Nor as to the public utility of a proposed highway. Loshbaugh v. Birdsell, 90 Ind. 466. Nor as to the amount of damages a party has sustained. Railroad Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 10 Ind. 120; Railway Co. v. Johnson, 59 Ind. 247; Sinclair v. Roush, 14 Ind..450; Bissell v. Wert, 35 Ind. 54. Witnesses may give an opinion as to the value of property. Railroad Co. v. Windsor, 51 Ind. 238; Holton v. Board, 55 Ind. 194; Ferguson v. Stafford, 33 Ind. 162; Yost v. Conroy, 92 Ind. 464; City v. Nagle, 113 Ind. 425. The testimony of an expert should be tested by the same rules as the testimony of other witnesses. Cuneo v. Bessoni, 63 Ind. 524; Eggers v. Eggers, 57 Ind. 461; Snyder v. State, 70 Ind. 349. As to the right of expert witnesses to extra compensation. See Buchman v. State, 59 Ind. 1; Dills v. State, 59 Ind. 15; Gaston v. Board, 3 Ind. 497. 513. (505.) Religious belief-General moral character.-283. No want of belief in a Supreme Being or in the Christian religion shall render a witness incompetent; but the want of such religious belief may be shown upon the trial. In all questions affecting the credibility of a witness, his general moral character may be given in evidence. When the character of a witness of a party is attacked such party may support such character by witnesses. Clackner v. State, 33 Ind. 412; Clem v. State, 33 Ind. 418; Seeger v. Pfeifer, 35 Ind. 13; Railway Co. v. Frawley, 110 Ind. 18. The character of a witness can only be shown by proof of general reputation, and not by proof of single acts. Long v. Morrison, 14 Ind. 595; Meynicke v. State, 68 Ind. 401; Bessette v. State, 101 Ind. 85; Spencer v. Robbins, 106 Ind. 580. The inquiry as to the character of a witness should usually be limited to the time and place of trial. Rucker v. Beaty, 3 Ind. 70; Rogers v. Lewis, 19 Ind. 405; Abshire v. Mather, 27 Ind. 381; Rawles v. State, 56 Ind. 433; Sage v. State, 127 Ind. 15. Some latitude is allowed as to the time and place, when and where the reputation of a witness is to be shown. Stratton v. State, 45 Ind. 468; Railway Co. v. Richardson, 66 Ind. 43. If a witness resides outside of the state the inquiry should be as to his reputation at his home. Chance v. Indianapolis Co., 32 Ind. 472. Mere contradiction among witnesses is no cause for introducing evidence of character to support their testimony. Pruitt v. Cox, 21 Ind. 15; Brann v. Campbell, 86 Ind. 516; Fitzgerald v. Goff, 99 Ind. 28. An impeaching witness may be impeached, and his character may be proven to support his evidence. Phillips v. Thorn, 84 Ind. 84. The testimony of an expert can not be impeached by proof of his reputation as an expert. Adams v. Sullivan, 100 Ind. 8. Parties may always contradict the testimony of their own witnesses, and may sometime impeach them by proof of general reputation. Hill v. Goode, 18 Ind. 207; Hull v. State, 93 Ind. 128. 514. (506.) Credibility.-284. Any fact which might, heretofore, be shown to render a witness incompetent, may be hereafter shown to affect his credibility. The conviction of a witness of a crime can only be shown to affect his credibility. Jeffersonville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Riley, 39 Ind. 568; Glenn v. Clore, 42 Ind. 60. The indictment of a witness for a crime can not be proven to affect his credibility. Canada v. Curry, 73 Ind. 246. A witness may be compelled on cross-examination to answer as to matters tending to disgrace him, if the answers do not criminate him, for the purpose of affecting his credibility. South Bend v. Hardy, 98 Ind. 577. Relationship to the parties, their feelings towards them, and their interest in the subject-matter in controversy, may be shown to affect the credibility of a witness. Bersch r. State, 13 Ind. 434; Nelson v. Vorce, 55 Ind. 455; Kinsman v. State, 77 Ind. 132. The credibility of witnesses, and the weight of impeaching evidence is for the jury to determine, and the court should instruct the jury what may add to detract from the credibility of a witness. Nelson v. Vorce, 55 Ind. 455; Jones v. State, 64 Ind. 473; Canada v. Curry, 73 Ind. 246; Dodd v. Moore, 91 Ind. 522; Cunningham v. State, 65 Ind. 377; Pratt v. State, 56 Ind. 179. 515. (507.) Party producing not to impeach-Exception.-285. The party producing a witness shall not be allowed to impeach his credit by evidence of bad character, unless it was indispensable that the party should produce him, or in case of manifest surprise, when the party shall have this right; but he may, in all cases, contradict him. by other evidence, and by showing that he has made statements different from his present testimony. When a party must produce a witness, or he is manifestly surprised at his testimony, he may impeach by proof of bad character, and parties may always contradict their own witnesses. Hill v. Goode, 18 Ind. 207; Crocker v. Agenbroad, 122 Ind. 585. The failure of a party to prove an expected fact by a witness is no cause for impeaching the witness. Hull v. State, ex rel., 93 Ind. 128. This section is applicable to criminal actions. Conway v. State, 118 Ind. 482. If a witness for the state makes statements prejudicial to the state, contradictory statements made by the witness may be proven. Conway v. State, 118 Ind. 482; Rhodes v. State, 128 Ind. 189. If a witness denies having a conversation upon a matter collateral to the issue, he can not be contradicted by the party calling him. Welch v. State, 104 Ind. 347. 516. (508.) Impeachment.-286. When a witness, whether a party to the record or not, is cross-examined, to lay the foundation of his impeachment by proof of an act or statement inconsistent with his testimony, and is asked if he did not do the act or make the statement, and he answers that he does not recollect having done the act or made the statement, the party thus laying the foundation for impeachment shall have the right to introduce evidence of the act or statement in the same manner as if the witness had answered that he had not done the act or made the statement. If the witness answers that he does not recollect having made a statement, contradictory statements may be proven. Curme, Dunn, etc., v. Rauh, 100 Ind. 247. Before contradictory statements of a witness can be proven, his attention must be called to the time, place, etc., of making the statements, and deny having made them. Doe v. Reagan, 5 Blkf. 217; Joy v. State, 14 Ind. 139; Judy v. Johnson, 16 Ind. 371; Bennett v. O'Byrne, 23 Ind. 604; Hill v. Gust, 55 Ind. 45; Lawler v. McPheeters, 73 Ind. 577. Diffenderfer v. Scott, 5 App. 243. When proof of contradictory statements are made to impeach a witness, statements of the witness in harmony with his testimony may be proven. Dailey v. State, 28 Ind. 285; Perkins v. State, 4 Ind. 222; Brookbank v. State, 55 Ind. 169. When impeachment is attempted by proof of contradictory statements, such statements must relate to a material matter in issue. Paxton v. Dye, 26 Ind. 393; Seller v. Jenkins, 97 Ind. 430; Horne v. Williams, 12 Ind. 324; Fogleman v. State, 32 Ind. 145. Witnesses sought to be impeached by contradictory statements may be called to give their version of such statements. Railway Co. v. Harris, 49 Ind. 119. The contradiction of a witness is no cause for proof of his former statements to support his testimony. Hodges v. Bales, 102 Ind. 494. Contradictory statements proven can not be considered as evidence of facts. v. Davis, 101 Ind. 187. Allen 517. (509.) Party may be examined.-346. A party to an action may be examined as a witness concerning any matter stated in the pleading, at the instance of the adverse party, or of any one of several adverse parties; and for that purpose may be compelled, in the same manner, and subject to the same rules of examination as any other witness, to testify either at the trial, or conditionally, or upon com mission. The proceedings herein provided for take the place of a bill of discovery. Barnard v. Flinn, 8 Ind. 204; Mason v. Weston, 29 Ind. 561. One who has complied with an order to answer interrogatories may also be compelled to testify as a witness. Smith v. Rosenham, 19 Ind. 256. Interrogatories, answers thereto, motions, and rulings thereon, are no part of the record, unless made so by bill of exceptions. Kennedy v. Richardson, 70 Ind. 524. A party, in answering, is not confined to yes or no, but may make a full and fair explanation of the matter in question. Railsbaek v. Koons, 18 Ind., 274. The examination may be read at the trial although the party examined is present at the trial. Scott v. Indianapolis, etc., Works, 48 Ind. 75. A party may refuse to answer questions not concerning the matters in issue. Chaffin, v. Brownfield, 88 Ind. 305. A party is not bound to attend for examination unless served with summons issued by a court or officer. Bish v. Beatty, 111 Ind. 403. Parties examined may be cross-examined in their own behalf and use such evidence. Mosier v. Stoll, 119 Ind. 244. An adverse party may be examined although he has answered interrogatories. Smith v. Rosenham, 19 Ind. 256. The party causing the examination of an adverse party may contradict the testimony given, or may impeach such party. Crocker v. Agenbroad, 122 Ind. 585. Parties can not be compelled to give the names of their witnesses or state the facts they expect to prove by them. Wabash, etc., R. W. Co. v. Morgan, 132 Ind. 430. 518. (510.) Time-Before whom-Notice.-347. The examination, instead of being had at the trial, may be had at any time before the trial, at the option of the party claiming it, before any officer authorized to take depositions, on a previous notice to the party to be examined and any other adverse party of at least five days, unless, for good cause shown, the court order otherwise. But the party to be examined before the trial shall not be compelled to attend in any other county than that of his residence. A party is not bound to attend and answer unless served with a summons issued by a court or officer. Bish v. Beatty, 111 Ind. 403. All the adverse parties should be notified unless the court orders otherwise. Smith v. Smith, 80 Ind. 267. 519. (511.) Attendance enforced-Filing and reading.-348. The attendance of the party to be examined may be enforced, and the ex amination shall be taken and filed as a deposition in the cause, and may be read by the party taking it, at his option; but if not read, the party causing the examination shall pay the costs thereof. 520. (512.) Evidence rebutted.-349. The evidence of the party thus taken may be rebutted by adverse testimony. The party examining an adverse party may contradict the testimony given, or impeach such adverse party. Crocker v. Agenbroad, 122 Ind. 585. 521. (513.) Penalty for refusing to attend.-350. Any party refusing to attend and testify, as above provided, may be punished as for a contempt; and his complaint, answer, or reply may be stricken out. If a party duly notified fails to appear for examination his pleadings may be stricken out and judgment as upon a confession rendered. Belton v. Smith, 45 Ind. 291; Nelson. Neely, 63 Ind. 194; Trippe v. Carr, 80 Ind. 371. Parties may refuse to answer questions not concerning the matters in issue, and their pleadings can not be stricken out for such refusal. Chapin v. Brownfield, 88 Ind. 305. Before pleadings of a party can be stricken out for a failure to submit to an examination it must appear that no good excuse for such failure was offered. Huffman v. Copeland, 86 Ind. 224. A party should be served with a notice issued by a court or officer, before his pleadings should be stricken out for a failure to be examined. Bish v. Beatty, 111 Ind. 403. ARTICLE 18.-OFFER BEFORE TRIAL. SEC. 522. To allow judgment. SEC. 523. To confess judgment. [1881 S., p. 240. In force September 19, 1881.] 522. (514.) To allow judgment.-459. The defendant may, at any time before the trial, serve upon the plaintiff an offer in writing, to allow judgment to be taken against him for the sum or property, or to the effect therein specified, with costs. If the plaintiff accept the offer in court, in the presence of the defendant, or give notice of acceptance in writing within five days and before the trial, judgment shall be entered accordingly. If the offer is not accepted, or notice of acceptance be not given as above directed, the offer is to be deemed withdrawn, and shall not be given in evidence, or commented on before the jury; and if the plaintiff fail to obtain a more favorable judgment, the defendant shall recover from the plaintiff the costs occasioned subsequent to the time of the offer. This section is applicable only to suits commenced and pending. Horner v. Pilkington, 11 Ind. 440. The offer must embrace costs and accrued costs. Harter v. Comstock, 11 Ind. 525; Holland v. Pugh, 16 Ind. 21. It may be served upon the attorney of record. Holland v. Pugh, 16 Ind. 21. An offer to confess need only be made by those against whom a judgment may be rendered for the matter sued for. Harris v. Dailey, 16 Ind. 183. Notice given in open court of the filing of an offer to confess judgment, is sufficient. Keller v. Allee, 87 Ind. 252. An offer to confess, made before a justice, continues in force on appeal. Lewis v. Morrison, 10 Ind. 394. 523. (515.) To confess judgment.-460. Before an action for the recovery of money is brought against any person, he may go into the court of the county of his residence, or of that in which the person having the cause of action resides, and offer to confess judgment in favor of such person for a specified sum on the cause of action. Whereupon, if the person, having had notice that the offer would be made, of its amount, and the time and place of making it, ten days before the first day of any term of the court, does not at such term accept the confession, and should afterward commence an action upon such cause, and not recover more than the amount so offered to be confessed, he shall pay all costs of the action; and on the trial thereof, the offer shall not be deemed to be an admission of the cause of action or amount to which the plaintiff is entitled, nor be given in evidence. This section only refers to offers to confess before suit. Horner v. Pilkington, 11 Ind. 440. SEC. ARTICLE 19.-TRIAL BY JURY. 524. Action-When for issue and trial. 527. Order of trial. 528. When jury shall appear-Order of trials. 529. Jury from regular panel. 530. Number of jurors. 531. Special jury. 532. Jury by agreement. 533. Struck jury, by consent. 534. Struck jury, upon notice. 535. Selector, when clerk interested. 536. Fees for striking. 538. Challenge for interest. 539. Oath of jurors. 540. Peremptory challenges. SEC. 542. Manner of trial. 543. Special instructions before argu ment. 544. Exceptions to instructions. 545. Argument. 546. Brief notes by judge. 547. View of property and place by jury. 548. Deliberation of jury. 549. Caution by court at each adjourn ment. 550. Further instructions, when had. 551. Jury, when discharged. 552. Cause again tried. 537. Struck jury-Continuance, if parties 553. Verdict, written and signed. consent. 541. Calling talesmen. 554. Verdict, general or special. 555. Jury may find special verdict. 557. Money verdict. 558. Verdict in replevin. 524. (516.) Action-When for issue and trial.-367. Every action shall stand for issue and trial at the first term after it is commenced, when the summons have [has] been served on the defendants ten days, or publication has been made for thirty days before the first day of the term: Provided, however, That when a complaint is filed, whether before or during any term of court, the plaintiff may fix the day during such term by endorsement thereof upon the complaint at the time of filing the same, on which the defendant shall appear, which day, when so fixed, shall be stated in the summons when |