272 F. 435 | 7th Cir. | 1921
(after stating the facts as above).
The second assignment relied upon is without merit here, for the reason that at the time of the taking of the depositions in this case, counsel for plaintiffs had stated at the conclusion of the examination o.f several witnesses: “We have other witnesses outside who can testify to the loading of the cattle, etc.” Whereupon counsel for defendants said: “Their testimony will not be necessary.” The District Court certainly was warranted in accepting the stipulation as a waiver of identification.
In the view we take of the first, second, and third assignments, the court properly directed a verdict and entered judgment thereon.
The denial of the nrotion for a new trial was a matter purely in the ■ discretion of the trial court, which is not subject to review.
Judgment affirmed.