Objection

The act by which a party questions the propriety of evidence offered or proceedings proposed to be had in the course of the trial.

Where evidence is objected to at the trial, the nature of the objections must he distinctly stated, whether an exception he entered on the record or not, and, on either moving for a new trial on account of its improper admission, or on arguing the exception, the counsel will not he permitted to rely on any other objections than those taken at nisi pi ins; 3 Tayl. Ev., Chamb. ed. $ 1881 d; objections must state the specific ground; Carroll v. Benicia, 40 Cal. 390; Forbing v. Weber, 99 Ind. 588; Massenberg v. Denison, 107 Fed. 18, 4G G. G. A. 120; and counsel cannot change his ground on the argument in the appellate court; Tooley v. Bacon, 70 N. Y. 34; general objections, such as irrelevant, incompetent, and tile like, are said to be too general in their terms; Peck v. Chouteau, 91 Mo. 138, 3 S. W. 577, GO Am. patent, irrelevant and immaterial is sufficient when the reason for the objection is readily discernible. But where the ground for the objection is not suggested thereby, it will not avail; Sparks v. Oklahoma, 140 Fed. 373, 70 C. C. A. 504; evidence to which such objections are made will be held in the appellate court to have been properly admitted, if admissible for any purpose; Voorinan v. Voight, 40 Cal. 397; one who has not objected to evidence when introduced is not entitled to have the court instruct the jury to disregard it; Maxwell v. R. Co., 85 Mo. 100; nor will an objection be heard if made for the first time on the motion for a new trial; ITarvey v. State, 40 Ind. 510; or in the appellate court; Clark v. Fredericks, 105 U. S. 4, 20 L. Ed. 938. When testimony was received without objection, the court should not sign a bill of exceptions; if it does, it will be disregarded above; Duvall’s ExT v. Darby, 38 Pa. 50; the court may refuse to strike out the answer to a question asked a witness where no objection was made to it when it was asked; Bailey v. Warner, 118 Fed. 395, 55 C. C. A. 329. Ordinarily, where an objection has been made and overruled, it is not necessary to repeat it to each succeeding question open to the same objection; Thomp. Trials § 705. Objecting to a judge’s instruction is said to he regarded as having the same force as excepting; Eisner v. K. & L. of Honor, 98 Mo. 040, 11 S. W. 991. See Bill of Exceptions. Where objections have been twice presented and regularly allowed, it is not necessary that they should be renewed at the termination of the testimony of a witness; Bram v. U. S., 108 U. S. 532, 18 Sup. Ct. 183, 42 D. Ed. 508.

The act of a party whe objects to some matter or proceeding in the course of a trial, (see OBJECT, v.;) or an argument or reason urged by him in support of his contention that the matter or proceeding objected to is improper or illegal.