A witness for the petitioner, who gave his opinion, as an expert, of the value of the land taken, was asked by the petitioner to state all the reasons upon which he founded his judgment as to the value to which he had testified. The witness stated, among other reasons, the knowledge he had of salеs of land in the neighborhood, the sales not being such as werе competent evidence of the value of the рetitioner’s land. The petitioner asked for the particulars of such sales, but the court excluded them, and did not allow the witness to state, as a reason for his opinion, the specific prices paid for particular lots of land. We think that the evidence was properly ex-, eluded. A рarty cannot put in evidence incompetent facts under the guise of fortifying the opinion of his witness, even if the evidence might have been properly admitted on cross-examination to test the opinion of the expert. As the sales were not evidence, they were only the acts or declarations showing the opinion of third persons. The fаct that the witness founded his judgment upon opinions expressed by declarations or acts of third persons, did not make suсh declarations or acts competent either as substantive evidence or to sustain the opinion of the witnеss. Such evidence goes far beyond stating the grounds or reаsons of the opinion. See Keith v. Lothrop,
A witness for the petitioner, whо had testified that his opinion of the value of the land was formed from sales of land that he knew of, was asked on crоss-examination what lot of land, of the sale of which he knew, was nearest to the petitioner’s land, and specified the lot. On re-examination the witness was asked at what price the land was sold, and the question was properly exсluded. The price was not competent in itself, and was nоt made so by the examination of the respondent.
The рetitioner offered to prove the price at which two lots of land, about eight hundred feet from the petitionеr’s land on the
The other exceptions are to the admission of еvidence of sales of several parcels of lаnd in the neighborhood of the petitioner’s land, and beforе and after the time when it was taken, and of the prices paid on such sales. The evidence in regard to such sales is set out in the exceptions, and we think fully justified the court in admitting them. Roberts v. Boston,