pp. 292, 134 So. 892; Id., 223 Ala. 167, 134 So. 894; Hardie v. State, 260 Ala. 75, 68 So.2d 35; Denton v. State, 263 Ala. 311, 82 So.2d 406. There is no reversible error where evidence is excluded because of objections of plaintiff where he later withdraws objections and court agrees to admit such evidence and defendant fails or refuses to offer such evidence. Authorities, supra. Defendant cannot ask his own witnesses questions concerning details of conversation when plaintiff has not gone into said conversation on cross-examination. Centrol Iron Coal Co. v. Wright, 20 Ala. App. 82, 101 So. 815; Id., 212 Ala. 130, 101 So. 824; Providence Life Accident Ins. Co. v. Black, 15 Ala. App. 437, 73 So. 757; Tarwater v. State, 24 Ala. App. 28, 129 So. 708. Overruling objection to question calling for conclusion is harmless when answer is not responsive. Swain v. State, 8 Ala. App. 26, 62 So. 446; Henley v. State, 19 Ala. App. 307, 97 So. 112; Sampson v. State, 19 Ala. App. 671, 100 So. 305; Lawson v. State, 26 Ala. App. 375, 160 So. 272. Question calling for conclusion if erroneous is not prejudicial where witness has already testified to same matter without objection. Higginbotham v. State, 24 Ala. App. 40, 129 So. 713; Guff v. State, 24 Ala. App. 41, 129 So. 714.