The general rule is as stated by the plaintiff, but, like all others, it is subject to exceptions. In the nature of things, it could not apply to this case. The declarations of Green, offered in evidence to contradict him, were made after his deposition was taken. How, then, could the previous questions be put to him ? Surely,, it could not be required of the defendant to take the deposition of Green over again, and thereby make him his witness. In such a case, it might well be questioned, whether the subsequent declarations could have been used by 'the defendant. Wc see no error in the opinion of the Oourl..

Eer Curiam. J udgment afiimied.