How Impeached. After a witness has been examined in chief, his credit may be impeached in various ways: (1) By proving that he has made statements out of court contrary to what he has testified at the trial. It is, however, only in such matters as are relevant to the issue that the witness can be contradicted; and, before this can be done, it is generally held necessary to ask him as to the time, place, and person involved in the supposed contradiction. It is not enough to ask him the general question, whether he has ever said so and so, nor whether he has always told the same story.1 In rebuttal the opposite party may show that the witness has made the same statement out of court at different times. If a party asks irrelevant questions for the purpose of impeaching the witness's credibility, he is bound by his answers. Thus, if a witness be asked if he had not been charged with theft on a former occasion, and replies in the negative, other witnesses cannot be brought to prove the truth of this fact, and thus impeach his credibility. (2) By general evidence affecting his credit for truth and veracity. In this case the examination must be confined to his general reputation, and not be permitted as to particular facts. The regular mode of examining into the general reputation is to inquire of the witness whether he knows the general reputation of the person in question among his neighbors; and what that reputation is; and then, whether from such knowledge the witness would believe that person upon his oath.2 In answer to such evidence the other party may cross- 1 Roscoe, p. 183. examine these witnesses as to their means of knowledge, and the grounds of their opinions; or may attack their general character, and, by fresh evidence, support the character of his own witnesses. (3) By disproving the facts stated by him, by the testimony of other witnesses. Confessions. In this connection will be considered the subject of confessions, and the credit to be attached to them. The confession of a prisoner is, under certain circumstances, admitted as evidence against him : Voluntary. It must have been freely and voluntarily made, without promises, inducements, or fear; but the inducements, promises, or threats, must have been held out by one in authority, otherwise it is receivable. As stated by one judge,-"The inducement must be held out to the accused by some one who has, or who is supposed by the accused to have, some power or authority to assure to him the promised good, or cause or influence the threatened injury." For example, a confession made to any of the following persons under inducements, etc., would not be considered voluntary. An officer having the prisoner in custody, or a magistrate, or any one having authority over him, or to a private person in the presence of one in authority. The official character of the person to whom the confession is made does not affect its admissibility, provided no inducements were employed. Confessions made to a private individual who had no authority could be properly received in evidence. The inducements must have reference to some temporal advantage in order to invalidate a confession. Where an accused, charged with a grave crime, is urged 1 C. J. Shaw, cited in Greenleaf, Vol. I. § 223, Note 6. by a clergyman "to confess his sins," and so confesses, it would be receivable. Again, the inducements must have some reference to his escape from the charge. Thus, where a man and his wife were in prison in separate rooms, on a charge of stealing and receiving, and the constable said to the man, "If you will tell where the property is, you shall see your wife," it was held that a confession made afterward was admissible. It is the province of the court to decide whether a confession is receivable or not. In deciding this point, where the confession is made under an inducement, the court should direct its inquiry as to whether the threat or inducement was such as to be likely to influence the prisoner. The course of practice is to inquire of the witness whether the prisoner had been told that it would be better for him to confess, or worse for him if he did not confess, or whether language to that effect had been addressed to him.1 The confessions of a person are not evidence against an accomplice. On an indictment against husband and wife her confessions are good against herself, but not against him. The whole of a confession must be taken, and not parts of it. Thus, where a person acknowledged a debt, but stated that he had paid it, the whole must be considered. The court, however, may believe parts of the confession, and reject others, if they see good grounds for so doing. Where a fact is discovered in consequence of a nonreceivable confession, it may be shown that the fact was discovered through the confession. Thus, where, under a threat, a prisoner confessed to the crime of murder, and 1 Phillips, (10th Ed.) p. 543. stated where the weapon with which it was committed could be found, it may be shown that the latter was so found, through the confession, though the latter is not receivable. Credibility of a Confession. The credit to be given a confession must depend on each particular case. It is not conclusive, although, even if totally uncorroborated, some writers have held that the court may convict upon it. In the United States the prisoner's confession, when the corpus delicti is not otherwise proved, has been held insufficient for his conviction.1 EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. Examination-in-chief. After a witness has been sworn he is examined-in-chief by the party calling him. It is the custom to require any witnesses before the court to retire before commencing the examination. If a witness remain after an order to retire, it is in the discretion of the court whether he shall be examined. An attorney whose attendance is necessary in court is not expected to retire, though he is to be called as a witness; nor a witness as to character, or experts. Leading Questions. On the examination-in-chief leading questions are not permitted to be asked. A leading question is one which plainly suggests to the witness the answer desired. Questions are also objectionable, as leading, which, embodying a material fact, admit of an answer by a simple negative or affirmative. The interrogatory must not assume facts to have been proved which have not been proved; nor, that particular answers have been given, which have not been given. Exceptions. In the following cases the rule as to 1 Greenleaf, Vol. I. § 217, leading questions on the examination-in-chief does not obtain : (1) To questions merely introductory. (2) Where the witness appears to be hostile to the party producing him, or in the interest of the other party, er unwilling to give evidence. In either of these cases the judge-advocate or accused should secure permission of the court before asking the question, and this should be noted of record. (3) Where an omission in his testimony is evidently caused by want of recollection of the witness, which a suggestion may assist. (4) Where a witness is called to contradict another. Thus, where a witness testifies that certain expressions were used, the judge-advocate may be permitted to ask another witness whether those particular expressions were used, instead of asking the witness to state what was said.1 It is the province of the court to decide when leading questions shall be allowed. On the cross-examination, leading questions may be put, but for the single exception that when a witness manifests unmistakable hostility to the party who called him, or an unmistakable bias in favor of the party who is cross-examining him, the court may prohibit leading questions." Examination-in-chief how Confined. The examination-in-chief should be confined to matters of fact which the witness has perceived, the inferences from these facts being drawn by the court. It is not necessary, however, that he depose to facts with a certainty that excludes all doubt in his mind. Opinion. In general, a witness must depose to facts, |