Opinion of the Court. 333; Tracy v. People, 97 Illinois, 101; Hill v. State, 64 Mississippi, 431. It is true, that in respect to other witnesses, a foundation must be laid for evidence of contradictory statements by asking the witness whether he has made such statements, and we have held that where the testimony of a deceased witness, given upon a former trial, was put in evidence, that proof of the death of such witness, subsequent to his former examination, will not dispense with this necessity. Mattox v. United States, 156 U. S. 237. That case, however, was put upon the ground that the witness had once been examined and crossexamined upon a former trial. We are not inclined to extend it to the case of a dying declaration, where the defendant has no opportunity by cross-examination to show that by reason of mental or physical weakness, or actual hostility felt toward him, the deceased may have been mistaken. Considering the friendly relations which had existed between the defendant and the deceased for a number of years, their apparent attachment for each other, and the alcoholic frenzy under which defendant was apparently laboring at the time, the shooting may possibly not have been with deliberate intent to take the life of the deceased, notwithstanding the threats made by the defendant earlier in the evening. In nearly all the cases in which the question has arisen evidence of other statements by the deceased inconsistent with his dying declarations has been received. People v. Lawrence, 21 California, 368 (an opinion by Chief Justice Field, now of this court); State v. Blackburn, 80 N. C. 474; McPherson v. State, 9 Yerg. 279; Hurd v. People, 25 Michigan, 405; Battle v. State, 74 Georgia, 101; Felder v. State, 23 Tex. App. 477; Moore v. State, 12 Alabama, 764. Our attention has been called to but one case to the contrary, viz., Wroe v. State, 20 Ohio St. 460, cited with apparent approval in the Mattox case. But we think, as applied to dying declarations, it is contrary to the weight of authority. As these declarations are necessarily ex parte, we think the defendant is entitled to the benefit of any advantage he may have lost by the want of an opportunity for cross-examination. Rex v. Ashton, 2 Lewin C. C. 147. Opinion of the Court. The disposition we have made of these assignments renders it unnecessary to consider the others. The judgment of the court must be Reversed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered. MR. JUSTICE BREWER and MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM concurred in reversing upon the sixth assignment only. Decisions announced without Opinions. DECISIONS ANNOUNCED WITHOUT OPINIONS DURING THE TIME COVERED BY THIS VOLUME No. 17. HENRY V. ALABAMA AND VICKSBURG RAILROAD COMPANY. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi. Submitted October 15, 1896. Decided October 19, 1896. Per Curiam. Dismissed with costs, on the authority of Jacobs v. George, 150 U. S. 415. Mr. Wade R. Young for appellant. No appearance for appellee. No. 20. TUCKER v. MCKAY. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. Argued October 15, 1896. Decided October 19, 1896. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, on the authority of Smith v. McKay, 161 U. S. 355. Mr. Charles Allen Taber for appellant. Mr. James J. Myers filed a brief for appellee, but the court declined to hear him. No. 508. KING v. UNITED STATES. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas. Oct. 19, 1896. Judgment reversed upon confession of error by counsel for the defendant in error, and cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity to law. Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Assistant Attorney General Whitney and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dickinson for defendant in error. No. 333. UNITED STATES ex rel. LONG v. LOCHREN. Error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. Submitted October 13, 1896. Decided October 26, 1896. Per Curiam. Dismissed without costs to either party, on authority of United States v. Boutwell, 17 Wall. 604, and other cases. Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Whitney for the motion to dismiss. Mr. Thomas S. Hopkins and Mr. Frederick A. Baker for Long. Decisions announced without Opinions. No. 416. WILSON v. UNITED STATES. Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Indiana. Submitted October 22, 1896. Decided November 2, 1896. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed, on the authority of Rosen v. United States; 161 U. S. 89. Mr. J. W. Kern for plaintiff in error. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dickinson for defendants in error. No. 485. CоHEN V. UNITED STATES. Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland. Submitted October 26, 1896. Decided November 2, 1896. Per Curiam. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings to be had therein in conformity to law, on the authority of McElroy v. United States, decided to-day (164 U. S. 76). Mr. William Colton for plaintiff in error. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Whitney for defendants in error. No. 90. WASHINGTON, STATE OF, v. CoOVERT. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Washington. Submitted October 29, 1896. Decided November 9, 1896. Per Curiam. Order reversed with costs, and cause remanded with directions to discharge the writs and dismiss the petitions, on the authority of Ex parte Royal, 117 U. S. 241, and Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U. S. 231, 242, and cases cited. Mr. W. C. Jones for appellant. Mr. Charles C. Beaman and Mr. Joseph H. Choate for appellee. No. 8. WISCONSIN ex rel. BALTZELL v. SIEBECKER. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin. Argued and submitted October 13, 1896. Decided November 16, 1896. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs, on the authority of Wurtz v. Hoagland, 114 U. S. 606, and Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, just decided (164 U. S. 112). Mr. A. L. Sanborn for plaintiff in error submitted on his brief. Mr. 1 A similar order was made in Nos. 91 to 97, between the same parties. |