Opinion ID: 296321
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: I had only verbal proof.

Text: 22 (J.A. 100-01.) Later in the cross-examination counsel returned to this line of questioning: 23 Q. I'm not quite clear on the blasting.    Was there or was there not (blasting)?    24 A. Mr. Cooney, I can't answer that by a yes or no. 25 (J.A. 117.) In order to refresh the appellant's memory, counsel then read to her the following statements from her pre-trial deposition: 26 Q. The only thing I am asking you is whether or not you have available to you now or will have available to you at the time of this trial of this matter any evidence to indicate that dynamite, nitro glycerine or any comparable explosive was used by Mr. Corvick in the course of the construction of the sewer separation.    Do you have that? 27 A. That's a question that is peculiar-- not the question itself is not peculiar but the only thing I know is that something must have been used. I don't know. I couldn't swear to it and put my hand on the Bible, but something other than heavy machinery must have been used to cause this excessive damage. 28 (J.A. 118-19) 29 In these circumstances we feel it was perfectly proper for the trial judge to rule that no explosion occurred. 4 We also think the trial judge was correct in rejecting plaintiff's claim that 'vandalism' or 'malicious mischief' were involved here; there was absolutely no evidence introduced in support of these theories. 5 Since it was clearly Mrs. Souza's burden to prove that the damage to her personalty was caused by one of the specific 'perils insured against' and she failed to meet this burden, it was proper for the trial judge to direct a verdict in favor of appellee Travelers as to the personalty claim.