parently the proceeds of the operation of the city's street car system as an independent business. As to whether this was or was not prejudicial to the city was apparent to the trial court more clearly than it is made to us by this cold record. We note that counsel for the city did not ask any instruction from the court to the jury to disregard the observations of Mr. Tucker. Nevertheless, the court's remark, "Well, I guess Stone & Webster are not interested in this matter," seems to us to have been sufficient under the circumstances. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that this was not cause for a new trial. Two other contentions are made and very briefly argued: (1) That the wife of Plastino, present at the trial, was guilty of such misconduct as to prejudice the rights of the city in the trial; and (2) that the verdict was excessive, as being prompted by passion and prejudice on the part of the jury. We think it sufficient to say that we have carefully examined both of these contentions, and are quite satisfied that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in refusing to grant a new trial for either of such reasons. The judgment is affirmed. Fullerton, Main, Holcomb, and Mitchell, JJ., concur. MACKINTOSH, J. (dissenting). The opinion of the majority says: "Just as Plastino was starting his machine to cross the pavement and street car tracks behind the north-bound street car, he looked north, to see if there were any cars approaching from that direction upon the west track, and did not see any, according to his testimony. It is, it must be conceded, somewhat difficult to arrive at the conclusion that he did not see any car approaching from that direction, since his view was unobstructed for a long distance to the north beyond the north-bound street car, and the fast-moving south-bound street car was then approaching from the north upon the west track about a block away." The only objection I have to this statement is that, under the evidence, it is not "somewhat difficult to arrive at the conclusion that he did not see any car approaching from that direction," but that it is impossible to reach such a conclusion. He had stopped before attempting to cross a street 100 feet in width, upon which he had an unobstructed view for several hundred feet, and the testimony is that there was no other traffic on the street except the street car north-bound, and yet he says that, although he looked, he did not see the south-bound car. I cannot understand how his conduct can be other than negligent, as a matter of law. The only conclusion I can arrive at from this testimony is that he did not look, and under such circumstances as here surrounded him he must look. I therefore dissent from this opinion, and believe that judgment should have been entered for the appellant. ion. Bridges and Hovey, JJ. We concur in the foregoing dissenting opin 53 Vol. IX-Comp. CONTENTS TABLE OF CASES REPORTED A cumulative list of cases in the current issue and all previous issues Andrews Stel Co. v. McDermott (Ky. C. A.)... Adams v. Atlanta Const. Co. (N. Y. S. C.)........... Bamberger Electric R. Co. v. Industrial Commission of Utah. (Utah 64 122 291 359 120 54 S. C.) 314 Benton Coal Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill. S. C.) 520 Bingham Mines Co. et al. v. Allsop et al. (Utah S. C.) 473 Black Damond Collieries v. Deal (Tenn. S. C.)..... 79 567 Board of Com'rs of Okmulgee County v. State ex rel. Jackson mission et al. et al., State Industrial Commission (Okla. S. C.)... Board of Education of High School Dist. No. 502 v. Industrial Com(Ill. S. C.) 73 524 Bourgeois v. Union Bridge & Construction Co. (La. S. C.) Builders' Limited Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Compensation Ins. Board. (Minn. S. C.) 732 Buncle v. Sioux City Stockyards Co. (Iowa S. C.) 51 12 186 456 Cameron Coal Co. et al. v. Dunn et al. (Okla. S. C.) Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill. S. C.). Consolidated Fuel Co. et al. v. State Industrial Commission et al. (Tex. C. C. A.) Consolidated Underwriters v. Seale et Delaney v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. (Pa. S. C.) 765 al. Dodson v. Kansas City Refining Sales Co. (Kan. S. C.) 568 169 Donovan v. Duluth St. Ry. Co. (Minn S. C.) Driscoll v. Weidely Motors Co. (Ind. A. C.)... Duncan v. Iowa Ry. & Light Co. (Iowa S. C.) Duncan v. Kansas City Packing Box Co. (Kan. S. C.) Empire Health & Accident Ins. Co. v. Purcell (Ind. A. C.). 204 624 142 671 570 39 Employers' Liability Assur. Corporation, Limited, et al. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Cal. S. C.) Employers' Liability Assur. Corporation, Limited, In re. J. C.) Emry v. Cripes. (Kan. S. C.) (Ala. S. C.) Industrial Acc. Commission of Federal Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission Ferdisko v. W. F. Trimble & Sons Co. et al. (Pa. S. C.) Fischer v. Industrial Commission et al. (III. S. C.) Fortin et al. v. Beaver Coal Co. (Mich. S. C.) Fox v. Detroit United Ry. (Mich. S. C.) Franks v. Carpenter et al. (Iowa S. C.) Freedman v. Spicer Mfg. Corporation. 5 101 583 643 587 533 701 703 374 515 Gagnon's Case (Me. S. J. C.) 181 Gairt v. Curry Coal Mining Co. et al. (Pa. S. C.) 774 Gallagher's Case. (Mass. S. J. C.) . 591 Galloway et al. v. Lumbermen's Indemnity Exchange et al. General American Tank Car Corporation v. Weirick et al. Globe Indemnity Co. v. Henderson (Cal. D. C. A.) 117 Goldberger v. Goldberger et al. (N. Y. S. C.) 749 Golden's Case (Mass. S. J. C.). 58 Goldsmith v. Payne, Director General of Railroads (Ill. S. C.). Gonier v. Chase Companies, Incorporated (Chase Metal Works). (Conn. S. C. E.) Gratopp et al. v. Carde Stamping & Tool Co. et al. (Mich. S. C.). Great Western Power Co. of California v. Industrial Accident Commission et al. (Cal. S. C.) 188 7 Green et al. v. Green. (Tex. C. C. A.) 305 Gumilla et al. v. Industrial Accident Commission of State of California et al. (Cal. S. C.) 321 Haddad v. Commercial Motor Truck Co. (La. S. C.) 384 301 Hall v. Industrial Commission of Colorado et al. (Colo. S. C.) 655 626 149 Harris et ux. v. Calcasieu Long Leaf Lumber Co. (La. S. C.)... 57 Hart, In re. (Ind. A. C.) 373 Hassell Iron Works Co. et al. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Colo. 14 Hubbard v. Republic Motor Truck Co. et al. (Mich. S. C.) 190 Hubbard Steel Foundry Co. v. Remiszewski et al. (Ind. A. C.) 28 Hughes v. Cudahy Packing Co. (Iowa S. C.). 156 Hurley's Case. (Mass. S. J. C.) 585 Illinois Glass Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (III. S. C.) 660 (Ind. A. C.) 151 Industrial Commission of Colorado et al. v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., et al. (Colo. S. C.) Industrial Commission of Colorado et al. v. Peppas. (Colo. S. C.) .. 339 In re Hart. (Ind. A. C.) In re Kirk (Ind. A. C.) In re Moody (Ind. A. C.) In re Troutman (Ind. A. C.) Jackson v. Industrial Commission et al. (III. S. C.) Jurman v. Hebrew Nat. Sausage Factory et al. (N. Y. S. C.) Kanawha Fuel Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill, S. C.) 373 144 45 284 144 662 233 237 (Ill. 16 Lowe v. Morgan's Louisiana & T. R. & S. S. Co. (La. S. C.) Lumbermen's Reciprocal Ass'n v. Warner et ux. (Tex. C. C. A.) McAlester Colliery Co. v. State Industrial Commission et al. (Okla. McCartney et al. v. Wood-Temple Co. et al. (Mich. S. C.) 713 |