State v. Hughes

Citations

• 8 S.D. 338
• 66 N.W. 1076
• 1896 S.D. LEXIS 57

Syllabus

<p>1. Where the testimony of a witness not a party to the action is sought to be impeached by inconsistent statements out of court, it is necessary that the witness’ attention should be called to the time, place, and person to whom the alleged statements were made, and to the specific statements.</p> <p>2. In bastardy proceedings, it is harmless error to strike out testimony of the complaining witness, admitted without objection, that she was a cousin of defendant.</p> <p>3. Error in sustaining an objection to a question is harmless where the witness subsequently answers the question.</p> <p>4. Laws 1893, Chap. 24, changing the method of enforcing the liability of the father of a bastard, is not an ex post facto law as applied to a defendant whose intercourse with the complaining witness was had before the passage of the act. State v. Bunker (S. D.), 65 N. W. 33, followed.</p> <p>5. Laws 1893, Chap. 24, conferring on the county courts jurisdiction in bastardy proceedings, is constitutional. State v. Scott (S. D.), 65 N. W. 31, followed.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.</p>