509; Alexander v. State, 21 Tex. App. 410; Whart. Cr..Ev. § 46.
Bangs & Fisk, (W. H. Standish, Atty. Gen'l of Counsel) for the defendant in error.
Upon re-examination of a witness it is proper to ask him questions for the purpose of drawing forth an explanation of a sense and meaning of expressions used by him on cross-examination. 1 Thompson on Trials, § 486; Schaser v. State, 36 Wis. 432; Goodman v. Kennedy, 10 Neb. 270; State v. Hopkins, 50 Vt. 316; People v. Smallman, 55 Cal. 188. A witness may be permitted to to state in his own language what may be necessary by way of introduction to make his narrative intelligable and thus may state what others told him. Shultz v. State,1 Crim. Law Mag. 140. The extent to which a re-direct examination will be allowed to proceed rests in the discretion of the trial court. Slinkler v. State, 9 Neb. 241; Towers v. Leach, 26 Vt. 270. Where improper testimony has crept in but is promptly ordered stricken out by the court, the defendant cannot predicate error on account of the neglect of the court to specifically charge the jury to disregard such testimony in the absence of a request so to do. Arthur v. Griswold, 55 N. Y. 408; Hopt v. Utah, 120 U. S. 430; Zell v. Comm. 2Crim. Law Mag. 22, 25. No duty rests upon the state to produce and swear all eye-witnesses to the transaction where the testimony of the witnesses. called, is direct and positive and apparently covers the entire transaction. Comm. v. Haskell, 140 Mass. 128; State v. Middleham; 62 Ia. 150, S. C. 14 N. W. Rep. 446. Where objectionable remarks of counsel are of a general character and not likely to prejudice the case of the accused in the minds of honest men of fair intelligence the failure of the court to strike out such remarks or caution the jury to disregard them is not an abuse of discretion. See note to 26 N. W. Rep. 782; Epps v. State, (Ind.) 1 N. E. Rep. 492; State v. McCool, 9 Pac. Rep. 618; Schuler v. State, (Ind.) 2 West. 801. The evidence of uncommunicated threats which were offered to be proven by the defendant was inadmissible as the threats were not made by Hill against the
