In any event, defendants were allowed to offer evidence before the jury about the terms of the option and to fully argue its effect. Evidence of any dissimilarities goes to the weight to be given the evidence, not to its admissibility. The extent of cross-examination for impeachment purposes is normally in the discretion of the trial court and defendants have not shown any abuse of discretion. This assignment of error is overruled. IV Defendants contend that the trial court erred when it sustained DOT's objection to defendants' attempt to offer evidence of the costs of opening the unopened streets near the remainder tracts B, C, and D, and the cost of raising the grade of tract A to make it level with the projected road.
Defendants contend that the evidence was relevant as to the amount of defendants' damages.
62 N.C. App. As a result of the taking and highway construction, defendant' s land was much lower than the new roadway, ranging from one foot to nine feet lower than the highway. In this case, however, defendants were speculating about the future construction of streets and the effects on their remainder property. The trial court, therefore, correctly sustained DOT's objections to the proffered testimony. We disagree for two reasons.