96 Mo. App. 307 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1902
The evidence is, and the trial court found as a fact, that the supervision of the operation of the plant was under the sole control of the appellants and we rule this contention against the appellants.
“Q. What was damage to your loss of trade? What shirts could you manufacture?
“Objected to by defendants, as remote and speculative.
“Objection overruled and exception taken.
“A. In four days we could manufacture 600 dozen ■shirts; the average price we find out, during four years in business, is about $8 a dozen.
£ £ Q. What would the profit be ?
“Again objection made and overruled, and exception.
“A. Net profit would be between five and six h.undred dollars. ’ ’
The objection was not to the character or competency of the evidence to prove damages, but to the admissibility of any evidence to prove damages on ■account of the loss of profits in business on the ground that such profits are not recoverable in this character ■of action. The objection raised the question as to
This question was asked the witness.
“Q. What would be necessary to be done to that plant so as to catch the condensed steam and prevent such an accident that did occur, anfl prevent the water going into and blowing that up ? ”
Respondent objected to the question on the ground that the witness had not qualified himself to answer the question, which objection was sustained and an exception saved by appellants.
We do not think that the witness showed that he had had such experience in running plants of the kind in question as to qualify him to answer the question propounded. He did qualify as a steam-fitter but not as an operator of steam plants, nor was the question one which he could intelligently answer. To answer the question the witness must have had personal knowledge
Tbe finding of the facts by the learned trial judge is supported by tbe evidence and tbe facts as found warrant tbe judgment rendered.
Discovering no reversible error in the record the judgment is affirmed.