Markle v. Bor. of Berwick

Citations

• 142 Pa. 84
• 21 A. 794
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 711

Syllabus

<p>(a) Iu an action against a borough to recover for injuries to property, caused by an overflow of surface water into the plaintiff’s cellar, there was evidence tending to show that a sewer, to take away the water, was not only imperfectly constructed originally, but negligently allowed to become clogged and out of repair:</p> <p>1. In such case, it was not error to refuse to instruct for the defendant that “ if the jury believe that the sewer was of sufficient capacity to carry off the usual fall of water*..... then the defendant performed its duty of construction, and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover; ” for if the sower was stopped up, or out of repair, its capacity was immaterial.</p> <p>2. An assignment specifying error in the admission of an offer of evidence against the objection of the appellant, but not showing the full substance of the testimony admitted under the offer objected to, is not in conformity with the Rules of the Supreme Court, [Rule XXIV.,] and will not be considered.</p>