Court Opinion

ID: 9829611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:28:26.207289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:03.497859
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
The charge of the court, substantially stated, confined the jury to the matter of damage to plaintiff's property through the obstruction of access and egress, and excluded all other forms of damage. They were told that whether any damage was done, was for them to say. And to find for plaintiff for the reduction of value, if any, arising from said cause. The above was, unmistakably, to find for defendant if they found no reduction of value.
In addition the court gave-the charge copied in the opinion in connection with the 89th assignment. This was an additional instruction and one in favor of the defendant, telling the jury that even if they found a reduction of value, they would nevertheless find for defendant under the circumstances it set forth. The said charge did not tell the jury to consult values at the time of the trial in determining whether or not a reduction in value had been caused, but told them what to do *126after finding there had been a reduction in value, thereby giving defendant the benefit of certain conditions and of a verdict in its favor notwithstanding' some original injury to the value of the property.
With this exception we think the opinion filed sufficiently discusses the questions referred to in the motion. Motion overruled.

Affirmed.

Writ of error refused.