defendant but were made by defendant himself against the witness Hill. State v. Cross, (Ia.) 26 N. W. Rep. 64. Witnesses cannot be contradicted upon collateral matters brought out on cross-examination for the purpose of impeachment. Wharton's Cr. Ev. § 484; Stokes v. Peo. 53 N. Y. 175; Kent v. State, (Ohio) 6 Cr. Law Mag. 520 and note. It is well settled that witnesses who are not parties may, for the purpose of impeachment’ and within the sound discretion of the trial court, be required to testify as to collateral facts which may tend to degrade them. Terr. v. O'Harre, 1 N. D. 30, S. C. 44 N. W. Rep. 1007. And this may be done although the facts thus brought out may also reflect upon the character of the defendant and thereby prejudice the accused in the minds of the jury. State v. Bacon, 13 Ore. 143, S. C. 8 Cr. Law Mag. 82. Error cannot be predicated upon the admission of evidence under a general objection, a specific ground of objection be stated. Burke v. Koch, 75 Cal. 356,S. C. 17 Pac. Rep. 228; Chicago E. I. R. v. People,.120 I. 667. The refusal of the court to instruct the witness Mrs. Hill as to her privilege cannot be taken advantage of by defendant for the reason that the witness did not claim her privilege, and defendant's counsel could not do so for her. People v. Brown, 72 N. Y. 573. A general objection to evidence is sufficient only where the evidence is inadmissable in its nature. That a question is “irrelevant” and “inadmissable” will not raise the question of its incompetency where it is relevant to acertain point in issue. Fozer v. N. Y. Cent. & H.R. R. Co. 105 N. Y. 659; Burke v. Koch, 75 Cal. 106; 1 Rice on Ev. 920, 921. Where the law of the case is fully stated to the jury by the court error cannot be predicted on the refusal of the court to give a, specific instruction. Biefield v. State, 1g N. W. Rep. 607.
Bartholomew, C. J. Arthur McGahey, the plaintiff in error, was convicted in the District Court for the County of Grand Forks of the crime of shooting at one Thomas Hill with intent to kill. It is not possible to read the record in this case without becoming strongly impressed with the belief that McGahey had also been guilty of adulterous intercourse with Hill's wife. It is
