after stating the facts. The first exception taken by the defendant was that the state’s counsel was permitted by the court to make a preliminary statement of what the state expected to prowe. .So far from the practice being objectionable, we think it is to be commended; for its effect is to direct the attention of the jury to the material points in the evidence. It is a practice which has long prevailed in this state.
*548
The second exception, to the admission of the evidence in regard to tli.e whipping the child of the prosecutor, and the prosecution of the defendant by him for the offence, cannot be sustained. The evidence was clearly admissible. “Malicious mischief consists in the wilful destruction of personal property from actual ill will or resentment towards the owner or possessor.” Sta
te
v.
Robinson,
3 Dev.
&
Bat., 130;
State
v.
Jackson,
The third exception, that the court allowed the witness, Hancock, to relate the whole of the conversation one Miller had had with him in regard to the poisoning the mules, was properly overruled. For, on the cross-examination of the witness by the» defendant’s counsel, a part of this conversation had .been called out; and it is too well settled as a rule of evidence to admit of a question, where that is done, the opposite party has the right to put the whole conversation in evidence.
The fourth exception, that, the court permitted the witness to state “that he would have been willing to pay fifty dollars to get the defendant away, so that the witness could be at peace,” is without merit. The statement was made on the re-direct examination, and was on the same line of evidence as that elicited from the witness on his cross-examination by defendant’s counsel. On that cross-examination he testified that the defendant had moved away from where he was living near witness; that the move was agreeable to him, and that he wanted him to move, but would not have done anything to make him move. Whatever object the defendant may have had in drawing out from the witness the testimony given on the cross-examination, that given by him on the re-direct examination certainly tended to the same end. We are unable to see the ground of the defendant’s objection.
*549 The fifth and sixth exceptions were to the competency of Dr. Lewis and Dr. Bulla as experts. Dr. Lewis stated that he had attended lectures at a medical college and had practiced his profession for seven years; that, although he had never been called to a case of poisoning, he had experimented some with poison on dogs and other animals, and he thought he was qualified to give an opinion as to the effects of poison. Dr. Bulla testified that he had been a practicing physician since 1845, and he had had some experience of the effect of poison on the human species, but very little in regard to brute animals, and he thought he was competent, to a certain extent, to give an opinion.
There was no error in the ruling of His Honor that both of these physicians were competent to testify as experts. When the professors of science, as physicians, for instance, swear that they are able to pronounce an opinion in any particular case, although they say at the same time that precisely such a case had not before fallen under their observation or under their notice in the course of their reading, it is competent to give in evidence their opinion.
State
v.
Clark,
The seventh exception was to the refusal of His Honor to have the jury polled before their verdict was announced. There
*550
was no error in this. It is certainly not error to poll them after the announcement that they have agreed in their verdict, and that is the approved and usual practice. In
Watts
v.
Brains,
1 Cro. Eliz., 778, where, upon the agreement of the jury, they came to the bar and the foreman pronounced their verdict that the defendant was not guilty; “the court misliking thereof, being contrary to their direction, examined every one of them by the poll whether that was his verdict/' This decision is cited by this court with approval in
State
v.
John,
The eighth exception was to the recording the verdict on account of what the juror, Hill, said when the jury were being polled. When his name was called and he was asked to say whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty, he answered, “ Well, I suppose I must go with the rest.” The court directed him to respond “guilty” or “not guilty,” and thereupon he answered “guilty.” There was no ground for refusing to l’eceive the verdict. The last answer of the juror was an assent to the verdict of guilty. The case of
State
v.
Godwin,
The other exceptions taken by the defendant were taken after verdict, upon a motion for a new trial. They were:
*551
First, that the judge failed to stop the state’s counsel in his abuse of the defendant. This objection came too late after verdict.
Knight
v.
Houghtalling,
Secondly, to the rehearsal by the court of a part of the evidence to the jury, in the absence of the defendant. It was no ground for a new trial. The indictment is only for a misdemeanor, and the defendant, we presume, was out on bail, as the record does not show that he was in custody. If he saw proper to absent himself during the progress of the trial, it was his own fault. His counsel were present when the evidence was rehearsed, and there was no objection on their part, nor complaint made by them. and it was not pretended, when the motion for a new trial was made, that any prejudice had resulted to the defendant by the rehearsal. See State v. Paylor, ante 539, decided at this term.
Our conclusion is, that there is no error. Let this be certified to the superior court of Randolph county, that the case may be proceeded with according to this opinion and the law.
No error. Affirmed.