Burchett ex rel. Burchett v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co.

Citations

• 114 Kan. 138
• 217 P. 284
• 1923 Kan. LEXIS 42

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Compensation Act — Continuance Asked — Affidavit Admitted as Evidence of Absent Witness — No Error. The defendant asked for a continuance of the case because of an absent witness, supported by an affidavit reciting the facts which the affiant believed the witness would prove. The adverse party consented that the facts alleged in the affidavit should be read and treated as the deposition of the absent witness. The continuance was refused. Held, that the refusal was not error.</p> <p>2. Same — Requested Special Questions — Refusal Not Error. The refusal to submit special questions requested is not error where the pertinent ones requested relating to disputed facts were covered by those submitted by the court to the jury.</p> <p>3. Same — Earning Capacity. of Plaintiff — Special Findings Not Inconsistent. The special findings as to the earning capacity of the plaintiff after the injury, are held not to be inconsistent with each other.</p> <p>4. Same — Method of Computing Compensation. The facts in the case bring it within the rule announced in Stefan v. Elevator Co., 106 Kan. 369, 187 Pac. 861, and that rule is followed and applied.</p>