The opinion of the court was delivered by
It was certainly error in the court below to permit the plaintiff to select portions of the depositions of a witness taken by himself, to be read in evidence on the trial, and to omit other parts of the same deposition. It seems to be the same thing as striking out parts of the examination of a witness sworn in the cause at the bar, at the request of the party who called and examined him. This could not be permitted. The party who examines a witness must be considered as presenting the whole as equally authentic, and is estopped from denying the competency of any part of his evidence. He cannot even discredit his own witness, though he may prove the facts to be otherwise than as stated by him. Stockton v. Demuth, (7 Watts, 39..) When a deposition has been taken, the party, therefore, who offers it, must read the whole. If parts of it be manifestly irrelevant, they may, on that ground, be omitted, under the direction of the court: that, however, is not the privilege of the party, but the exercise of a duty by the court, for the despatch of business, and saving of time and trouble.
But it is contended that the plaintiffs offered, afterwards, in the ■ summing up, to read the parts of the deposition which had been
. For these reasons we think the judgment must be reversed, and a venire facias de novo be awarded.
Judgment reversed, and venire de novo awarded.
