
    Owen Emerson vs. Darius Stevens.
    In an action for a trespass in driving a wagon against a horse of the plaintiff and breaking his legs, if the defendant on cross-examination has denied that he has said to a third person that he had a right to one half of the road, and to break the legs of the plaintiff's horse if he stood in the way, evidence is competent to show, by way of contradiction, that he has so said.
    Tort to recover damages for a trespass, in driving a wagon against a horse of the plaintiff and breaking his legs. At the trial- in the superior court, before Russell, J., the defendant on cross-examination denied that he had said to one Perry that he had a right to one half of the road, and, if he saw fit, to break the legs of the plaintiff’s horse if be stood in his way on the street. The plaintiff then was allowed, under objection, to contradict him by the evidence of Perry. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      J. Q. A. Griffin, for the defendant.
    
      W. P. Harding, for the plaintiff.
   By the Court.

This case differs from Harrington v. Lincoln, 2 Gray, 133, on which the defendant relies, in two particulars. The statement offered in evidence was the statement of a party to the suit, and so was admissible, if at all, as affirmative evidence, and not merely for the purpose of contradiction. It was also a statement respecting the subject matter of the suit, having a direct relation to the principal facts at issue ; and not merely collateral.

We think it was of such a character that the jury might rightfully draw some inference from it upon the point of the defendant’s having done the act complained of; and of his having done it intentionally or otherwise.

The bill of exceptions does not show in what connection the words, said by Perry to have been spoken by the defendant, were uttered. It does not appear that they were accompanied by any denial. Suppose a man is asked why he did a certain act; and he replies, “ I had a right to do it.” Surely that answer might be considered as something more than a mere expression of an abstract opinion, as evidence of an admission. It is for the party taking the exception to show that the evidence admitted was incompetent.

Exceptions overruled.  