Case ID: sw_186/html/0864-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KEY, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SOUTHERN TRACTION CO. v. FRAZIER.
    (No. 5628.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
    April 12, 1916.
    Rehearing Denied June 14, 1916.)
    Appeal and Error <S^v>1052(5) — Haemless Eeeob — Vebdict fob Appellee Probable in Ant Event.
    In an action for damages to automobile wrecked by a street ear, alleged error in admitting testimony held not reversible, where other testimony not objected to, and the amount of the verdict rendered it wholly improbable that the result would have been different had the testimony referred to been excluded.
    |Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error^ Cent. Dig. § 4175; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;>
    Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; Tom L. McCulloch, Judge.
    Action by John H.- Frazier against the Southern Traction Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Nat Harris and Spell & ganford, all of Waco, for appellant. Williams <& Williams, Edgar Harold, Tirey & Tirey, and Alva Bryan, all of Waco, for appellee.
   KEY, C. J.

Appellee sued appellant for damages for injuries to an automobile, which was wrecked by a street car belonging to appellant and operated in the city of Waco. The verdict and judgment went in favor of appellee, and awarded him $400 as damages, and the appellant has brought the case to this court upon three assignments of error, the first charging that the trial court committed error in not granting appellant a new trial, for the reason that the great preponderance of the evidence showed that appellee was guilty of contributory negligence, and the other two assignments complain of the admission of certain testimony. If appellee told the truth as a witness, he was not guilty of contributory negligence; and, although other witnesses may have testified differently, it was tile province of the jury,. if they saw proper, to give credence to his testimony, and therefore we overrule the assignment which assails the verdict.

Nor are we prepared to hold that the court committed error in its rulings upon the admission of testimony; but, if we should do so, other testimony not objected to and the amount of the verdict render it wholly improbable that the result would have been different if the testimony referred to had been excluded.

So our conclusion is that no reversible error has been shown, and therefore the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed. 
      «SuwFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes