
    Calvin C. Burt v. Anson Olcott.
    
      Assignments of error. Assignments of error must be specific.
    
      Evidence: Objection to question: Exception: Objections to the answer. Where a proper question has been allowed against objection, the exception t0 this ruling will not support an assignment of error directed against the effect of the answer as evidence in going beyond the scope of the question, where no such objection was made, and no exception taken below that would raise that point.
    
      Heard and decided January 5.
    
    Error to Jackson Circuit.
    This was an action brought by Burt for services as an attorney, commenced before a justice, and taken by appeal to the circuit. The judgment below was in favor of defendant, and the plaintiff brings error. The assignments of error were several of them general, as (1) the court refused proper and relevant evidence and testimony offered by the plaintiff on the trial of said cause; and (2) the court admitted improper and irrelevant testimony produced by the defendant and against the objections of the plaintiff; and the like. Among other things, complaint is made that the court erroneously admitted evidence of set-off, though no notice of set-off was appended to the plea. The plaintiff having rested his case, defendant gave evidence tending to show that he employed plaintiff to try a suit for him before a justice, for which plaintiff charged him eight dollars, and that he paid him seven dollars at the time. He was then asked whether he ever paid him any more. Objection was made that no plea of payment or set-off had been filed. This objection was overruled and exception taken, and defendant answered that he drew plaintiff some wood. He was asked liow much, and the same objection was made and overruled, but no exception taken. The defendant answ'ered that he drew him four cords of wood, and testified without objection as to its value.
    
      
      Calvin O. Burt, in person, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Johnson & Montgomery, for defendant in error.
   Per Curiam:

1. Assignments of error in the general form of most of those in this case will not be .considered.

2. The question put to defendant, whether he ever paid plaintiff any more, was not open to the complaint iiow made, that it tended to prove set-off; but it was a proper question to draw out evidence of payment, which may properly be shown under the general issue. If the answer as given tended to prove set-off rather than payment, that was not ground of objection to the question; and the exception to the ruling admitting the question will, not support an assignment of error directed against the effect of the answer as evidence. The question being proper, the ruling admitting it was proper; and any objection to the answer as going beyond what the question called for, cannot be raised upon an exception to the correct ruling admitting the question; and, therefore, the real ground of complaint here sought to be urged is not supported by any exception.

Judgment affirmed.  