
    The News Publishing Company v. Butler.
    Lumpkin, J. — 1. The right of either party to a suit to subject to a thorough and sifting cross-examination the witnesses called to testify against him, is distinctly declared in section 3864 of the code. It is a substantial right, the preservation of which is essential to a proper administration of justice, and extends to all matters within the knowledge of the witness, the disclosure of which is material to the controversy. Hence where, in the progress of a trial, a party who had testified in his own behalf afterwards called a witness to support his testimony, it was error for the presiding judge to deny to his adversary the right to cross-examine such witness generally as to all matters material to the case, even though the witness was called merely to rehut testimony already introduced by the opposite party, and had not upon his direct examination testified as to the particular facts sought to be elicited by the ci’oss-examination.
    ■2. Rule 60 of the superior courts deals, not with the right of cross-examining witnesses, but with the manner in which this right is to be exercised. The manner and extent of a cross-examination are, to a certain extent, within the control and subject to the discretion of the presiding judge, but the substantial right should ' neither be abridged nor denied.
    S. Other than as above indicated, no error was committed which requires the granting of a new trial.
    February 27, 1895.
    Complaint on account. Before Judge Hardeman. Bibb superior court. April term, 1894.
    R. E. Butler sued tbe News Publishing Company for $267.82 upon an account for S3 weeks salary as business manager and book-keeper, July 9, 1892, to March 4, 1893, at $15 per week; for $61.56 balance of money loaned; and for.$50 due by defendant to E. T. Wade ■on a transfer in writing by Wade to plaintiff; less credits ■of cash and sundries, from July 9, 1892, to March 4, 1893, amounting to $339.34. Under the charge of tbe ■court and upon a mass of conflicting evidence, the jury found for tbe plaintiff $208.68, and defendant’s motion for a new trial was overruled. Tbe motion assigned •error upon tbe following ruling of tbe court: Ripley' was sworn as a witness for the plaintiff at tbe opening •of tbe case. Plaintiff closed without introducing him. He had also been subpoenaed as a witness for tbe defendant, which offered testimony and closed its case without introducing him. Plaintiff called the witness to the stand, and proceeded to examine him in rebuttal •of defendant’s evidence. On cross-examination, defend.ant sought to prove by tbe witness “that the personal account- of R. E. Butler beginning with the Troy Laundry and going down to the word ‘ Goette,’ were discovered to have been settled by Butler by crediting against the bill of the News Publishing Company his (Butler’s) personal accounts; that this was discovered by Moore •& Wright; and that Ripley entered them because they were so discovered in the way and not by the consent of Butler.” Defendant’s counsel stated that the object of this testimony was, to meet the testimony of Butler, who had testified in chief that he directed Ripley to make these entries as credits upon the account. The testimony so offered was objected to by plaintiff as not being in rebuttal, and the objection was sustained, the court holding that it was not in rebuttal of anything except the plaintiff’s evidence in chief, and that the witness had been in the court-room all the previous day while defendant was rebutting the testimony in chief.
   Judgment reversed.

Hill, Harris & Birch, for plaintiff in error.

Harris & Harris, contra.  