tion of these cases shows that this question was not there raised. We do not think, however, that the defendant is in position to take advantage of this alleged error. He has not shown that he was prejudiced by it. One alleging error must show that he was prejudiced by the erroneous ruling. Louden v. East Saginaw, 41 Mich. 18; Richards v. Tozer, 27 Mich. 451. Defendant has not shown that this ruling affected either of his witnesses. The instruction was evidently aimed at the plaintiff, who, upon the trial, identified a dog produced in court as the dog that bit her, but which was conclusively shown not to be the defendant's dog. Aside from this, there is no serious dispute upon any of the facts in the case. Defendant should have shown that this instruction applied to one or more of his witnesses. If it applied only to plaintiff, the instruction was to the advantage of the defendant. 2. It is claimed that plaintiff was permitted to testify to a conversation with Mrs. Darling not in the presence of the defendant. It is a sufficient reply to say that the judge excluded all of the conversation that was not in his presence. Furthermore, it is apparent from the defendant's own testimony that he heard it all. 3. Defendant called a witness named Andrew Messick, and asked him: "Have you been paid for being a witness in this case more than the regular fee?" Counsel for plaintiff objected to the form of the question, in that it was suggestive and leading, and it did not appear that witness knew what the regular fee is. The court sustained the objection, and stated that defendant's counsel could ask witness in any other form about what he had been paid, if he desired. Counsel did not take advantage of the offer. There was no error in the ruling. Judgment affirmed. BLAIR, C. J., and MONTGOMERY, MOORE, and MCALVAY, JJ., concurred. 156 MICH.-8. In re ALLISON. WITNESSES- - EXAMINATION LEGE-CONTEMPT. In a disbarment proceeding, petitioner was called as a witness and questioned in regard to his imprisonment and whether he had signed an exhibit cousisting of a narrative, not made under oath, of his entire career, which was alleged to have been used by the board of pardons and the governor in the investigation which resulted in petitioner's conditional pardon. Petitioner, on the advice of counsel, refused to answer the question, claiming his constitutional privilege. Held, that, as the document was not sworn to, and that on oath petitioner might be obliged to disclose a different state of facts, he was justified in refusing to answer; and the court being unable to determine as a matter of law that such answer would not tend to incriminate the witness, an order adjudging him guilty of contempt was improvidently entered. - EVIDENCE- CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVI Certiorari to Jackson; Parkinson, J. ruary 16, 1909. (Calendar No. 23,195.) 16, 1909. Submitted Feb- John H. Allison was adjudged guilty of contempt in refusing to answer certain questions in regard to his imprisonment in the State prison at Jackson. Reversed. James J. Noon and N. H. Stewart, for petitioner. Benjamin Williams, Prosecuting Attorney, for the people. BROOKE, J. This is a proceeding to review an order of the circuit judge of Jackson county adjudging the petitioner guilty of contempt in refusing to answer certain questions put to him in the course of an examination before a commissioner, and ordering his incarceration until said questions should be answered. The petitioner is an ex-convict, having been convicted in 1900 for bank robbery and sentenced to a term of 17 years at hard labor. In 1904 the petitioner escaped from Jackson prison and was at large for several years, but was finally rearrested and returned to the prison some time in 1907. On March 1, 1908, he was given a conditional pardon by the governor and pardon board of the State of Michigan, and has since said conditional pardon been residing in the city of Jackson. In the fall of 1908, Courtland P. Ducomb, Harry R. Wair, and Francis E. Lambert, committee, as plaintiffs, prosecuted charges against one Joseph E. Talbot, as defendant, in the circuit court for the county of St. Joseph, State of Indiana. In the amended complaint of said committee, it charged said Joseph E. Talbot with having aided the petitioner in his escape by furnishing to him and his fellow fugitives, Slater and Spellman, food, shelter, clothes, weapons, and money at or near the city of South Bend, Ind. In the prosecution of said complaint said committee caused a commission to issue to one Walter A. Cunningham, of the city of Jackson, and a subpoena was served upon the petitioner, Allison, requiring him to appear before said commissioner for examination. The petitioner did so appear, but before appearance consulted attorneys J. J. Noon and N. H. Stewart and was represented by them at the time of his examination before the commissioner. The members of the prosecuting committee were present in person and by counsel at said examination. After some preliminary questions were asked and answered touching the original arrest and conviction of the petitioner, he was interrogated in part as follows: "Q. I will ask you whether or not you were under that sentence imprisoned in Jackson prison. "Mr. Noon: I think I will say to you, Mr. Allison, that you can exercise your constitutional right to refuse to answer by advice of counsel, and if you feel that answer tends to incriminate you. "A. That is my position in the matter. * "Q. I will ask you, Mr. Allison, when, if at all, you escaped from Jackson prison after being confined? "Mr. Noon: One moment, Mr. Allison. I object to that for the reason you have a right to exercise your constitutional privilege. "Q. Do you still refuse to answer the question? "A. Yes, sir. * * * "Q. Mr. Allison, did you, together with Spellman and Slater, escape from Jackson prison on or about the 9th day of August, 1904? "Mr. Noon: I advise you, Mr. Allison, you may refuse to answer that question, relying on your constitutional privilege if it would tend to incriminate you. "Q. Do you refuse? "A. Yes, sir. * * * "Q. I will ask you if Slater, Spellman, and yourself did not immediately go from the State of Michigan, after escaping from Jackson prison about August 9, 1904, into the State of Indiana. "Mr. Noon: Same advice, Mr. Allison. "Q. Do you refuse? "A. Yes, sir. * * * "Q. State whether or not you were near or about the premises of Theresa Hertram, commonly called 'Mother's Place,' together with Larry Spellman and Harry Slater, on or about the 12th day of August, 1904. "Mr. Noon: Same advice, Mr. Allison, as to that question. "Q. Do you refuse? "A. Yes, sir. "Q. State whether or not one of your party, Spellman, Slater, or yourself, called up John Talbot, from the Hertram place and asked him to come out and join you; that you were there and wanted to see him. "Mr. Noon: I advise you, Mr. Allison, you may rely on your constitutional privilege and refuse to answer. "Q. Do you refuse to answer? "A. Yes, sir. "Q. I ask you whether or not you are acquainted with Joseph E. Talbot of the city of South Bend. "Mr. Noon: You may refuse to answer that, on my advice as counsel. "Q. Do you refuse to answer? "A. Yes, sir. * * ** "Q. State whether or not John W. Talbot, at the home of Joseph E. Talbot, on the evening of August 12, 1904, gave Larry Spellman, Slater, or yourself, two guns or revolvers. "Mr. Noon: You may refuse to answer that, Mr. Allison, for a like reason. "Q. Do you refuse to answer? "A. Yes, sir. "Q. State whether or not John W. Talbot and Joseph E. Talbot provided you, Spellman, and Slater with clothes, which you used in exchange for the prison clothing that you wore at the time of your arrival in South Bend, on or about August 12th. "Mr. Noon: You may refuse to answer that question for a like reason. "Q. Do you refuse to answer? "A. Yes, sir. * * * "Q. State whether or not John Talbot, on or about the 12th day of August, 1904, at the home of Joseph E. Talbot, gave you, meaning by 'you,' yourself, Spellman, or Slater, about $25 in money. "Mr. Noon: You may refuse to answer that, Mr. Allison, if the answer tends to incriminate you with all other answers. "Q. Or any sum of money? 66 Mr. Noon: I want it to be shown when he refuses to answer it is for that reason, and that is the reason, that the answer may tend to incriminate him. That has been the ground upon which you refuse to answer each and every question, that it would tend to incriminate you. 66 The Witness: Yes, sir. "Q. State whether or not did you leave the city of South Bend on or about the 12th day of August, 1904, secretly, continuing your journey down through the State of Indiana. "Mr. Noon: You may refuse to answer that, Mr. Allison, exercising your privilege. "Q. Do you refuse to answer? "A. Yes, sir; for the reason stated before. "Q. (showing witness paper) I will refer to this as 'Exhibit A.' I have a document in my hand I will identify by being referred to by 'Exhibit A.' I will ask you if the signature attached to that document is your signature. "Mr. Noon: You may look it over, Mr. Allison, and you may refuse to answer, if the answer will tend to incriminate you. Take the paper and look at it. I want to say, Mr. Allison, if that paper contains anything in refer |