52 Kan. 469 | Kan. | 1893
The opinion of the court was delivered by
By the stipulation of the parties, two cases which raised substantially the same issues were merged and tried as one action. The rulings of the court upon preliminary questions in the first of these, known as the Clark case, have thereby become immaterial, and no error .can be predicated thereon. The question so much argued by counsel for plaintiff as to the inconsistencies in defendant’s testimony, and as to where the preponderance is, cannot be considered in this court. We cannot weigh the conflicting evidence introduced, nor go further than to examine whether that offered by defendant tends to sustain the findings and judgment of the court.
The exclusion of the hearsay testimony proposed to be shown by Heath in favor of the plaintiff was not erroneous. There are other objections, but they are deemed immaterial, and require no comment.
We think the court reached a just and correct conclusion, and we find no substantial grounds for the complaints that have been made against its rulings. The judgment will be affirmed.