51 Ark. 330 | Ark. | 1888
In this case the tract over which the road was located and which alone was described in the complaint, was unfenced woodland, but the proof shows that it adjoined and was a part of the owner’s farm, and there was no pretence at the trial that the company was taken by surprise at the claim for damages to the residue of the tract, .and no specific objection was made on that account. It cannot avail now.
The court’s charge limited the jury to the consideration of such elements of damage as it has been frequently determined by this court, may be taken into account, and is not as broad as counsel for the appellant appear to apprehend.
The verdict appears to be a liberal award for the injury sustained, but it is within the range of the proof, and was satisfactory to the trial judge, whose opportunities for determining its fairness were better than ours. We will not disturb it.
Affirm.