90 P. 1106 | Or. | 1907
Opinion by
No direct testimony was offered by plaintiff tending to show any defective construction or want of repair of any of defendant’s engines, or of any careless or negligent operation of any of
There is no direct evidence in the record as to how or when the fire in question originated, but one Smith, who had been .hauling wood from plaintiff’s premises to the town of Sumpter,
Upon this state of the testimony defendant urges its right to a nonsuit. The gist of plaintiff’s cause of action is negligence of the defendant in running upon its road engines improperly constructed, and in a carol ess and negligent manner, by reason
The plaintiff having failed to offer in connection with the testimony of these two witnesses, to which objection was made, any testimony tending to connect, either directly or remotely, any of the fires mentioned by them with the operation of the road by defendant, such testimony was not admissible. Under these circumstances it will not be necessary to examine any other of the assigned errors, as they will no doubt be eliminated upon a retrial.
The judgment should be reversed, and the cause remanded for a neiv trial. • Reversed.