How have the courts interpreted cross-examination questions on direct examination?

In Alford v. United States (1931) 282 U.S. 687, 51 S.Ct. 218, 75 L.Ed. 624 (Alford ), the defendant was convicted of using the mails to defraud, based upon damaging testimony given on direct examination by a former employee of the defendant. On cross-examination, when the defense sought to elicit the witness's place of residence, the prosecution objected on the ground that such information was immaterial. Defense counsel insisted that the questions were proper, the jury being entitled to know "`who the witness is, where he lives and what his business is.'" (Id. at p. 689.) The trial court rejected defense counsel's arguments and sustained the objection. The court of appeals affirmed.