Dillwood

The appellant was convicted of burglary in the first degree, and appeals from the judgment and an order denying a new trial.

Thomas Philbin, a witness for the prosecution, admitted upon cross-examination that he had been convicted of a felony prior to June 21, 1893, and afterward, and prior to the trial of this case, was granted a new trial. On June 21st he was a witness in behalf of Dillwood upon his examination before the justice upon the same charge of burglary here in question, and in his examination in chief in the superior court had testified to facts which, if believed by the jury, would tend strongly to convict the defendant. It was claimed by defendant that Philbin’s testimony before the justice was materially different from his testimony in chief upon the trial in the superior court. If it were true that there was a material difference in the testimony of the witness on these two occasions, a very large liberty should be given the defendant to prove the motives and influences inducing the change, so as to enable the jury to determine whether his testimony given before them was prompted by a disinterested' desire that justice should be done, and therefore likely to be…