There was no error in admitting the complaint and warrant and defendant’s pleа of guilty in the criminal proceeding instituted by plaintiff against the defendant. The admissibility оf the papers rested entirely upon the plea of guilty. That was an admission that defendant spoke the words charged in the warrant, and, for the purpоse of evidence in this action upon the issue as to speaking the words, stands as an admission of speaking them made in any other manner, entitled to greater weight because of the. deliberateness with which the plea is presumеd to have been made.
But the admission of the complaint in the action by this plaintiff against defendant’s witness Poehling was error. Of course, it is proper, as affecting the weight to be given to a witness’ testimony, to show ill feeling on his part towards the party against whom he is called. Without expressing any opinion on the question whethеr' such hostile feeling may be shown without first interrogating the witness as to the point, or as to any acts or declarations of his tending to prove it, or the question whether when, on his cross-examination, he fully admits such feeling or acts or declаrations, any further evidence may be admitted to prove his hostility, we do not hеsitate to hold that the evidence must be such as directly tends to prove it. As sаid in State v. Bilansky,
Order reversed.