Evidence'—Leading Questions—DiscRETioN.^The court may in its discretion allow leading questions to be addressed to a witness, but the privilege should not be arbitrarily granted to one side and denied to the other.

Criminal Law—Murder—Evidence—Movements of Defendant After Homicide.—In the prosecution of a Chinese for murder, it is not improper to permit the district attorney to show that the defendant after the homicide went toward the headquarters of a certain t'ong society, since the inquiry related to a circumstance that might be legitimately construed as an effort of concealment, or as indicating the connection of the tong with the killing, thus furnishing a motive for the crime.

Id.—Comment op Court, upon Impeaching Question—Lack of Prejudice.—'In such a trial, the remark by the court in ruling upon an objection raised to an impeaching question asked of a witness for the state that it could not see any conflict in the statement read to the witness and his testimony is not an invasion of the province of the jury.

Id.—Explanation of Testimony—Eight of Witness.—In such a trial, it was not error to permit an officer who testified that on the night of the shooting he saw near the scene of the homicide a certain person, upon his attention being called to his testimony at the preliminary examination wherein he stated that he did not see such person at that time, to explain on redirect examination his former testimony by stating that he did not talk to such person that night. Id.—Self-defense—Evidence—Belief of Defendant.—In such a trial, where one important element in the theory of the defense was that defendant believed his life was in danger, it was proper for him to testify whether he believed he was in danger of death or great bodily harm.

Id.—Cross-examination of Witness—Conduct of District Attorney —Dack op Prejudice.—In such an action, where the district attorney had cause to believe a witness was not telling the truth, he had the right to use every legal means within Ms power to vindicate Ms belief, and his examination, though unduly prolonged and unnecessarily persistent as to unimportant circumstances, was not prejudicial, as tending to discredit the witness.

Id.—Age of Defendant — Conduct of District Attorney Without Prejudice.—In such a trial, where defendant testified in chief that he was eighteen years old, the district attorney was not guilty of misconduct in seeking to compel an admission that the defendant was twenty-eight years old, or in questioning him concerning his identification papers.