State v. . Harvey Perkins

PeaksoN, C. J.

1. It is settled, that a witness who swears to the general bad character of another witness on the other side, may upon cross-examination, be asked to name the individuals whom he heard speak disparagingly of the witness, and what was said. This is every day practice, and the exception was. taken under a misapprehension as to the difference between an examination in chief, and a cross-examination, when the party endeavoring to sustain the witness, whose general character is attaeked, may go into particulars as to persons and what they said. This disposes of Hampton.

2. The witness Blackwell, called by the defendant, having stated that “ he did not know the general character of the prosecutrix,” ought to have been told to stand aside, for the defendant’s counsel had no right to cross-examine his own witness.

3. It was the misfortune of the defendant, that neither he or his counsel had been sufficiently on the alert, to enable them to find out the fact in “apt time” to make it cause of challenge, that one of the jurors was on the grand jury, when the bill was found. This might have been a ground for his Honor in the Court below, to grant a new trial, if he had any reason to suspect unfairness on the part of the prosecution, but all suspicion of that kind was put out of the question, for it was stated by the juror, “ if he was on the grand jury he had forgotten it,when he was put on the petit jury.” How far this was satisfactory to his Honor, was a matter for him. But we will say we entirely concur in his conclusion. After a defendant has taken his chances for an acquital, the purposes of justice are not subserved by listening too readily to objections that were not taken in “apt time.”

No ERROR. This will be certified.