A witness for the plaintiff, in an action against a town for injuries caused by an alleged defect in a highway, having testified to seeing the defect and to going by another way on account of it, evidence in behalf of the defendants that a highway surveyor had told such witness to repair any defects he might see in the road, and that he should be paid therefor, is competent as bearing on the credibility of the witness. How far the admission of evidence upon collateral issues should be carried for the purpose of disparaging the credibility of a witness is a question of fact, to be determined at the trial term.
BLODGETT, J.
The obvious tendency of the testimony objected to was to discredit Hill, and as such no reason is perceived why it was not properly admitted. But if it was improperly admitted, no ground for a new trial is presented. The question how far the admission of evidence upon collateral issues should be carried for the purpose of disparaging a witness is one of fact, to be determined at the trial term, and is not subject to revision, whether the evidence is admitted or excluded. Perkins v. Towle, 59 N.H. 583, 585, and cases cited; Gibbs v. Parsons, 64 N.H. 66, 68.
Exceptions overruled.
CARPENTER, J., did not sit: the others concurred.