Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/556

 instead of one-half to two-thirds, as stated in defendant’s letter, was inadmissible, because it varied the terms of the written contract. Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Bruns, 137. (See also Hennessy v. Griggs.)

.

Parol evidence is admissible to prove intention of parties in making deed and separate agreement to reconvey. Devore v. Woodruff, 143.

.

Parol testimony is admissible to show that application for insurance, written by agent of insurer, was falsified by such agent. ''Johnson v. Ins. Co., 167''.

.

Parol testimony may be introduced to show extent of land occupied for right of way. Gram v. N. P. R. RB. Co., 252.

.

In such action it is permissible to prove that tort was done against express orders of the principal. Moe v. Job, 140.

.

Where an objection is sustained to a question propounded to a witness, and the competency of the question is not apparent on its face, the party must offer to prove the facts sought to be elicited before he can assign error upon the ruling upon the objection. Halley v. Folsom, 325.

.

Hypothetical questions must be framed in accordance with the facts as shown by the evidence. Aultman & Co. v. Ginn, 402.

.

The testimony of an expert in handwriting was excluded by the trial court. The expert testified that he was acquainted with defendant's handwriting, but, being examined by the court, he testified that he had seen defendant write but once, and that was during the noon recess of the court, at which time he had, at the request of defendant’s counsel, seen defendant write, for the sole purpose of becoming a witness. Held, not error. Territory v. O'Hare, 30.

.

Where letters purporting to have been written by the defendant were offered in evidence by defendant for the sole. purpose of comparison of the handwriting with disputed writings put in evidence by the territory, and which letters were excluded, held, not error. Writings not in evidence for other purposes cannot be compared with disputed writings, under the common-law rule adopted by the supreme court of the United States. The trial court, in making such ruling, was a territorial court of subordinate jurisdiction, and, as such, was bound by the federal precedents. Should the same question arise in a case commenced after this state was admitted into the Union, we shall feel at liberty to establish a more liberal rule, if we shall then deem it expedient so to do. Id.

.

Objections to evidence that go simply to the order of proof, or sufficiency of proof, are properly overruled. Bowman v. Eppinger, 21.