Actions of assumpsit brought for the recovery of freight, presumably tried together. In each case, the plea was the general issue and the vеrdict was for defendant. From the bill of exceptions it appears that one of the plаintiffs was called as a witness
The bill of exceptions gives none of the evidence except that of one of the plaintiffs when called in rebuttal. It is, therefore, not certain upon the record whеther the denial of liability by defendant mentioned .by рlaintiff’s counsel was that made by his plea or by еvidence given by him at the trial, especially in view of the fact that it does not appeаr that defendant was called as a witness in defеnse.
It is doubtful if any question is properly before us. Jones v. Jones, 101 Maine, 447, 450; Hix v. Giles, 103 Maine, 439; Allen v. Lawrence, 64 Maine, 175; Gilman v. N. A. Ry. Co., 60 Maine, 235.
But waiving the irregularity and assuming that defendant testified at the trial denying liability, we think the exceptions must be overruled. The evidence was avowedly оffered for the purpose of showing an admission of liability by defendant. No other purpose was mentioned or suggested. Whether it was admissible for other purposes is not open to plaintiff: Lenfest v. Robbins, 101 Maine, 176, 179; Lee v. Oppenheimer, 34 Maine, 181, 185; Emery v. Vinall, 26 Maine, 295, 303. As evidence for the purpose mentioned, it was correctly held by the presiding Justice not to be in rebuttal but part of plaintiff’s case in сhief. "The orderly course of proceeding requires, that the party, whose business it is to go forwаrd, should bring out the strength of his proof, in the first instance ; but it is competent for the judge, according to the nature
Exceptions overruled.