
    James Weaver vs. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Company.
    July 25, 1883.
    New Trial — Exclusion of Evidence Immaterial or afterwards Admitted. — The excluding of evidence which was afterwards admitted is no ground for a new trial. The excluding of evidence apparently not material, and the materiality of which is not in any manner suggested to the court, is not error.
    Appeal by Weaver from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Young, J., presiding, refusing a new trial of an appeal taken by him in condemnation proceedings instituted by the Boom Company.
    
      Rea, Woolley & Kitchel, for appellant.
    
      McNair & Gilfillan, for respondent.
   By the Court.

The claim that it was error to exclude the evidence of the appellant as to the rental value of the shore at the time of the taking cannot avail, because the witness was afterwards allowed to testify as to that fact without objection. The evidence excluded as to the amount and quality of clay upon the land, the quantity of brick burned there, and the means of getting to market, was apparently immaterial, and no suggestion or evidence was offered to show its materiality.

Order affirmed.  