1. The testimony of a witness taken down in writing by a magistrate cannot, on the trial of the same matter in court, be used as evidence in chief, particularly when the witness is present, but may be used to show contradictory statements made by him.
2. Misconduct on the part of a jury, to impeach their verdict, must be shown by other testimony than their own.
HENDERSON, J.
The inferences to be drawn from the opinions of Campbell, the magistrate; from Connor, the attorney, and the attempt to consult the solicitor for the circuit, are all questions of fact, on the point whether the oath was corrupt; and these circumstances were all properly left to the jury. The examination of the defendant in the warrant and prosecutor here would have been proper evidence to impeach the testimony given by him on his trial, as any other statement made by the witness on the same subject would be, for the purpose of showing a contradiction; but it is not evidence in chief that is to show the truth of the facts contained in the examination; and it is more clearly so, if possible, when the witness himself was in court. In this (346) case it appears that it was offered as evidence in chief; it was therefore properly rejected. As to the misconduct of the jury, it has been long settled, and very properly, that evidence impeaching their verdict must not come from the jury, but must be shown by other testimony. We can therefore perceive no grounds for a new trial; and
BY THE COURT:
It is ordered that the motion for a new trial be overruled, and that the Superior Court of law for Surry County proceed to judgment against the defendant agreeably to this opinion and according to law.
Cited: S. v. Taylor, 61 N.C. 513; S. v. Smallwood, 78 N.C. 563; S. v. Grady, 83 N.C. 646; S. v. Royal, 90 N.C. 755; Jones v. Parker, 97 N.C. 34; S. v. Bailey, 100 N.C. 533; S. v. Best, 111 N.C. 643, 644.