Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/348

 said Hill had seduced this witness, and was the father of her child, and that he had seduced another young girl, and had an abortion produced upon her; that he had admitted these facts to various parties, and, among others, to McGahey; and that “McGahey told Hill “that if he didn’t desist from such practices he would make a complaint to the officers, and procure his arrest.” The offer was rejected by the court. Counsel then insisted, and now insists in this court, that such evidence was proper for the purpose of impeaching Hill, and also for the purpose of showing threats by McGahey against Hill, and thus, as bearing upon the question as to who was the aggressor, furnish a motive on the part of Hill for putting McGahey out of the way. These positions are entirely untenable, and need but brief mention. Hill has been asked on cross-examination as to all of these alleged criminal practices, and had denied them. It was proper to ask him these questions on cross-examination, as affecting his credibility; but his answers were final. The court could not go into an investigation of the truth of these purely collateral matters, and thus virtually place Hill upon trial, instead of McGahey. This is elementary. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 449, and cases cited.

Nor need we enter into a discussion of the law as to threats, communicated or uncommunicated. The question docs not properly arise. McGahey did not threaten Hill with prosecution for anything that he had done. The threat was that, “if he did not desist from such practices, he [ McGahey ] would make complaint,” etc. But there was no intimation in the offer of proof that Hill had been guilty of any such practices since McGahey's warning. There was no claim that the condition, upon which alone the threat was based, existed. The offer showed nothing that could raise in Hills’ mind the least apprehension of danger from McGahey.

Mrs. Hill was sworn as a witness for plaintiff in error. On cross-examination the state’s attorney, over the objection of the opposing counsel, was permitted to interrogate her at length as to her relations to and criminal intercourse with McGahey. This