This appeal-is: from a "judgment based on a jury verdict of $35,000 for damages sustained in аn automobile ‘ collisiоn. The credibility of- witnesses аnd the weight of the evidence- are jury ‘[questions. The еvidence is ample tо support the verdict. Thе appellants complain that counsel -were limited to ‘45 minutes eaсh in final' argument to the jury. This is a matter within the •’discretion of thе trial judge, and hé did not' abuse his discretion. ' The trial judge is .to be commended for exеrcising a-firm control of thе-trial. <
The only, question presented which merits even a brief discussion concеrns insurance. Apparently the' defendants carriеd no insurance and they tried ^t several points to рresent this to the. jury beginning' with questiоns on the voir dire. The ' trial judgе consistently refused to рermit this. Several of the refused requested charges told the jury that’ the question of insurance was irrelevаnt and should be disregarded. In other words, the defendants’ сounsel recognized that th'e subject of -insurancе was irrelevant. ■He wished tо set up a straw man and then ■knock, him down, The trial.: judge was right in excluding this irrelevancy from the beginning. The reason the subject is worth mentioning at all is to point .out that this case decides'no'morе* than the facts justify — that to exclude as irrelevant the fact of the non-existеnce of insurance is not error. Whether it is error and, if so,
Affirmed.