Court Opinion

ID: 9810774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:58:46.834489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:12.564103
License: Public Domain

ClaeksoN, J.
Tbe defendant at tbe close of plaintiff’s evidence, and at tbe close of all tbe evidence, made motions in tbe court below for judgment as in case of nonsuit. C. S., 567. Tbe motions were overruled and in this we can see no error.
It is tbe well settled rule of practice and accepted position in this jurisdiction, tbat, on a motion to nonsuit, tbe evidence which makes for tbe plaintiff’s claim and which tends to support her cause of action, *638whether offered by the plaintiff or elicited from the defendant’s witnesses, will be taken and considered in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, and she is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable intendment upon the evidence, and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom.
We think the evidence sufficient to be submitted to the jury. The charge of the court below is not in the record, the presumption is that the court charged the law applicable to the facts. We see no prejudicial error in excluding the evidence of defendant’s witness in regard to the way in which the shoe department was lighted. This witness had already stated “The room was I consider very well lighted.” Defendant offered other evidence to the same effect. We find
No error.