jury would have been able to see that the plaintiffs were not the kind and character of people to suffer humiliation and shame on account of being moved out of a house in the presence of immediate neighbors. We do not think that counsel is in a position to argue this question. The objection that these questions went to the measure of damages was not specifically called to the attention of the trial court, and we have held that before the question can be raised on appeal, the ground of objection must be specifically stated. See Philip v. Heraty, 135 Mich. 446, 456, in which decision many cases are cited.

2. It is also urged that the court erred in not declaring a mistrial on account of the argument of counsel for plaintiff, stating to the jury "that they must have more than $100 damages, for in case they did not get that much, costs would be charged against him and that he would obtain nothing." When this argument was made and objection taken, the court immediately stated that the jury should not consider the argument and were not to take into consideration the costs or who was going to pay them. Again in his general charge he covered the same question and advised the jury that they had nothing whatever to do with the question of costs. We have often held that under these circumstances improper argument does not constitute ground for reversal. See Reese v. Railway, 159 Mich. 605; Merrill v. Tinkler, 160 Mich. 580; Wheeler v. Jenison, 120 Mich. 428; Pruner v. Railway, 173 Mich. 152; Devich v. Dick, 177 Mich. 177; Eberts v. Sugar Co., 182 Mich. 473; also Goldman v. Railway, post, 543.

3. The remaining assignments of error relate to the charge of the court. It is stated in the brief for the defendants that the question involved in this case is, "the right of a landlord to enter upon his premises and put out of possession one who holds them unlaw

fully and without right;" it being conceded that the tenancy had been terminated by proper notice. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the entry and possession obtained by the defendant Mary A. Miles was obtained by stratagem and fraud and was not a peaceful entry within the meaning of the law. It is his claim that after such entry was obtained by stratagem, the officers followed and by false representation as to the writ of restitution made to both his wife and himself, took the goods from the premises and notified him that unless he provided a place for his goods, they would be dumped into the street; that under such circumstances, plaintiff's direction to take the goods to the home of his father can not be said to have been a voluntary surrender of the premises. We think that the law with reference to this situation is fairly settled by the decision of this court in McIntyre v. Murphy, 153 Mich. 342, a case similar in many respects to the one now before us. No actual violence was used in that case, and there, as here, there was merely the display of force. A verdict for the plaintiff was directed, and was sustained by this court. Justice CARPENTER, in writing the opinion, reviews the statute here in question and the authorities, and it seems unnecessary to again go over the legal questions involved. The court concluded that while it did not appear that actual violence was used towards the inmates of the house, there was a display of force calculated to intimidate and terrify them, and that, under the authorities discussed in the opinion, the entry was forcible and contrary to the statute. The court there sustained the direction of a verdict for the plaintiff, but we are of the opinion that it clearly was not error to submit the questions in the instant case to the jury, and are of the opinion that the court might properly, under the facts and circumstances of this case, and under the authority of the McIntyre Case, supra, have directed a

verdict for the plaintiff as to the liability of the defendants. That being true, there could be no error in submitting the question to the jury, and the jury was warranted in awarding damages for injuries done to the plaintiff in the course of the eviction.

We have been unable to find any prejudicial error in this record, and therefore affirm the judgment.

OSTRANDER, C. J., and BIRD, MOORE, STEERE, BROOKE, and STONE, JJ., concurred. FELLOWS, J., did not sit.

1. AUTOMOBILES-NEGLIGENCE CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

In an action for the death of plaintiff's decedent, caused by his being struck by defendant's truck, where the evidence showed that decedent, in the middle of a block of a narrow street, suddenly stepped from behind another car where he could not be seen, and proceeded diagonally across the street with his back toward the direction from which vehicles would come, with his coat collar turned up and his head down, without looking, and apparently so engrossed in thought that he failed to hear either the noise of the truck or the shout of warning, and was hit by the truck, he was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, barring recovery.

2. SAME CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

NEGLIGENCE.

- UNLICENSED CHAUFFEUR ·

Where decedent was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, barring recovery, the fact that defendant's chauffeur was unlicensed becomes immaterial.

3. APPEAL AND ERROR-DIRECTED VERDICT-REVIEW.

Where the court below properly directed a verdict for defendant, the judgment will be affirmed by the appellate court although for a different reason.

Error to Wayne; Hally, J. Submitted January 11, 1918. (Docket No. 55.) Decided March 27, 1918.

Case by Jean Fulton, administratrix of the estate of James Fulton, deceased, against Frank Mohr for the negligent killing of plaintiff's decedent. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Dohany & Dohany, for appellant.

J. O. Murfin (Howard H. Campbell, of counsel), for appellee.

KUHN, J. On the afternoon of March 5, 1915, plaintiff's decedent, while attempting to cross Scotten avenue a short distance north of Michigan avenue in the city of Detroit, was struck by a one-ton motor truck belonging to defendant, then being driven by defendant's employee in connection with the plumbing business conducted by defendant in said city, and received injuries from which he died about an hour later. It had been a stormy day, and at the time of the accident a heavy, wet snow was falling. The truck was proceeding, at a speed of about eight miles an hour, along Scotten avenue in a southerly direction, and was keeping just a little to the right of the center of the street, which is 30 feet wide and was at that time free from other vehicles, except a Ford automobile parked, facing south, close to the westerly curb in front of the Standard Oil Company's offices, which face Scotten avenue at the point where the accident occurred. This Ford car measured 11 feet 3 inches in length and 4 feet 8 inches in width; its top was up and the side curtains on. No one saw deceased prior to or at the time he stepped off the west curb of the street, but an employee of the Standard Oil Company testified that she saw him a step or two from the curb, in front of this Ford automobile and within two or

three feet of it, walking at a moderate speed in a southeasterly direction diagonally across the street, at an angle of about 45 degrees. His head was down and his coat collar up. Just as he cleared the Ford car he was seen by the driver of the truck, which was then about three feet behind the rear of the Ford. The driver at once applied the brakes, turned his car to the left to avoid striking the man, and, just as the car hit the man, was reaching down to apply the emergency brake. He did not sound the horn-claims he did not have time-but another of defendant's employees on the truck yelled at the man, without, however, attracting his attention, and deceased was struck by the left front of the truck and received the fatal injuries. It cannot be exactly stated from the testimony how far the truck went after the collision, but the distance as given by the witnesses varies from 4 to 18 feet. There was some testimony to indicate that deceased had reached a point east of the center of the street at the time he was struck. When the truck was stopped, he was found between the axle and the left spring.

According to the testimony of the driver, the truck was not loaded, the brakes were in good condition, and under the conditions that existed that day, he could stop the car within its own length, 12 feet. The regular driver of the truck had been sick for some weeks prior to the accident, and a junior plumber in defendant's employ (not a licensed chauffeur) was acting as driver at the time of the accident. It appears that he had been driving this truck during the entire period the regular driver was away; also that he had driven it during the sickness or absence of the regular driver on prior occasions, and that he had driven other makes of automobiles at various times, his experience as a chauffeur extending over about four years prior to the accident.

At the conclusion of plaintiff's testimony, the court,