Aрpellant has moved for a diminution of the record on appeal, whereby he seeks to have incorporated in it a duly certified copy оf his notice of appeal, and certified copies of various documents and account books by which he maintains it is shown that a jury trial was waived by the parties.
The notice of appeal is a necessary part of the record in order that this court may be enabled to assume jurisdiction of the appeal. As it is a document which may be certified by the clerk alone, the motion to make it a part of the record is granted and the certifiеd copy presented with the motion for diminution of the record is ordered filеd.
(Lapique
v.
Kelly,
As will appear in our consideration of the appeal from the judgmеnt, the other documents which appellant desires incorporated in the record could have no bearing on the final determination of this appeal. The motion for diminution of the record as affecting all copiеs other than the notice of appeal is denied'.
Appellant objected to a trial by jury at the time the case was called in the department of the presiding judge for assignment to a trial court. He renewed his objectiоn in the trial department. Both judges overruled his objections and the case was tried before a jury which returned a verdict against him. His counsel now states that thе case was first set down for trial on December 7, 1931; that the trial was continued from time to time until July 25, 1932, when it was had; that one day’s jury fee was deposited May 6, 1932. Assuming these fаcts to be true, the trial of the case
*573
before a jury does not constitute reversible error. In
Dickey
v.
Kuhn,
This action grew out of a collision, in an intersection of publiс streets, between a light sedan driven by plaintiff and a loaded oil truck and trailer driven by defendant.
Defendant urges as grounds for reversal: that the evidence fails to show negligence on his part and does show the contributory negligencе of the plaintiff; that the damages awarded are excessive; that the triаl court committed errors in the admission and exclusion of evidence and in refusing his proposed instructions to the jury and in instructions given.
The case presents nо new or unusual features and it is unnecessary to detail the evidence here. The evidence on the questions of the negligence of the defendant and contributory negligence of the plaintiff is sharply conflicting. There is evidence supporting the implied findings of the jury on both questions. That being the case the verdict and judgment finds evidentiary support and cannot be disturbed by us.
The jury returned a verdict for $7,587. The plaintiff was seriously injured and had not fully recovered at the time of the trial, more than a year after the accident. "We find nothing in the record tо indicate that the jury was influenced by passion or prejudice in arriving at its verdiсt.
We have examined the record and are satisfied that the rulings of the trial judge on objections made by counsel were fair to both parties. We find no рrejudicial error in any of them.
*574 The instructions given the jury correctly stated the lаw applicable to the case. The instructions proposed by defеndant and not given were properly refused.
The attempted appeals from the verdict and the order overruling objections to a trial by jury are dismissed.
The judgment is affirmed.
Barnard, P. J., and Jennings, J., concurred.
A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on April 3, 1934.