...exception. It is not there dated whether the circumftances which fupport the objection were proved on the part of the Plaintiff) or on the part of the Defendant. The affured did not by that contract fecure himfelf at all events againft lofs, though he...

...exception. It is not there stated whether the circumstances which support the jobjection were proved on the part of the Plaintiff, or on the part of the Defendant. The assured did not by that contract secure himself at all events against loss, though he...

...drug, or in the administration of the same to the plaintiff. It is not suggested that there was any negligence on the part of the plaintiff, or on the part of any other person for whose conduct she is to be held responsible, until after the drag was administered,...

...drug, or in the administration of the same to the plaintiff. It is not suggested that there was any negligence on the part of the plaintiff, or on the part of any other person for whose conduct she is to be held responsible, until after the drug was administered,...

...HARMLESS . EBBOB— INSTRUCTIONS — OMISSION OF OBVIOUS WORDS. An instruction that "negligence, whether on the part of the plaintiff or on the part of the defendant, may be defined as the doing or failing to do some act or thing, which, under the circumstances,...

...shall not be necessary for the plaintiff in such action to allege or prove the want of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, or, on the part of theperson for whose injury or death the action. may be brought. Contributory negligence, on the part...

...the plaintiff could not recover. While there Is no presumption of negligence, as we have said, either on the part of the plaintiff or on the part of the defendant, from the mere fact that injury resulted to the plaintiff, yet when an electric railway is...

...demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. [4, 5] There Is no presumption of negligence either on the part of the plaintiff or on the part of the defendant, from the mere fact that injury resulted to the plaintiff by reason of the alleged accident....

...would exercise to preserve himself from being injured. There is no presumption of negligence, either on the part of the plaintiff or on the part of the defendant, from the mere fact that injury resulted by the train and automobile coming into collision...

...must be one in which, whatever may be the form of the action, recovery of possession is sought, either on the part of the plaintiff or on the part of the defendant. Order affirmed. AUGUSTUS H. HORNSBY vs. LD HAUSE. July 7, 1886. Eoal Estate Agent — Authority...