*1 Replacement; Wil- 2-8104, Burns’ Sec. indi- p. 19. As & trout the Industrial opinion, rule of original cated taking depositions matters provides the Board in the manner coming be taken Board shall before provided cases. in civil rehearing denied.

Petition 2d N. E. 372. Reported in 117 Friend, v. Johnson School etc. Harvey, Next County Township al., etc. et and Clinton February 9, 18, 1954.] June Transfer denied *2 Neal & Neal and Castor, Garrison & all of Nobles- ville, appellant. for Waltz,

Christian & Noblesville, Bell, Bell & of In- dianapolis, Robison, and Robison & Frankfort, appellee. Appellant, Harvey, by William Lee his friend, brought

next appellees to recover damages personal injuries for his allegedly sustained appellees’ negligence. reason of by jury. Trial The jury was directed to return verdict for all the lees, except appellee, judg- T. Cedric Wise. Verdict and appellees, including ment for T. Cedric Wise. assignment

The expressly error not waived is the of his motion for new specifications trial which contained four of error. Specification 1 is that jury verdict of the not is sustained sufficient question evidence. pre No is specification. sented The verdict was negative appellant, having onus, cannot Wilson, thus attack it. Rollings, Admrx. v. et al. (1938), 155, 158, 214 Ind. 14 N. E. 2d 905. The motion contains no the verdict is law.

Specification “sustaining' the ob jection of the defendant” to admission in evidence of appellant’s Exhibit as x-rays offered

certain objection not set forth does This ruling exhibit or the offered made to (1950), App. 120 Ind. Loehr v. Meuser court thereon. 363; Rageas Hohman-Clinton 630, 635, v. 426, 429, App. 88 N. E. 2d Realty (1949), 119 Ind. Co. sustaining of directed error is It did objection evidence. offered defendant’s excluding assign offer. error not §1977. Wiltrout (1896), 14 Ind. Sunnyside v. Rietz & Coke Co. Coal Further, dis 478, 493, the record App. 39 N. E. x-rays, but was not plaintiff’s Exhibit closes presented a medical record. No identified as specification. by this

Specification 3 forth that “the court sets erred *3 jury, request defendant, giving to at the of the in the 10, 11 and 12 numbered and the structions giving instructions, of erred in each said court giving, separately severally, and and to the excepted.” Specification 4 the time plaintiff at refusing give appellant’s to re- the erred in court 2, 4, 7, quested numbered 8 and 9. Said instructions only one 7 is the discussed instruction give refusing the to other his brief and designated is deemed waived. instructions very thorough, painstaking, made a and

We have examination of the entire record careful search and including evidence, appeal, before us in this fully are convinced that this cause was and and right merits, fairly a and tried on the and that by jury, just ver conclusion was arrived its fact, by herein, approved the court. In which was dict jury upon opposite an verdict been reached under the instruc- evidence disclosed given tions purporting which were to state the correct legal principles applicable liability to the of the upon theory appellant’s lees complaint, stated in it inescapable duty would have been our to reverse a con- judgment sistent rendered of thereon because the in- sufficiency of the evidence to sustain such verdict and that the same was to law.

In of determination, any view our error of the court giving refusing give in the or instructions of consequence change and would not serve to or alter the result we have reached.

Judgment affirmed.

On Petition Appellant’s petition urges that pass since we upon specified did not errors as to each of the referred we failed to discharge discussing of all prop- errors erly presented, that, therefore, and we contravened a ruling precedent Supreme Court. regard do not

We so Appellant matter. appar- ently grasp did not import full of our We think appellant allege it clear that prove did not cause Wise, only Cedric T. re- maining appellee, according under and principles to the pertaining applicable of law to the establishment liability public officials, teachers, school agents. reviewable was the of his motion for a new *4 and it

trial contained no the verdict was to law. Thus we were under no examine the to determine evidence whether denied relief to which the evidence showed him to be entitled. a failure not been

However, that there assure as stated whole justice, review we did circumstances, ap- there Under in our requirement discussion peared need with reference thereto was since harmless. denied. petition for E. Reported in 117 N. 2d 279. E. 2d 875. Company

Peoples v. Menard. Insurance Life February 19, denied June 1954.] Transfer