The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1898-09-14

trict court OK Logan county against
the city OF Guthrie, for damages in the
sum OF $4,000 for personal Injuries re-
ceived from being thrown from her
cart while driving over a certain alleg-
ed defective and dangerous crossing.
Issues we're Joined and a trial had,
which resulted In Judgment for
plalntf, In the sum Of il.OlO
From this judgment the city appeals
to this court.
SYLLABUS
Opinion by Burwell.
l. When a petition alleges facts
sufficient to constitute cause of act-
ion but not sufficiently definite and
certain, the defect must be attacked
by motion--a demurrer will not suf-
fee
g 1T is not error for the court to
excuse one from jury in an action
for damages for personal injury
against a city when such person shows
on his voir dire. that he is a resident
citizen and taxpayer In said city, such
person having an interest in the cause
on trial; and even IL such person were
not resident citizen and taxpayer OF
said city, II was not prejudlclal error
for the court. on n challenge for cause.
made by the plaintiff. 10 excuse him
when the record shows that other
competent Jurors were selected. exam
Ined and impanelled. as provided by
law.
"A party to suit has no vested In
terest in particular juror.
"All that he Is entitled to is that the
Jurors be competent, selected as pro-
vided by law and that they be not
prejudIced.
3. The statutes by persons OF un-
sound mind as used in section 1886,
procedure civll, 1898. statutes OF Okla
homa, relating to the competency OF
witnesses, means persons whose minds
are so defective that they cannot cor
rectly relate facts and do not under
stand or realize what they are saying
or doing,
"1f one is sufficiently intelligent TO
understand the nature of an oath and
can correctly relate facts and circum-
stances. he should be permitted to tes-
tify.
"rhe trial court must determine on
examination o. witness and from other
evidence II necessary as to whether oI
not he can do that. and the jury alone
must determine the weight 10 which
said testimony Is entitled.
T. The defendant objected 10 th,
piainufIs testifying in her own behalf
on the ground that she was of an
sound mind.
Evidence was introduced tending q
show her mental condition. The OBJ
lection was made by the defeudan
and part OF such testimony taken il
the presence and hearing OF the jury.
THE court gave the following in
struction to the giving Of which de
fendant excepted:
Testimony is before you tendlnl
TO show that since the time OF plain
tins injury her mind is somewhat i'm
paired, and you are instructed tina
in determining the weight to be give
TO her testimony you should take int
consideration the testimony tending I
show the mental condition Of the plain
tiff at this time. and from such testl
mony. together with her own state
ments, and evidence as to how the ac
s cident occurred. give 10 her testmon
q such weight as in your judgment IN
- same is entitled to-
Held. that such instruction correct
Z ly stated the law. and that the giyin
thereof was no error.
g. "A special interrosatory reques
7 ing the fury to state the condition
70 the street crossing at the place OF n
: alleged accident on June 10. 1895. Is NJ
a proper interrogatory 10 submit 10
: jury.
Where a special question OF fact
submitted to jury the wording OF Il
interrogatory should be clear and col
else and OF such form that they ca
- give a direct answer thereto.
Where the evidence reasonably su
ports the findings OF fact OF the III
"a court such findings will not be al
= tnrbed on appeal Gillette and Lib
,r et al VS.. Murphy. carrail and BrouI
ct al. unreported.
For the reasons herein stated {
judgment OF the lower court is afhrr
ed at the cost OF the appellant.
'r mandate win Issue from this court
conformity herewith"