ART. 35] COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. 967

breach of promise of marriage, no verdict shall be permitted to be
recovered, nor shall any judgment or decree be entered upon the testi-
mony of the plaintiff alone; but in all such cases testimony in corrobo-
ration of that of the plaintiff shall be necessary.

Where the traverser voluntarily becomes a witness but remains silent as to
pertinent matters, the state's attorney is entitled to comment before the jury
upon his silence and other conduct on the witness stand. Brashears v. State,
58 Md. 567.

In a prosecution for bigamy, the first wife of the accused is a competent
witness against him under this section, though she can not be compelled to
testify. Richardson v. State, 103 Md. 117.

The portion of section 1 making parties and their wives and husbands
"competent and compellable to give evidence," applies to civil cases only;
this Is true notwithstanding the repeal by the act of 1876, ch. 357, of the third
section of the act of 1864, ch. 109. Turpin v. State, 55 Md. 475; Classen v.
Classen, 57 Md. 511. And see Davis v. State, 38 Md. 65 (dissenting opinion).

Under the act of 1864, ch. 109, an accessory before the fact was Incompe-
tent to testify for a principal felon, and this is true although they were
indicted and tried separately. Davis v. State, 38 Md. 49 (cf. dissenting opin-
ions, pages 57 and 64).

In a divorce case where the only testimony corroborating the plaintiff is
that of a witness who gives it as her opinion that the separation is delib-
erate and final, but who states no facts as a basis for such opinion, such
corroboratlon is not sufficient. This section construed in connection with
article 16, section 37. Twigg v. Twigg, 107 Md. 677. And see Goodhues v.
Goodhues, 90 Md. 292.

As to divorce and the effect of an admission by the defendant, see art. 16,
sec. 36, et seq.

1904, art. 35, sec 5. 1888, art. 35, sec. 4. 1860, art. 37, sec. 4. 1864, ch. 109, sec. 4.

5. In all cases where a party to any suit, action or other proceeding
shall be examined by any opposing party the testimony given on said
examination may be rebutted by adverse testimony and by proof of
admissions made by the party so examined.

Where the plaintiff examines a defendant and fails to rebut his evidence
by adverse testimony, such evidence is binding upon the plaintiff. Morris v.
Hazelhurst, 30 Md. 366.

This section does not alter the rules of evidence except as stated therein.
The effect of the proof when offered is governed by the common law rules of
evidence. Mason v. Poulson, 43 Md. 177.

This section applied. Turnbull v. Maddux, 68 Md. 589. And see Mason v.
Poulson, 40 Md. 366.

Ibid. sec. 6. 1888, art. 35, sec. 5. 1864, ch. 109, sec. 5, sub-sec. 1.

6. In all cases it shall be competent for any of the parties to the
proceedings to prove by legal evidence any facts showing the interest
of any witness in the matter in controversy, or in the event of the suit
or the. conviction of such witness of any infamous crime, and in order
to prove such conviction it shall not be necessary to produce the whole
record of proceedings containing such conviction, but the certificate,
under seal of the clerk of the court wherein such proceedings were had.
stating the fact of the conviction and for what crime shall be sufficient.

The application of the portion of this section relative to the impeachment
of a witness by proof that he had been convicted of an infamous crime,
pointed out. Richardson v. State, 103 Md. 118.