<p>1. Where a ground of error alleged in the motion for a new trial was that the testimony of a named witness was admitted to impeach one of movant’s witnesses, without stating which one — it appearing that the same witness was used for the purpose of impeaching several witnesses of the movant, this court will not grant a new trial on.that ground.</p> <p>2. Where a witness introduced to impeach another stated that he had known the general character of the latter the year previous, that it was bad, and from it he would not believe such witness on oath; but that he did not know the general character of the impeached witness during the current year, nor that there had been any change in.the public estimation, but from his private knowledge of the witness he believed there had lately been reformation in him, such answers were competent to go to the jury under proper instructions of the court.</p> <p>(a.) The charge not being set out, will be presumed to be right.</p>
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently August 1908
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶11. The defendant was tried and convicted of simple larceny. The theft charged is cattle stealing. If the witnesses for the state were believed by the jury the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. Their credibility is for the jury. There was no error, therefore, in overruling the motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and without evidence to support it.
¶22. Nor do we see that the court erred in admitting the impeaching testimony of the witness, Pinson. In the motion for a new trial, the objection is to his testimony as to one witness, but that one is not named, and several were impeached by Pinson. But even if the ground was clearly made, and the witness of the defendant alluded to be that one, or those even in respect to whose character the impeaching testimony is weakest, it ought to have *490gone to the jury. Where the witness answers, it is a hard question, and to the effect that he might believe him but hardly would, the testimony should be weighed by them. It is general character that is the foundation, and if that has been bad but is a little better for a year, and the witnesss knows it from what it is generally among the people, whether a gambling or other illegal and immoral character, the witness may say whether or not he would believe him, and how much or to what extent he would credit him, and all he says may go to the jury and be weighed by them.
¶3The charge of the court is not in the record, but it is not excepted to, and by presumption is right. Therefore, in regard to impeachment, the law was given correctly in charge, and, therefore, the jury were told what was necessary to be proved in order to impeach a witness, and under a proper charge defendant could not have been hurt.
¶4It is enough, however, to say in this case and on this point, that the motion for a new trial does not specify which witness impeached by Pinson is alluded to, and the point cannot therefore be specifically ruled. On a general view of all of it, we fail to see such error, if indeed any at all, as would authorize us to grant a new trial.
¶5The other grounds for a new trial were abandoned here.
