*1 provi following ground: A on the favor its sion in that, any; policy was to effect representing the indebtedness of the notes pe delinquent for a should automobile the riod of policy twenty days, void should be this insured, interest of the mortgagee. The claim interest a default established the evidence made period appellee over on the peremptory days, twenty reason for which given. evi should have instruction brief, appellant’s is not set out dence suf in the record evidence not find we do per giving aof have warranted ficient provi though instruction, emptory even consequences policy visited sion of the up mortgagee the same as default Clearly peremptory in mortgagor. no when, under have been struction provision pleaded, the very terms by the mortgagee’s not affected interest present appellant had desired to default. mortgagor, applied special been re Bessent, issue should a’ failing By quested. do so it waived Ormsby Ratcliffe, Tex. defense. S.W.(2d) 1084. judgment be af- trial court will
firmed. et ux. et MAUNDERS al. v.
MORGAN 12387.
No. Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth. of Civil
Court 6, 1930. Dec.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 1931. *2 Morgan ner, approached and that Russell excessive,- unlawful, said intersection at an and negligent speed, rate of and ran his car plaintiffs’ car, striking it, turning in front of over, throwing pavement and her out on the seriously injuring plaintiff's and her. The alleged gence specific negli-. a number of acts of Morgan, on Russell such speed; rate of violation of the
.excessive speed city law state and Palls; Wichita violation of the ordinance of city gave plaintiff the the to of Wichita Palls which right way intersection; at failure said control; have his car under to have failure lights brakes; keep a and and failure to stop attempt stop lookout and to car, etc. alleged Morgan It was further at employ the time of the in the collision company using driving cement and and automobile said furtherance business company. Morgan sep- The cement and filed and, among pleas, arate answers filed a general denial, plea contributory negli- gence, accident, special unavoidable and de- Morgan engaged nial that the ness. at the time prosecution company’s of the cement busi- jury. The case was submitted to charge “negligence,” defined the terms “con- tributory negligence,” “proximate cause,” and “preponderance evidence,” pro- and pounded interrogatories some 30 in addition- special given requested to some 15 issues and in behalf of the defendant. returned a verdict favor of plaintiffs presented liability on all issues material petition gave negative in the and special answers re- Grady, Dallas, defensive issues Thomas, Prank & and quested by defendants, Hoffman, Palls, appel- and returned a of Wichita Duther verdict in favor of for the sum of lants. $35,000. Upon returned, the verdict so King Boone, Humphrey Bullington, & and judgment plaintiffs’ court rendered favor Smith, ap- Palls, for all' Walsh & pellees. of Wichita $20,000; having the court ruled that the $15,000. verdict was excessive to the extent of overruled, The motion for new' trial was and CONNER, O. J. appealed judgment defendants have from the was instituted John This suit Maunders so rendered. Maunders, against wife, Edith Russell transcript before us covers some 315 Morgan Trinity Portland Cement pages; pages; the statement of facts some 51 Company, company, referred to as cement hereinafter appellants presenting complaints damages resulting recover proceedings assign- below set forth 229 injuries occurring by the wife in a received collision ments of We error. have the record be- of Ninth at intersection fore us as careful consideration as we have city of Wichita streets Falls. Grace do, and been able to employee concluded that the Morgan, ce- Russell judgment must Dallas, below be reversed for reasons company, Tex., driving ment given. Therefore, traveling hereinafter accordance north one of its trucks Grace Jurisprudence, traveling street, stated in. rule Texas Mrs. Maunders was west plaintiffs alleged 3, p. 1014, we will consider Ninth street. that vol. all of the approached questions presented, only and entered Mrs. Maunders intersection such as we deem driving prejudicial while deem streets at and such as we become speed disposition in a lawful man- further of the case. rate useful a lawful Why dig up? him If he to criticize. didn’t Appellants referred be hereinafter will excep- (the boy) testified in favor the defend- bill of defendants’ defendants. M'yers, ants, they dug up.” him a Mrs. would have No. tion others, aft- appeared among on the scene soon certainly We think this ob- *3 Morgan accident, while Russell jectionable by er the was tiffs’ counsel following supported and not the evidence himself, plain- testifying for aas witness case, prejudicial- highly in- in the permitted the him to ask was flammatory. questions: Metropolitan Ry. In the ease of St. v.Co. (Tex. App.) 44, 46, “Q. you Mrs. Civ. with Roberts language imagine 142 S. W. the a conversation Did have complained accident) you (at Myers night? the that of was: of “Don’t the scene there yes. little, if I had the of the names of balance I a A. had here, witnesses, I have those that and could them ‘you “Q. She A. was it? What things them of would tell a little sqme ” driving awful fast.’ brought from or 6 here different what the 5 ex the witness was course, The of statement if told? the Of I some of know company against the cement cluded of those would balance witnesses corrobo- ground Morgan, against admitted who rate some of the witnesses here have said gestee. part res it was a that the ran that street car automobile into objectionable on probably not car, up statement was the I and tried to bust that street know part res ground a it was them here.” It was the gestae bill shows inasmuch as the quoted er- held that the remarks constituted right at the time.” was ror, stated: “It court statement and the court said: evidently evi conflicted with the improper also for counsel tell “It was to Morgan rate of the dence of witness speed consider, jury they right had to the under the ‘the traveling. But the which he was at law, have not the fact ground objectionable the seems statement very brought (witnesses) here is a them a of nature of conclusion was in the that it the witness. and As said strong reason to that some of wit- believe the character. indefinite its adversely testify nesses would to what some Ry. & F. S. Panhandle in the case of say.’ company of the street car them That 305, App.) (Tex. S. W. Laird Civ. 224 v.Co. persons bring more who were did on the street car at the time of the accident thought expression feel mere or “The of 308: ing engendered by or a certain occurrence testify for to in the was not ease sufficiently substantial not form a fact does jury, legitimate what comment before the connecting sequent the fact and the sub between link conjec- they might have was sworn to mere eye witness about statement of ture. There no reason shown the record in evidence admissible make that statement to as car the street should or should why. part geste.” of the res present.” not, have had them approve of Nor do statement Fidelity Floyd In of the case Union Cas- jury argument nu to' the counsel merous issues in the ualty 365, (Tex. App.) S.W.(2d) 24 Co. Com. embody charge court’s “Arguments the court said: con- must be allegations ing plaintiffs’ lia material of by the fined to evidence admitted court. “yes, yes, yes,” bility should be answered objections improper to are evidence to be com- had re issues defendants on, attorneys mented better for would be quested and were submitted should be permit objection, without the introduction of jury “no, no, no seventeen answered improper against all sorts of evidence us, tendency no.” As it seems times of the to. subjected than clients to the criticism of argument in effect to inform the was attempting to the real from conceal truth would en that to answer issues so jury.” plaintiffs recovery. title sharply The evidence conflicted on Among testifying Morgan in be other witnesses at of whether time issue Oakes, who, codefendant, of Rama half defendants was one on a mission for his the cement during examination, necessary case, company. his testi the course of As a of their boy talking plaintiffs alleged him near fied that there was a that at the time of the Morgan employ the scene at the time accident and collision cement tomobile burden was establish these plaintiffs’ company, driving using ar One counsel in his au thereof. gument following jury made state in furtherance its business. everything undoubtedly upon plaintiffs brought ment : “I to this you truth; preponder-' allegations is that show the whole where boy’s evidence, companion; him until do not I never heard of and we anee Oakes) yesterday. (Rama him for I never saw of one counsel the remarks jury, got addressing Where is defendants’ until he that on the witness stand. shown boy’s exception companion.” Then, turning to It No. 58.' directing defendants, plaintiff, re “You he stated: that marks to the counsel dug charge you up jury, why dig up, “Read him said: didn’t then beginning boy, you and find burden laid from end the whole truth other out on wanted my right proof, it, good from friend Dallas I find the witness stand. have a Coaches, (referring Frank, Behringer ease the de D. A. one of v. S. P. Hr. every S.W.(2d) counsel) said, by A fendants’ who has traveled section saw; Appeals, quoting than ever seen more cases I Commission state headnotes, authority, reports read than I have ever seen that: “Trial has charge duty, your improper argument on if not in jury, ever will see—where case of proof? promised it to counsel to burden He to act with or ob- without jection, exception, request opposing didn’t he?” counsel.” In the same held that case was charge instruction court’s contains no objection respect argument improper proof, and, cir- the burden of under need not counsel us- be communicated to cumstances, ject sub- ruling init order to invoke objection the defendants judge, improper argu- attorneys using since tendency believe was to its that lead the *4 ment assume the risk. plaintiffs was no burden there case, Floyd Fidelity to in that it tended case to establish their obscure a fair and of the court’s definition of Cas- v. Union ualty Co., impartial S.W.(2d) 363, consideration 24 said it was “preponderance Appeals, Section B of our Commission of quoting headnotes, “Improper evidence.” that: argument injecting matters de- into the case the reference Nor do we inflammatory, hors record that are and "calcu- counsel, Powers, argument plaintiffs, Dr. to' for prejudice party rights losing lated to witness, extent their as chief jury, may, proper complained case, fore be injuries, having graduated from her appeal, objection urged although of on was school, statement a further Catholic for time in motion for new trial.” first (Mrs. “plaintiff argument Maun ders) Appellants complain Metho attend her would not be able to also of misconduct of Arguments jury, grounds character dist Church.” the a made for their motion for Motley frequently jury See have been condemned. new trial. were summoned 699, (Tex. App.) juror 283 S. W. v. Lawrence 701; Trachtenberg Civ. testified before the court. The Faubion the W. A. Castillo (Tex. App.) Civ. v. “In testified: deliberation of White, 657; jury they any 302 Mo. Busse v. S. W. 257 259 321, before reached amount 458; Sanger Bros., they finally agreed Tex. give Moss S. W. all mentioned that on to plaintiffs, they 12 W. S. 619. had someone company an idea that the carried insurance proposi Appellees’ several answer to the * * * on their trucks That cars. was argument complaining mentioned tions company about all that was said about the way general the ex is in to the that effect carrying just its cars. insurance on It was openly, ceptions nor the at taken were not * * * mentioned, and that all. There was there for called tention of counsel n * * was one man said had sick wife. he request to, was made for the and that no I do not he I know who was. do not know argu jury ment, disregard the instructed to * * * his name. It is a fact that I have appears. prejudice that no and further myself, a sick wife has who some sort of argument, prior coun It sel for the that that to the guess female trouble. affected Maunders it is I true that she is court defendants to the stated way somewhat that Mrs. same they interrupt for not to desired is, something My like that. wife plaintiffs, nevertheless make such but would way has been afflicted in that for several thought objections argument they * * * years. nothing There was said about objections proper and have noted being pro that Iwhen was as a examined here stenographer, and that done with was spective juror. I did not let the condition of interruption of the and with out out my my affect wife me decision of the case. argu request for instruction that the any It did not have not tell influence on me. I did however, disregarded. The ment be approved anyone about it.” exception. In the case the bills of Ry. Co., Falls of Emberlin v. Wichita S. W. F. Bobo during J. testified: “I heard some discus trying sion was said the Commission the time we were arrive damages Appeals give of courts ‘counsel shall that: “The rules for district at the amount of that we would arguments any provide company being that in insurance involved in required argu argu I the case. do not know confine the whether I can tell strictly just that, anyhow, ment ments of to the evidence what was said about some counsel,’ jurors opposing spoke up something and that ‘the and said required objec Trinity not be for court will about whether the Portland wait Cement argu Company carrying as to tions be made when rules was insurance. some And they expected they said ments are violated.’ When counsel violates of this gants trial, others that that rule, peril. were, company apt he does so at his liti that that size would be carry impartial a fair and But are entitled to insurance. no one knew how much and, appear anything should it that reason or had it would be like that. That dis rights of this rule the violation of the cussion while the was was deliberat they losing party prejudiced, give, that have been as to the amount would grant duty they they a new trial.” before what decided would * * * give. They questions much know how surance but not did not before all get, attorneys answered,' nothing plaintiff hut would af that would * * * usually get they anyway. I 50-50. fected a someone' said would man I could you positive who said even not he tell what was in said about my Hicks it was Mr. best recollection is that surance. I do not remember the it, something I being about said that. said He insurance matter mentioned.” ** * say guess could I think. foreman, Fiske, R. R. testified: “There amongst generally the men. that it was talked was no discussion about the defendants car- They it. something us about Most said rying public in the accident. figured insurance on the car it, probably get one-half would I recall that someone made attorneys get, the what would one-half statement, any he wondered if *** took discussion After would. insurance, insurance, he carried fig place, raised the low men some of I told them matter, that did not * * * As to wheth I mine. raise ures. did * * * was none our business. my raising ver amount er or not question attorneys' of the insurance and fees anything that dict, into consideration I took was raised and mentioned before we reached fees, attorneys’ insurance or said about the amount of their verdict.” suffering, anybody’s well that wife If I to answer. me hard he a Taylor D. S. testified: “There some- given, I I could the law was understand thing said about an insurance *5 I that the amount that in considered public have liability insurance,, jury while the give I answer would her. want would deliberating. was I heard the statement It that, ‘No, that.’ I did not consider that about that. I think that it was that said so jurymen raise me to that led the other was my jurors they the other have heard it could if * * * one of I heard amount. listening.” had been being something jurors say wife his about jurors Goodwin, Stewart, Rtppey Maunders. Mrs. condition in a similar they also testified that the insurance. The heard remarks about his that juror said He was Mr. Hicks. This juror years testified Johnson suffering with for several had been wife * * * that he recalled that there was some mention something had. Mrs. Maunders like by jurors made something one of of an insurance about a little knew said he He company carrying liability insurance suffered, his wife that a woman how several juror * * * said, car of defendant. That one “I years. not or As to whether they carry if wonder insurance.” Another jurors Mrs. that announced some of said, they do, they though “If it looks as probably tharf more not live would Maunders attorney up would have an insurance well, here.” years, talked. Some two one or said, “Well, yoh tell, Another one might cannot six or not live over said that she of them . * might * Fiske, attorney that be an insurance out years I was Mr. It seven spoke up there now.” That he and said: he not have his believe, would said that "that “Well, go it doesn’t seem to me that that is through Maunders was go Mrs. what wife any business, got $100,000.00.” of our we have to reach through through testimony verdict spoke that have “They we Grimmage testified: J. S. heard on the witness stand. And it absolute- insurance, it was not discussed. about They ly stopped the conversation about the in- any our busi that was not said that any surance. There was not carry said about they if were fellow asked ness. One it.” He further testified: “At the time that ing insurance, was none said that and he The foreman mentions made these insurance jury said business. and of the insurance and what any of our busi it was not said that that. He attorneys get it, out of we had or not. carried insurance ness whether questions except then answered attorneys’ mentioned fees After the after respect with to the amount of mentioned the insurance was * * * verdict. I amount that wife, divi addition and after the sick originally plaintiff ought decided that my sion, $10,000.00 from amount raised I $20,€00.00. to have was That as low quite $35,000.00. We had over scramble figure my Ias ever considered. It was up passed two three We amount. jurors first idea. There were some that were things mention times. Those ed which have my lower than estimate. It was I have be mentioned occurred after the discussion of and the mention of $35,000.00 amount was reached. fore the * * * attorneys’ the insurance and fees that When the was mentioned insurance figures $35,000.00. low men their raised foreman said that would not take thing * * That was the last that we We did. I into believe consideration. signed the verdict and out.” walked something by said there was one of jurors to the condition of his wife. He juror Kostas testified: “I stated wife, it was his said he would have myself. I had a sick wife She has been sick $40,000.00.” it done for year. person over somebody Xou know that a needs Rogers might them, Juror J. C. testified: “There to take care of and it does *, * * something day. there in about than not cost less five dollars a My experience my own ment $15,000. own sick wife with the trial in the amount by And, jus- I con- not considered me while was whatever be said in argu- sidering excuse, the case.” tification or we think that the ments of counsel we have discussed Rippey G. P. testified: “I did hear some- proceedings jury room were of a char- thing regard of some to the condition require judge grant- acter to the trial to have juror One said that wife wives. appellants’ rehearing. * ** ed motion for In the very was a nervous woman. I Ivey, ease of Moore v. S. W. sec- thought it lieve that would he worth toe mentioned that he tion A Appeals, of the Commission of is $100,000.00 from his ex- own said, quoting headnotes, from perience that: with his own wife. I believe it was jury shown, “When misconduct of is once he said that would not have her he effect, ais reasonable doubt as its $100,000.00. that condition for I am not sure against doubt must be resolved verdict.” whether that statement was made before we again quoting ‘‘If, And from the headnotes: $35,000.00 reached the amount of or after. upon a consideration of the whole of the before, may If it was be true that some pertinent record, reasonably is jurors hearing doubtful of after lower state- improper jury whether conduct' of affected original up ment raised amounts amount verdict $35,000.00.” other decision issue, material verdict should be set aside complaints There are minor judge; and, trial if a new trial proceedings room not deem- granted, there is an abuse of discretion material, er and which will therefore not judge, duty and reversal becomes discussed. It also added that while appellate court.” true, appellees insist, it is that all of the Wilson, Southern Traction Co. v. jurors finally in testified that were not S. W. Section B of the Commission fluenced the statements we have above Appeals, said, quoting it is head- hearing detailed and that on the “Any excessive, notes : where it is in jury verdict of a power up passing is vested with the *6 agreed by juror to a who it bases weight testimony, to be to the improper on evidence received in the yet enough we think that has been to again: “If, room.” And from the evi- during show the statements the delibera judge dence taken on hear- the jury relating insurance, tions of the to at ing trial, ground of a motion for new the torneys’ fees, juror detailing and of the the reasonably jury, of of misconduct the it is wife, improper condition of his juror to whether a doubtful as influenced tendency naming of a to influence the in any arriving to in extent at his verdict plaintiffs’ damages. the the amount Our of improper discussion room, in of evidence the undoubtedly contemplate rules and decisions verdict must set aside.” the be upon the verdict shall rest as the law given in court’s the instructions and the evi etc., Houston, of Gray, The case Co. v. 105 permitted dence have been to which 42, 606, ap- Tex. 143 S. W. was cited with prej hear. All other extraneous matter of a udicial character must be excludeil. In proval Blackwell, in the later W. Bell case of v. 765, by the 283 S. B of Section Commis- the Ry. M., Hannig, case of K. & T. v.Co. 91 Appeals, said, quoting sion of where is it 347, 508, 509, S. Tex. 43 W. Mr. Justice from the headnotes: Gaines said: “The is true rule that in such requires any reversal, “Error if there .is case, a to in hold that the order error does effect, reasonable doubt of its harmful unless require judgment, not a reversal of the affirmatively appears er- from record that ought clearly appear injury to that no could ror was harmless. resulted from the admission have dence.” of the evi requires “Since error if is reversal effect, reasonable of harmful do.ubt find- prejudice In the of T. case Houston & C. R. v. necessary Co. of actual not to is 42, Gray, 606, Tex. 143 S. W. the where authorize reversal.” attorneys’ discussed, matter of fees was in strong expressions high- These are of our injury personal case, a said: Chief Justice Brown undoubtedly prop- est er furnish the taken “If the evidence the guide our action. reasonably judge doubtful the left it We conclude that the failure of the trial upon effect the statement had the of amount grant appellant’s motion for rehear- jury, the verdict we would feel in- ing constitutes reversible error. authority to exercise our clined set (cid:127)aside.” trial, In view of a new think we we presented appellants objec should tion add evidence the shows that case Mrs. presented form of issues the bones, Maunders no broken in- suffered her jury. according testimony juries, of doc- being resulting tor, character, aof nervous 1 reads as Issue No. preponderance follows:' “Find from disabling in a trouble. female The verdict a the evidence whether eoncededly large, judg- plaintiff, Maunders,'and excessive in wa* not Mrs. Edith approached justify Morgan, ruling complained Russell of the court the defendant bill, mentioned, complaints Grace in intersection of Ninth Street but as Falls, Texas, or about say we take in Wichita occasion Street in view of the approx- subject January 22, 1929, requirements in automobiles at nature and of the imately relating thereto, time.” the same our statute apply every pre- not inclined case the prepon- 2 reads: “Find from a Issue No. sumption indulged by the other decisions of defend- derance of the' evidence whether the Appeals, Courts Civil Morgan operated above cited in mo- ant Russell drove appellees. half highway upon public within tor vehicle corporate City Wichita the Falls, Texas, limits of the 218, In Gee, the case of Whitaker v. 61 Tex. speed greater than Supreme at a rate of Court held that: entitle “To twenty per party miles hour at the time ruling to the revision of collision, any, plaintiffs’ car between regard court below in the admission or re- jection defendants’ car.” evidence, pre- the matter must be so exceptions proper bill sented filed in remaining adapted issues, sev- fully as time to enable this court to under- alleged by grounds negligence eral plaintiffs, prepared stand and know all facts on which the correct- are are form. We same ruling depends.” ness or incorrectness of the form in clear, we issues were think, It submitted. Rogers Richards, 658, N. M. 47 P. objection. It are free 719, exception it is said that a bill of is to im- be noted that the issues are embrace, among things, all the evidence perative may apply to be said to mood and necessary understanding excep- to an negative an- as well as to an affirmative tions and a review thereof. swer, perhaps tend to obscure Article Rev. Civ. Statutes of re- jurors minds of the untrained technical lating exceptions, perti- bills far so as forms, the essential rule that burden nent, reads as follows: was rial mate- to establish the particular “1. No form of words shall be re- presented petition issues in their a quired exception; objec- in a but the preponderance the evidence. A better of would be: “Do ruling tion to the or action court shall or so much form, think, find from circumstances, stated such that,” preponderance etc. evidence necessary of the evidence as to ex- form, approved In such with the defini plain, more, briefly and no whole as “preponderance tion of given by of the evidence” possible. mind, the court party taking exception “5. The a bill of unnecessary give, urged by appel be lants, *7 writing present shall reduce the same to and separate charge on the of “burden judge signa- his allowance and proof,” appropriately applied to issues. the ture. questions, including Other of action the “6; judge shall submit such bill to the refusing peremptory the court in the instruc- party counsel, adverse or his if in attendance ground undisputed tion on the that the evi- court, correct, and found to be the Morgan dence showed that was on a mis- judge sign delay shall it without and file own, sion of his will he or de- discussed no.t clerk.” the termined, they may again inasmuch as not suppose, purpose Let us for the of an upon arise another trial. only, transcript ap illustration reasons, stated, judgment For of the the peal assigned duly urged, discloses error and reversed, trial court be and will the cause appellee during to the effect that counsel for remanded. the trial before a made a statement or Rehearing. On Motion for argument the court on its is face before manifestly violative some of rule of law or appellees complain very Counsel for earn- practice, pre and estly established of a character considering of our action in certain bills prejudicial sumptively legal rights exception alleged insufficient, of be in that by pleaded appellant; suppose and it further negative supposible fail to facts will exception from a bill of in due form justify rulings complained citing of, the Vin- objectional that was the statement or (Tex. App.) S.W.(2d) 753; cent v. Bell Civ. duly excepted upon proper the time to at Thompson (Tex. App.) v. Caldwell Civ. 22 S. objection grounds and that the was over W.(2d) 720; Houston, Ry. & E. W. Co. T. ruled, duly signed and that the bill has been (Tex. App.) S.W.(2d) 243, v. Sherman Civ. approved change explanation without or reading 244. We think close of these cases by offending both the trial court and counsel will disclose distinctions from the case we contemplated by as the statute. have before us. It is true that reference is circumstances, rulings made in one or of them to Under such the re- viewing required presume the appeal, of some of our courts of court be ‘the ex- exception possible nega- the effect that a bill of istence of some fact or must state of at- every tending tive fact or circumstances circumstance that would render the 79S bill without prejudicial than if the court of review the ef- such results objectionable without matter required explanation, is think stated, inclined we are
fect? As presumption in adhere to -the now rule of so. upon appellee and sisted cated counsel. It requirements subject in behalf of indi Blackwell, W. 283 S. v. Bell bi In his the decisions above cited Appeals, it of B Commission section of our seems in view of the to us appears, substance, held, if error in was harmful statute, of our the nature judg presumed effect will appellate an duties of affirmatively appears unless ment reversed duly signed exception, if a bill of expressly ap has This otherwise. ease judge approved and otherwise un Supreme Court. proved times several objectionable, presented with review App.) 15 Bailey (Tex. S. Com. See Parker v. presumption explanation, should be out Fidelity Floyd Casual ; W.(2d) Union 1033 duty indulged proving ap in did his S.W.(2d) App.) 363. ty (Tex. Co. Com. was no modi and that required reviewing court is such eases justifying fying explanation to be made. presumption. rebut the the record to to search We are not unmindful the rule decision ap- upon doing rests The burden of pellee. presumptions are in to the effect that fa offending and the counsel vor But this action. rule court’s ruling complained must be who made held to only proper application we think is of where knowledge the circum have full objected to, presented in matter ruling justify any, stances, if that will plainly objectionable, bill, is not and hence They natural also are harmless. or render it ly explanation in need in order to make mani ruling supporting interested prejudicial fest the error and its character. preparation of the word final have the bill already Where, however, indicated, specifically exception. re statute prejudicial prima error and character facie ruling objection or ac quires .“the appears, the rule decision referred to in with such be stated the court shall tion of circumstances, applied, judge’s action should be overruling not to the the evidence or so much of objection, sign to his act ruling. necessary explain” may necessary explan ing the bill without the embody complaining such counsel fails to ation. offending circumstances, sug opportunity make or the statute to However, press ques- in view of a of other proper gest In event correction. thought tions to be other cases and because not judge, any cause, the to do so from controlling failure as importance arriving at require approval, a condition of his conclusion, our cuss the the will not further final dis- necessary matter or add -the inclusion of proper application of -the explanatory the bill. in an note appellee insistently urges. rule now so subject brings before the the whole bill thus reviewing- say We original it sufficient to further that on without court for determination hearing thought in some instances resorting presump necessity mere distinguishable in this the bills case were may may well founded. not be tions that presented those cases cited in -the appellee, half in other instances contem us the statute It seems to appli- preparation as insisted plates this, rule without of a and that such miscarriages *8 fairly apparent We think of cation. calculated to avoid from a is best original justice. complaining reading opinion many argued If it be unwilling accept proceed- his bill as counsel is criticisms therein made ’the by opposing purpose ings amended counsel below of call- bystander’s right gives ing him the to a statute bill. thereto attention on another trial than for every lawyer experience purpose determining But knows whether the error remedy very questionable apparent pointed bene that this error out was such impossible procurement judgment. is of and require fit. It often resort hope a reversal rarely thereto made with well-founded n whole, continue O the permissi success. case it presented properly sufficient error to re oppos ble to entertain inference justice quire us interest of to reverse would be influenced to judgment and remand the cause for an permit, encourage, or favor the omission of trial. necessary explanatory matter to avoid criti judgment, rehearing accordingly cism or a reversal no more motion for adopted bring can about effective course overruled.