A witness was asked whether he did not live with a woman who
kept a house of ill-fame. The court, against objection, admitted
the question, informing the witness that he could answer it or not,
as he chose. Held, to be no error. State v. Ward, 49 Conn. 442
(433).
In reply to questions on cross-examination, the witness stated
that so far as she knew, her husband was sober on the day of the
shooting, and had not been drinking. She was then asked whether
he was not an habitual drinker, and if she had not so testified on the
preliminary hearing. These questions were objected to by the State
and excluded by the court. The witness had not been inquired of
in her direct examination as to her husband's habits regarding
drink, nor in regard to his mental or physical condition at the
time of the shooting. Held, that the questions were not properly
cross-examination, and that it was within the discretion of the
trial court to require the defendant to present these matters, if
material, in his defense. If the questions were asked solely for the
purpose of testing the credibility of the witness, their allowance or
disallowance was within the discretion of the court. State v.
McOowan, 66 Conn. 392.
In a suit by a physician to recover for serviiees rendered by a
substitute, the substitute having testified that the charges are
reasonable, may be asked on cross-examination what his own fees
would have been. Sayles v. Fitz Gerald, 72 Conn. 395.
A question intimating that another witness has testified differ-
ently from the one under examination is not proper on cross-ex-
amination. Turner's Appeal, 72 Conn. 314.
