Upon ’s cross interrogating the witness, as to whether he saw a Carthage Grey go out that day towards — objected that the question was improper— that as the <​witness upon the Stand​> was the Defendants witness, that could not upon his cross-examination question him as to any facts but such as related to the matters concerning which he had been previously interrogated by the Defendants’ Counsel— <​*​> <​* that the witness cannot in this way make <​be​> use<​d​> of the Defendants Witness <​in this way by the Prosecutor on cross–examination​> to make out his case in chief <​affirmatively​> by examining him as to new facts Concerning which he was not interrogated by the Defendants Counsel. Decided that the objection by the Defendants counsel is well taken, and that the Prosecuting attorney, cannot, upon cross-examination examine him as to new facts for the purpose of making out his case.​> cited— 1 Starkie Ev. 133— Old Ed. Philips Ev. 211. Note A in one volume— 3 Starkie’s Ev. 1751— on the subject of the cross-examination of a Witness— Roscoe’s Evidence 157. American Note 1— 16 Seargeant & Ramble 77— 3 Washington’s C.C. Reports 580— 1 Starkie 131— cited—

Philips’ Ev. 211—

Philips vs Eamer 1 Esp. N. P. C 357

Dickinson vs Shee 4 Esp. N. P. C. 67

Philips Ev. 911. 8th. Edition

Roscoe’s Evidence 157— side paging

2 Starkie 314

1 Starkie— 131—

The object of re-examining a witness is to explain the facts Stated by the witness upon cross-examination— the re-examination is of course to be confined to the subject matter of the cross-examination 3. Starkie Ev. 1751. [p. 95]