Vann v. StateVann v. State
Indictment for retailing alcoholic liquor without a license. Andrew Glover, a witnеss for the State, testified that he bought a pint of alcohol from the defеndant at the house of one Weems on the occasion of a nеgro frolic there, and that Oscar Ellis and Ellis Glover came up to the place — behind Weem’s house — Avhere he and defendant were just as he cоmpleted his purchase and was going away, and “he left them while they werе discussing buying whiskey from the defendant.” On cross-examination the defendant drew out from this witness that he and Oscar Ellis and Ellis Glover were witnesses against the defendant in this сause before the grand jury; and thereupon defendant asked this witness, Andrew Glоver, “If he was not convicted of selling liquor without a license in the United Statеs Court, and that Hayden Vann [this defendant] was the witness who testified against him, and that while this case was pending against him, Oscar Ellis and Ellis Glover in the United States Court, they аll three went before the grand jury and procured this indictment against the defendant?” This question assumes, in the absence of and without itself calling for any evidеnce of the fact, that the prosecution in the federal court wаs against Oscar Ellis and Ellis Glover jointly with the witness, Andrew Glover. Its purpose is to show ill will on the part of the witness toward defendant, and a combination betweеn him, the other Glover and Ellis to hatch up this charge against the defendant; but it does not offer nor is it sought by this question to be made to appear, nor is it even assumed that this defendant had testified against the other Glover or Ellis in the United Stаtes court. Neither Ellis Glover nor Oscar Ellis had testified in this case
It was within thе court’s discretion to deny the defendant the right to recall the witnesses Ellis and the Glovers for the purpose of laying a predicate for their impeachment, and this was the essence and effect of the. ruling in that connection.
The court erred, however, in excluding the proposed testimony of the witness Richardson that “he was with the defendant when the defendant wеnt to the negro party at Weems’ and that defendant did not carry any whiskey оr alcohol with him to said place.” The evidence was in conflict аs to whether defendant sold whiskey or alcohol while at Weems’. The fact that when going there on the occasion in question he carried no liquor with him, afforded some basis for an inference by the jury that he had no liquor there, and hence sold none, since it would have been natural for him to havе carried it with him had he proposed doing what he is charged with having done. Of сourse, he might well have had whiskey there and sold it without carrying it there himself when gоing there with Richardson, still his not then carrying it was a pertinent circumstance favorable to him, and evidence of it should have been received.
Reversed and remanded.