Objections — Intermingled  Belevant  and  Irrelevant  Matter.     It   is

5  not  error  to  overrule  an  objection  which  is  made  in  the  middle
of  an  answer,  when  the  answer  contains  both  relevant  and  ir-
relevant matter,  and  the  objector  fails  to  specify  what  part
of  the  answer  he  deems  irrelevant.  State  v.  National  Selright
Assn.,  192—629.
Dragnet  Objection,  to  Testimony  Good  in  Part  and  Bad  in  ParL    A

6  general  objection  to  the  receiving  of,  or  a  general  motion  to
strike,  testimony  which  is  relevant  in  part  and  irrelevant  in
part,  is  properly  overruled.  Duncan  v.  Great  Western  Ace.
Ins.  Co.,  192—716.
Admissibility  of  Evidence  in  Egnity  Causes.    In  equity  causes,  all

7  offered  evidence  becomes  a  part  of  the  record,  regardless  of  any
specific  rulings  of  the  court  as  to  its  admissibility.  Tusant  v.
Grand  Lodge,  192—1232.
Taking  Case  or  Question  prom  Jury.
Direction  of  Verdict — Undenied  but  Impeached  Testimony.    One  or

8  more  witnesses  whose  testimony,  if  true,  establishes  the  cause


Index-Digest.  1473


Tbial  Continued


of  action  pleaded,  may  have  their  credibility  so  successfully
shaken  on  cross-examination  as  to  present  a  jury  question,  even
though  the  opposing  party  did  not  specifically  deny  the  testi-
mony. Selar  v.  Besnick,  192 — 669.
Dual  MotloiiB  for  Directed  Verdict  Do  Not  Waive  Jnry.  Principle
9  reaffirmed  that  dual  motions  by  both  plaintiff  and  defendant
for  a  directed  verdict  do  not,  in  the  absence  of  consent  by  both
parties,  constitute  an  implied  waiver  of  jury  and  an  implied
consent  that  the  cause  may  be  determined  by  the  court.  New
England  Equit.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Boldrick,  192—763.
Instructions — Province  of  Court  and  Jury.
