O'Malley v. Public Ledger Co.

Citations

• 257 Pa. 17
• 101 A. 94
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 676

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Automobiles — Evidence — Proof of Ownership — Gase for jury — Referring to previous verdict — Withd/rawal of juror —Discretion of court — Remarks unprejudicial.</p> <p>1. Where in an action against a newspaper company to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in consequence of being struck by a motor truck, alleged to be the property of defendant and to have been employed in its business at the time of the accident, it appeared that the name of defendant was painted upon 'the car, which contained bundles of newspapers, it was not error to permit a policeman to testify that shortly after the time fixed by witnessed to the accident he saw a car of like description delivering bundles of newspapers about four and a half squares from the place of the accident; that he knew the car because he had seen it in the neighborhood on numerous occasions on like errands, and that on the particular occasion the driver had attracted his attention by his seeming hurry in tossing papers from the car.</p> <p>2. Where in Such a case there was evidence that as plaintiff was endeavoring to cross a street at a corner an automobile came out of an intersecting street at a high rate of speed and ran violently into plaintiff, which car was described by witnesses as having defendant’s name printed thereon, the case was properly submitted to the jury.</p> <p>3. Where in such case the plaintiff’s husband while on the stand testified to the effect that he had a conversation with another man on the day “when we were awarded the verdict,” referring to the verdict in a former trial of the same cause, but there was no attempt on the part of the counsel for the plaintiff to obtain an unfair verdict by leading the witness to the objectionable remark, and the judge warned the jurors to disregard the incident, the refusal of a motion for a continuance was within the discretion of the trial judge was_ not prejudicial to defendant, and was not reversible error.</p>