
    Commonwealth vs. Jeremiah F. Harrington.
    Bristol.
    October 28, 1890.
    November 25, 1890.
    Present: Field, C. J., Devens, W. Allen, C. Allen, & Knowlton, JJ.
    
      Larceny — Evidence — Credibility of Witness.
    
    At the trial of an indictment, it is competent to show, as affecting the credibility of the defendant, who is a witness and endeavors to explain various suspicious circumstances against him, that on the day after the occurrence he testified at his examination in a district court in regard to the transaction, and gave no such explanation.
    Indictment for larceny from the person of one Delano. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Thompson, J., the government, in addition to other evidence tending to show that the defendant committed the larceny, introduced evidence that the defendant when with Delano, who was very much intoxicated at the time, was seen to put his hand into Delano’s pockets. The defendant, who was a witness in his own behalf, explained that he put his hand into the pockets of Delano while attempting to get a bottle of liquor which Delano 'had on his person. The defendant was then asked if he testified to this attempt of his to get the bottle at his examination in the district court the day after the occurrence, and he answered that he did not recollect whether he did or not. Two police officers, who testified that they heard the defendant’s testimony at such examination, were permitted to add, against the defendant’s objection, that they did not at that time hear him say anything about attempting to take a bottle out of Delano’s pocket.
    The jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      J. Brown B. 0. Brown, for the defendant.
    
      H. A. Wyman, Second Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
   Knowlton, J.

Evidence was introduced tending to show that the defendant stole a pocket-book from the pocket of one Delano, as alleged in the indictment. To meet this evidence, the defendant testified in his own behalf, and endeavored to explain suspicious appearances testified to by witnesses for tbe Commonwealth. As affecting his credibility, it was competent to sbow tbat at tbe trial in tbe district court, tbe next day after the occurrence, be volunteered to testify in bis own defence in regard to tbe transaction, and gave no such explanation. If bis statement made at tbe last trial bad been true, be would have been likely to make it at tbe first trial.

Exceptions overruled.  