New Trial—Newly Discovered Evidence. — A new trial will not be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, if the evidence might have been produced at the trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence. This rule held to be applicable to evidence of a conversation between the plaintiff and one of the defendants previous to the trial, the plaintiff being the moving party, and giving as the reason for not producing the evidence that he had forgotten the conversation. . •

Witness—Examination—Leading Questions—Judicial Discretion. — On the direct examination of a witness, leading questions may be allowed by the court in the exercise of a sound discretion, and the action of the court in that respect can only be reviewed so far as to determine whether its discretion has been abused. No abuse of discretion appearing a new trial cannot be granted on the ground that the court erred in allowing such questions.

Id.—Party Testifying on his Own Behalf — Cross-Examination.—Tho plaintiff was examined as a witness on his own behalf, and testified fully in relation to the matters in controversy. On cross-examination, he was asked as to certain statements on the subject claimed to have been made by him as a witness in another case. This was objected to on the ground that the record in tho case had not been produced. The court overruled the objection. Held, that the production of the record was unnecessary, and that the objection was properly overruled.

Judicial Determination—How Proved—Striking out Answer of Witness.— A judicial determination, being a matter of record, must be proved by the record itself, and it is not error to strike out the oral statement of a witness as to what the determination was.

Immaterial Error no Ground for a New Trial. — Where the answer of a witness to a question asked is improper, but no harm could have resulted from it, a-refusal by the court to strike the answer out is an immaterial error, and no ground for a new trial.

Promissory Note—Payment.—The payment of a promissory note by a third person at the request of the maker to an agent holding it for collection extinguishes the note, and cannot afterwards be treated as a purchase. The obligation to pay being discharged, a subsequent transfer of the note by the payee to the person making the payment will not revive it.

Verdict—Sufficiency of the Evidence—Charge to the Jury. — The case was tried by a jury, and the verdict being against the plaintiff, he moved for a new trial, which was granted. In support of the motion, he relied partly upon insufficiency in the evidence, and errors claimed to have been committed by the court in its charge to the jury. After reviewing the evidence and examining the charge in connection with the pleadings and circumstances of the case, held, that the verdict was in accordance with the evidence, and that there was no substantial error in the charge.