I think the rulings excluding evidence of the breaking of eye-bolts previous to the accident was error. The plaintiff was met at the very outset' of his attempt to prove previous breakings by an *527objection which was sustained, and he was not obliged to go further to strengthen his exception to the ruling. (Painton v. North. Cent. Ry. Co., 83 N. Y. 7.)
Judgment affirmed, with costs.