
    MORRIS ROBERTS vs. JACOB COLLINS.
    Where a deposition is read in evidence, the opposite party may contradict the witnesses, by shewing that he has subsequently made different statements, without having put to the witness the usual preliminary questions, as such could not be put from the mature of the case.
    Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Cleaveland County, at the Fall Term, 1845, his Honor Judge Bailey presiding.
    This action was for slander, and, in order to prove the defamatory words charged, the deposition of one Green was read in evidence by the plaintiff. To contradict Green, two witnesses were examined by the defendant, to prove, that, subsequently to the taking of the deposition, he had made to them a statement, different from the one he had deposed to. This testimony was objected to by the plaintiff, for the reason that the usual preliminary questions had not been put to the witness, whereby ail opportunity to explain himself was cut off. The objection was, by the Court, over-ruled, and the witnesses examined. There was a verdict for the defendant, and from the judgment thereon, the plaintiff appealed.
    
      Guión, for the plaintiff.
    Alexander, for the defendant.
   Nash, J.

The general rule is as stated by the plaintiff, but, like all others, it is subject to exceptions. In the nature of things, it could not apply to this case. The declarations of Green, offered in evidence to contradict him, were made after his deposition was taken. How, then, could the previous questions be put to him ? Surely,, it could not be required of the defendant to take the deposition of Green over again, and thereby make him his witness. In such a case, it might well be questioned, whether the subsequent declarations could have been used by 'the defendant. Wc see no error in the opinion of the Oourl..

Eer Curiam. J udgment afiimied.  