The plaintiff owned landlocked property reached by an access easement that could be relocated by agreement. After a jury trial addressing the easement’s location and damages for interference, the lead appeal challenged the verdict form, limits on cross-examination, and the judgment describing the easement. The Court of Appeals held that evidence of intermediate easement locations was relevant because the parties could relocate the easement more than once; it directed a new trial on the remaining defendants’ liability for interference with supported intermediate locations. It also held that OCGA § 24-6-611 (b) permits cross-examination on any matter relevant to an issue, not only the scope of direct examination. The court vacated the judgment’s description of the ultimate easement and remanded for a description conforming to the verdict and evidence that clearly identifies its route and width.