delivered the opinion of the court.
A “sma’ mousie” caused the trouble in this case. The “•weé, sleekit, 'cow’rin,’ tim’rous beastie” drowned in a bottle of coca-cola. How it happened is not told:
■There is. evidence for appellant that its system for cleansing- and' «filling bottles is complete, and that there is-: watchfulness to prevent the introduction of foreign substances/ : Nevertheless the little creature was in the
“The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men Gang aft aglay
An’’ lea’e ns nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!”
The record discloses sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict for appellee. There is no error for reversal. Appellant company bottled the coca-cola for the retail trade to be sold to the general public as a beverage refreshing and harmless. The bottle in this case was purchased by the grocer from appellant.
We find the law pertinent to this case clearly stated by Judge ChaNdlbe in the case of Watson v. Augusta Brewing Company,
Affirmed.
