Citation Numbers: 65 Iowa 444
Judges: Seevers
Filed Date: 12/12/1884
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/24/2022
I. This action was commenced in March, 1882. On. motion of the defendant, continuances were
It will be assumed that Mr. Boies relied on Mr. Knight to prepare the case-for trial; but why he did so, when Mr. O’Donnell had taken Mr. Griffith’s place, we are unable to understand. It does appear, however, that O’Donnell had never devoted any time to the preparation of the case for trial. The case was continued for nearly a week, and we are forced to the conclusion that the court was justified in believing that the distinguished counsel who appeared for the defendant could, with reasonable diligence, prepare themselves to properly present the legal questions involved in that time, if they had previously paid but little attention to the case.
II. It is said that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. But, as the abstract fails to state that it contains all the evidence, we are iinable to say whether the claimed position is true or not. It is insisted that the court erred in stating the issues to the jury in this: The court stated that the plaintiff claimed in the petition to have expended certain money for medical treatment; and the statement made by the court in this respect is correct. But the point made is, as there was no evidence introduced to sustain the allegation, that the defendant was prejudiced by what the court said. In this we do not concur. The court did not direct the jury to allow, or even take into consideration, the question whether the plaintiff was entitled to anything for money paid for medical attendance.
III. The fourth instruction given by the court is as follows: “When an employer gives his servant general directions as to the business which is intrusted to him to perform, then the employer is held to have confided in the discretion of the servant, and is answerable for all the acts of the servant in the performance of the duty required.” As an abstract propositen, this instruction is correct, but counsel say there was no evidence to support it. The sixth instruction is objected to, and in relation thereto counsel say: “ It is given upon the theory that there was a dispute in the evidence as
IV. It is urged that the court erred in admitting certain evidence as to whajfc took place before the city council of Waverly. We assume that counsel refers in this connection to the evidence of Wooding. We have examined this evidence, and reach the conclusion that it was not prejudicial. Nor do we think the court erred in the admission of other evidente objected to.
Affirmed.