Case, for damages from defective highway. The plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that the wheel of his wagon struck a stone in the highway, the defect complained of, and he was thrown out and injured. The defendants’ evidence tended to show that he jumped out. It appeared, on cross-examination of Pennock, the defendants’ witness, that, at the request of the plaintiff, he had made a statement somewhat different from his testimony.
¶1
It was competent for the plaintiff to explain why he took Pennoek’s statement. The motive of an act may be shown when it is in question.
Carter
v.
Beals, 44
N. H. 408. The admission of Congdon’s testimony was within the discretion of the judge at the trial term, which will not be revised unless specially reserved.
York
v.
Pease,
2 Gray 282; 1 Gr. Ev.,
ss.
74, 431.
