84 Iowa 47 | Iowa | 1891
I. The plaintiff asked the court to-instruct the jury in the following language: “If you
II. The second point of the plaintiff’s argument is not clear, but we understand that complaint is made therein of the ruling of the court in refusing to permit counsel for the plaintiff to state what he expected to prove by a witness to be the meaning of the words as spoken. The court held that counsel should state the question he desired to ask, and not the facts he expected to prove. The abstract is not sufficiently full and explicit to show error in the court’s rulings. They do not appear to be necessarily erroneous.
III. An answer to a question as to whether the defendant knew the plaintiff’s sister, to the effect that the witness had seen a paper from Germany relating to the sister, was rightly stricken out, for the reason, if for no other, that it was not responsive.
IY. The district court correctly held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover as damages
Y. Other objections to the judgment, urged by the plaintiff’s attorney, are not of sufficient importance to demand attention. The judgment of the district COUrt ÍS AFFIRMED.