It  is  the  settled  rule  that  where  a  conversation  is  testified
to,  tlie  whole  of  it  may  be  brought  out,  and  very  often  this
will  involve  what  was  done  in  the  same  transaction  of  which
the  conversation  was  part  and  parcel.  In  this  instance  it
would  he  difficult  to  separate  the  matters  testified  to  in  the
part  of  the  deposition  which  was  read  in  chief,  from  those  tes-
tified to  in  the  part  of  the  same  deposition  read  in  rebuttal,
and  it  wonld  be  quite  as  difficult  to  separate  the  mere  language
U8ed  by  the  parties  from  what  they  were  then  doing  on  that
cceaeion.  Hughes  and  Jennings  say  the  note  was  read  over
to  the  defendant  and  he  then  signed  it.  He  says  it  was  not
80  read  to  him,  but  was  represented  to  be  for  the  purpose  of
inducing  and  procuring  the  payees  of  the  note  to  constitute
hid^D  Daniel  an  agent  to  sell  the  rods,  which  were  then  left
^ere,  upon  certain  terms  which  he  states,  as  to  the  commis-
sions, etc  The  version  of  the  conversation  given  by  defend-
ant naturally  involves  all  that  was  said  by  both  sides  as  well
fts  what  they  did  at  the  time,  and  so  of  the  version  given  by
Hughes  and  Jennings.  Any  fair  consti-uction  of  the  excep-
tion in  question  must  necessarily  admit  the  entire  conversa-
tion, and  as  necessarily,  whatever  was  done  on  the  occasion — tlie
whole  res  gestcB.  Therefore  it  follows  that  whether  Hughes
and  Jennings  were  or  were  not  directly  interested  in  the  event
of  the  suit,  the  defendant  was  competent  as  to  the  same  matters
to  which  they  testified  and  there  was  no  en'or  in  this  niling
of  the  court.
