
    WASHINGTON.
    Gardner S. Barber vs. John C. James et al.
    
    Where a statute directs that twelve good and lawful men sliall be returned to serve as jurors, a greater number may properly be summoned in order to obtain tbe twelve good and lawful men required.
    A party bas no ground of complaint because of the exclusion of proper testimony of a witness,-where he has had the benefit of the testimony in the previous answers of the witness.
    Defendants’ petition for a new trial.
    Action of the case brought under Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 104, “Of Water Mills.”
    
      February 6, 1895.
   Per Curiam.

We find no error in the action of the court in summoning more than twelve jurors. Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 104, § 4, directs that twelve good and lawful men shall be returned. The summoning of more than twelve may frequently be necessary in order to secure the twelve good and lawful men required. If these are obtained, the defendant can have no ground of complaint because more than twelve good men were summoned to attain this result. Fitchburg R. R. Co. v. B. & M. Railroad, 3 Cush. 58, 85; Hosmer v. Warner, 15 Gray, 46.

The defendant has no ground of complaint because of the alleged exclusion of the testimony of Shippee. Assuming that the testimony was proper, the defendant had already had the benefit of it in the previous answers of the witness.

Samuel W. K. Allen, for plaintiff.

John M. Brennan, for defendants.

We see no occasion to disturb the verdict on the ground that the damages were excessive.  