after stating the case. The main exception taken in the court below which it becomes necessary for us to consider on the appeal, is, whether there was error in the ruling of His Honor in excluding the question propounded by the plaintiff — “ what was said by John Roberts in your conversation with him”? The objection taken to this evidence was, that the proposition of the plaintiff was too broad, and should have set out what was proposed to be proved that the court might see its relevancy. This no doubt as a general proposition is correct. Bridgers v. Bridgers, 69 N. C., 451; Straus v. Beardsley, 79 N. C., 59; Overman v. Coble, 13 Ired. 1.

But this case is distinguished from those. Here, a part of the conversation between the witness and John Roberts was called out by the defendants on the cross-examination. The plaintiff was entitled to all that was said in that conversation pertaining to the subject of inquiry. 1 Tay. Ev. §685; Greenl. Ev. §201, 205; Cabiness v. Martin, 4 Dev., 106. The matter brought out on the cross-examination was “ that John said he had more than a child’s part and should claim no interest in his father’s estate ”. It was then a pertinent inquiry in this connection, what was said by John, if anything, in regard to the value of the land given him by his father ; and if anything was said by him in this conversa *12 tion with the witness, the plaintiff was entitled to it. The question it is true is very broad, and standing by itself would have been inadmissible. But its object and bearing upon the subject of inquiry are clearly shown by the questions propounded by the plaintiff, which had just preceded and were rejected by the court. In getting at the meaning and relevancy of the question, it must be construed in connection with them ; and by doing so, we think the matter sought to be proved by calling out the whole of the conversation, is sufficiently suggestive for this court to be able to judge of the propriety of its rejection.

We are of the opinion the evidence should have been received. There is error. Let this be certified to the superior court of Washington county that a venire de novo may be awarded.

Error, Venire de novo.