Case ID: or_64/html/0162-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued January 23,
    decided February 11, 1913.
    BELL v. PAQUET.
    (129 Pac. 757.)
    Trial—Refusal of Instructions.
    The refusal of requested instructions in a personal injury-case was not error, where the instructions given, taken as a whole, fairly covered the issues, and the requested instructions would not and should not have affected the verdict.
    From Multnomah: JOHN P. Kavanaugh, Judge.
    This is an action by William Bell against Joseph Paquet, A. Giebisch and T. Joplin, partners as Paquet, Giebisch & Joplin, to recover damages for personal injuries. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    For appellants there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Wilbur, Spencer & Dibble, with an oral argument by Mr. Harry Beckett.
    
    For respondent there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Strahan & Seton, with an oral argument by Mr. Claude Strahan.
    
   Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries. Exceptions are taken to the refusal of various instructions requested by defendant. We have carefully examined the testimony in the case and the instructions requested, and are of the opinion that, taken as a whole, the instructions given fairly cover the issues, and that the giving of the instructions requested would not have affected the verdict, and should not have affected it.

No new questions of law are involved, and in accordance with Article VII, Section 3, of the constitution, as amended November 8, 1910 (Laws of 1911, p. 7), the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.