Case Name: BISESI v. CLEVELAND RY CO
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1932-01-25
Citations: 11 Ohio Law Abs. 228
Docket Number: No 11949
Parties: BISESI v CLEVELAND RY CO
Judges: fflStrCK, PJ and MIDDLETON, J (4th ■Dist) and PARR, J (7th Dist) sitting.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 11
Pages: 228–228

Head Matter:
BISESI v CLEVELAND RY CO
Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co
No 11949.
Decided Jan 25, 1932
• R. H. Kaplan & Ben P. Rabb, both of Cleveland, for Plaintiff in Error.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Cleveland, fnr -.Defendant in Error,
fflStrCK, PJ and MIDDLETON, J (4th ■Dist) and PARR, J (7th Dist) sitting.

Opinion:
MAtTCK, PJ.
If the questions sought to be raised in this matter were vital to the case, we would; remand it to the Municipal Court for the purpose of making technically regular that part of the Bill of Exceptions that has to do with the conduct of counsel for the defendant. We have read the same, however, and find that it wholly fails to sustain the plaintiff's contention. The record does not show either an act of commission or omission on the part of defendant's attorney that' was not entirely honorable and it would avail plaintiff nothing if he were given an opportunity to make the record technically complete.
. The only question before us then is whether or not the finding and judgment are opposed to the weight of the testimony.
The finding of the judge is, of course, protected by the same rules that protect the verdict of a jury, and, applying those rules .•to this case, we have no difficulty in Saying that the judgment can not be reversed <ta that ground.
Judgment affirmed.
MIDDLETON and PARR, JJ, concur.