OBJECTION. Where evidence is objeeted to at the trial, the nature of the objections must be distinctly stated, whether an ex ception be entered on the record or not, and, on either moving for a new trial on account of its improper admission, or on arguing the exception, the counsel will not be permitted to rely on any other objections than those taken at nisi Arius; 3 Tayl. Ev., Chamb. ed. §. 1881 d; objections must state the specific ground ; Carroll v. Benicia, 40 Cal. 390; Forbing v. Weber, 99 Ind. 588 ; Massenberg v. Denison, 107 Fed. 18, 46 C. C. A. 120; and counsel cannot change his ground on the argument in the appellate court ; Tooley v. Bacon, 70 N. Y. 34; general objections, such as irrelevant, incompetent, and the like, are said to be too general in their terms ; Peck v. Chouteau, 91 Mo. 138, 3 S. W. 577, 60 Am. Rep. 236 ; Bundy v. Hyde, 50 N. H. 121; the general objection that evidence is incom: potent, Irrelevant and immaterial is sufli-1 dent when the reason for the objection is readily discernible. But where the ground for the objection is not suggested thereby, it will not avail; Sparks v. Oklahoma, 146 Fed. 371, 76 C. C. A. 594; evidence to which objections are made will be held in the ap pellate court to have been properly admitted, if admissible for any purpose; Voorman v.
Voight, 46 Cal. 307; one who has not ob jected to evidence when introduced is not en titled to hale the court instruct the jury to disregard it ; Maxwell v. R. Co., 85 Mo. 106; nor will an objection be 'heard if made for the first time on the motion for a new trial; Harvey v. State, 40 hid.' 516; or in the ap pellate court; Clark v.. Fredericks, 105 U. S. 4, 26 L. Ed. 938: When testimony Was received without ob jection, the court should not sign a bill of exceptions; if it does, it will be disregarded above ; Ex'r v. Darby, 38 Pa. 56; the court may refuse to strike out the an swer to a question asked a witness where no objection was made to it when it was asked ; Bailey v. Warner, 118 Fed. 395, 55 C. C. A. 329.
Ordinarily, where an objection has been made and overruled, it is not necessary to repeat it to each succeeding question open to the same objection; Thomp. Trials § 705.
Objecting to a judge's instruction is said to be regarded as having the same force excepting; Elsner v. K. & L. of Honor, 98 Mo. 640, 11 S. W. 991.. See BILL OF EXCEP