The question whether the plaintiff at the time of the accident was in the exercise of ordinary care, was a question of the care of men of ordinary prudence, that is, of men in general. Tucker v. Henniker, 41 N. H. 317. Conduct in the management of teams, of a character so uniform as to become usage, would include the average conduct of mankind in that particular within the locality where the usage prevailed, and a departure from such usage, when known, would be evidence of a want of ordinary care. If the plaintiff knew the prevailing usage, as to chaining wheels upon a loaded wagon in descending the hill, when he met with the injury (residing or doing business in that vicinity he was presumed to know), a failure on his part to adopt the usage was evidence of *119 negligence. The usage being material, it was competent to show it, and the exclusion of evidence upon that point was error.

Referee’s report set aside.