall then deem it expedient so to do.

5. Handwriting—Expert Testimony.

The testimony of an expert in handwriting was excluded by the trial court. The expert testified that he was acquainted with defendant’s handwriting, but, being examined by the court, he testified that he had seen defendant write but once, and that was during the noon recess of the court, at which time he had, at the request of the defendant’s counsel, seen defendant write, for the sole purpose of becoming a witness. Held, not error.

6. Criminal Procedure—Cross-Examination of Defendant.

Where, in a criminal case, defendant, at his own request, had taken the stand as a witness in his own behalf, and, on cross-examination, was required to testify as to his antecedents, and, in so doing, stated that he had passed under names other than his own, and had been in jail at different times and places, such testimony being objected to as irrelevant, and not proper cross-examination—no question of privilege having been presented, held, not error. A defendant, under such circumstances, occupies no better position than any other witness; hence, within the bounds of a sound judicial discretion, may be cross-examined as to specific collateral facts for the sole purpose of affecting his credibility. This is the rule as established by a decided preponderance of authority; but a different rule prevails in certain states, as in Oregon, California, and Missouri, where statutes have restricted the right of cross-examination to matters drawn out in chief.

7. Same; Charging Jury as to Evidence.

Where the trial court, in a criminal case, in delivering its charge to the jury, makes an argumentative comparison upon the relative credibility of the principal witness for the defense, and the principal witness for the prosecution, where their testimony is vital, and diametri-