
    Horatio G. LeBarron versus Tristram Redman.
    The interest of a witness.may be shown from his own examination, or bv evidence aliunde; but the adoption of either of these modes, precludes a resort to the other, for the same purpose, and upon the same ground.
    After an unsuccessful attempt to exclude a witness by his own examination, his testimony in chief may be stricken out upon a discovery of his interest.
    Replevin for lumber, which the defendant had attached as an officer. The defendant offered as a witness one Lippencott, who was the agent of the attaching creditors, and who, to inquiries made by the plaintiff, replied, on the voir dire, that he did not recollect having promised the defendant to save him harmless for taking the lumber, and from his habit, should think he did not so promise; and that he had no knowledge of holding himself for costs. The plaintiff then offered to prove by another witness, that the defendant had admitted that Lippencott had promised to save him harmless for taking the lumber. The Court ruled that such offer was too late to show an interest in the witness, and was inadmissible for that purpose, but was admissible to contradict the witness and impair his credibility, but not sufficient to authorize his rejection.” Lippencott then testified for the defendant, in whose favor the verdict was rendered ; and the plaintiff excepted to the rulings.
    C. Burbank, for plaintiff.
    
      Moulton, for defendant.
   Howard, J.

— The interest of a witness may be proved by his own examination, or by evidence aliunde; but the adoption of either mode of proof, by the party objecting to the competency of the witness, precludes a resort to the other for a like purpose, upon the same ground.

This doctrine, though not clearly settled by the authorities, has been a rule of practice in our own courts; and it is believed to be consistent with a due observance of other settled principles of evidence and practice. A party is not permitted to trifle with the conscience of a witness, when he has other proof that would exclude him, or after having resorted to evidence, to impeach or disqualify him ; nor can he raise collateral issues for that purpose.

The examination of a witness, in respect to his interest, may be either upon the voir dire, or after he has been sworn in chief. But after an unsuccessful attempt to exclude the witness, on this account, his testimony in chief may be stricken out of the case, upon a discovery of his interest. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 423, 424 ; 1 Stark. Ev. 135, 136, and notes.

The instructions to which the exceptions were urged, were correct upon the principles- stated. The witness having been examined upon the voir dire, the subsequent offer to prove his interest, aliunde, was properly rejected.

Exceptions overruled.  