Sрecial ground 1 of the amended motion for new trial assigns error on the admission of certain evidence, a hypothetical question, over objection. The ruling of the court was as follows: “I think it is admissible. If the facts as he stated them don’t appear in the record, I, of coursе, will rule the evidence out; now though subject to that, I am going to allow it.” No subsequent motion to rule out the evidence appears. “Wherе the court conditionally admits evidence, reserving a final ruling upon its competency until a later stage of the trial, it is not to be. expected that the court will bear the matter in mind and of his own motion exclude that which has been provisionally admitted; and it is the duty of counsel objecting to the admission of such testimony to remind the judge of the circumstances and to invoke a later and final ruling, if he so desires. In such circumstanсes as those referred to, the failure of the court to exclude testimony thus provisionally admitted is not error, unless a request to that effect be preferred by the party originally objecting to the admission of
*261
the evidence.”
Bacon v. Bacon,
Special ground 2 complains that the trial court erred in permitting the witness Thelma James to testify that children crossed the highway at the point where the plaintiff was struck. Other witnesses, including the defendant, testified without objection to the same facts, and under such circumstances the ground of the amended motion for new trial is without merit. See
Carmichael Tile Co. v. McClelland,
Special grounds 3 and 4 assign error on the admission of certain medical records and X-ray pictures. The objections made to such exhibits were that the witness did not make the X-ray pictures, and could not state that they wеre of the plaintiff, that it was not shown who< made the entries on the medical records, if the witness made them and if the witness had sole and complete possession of the records. No objection was made to the contents of the records and the objections made did not raise the question as to whether the contents of the documents were of the category authorized to be introduced under the prоvisions of Code Ann. § 38-711. The witness who identified the records and X-ray pictures testified that they were made and kept in the regular course of the business, and the admission of such evidence was in accordance with the provisions of Code Ann. § 38-711, supra. No error is shown by these grounds of the motion for new trial.
Sрecial ground 5 assigns error on the admission of evidence by the Sheriff of Appling County as to the minimum speed that the defendant was driving at the time the defendant’s truck struck the plaintiff.
The testimony in connection with such assignment of error was as follows: “Q. Sheriff, you have experience in driving automobiles? A. Yes sir. Q. And, in your position, as Sheriff, have you investigated wrecks and causes of wrecks, and speed of vehicles? A. Yes sir. Q. Approximatеly how far was it *262 from where it was indicated on the highway that the child was hit by the truck to where you found the blood where the child had been lying? A. 50 or 60 feet. Q. You say you did find skid marks? A. There was skid marks. Q. From your investigation of this collision that took place there and from what you saw at that time, what, in your opiniоn, was the minimum speed that the motor vehicle was being driven at the time it struck the child—taking into consideration where the truck finally stopped, and the distance the child was knocked down the highway, what in your opinion, was the minimum speed at which this vehicle was driven at the time it struck the child?” At this point the following objection of the defendant was overruled and the witness permitted to answer the last question. “I object to that question as he is calling for a conclusion from this witness without laying the proper foundation; second, it has not been shown that this witness is an expert and it would be а pure conclusion on this witness’s part to testify and answer that question.”
“Whether a witness has such learning and experience in a particular art, science, or profession as to entitle him to be designated as an expert, or to be deemed prima facie an exрert, is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and such discretion will not be disturbed unless it is manifestly abused. See
Clary v. State,
*263 Special ground 6 complains that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence a “sketch” of the scеne where the unfortunate event occurred.
W. H. Branch, a witness for the plaintiff, testified as to the distances shown on the “sketch,” as well as the locations of the items shown thereon, and under the decision in
Clarke County School District v. Madden,
Special ground 7 complains that the trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for nonsuit made at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence and special ground 8 complains that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a directed verdict.
“A motion for a nonsuit cannot be passed on in a case where the movant has filed a motiоn for new trial, one ground of which complains that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and is without evidence to support it.
Brannen v. Bowen,
“It is never error to refuse to direct a verdict.
Watts v. Roberts,
The sole remaining assignments of error are that thе trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial on the usual general grounds, and in overruling his motion for a judgment non obstante veredicto.
The plaintiff was a child six years of age and “Where a child six years of age is struck by an automobile such child is too ■young to be capable of contributory negligence.”
Red Top Cab Co. v. Cochran,
*264 The evidence authorized a finding that the defendant was exceeding the speed limit and was not keeping a proper lookout ahead at the time in question and that such negligence was the proximate cause оf plaintiff’s injuries. While the evidence on the trial of the case was in sharp conflict, and while a verdict for the defendant would have beеn authorized, a finding for the plaintiff was authorized, and the judgment overruling the usual general grounds of the motion for new trial and the motion for judgment non obstante veredicto was not error.
Judgment affirmed.