Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/57

 George, 80 Ill. 51; Frame v. Badger, 79 Ill. 441; Bulen v. Granger, 29 N. W. 719; Unruh v. State, 4 N. E. 453.

''Geo. F. Goodwin, attorney general, and F. W. Ames'', states attorney for Traill county for the defendant in error: The objection to want of box-and ballots was waived because not made till jury was complete. People v. Stonecifer, 6 Cal. 405; Thrall v. Smiley, 9 id. 537; People v. Ransom, 7 Wend. 417; Com. v. Norfolk, 5 Mass. 485. Jurors in criminal cases should be separately accepted and sworn: Thompson on Trials, §§ 91-2; State v. Potter, 18 Conn. 166; State v. Pierce, 8 Iowa, 231; Com. v. Rogers, 7 Met. 500; Walker v. Collier, 37 Ill. 362; State v. Roderigas, 7 Nev. 328; Horbach v. State, 43 Texas, 242; Smith v. Brown, 8 Kan. 608; Schufflin v. State, 20 Ohio St. 233; State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 538. An erroneous overruling of challenge for cause is not reversible error unless defendant had exhausted his peremptory challenges. Anarchist Case, 12 N. E. 989; Loggins v. State, 12 Tex. App. 65; People v. McGungill, 41 Cal. 429; State v. Elliott, 45 Iowa, 486; People v. Teatrusky, 2 N. Y. Crim. Rep. 450; Territory v. Campbell, 22 Pac. 121. That defendant was properly cross-examined as to his history and character: State v. Cox, 67 Mo. 392; Southworth v. Bennett, 58 N. Y. 659; State v. Pfefferle, 12 Pac. 406; Anarchists' Case, 12 N. E. 989; Boyle v. State, 5 id. 203; People v. Cummins, 11 N. W. 184; Territory v. Davis, 10 Pac. 359; Hanson v. Com., 11 S. W. 286; People v. Johnson, 50 Cal. 571. The extent of such cross-examination is in the discretion of the trial court: Disque v. State, 8 Atl 281; People v. Clark, 8 N. E. 38; State v. Pfefferle, supra. Specimens of chirography are not admissible in evidence merely for purposes of comparison: Strother v. Lucas, 6 Peters 763; 9 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law, 283-290. Unsigned letters are admissible, if traceable to the writer; Bartlett v. Mayo, 33 Me. 518. As to the fifteenth exception to the charge, they cited: Thompson on Charging Jury, § 37; People v. Cronin, 34 Cal. 191.

In opening the state’s case, its attorney spoke as follows: "This is the third time that the grand jurors of this county have returned an indictment for the crime of murder. In