The cross-examination in this case was designed to discredit the defendant, who was a witness in his own behalf. How far justice required this inquiry should be carried, was a question of fact to be determined at the trial term, and the right of cross-examination was not affected by the fact that the witness was a party. There was no error of law in permitting the cross-examination to take the course it did, nor in the admission of the testimony which it evoked. Gutterson v. Morse, 58 N.H. 165" court="N.H." date_filed="1877-08-05" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/gutterson-v-morse-3550913?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3550913">58 N.H. 165; Plummer v. Ossipee, 59 N.H. 55" court="N.H." date_filed="1879-06-05" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/plummer-v-ossipee-3550380?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3550380">59 N.H. 55; Free v. Buckingham, 59 N.H. 219" court="N.H." date_filed="1879-06-05" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/free-v-buckingham-3555640?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3555640">59 N.H. 219, 226; Merrill v. Perkins, 59 N.H. 343" court="N.H." date_filed="1879-12-05" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/merrill-v-perkins-3550726?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3550726">59 N.H. 343; Perkins v. Towle, 59 N.H. 583" court="N.H." date_filed="1880-06-05" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/perkins-v-towle-3550924?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3550924">59 N.H. 583; Watson v. Twombly,60 N.H. 491" court="N.H." date_filed="1881-06-05" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/watson-v-twombly-3553131?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3553131">60 N.H. 491; Amoskeag Co. v. Worcester, 60 N.H. 522" court="N.H." date_filed="1881-06-05" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/amoskeag-manufacturing-co-v-worcester-3549687?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3549687">60 N.H. 522, 525.
Exceptions overruled.
CHASE, J., did not sit: the others concurred.