¶1 1. The ground taken in regard to a comparison of hand-writing was yielded on the argument.
¶2 2. The defendant Wadsworth, as we must infer, had impeached the genuineness of the receipt, and it was relevant to ask him if he had not conveyed away his property, for it *465 tended to show an apprehension on his part, that the receipt would be established,
¶3 3. The “white washing ” given by Wadsworth to the fact' that he had transferred most of his property, including his. stock of goods, to his brother-in-law, “but had remained, in possession, selling as agent'’ was a proper subject of comment, to the jury.
¶4 The objection is, this being a collateral impeaching-question;, cannot be “ pushed ” any further than the answer • which must be taken as conclusive — that is true, so far as calling witnesses to contradict, for it might lead to endless inquiries on a collateral mattei’. But we have never understood the rule to. preclude comment upon the manner of the witness, as if he hesitates and evinces embarrassment, or upon the answer as, if it be inconsistent, and an attempt to gloss over a dishonest act..
¶5 4. We can see no objection to the question, “ if the witness had not gone to New York and consulted a spiritualist, to find out about the money ?” It tended to show that the witness-had doubts about the genuineness of the receipt and was impressed with the necessity of invoking farther light upon the-subject. So, it was not irrelevant; and although it might have had the effect of exposing the witness to ridicule, still, as he offered himself for a witness in his own behalf, it was ¶ ell to let the j ury be informed of all of the surroundings, so as to enable them to pass upon his credit.
¶6 5. In regard to the cost of the coffin for a pauper being a “poor order ” (supposing it to have been a material subject of inquiry) it would seem, to be almost a self-evident proposition ; and the statement of the witness, that “ he had been a member of the Board of Commissioners since September, 1872; that when he came into office, it was the rule and custom of the-Board to treat the cost of the coffin of. a pauper as a poor-order, and that this was deemed a matter of course, without any change in the rules,” certainly did tend to show that such had been the rule in July, 1871. This presumption of the fixedness in the rules and customs of a Board of Commission *466 ers, is wholly unlike the instance of tenancy at one date, not being evidence of tenancy .at a prior date. So, Nichols v. Pool, 2 Jones 23, cited on tlxe argument has no application. No error.
¶7 Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.