Special grounds numbered 4 and 5 of the plaintiff’s amended motion for new trial assign error on the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury, without request, on the principle of caveat emptor and upon the principle that one who purchases personalty from one who is not the true owner acquires no title to same as against the true owner.
“It is the duty of thе court to give in charge to the jury the law applicable to the issues made by the pleadings and the evidence, and a failure to do so, when injurious аnd harmful to the losing party, is reversible error.
Aubrey v. Johnson,
Special ground 6 complains that the trial court erred in excluding evidence offered to show that the “plate” showing an identification number of the automobile and located on the door of the automobile had been placed there after it was delivered rather than having been on the 'automobile originally. The
*498
testimony sought to be elicited was opinion testimony of a used car dеaler. The evidence of the witness showed that he had been engaged in such business for approximаtely two and a half years, but it was not shown that the witness was an expert in the manufacture of automobiles or that he had expert knowledge of the mannеr in which “plates” were attached to doors оf such automobiles ait the time of their original delivеry, or was otherwise such an expert that he would know if a change had been made. “Whether a witness hаs such learning and experience in a partiсular art, science, or profession as to entitle him to be designated as an expert, or to bе deemed prima facie an expert, is a mаtter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial сourt, and such discretion will not be disturbed unless it is manifestly abused. See
Clary v.
State,
In as much as the case must be agаin tried and the evidence may not be the same оn such trial the usual general grounds of the motion for new trial will not be passed upon except to state that the verdict for the defendant was not demanded as a matter of law.
Judgment reversed.