*1 798 al., correct, Lefeaux, 1614 Ivy dif- v. et No. is also L. it. This Pointe court of docket of the district with the other ficult reconcile hereby, Coupee parish, be, the same is of the cars relative to the appellant. testimony of affirmed at the cost of the collision. We cite the the conflict- to show

these two witnesses ing nature of the evidence. re plaintiffs order In cover, they must show of of driver was caused fault car, allege they Lefeaux more than a petition. They prove must Ivy et al. v. LEFEAUX Lena KENT L. ac probability mere the cause of only they not have cident. these cases In No. 1626. certainty that prove legal with failed to Appeal First Circuit. Louisiana. Court of driver of alleged negligence of the 7, 1936. Oct. proximate Lefeaux car was the sole they have failed cause of the in which exact manner to show the New v. Orleans occurred. Rohr 361; 546, 67 Gaslight Co., 136 So. La. Brooks, Taylor, Porter & North Great Rausch New Orleans appellant. Co. v. Rouge, for Co., 145 ern R. La. So. Roads, Kearney, Bouanchaud of New & error We find cannot manifest appellees. trial conclusions reached OTT, in the cases. Judge. facts ordered assigned, For reasons it is assigned For the reasons case in this appealed from judgment Ivy Leona Kent v. Lefeaux Mrs. Smith L. Ivy case, Kent v. L. day Leona Mrs. Smith et de- (La.App.) al. 169 So. this al., on the docket cided, Lefeaux No. 1586 et it is ordered that the Coupee parish, pealed court of Pointe the district from in this case of Miss Lena Kent be, hereby, affirmed at Ivy al., v. and the same L. Lefeaux 1613 on the et No. appellant. cost of docket of the district court of Pointe Coupee parish, be, hereby, and the same is appellant. affirmed at the cost of Ivy LEFEAUX et al. David L. T. KENT v. No. 1625. BAHAM v. F. W. CO. WOOLWORTH & Appeal of First Circuit. Louisiana.

Court et al.* 7, 1936. Oct. No. Appeal

Court of of Louisiana. First Circuit. 7, 1936. Oct. Brooks, Taylor, Porter & appellant. Roads, Kearney, & of New Bouanchaud appellees. OTT, Judge. assigned in the case of reasons For the Ivy Kent v. L. Lefeaux Smith Mrs. Leona et al. (La.App.) So. judgment ap-

cided, is ordered in this case of David T. Kent pealed rehearing, 170 So. 607. opinion

*For *2 799- from ap- which both defendants peal. Prescription.

Plea of Plaintiff claims that injury 1934, May 5, occurred on while any defendants claim that if oc 28, April 1934, curred it was on con sequently any arising claim was. therefrom prescribed (Civ.Code, 3536) the art. when suit was filed on Plaintiff testified that she down came May 5, 1934, town on went to- first the office of company the waterworks paid a receipt bill. She files evidence a company May dated 5th. Walker,' a colored woman assisted who plaintiff boarding get- a street car and Huckaby, Elton J. ting injury, home after the testified that appellants. May on it was 5th. She date -fixes the Benton, Rouge, for W. A. following day, from the fact that on the pellee. Sunday May 6th, society a of which she anniversary awas member had its annual DORE, Judge. sermon, always which occasion was plaintiff damages The recover May. York, sues to Edward a colored man who foot, injury right alleged for an to her witnessed the May to have on which she sustained May claims was on fix 5th. was able to the 1934, 5, store of the defendant com- date from the fact his wife’s birth- .that pany purchasing a while hat. She avers day day, gone came on he had was in one of the the purchases while town to make some con- looking store aisles nection with Baham,. that event. Nicholas manager carelessly negligent- plaintiff’s husband, a cousin-of says that it ly dropped fall roll of screen wire or let a May was on plaintiff 5th that was hurt. causing her a contusion of game He attended a baseball and returned' the foot sprain. and third toe and home, a severe plaintiff’s where staying was he She damages $2,- asks for in the sum of about 3:30 in the afternoon and went to sleep. 7:30, When he awoke about he plaintiff sitting complain-' found on the bed plaintiff denied Defendant was ing about Brown, foot. Dr. who injured struck and a roll of wire while plaintiff injured foot, says treated in its store on the alleged pe- date first May treatment was on' tition, alleged 5th. His 28, but April that on charge May first for services store, while 5th. in its one of While doctor testified injury measuring clerks was off screen plaintiff’s foot could have occurred began of wire sev- the roll unroll down days May eral before treated point 5th, yet his whole is to ef- standing, stop- was ped but that another fect was a recent one. before it struck nothing There is in his on this denied defendant suffer- point that with the any conflicts injury, pleaded ed in the alterna- plaintiff and her other witnesses. tive that if had suffered prescribed claim as more than one Maitre, Jr., Jules J. year elapsed April 28, 1934, had to the store, manager of the testified that filing May date of suit on 1935. The incident out of which action arises took joined Travelers Insurance place April 1934. He bases his in the suit as against public insurer of defendant and this defendant testimony on the from a date memorandum liability have made claims to acci- made the same defense as the Woolworth occurred, and after it which mem- Company. gave to the manager. orandum Miss- Judgment against was rendered both clerk in a the store fixes Julia the date as 28th, fendants in solido April sum for the reason that $513 bur- which in turn April uncle and was and he died on 26th name, store April to work which she left the ied on went 27th Saturday limping on followed her out April her foot.' He following 28th. on the time; a short street .and watched wit- heard the judge, The district who *3 that around and did she looked them, evidently some of knew nesses began to not see him in the crowd and then walk accident that reached the conclusion says straight as as that ever. overruled happened and- being feet before wire rolled about 30 no man- is plea prescription. There stopped by Kleinpeter. No one Miss facts, his finding in ifest error push; wire a itself. He rolled ruling was correct. says plain- that was about 35 feet from Merits. stopped by Miss when the wire was tiff the acci Kleinpeter; as to how that he went over to The' very conflicting. Kleinpeter Plain happened plaintiff and were is Miss stand- hurt; plain- in an says ing to one was tiff that while she apologize looking him that did not in the store said to aisle tiff her; Maitre, manager, hitting came down wire in his wire that she to her for the name got name and he got of screen his with a roll then dropped wire states arms; store. He further passing and she left the foot, whereupon ahead was about 10 feet on her that the wire which fell my exclaimed, rolling foot.” She down the aisle “you hurt him when it was she foot and caught plaintiff. down and reached be more words up. After a few held it in Maitre Kleinpeter corroborates Miss which time she during tween them contra- parts of his hers, left and he secured name store, says many parts. She other dicts him met foot. She limping on her wire -measuring off the Maitre was street, who assisted Walker rolling, he it started a customer when the doctor. getting getting home wire; measuring the clerk was said another statement Plaintiff is corroborated rolled about says the wire York, a by Edward as to the feet; she about 35 yards, rolled he said it in the store man who was colored up, he said it rolling said testi- His the occurrence. and saw time that he was unrolling; he said as that mony practically the same the wire start- behind the feet met Ella Walker Kleinpeter said he was rolling, Miss ed stooping, out of the store she came street after helping measure the measuring or street on the getting assisted car to began rolling. when it home. go in- the clerk nor the customer Neither defendants testified Two witnesses purchase of volved sale place, Mr. took way the accident as to the witnesses, yet Maitre called as wire were manager, and Miss Maitre, addresses, both their names knew waiting on who was the clerk ab- explanation was offered no Their the time. plaintiff at sence. York as to plaintiff and flatly contradicts plaintiff did can be no doubt There Maitre happened. what her foot an to receive clerk, where a the store back in walked Brown treated because Dr. somewhere wire on of screen Eddy, had a roll a Miss day. on that measuring off some act of the floor n ofthe wire customer, Henry a Mr. for a in better district Wilson; rolling down wire started we are. He than weigh the to plaintiff was toward where stand- aisle plaintiff received believed that must have millinery and he then counter ing'at the store of Woolworth an and hollered attempted catch the wire claims. There is certain- whereupon Kleinpeter out,” Miss “watch finding of fact. error in his ly manifest no stopped the wire and in front of stepped allowed court The lower He denies that the wire foot. it with her the same damages. We believe $513 be say, does how- plaintiff at all. He struck the circumstances. adequate under peeved and asked ever, she became hereby lower court is Judgment of the he refused apologize him to name, affirmed. him for his do; asked that she