¶1The party has his election, either to prove the interest by common-law evidence, or to appeal to the witness to declare, under the voire dire or witnesses’ oath, whether he is interested or not; but after he has appealed to the- witness and examined him, he may not resort to common-law evidence to ■criminalo him.
1 Root 501
Mallet v. Mallet
Decided January 15, 1793
Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1793-01-15
<p>A witness being interrogated muter tlie witnesses’ oatli and purgetb liimself, the party may not resort to other proof.</p>
Decided 1793-01-15