
    Mallet v. Mallet.
    A witness being interrogated muter tlie witnesses’ oatli and purgetb liimself, the party may not resort to other proof.
    Action of ejectment. Issue to the jury. A witness was produced and sworn and under the witnesses’ oath he was examined touching his interest and purged himself; the parly then moved to introduce witnesses to prove his interest; but by the court —■ this may not be done.
   The 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.  