The opinion of the court was delivered by
The first two grounds of error presented by counsel in their brief seem scarcely warranted by the record. It is said that the court erred in sustaining a challenge for cause. The record is not altogether clear, but it seems more probable that the juror was excused at his own request, than on account of the challenge. It says that the juror was challenged for cause, and the challenge sustained. But it also says that the juror stated that if one of the witnesses in the cáse, an agent of the plaintiffs, was to be affected by the result, he should not like to sit as a juror, that he should certainly believe such witness, and then adds, that “ on his own request the court excused him.” It does not appear that there was any difficulty in obtaining a wholly impartial jury, and- we think there is nothing in this action of the court to justify us in disturbing the judgment. (The State v. Dickson, 6 Kas., 209.)
II. The next objection is, that the court rejected certain testimony. As this testimony was subsequently admitted, we suppose any error in the ruling, if error there was, was avoided.
We see no error in the admission of this testimony, and the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.