Commonwealth v. WardCommonwealth v. Ward
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Knowlton
The defendant does not contend that the ruling in regard to the re-examination of the witness was erroneous, but argues that the remark of the presiding justice referring to the appearance of thе witness improperly influenced the jury. This remark wаs not made to the jury, but to the defendant’s counsel, to bring to his attention the proper limits оf a re-examinatiоn, arid the matters to be considered by the judge in determining these limits. For thаt purpose, as between the court and the counsel, it was рroper. The presiding justice stated to the counsel that it was not intended to characterize the aрpearancе of the witness, and, if the jury hеard the original remark, they doubtless heard this statement also. Moreover, it appears by the bill of excеptions that full instructions were given upon all parts of the case, and doubtless the jury werе made to understand thаt the court could not properly influence them in regard to the appearance of the witness аs affecting his credibility, аnd that they were the sоle judges in matters of thаt kind.
No other exception was argued, and we discover no error in the proceedings.
¡Exceptions overruled.