Dodd

On this appeal, in substance the appelants concede that through the negligence of the defendants, and without contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff, the. latter sustained certain injuries for which she was entitled to a judgment for “some damages”.

The first point presented by the appellants as affording a sufficient reason for an order by which the judgment. would be reversed, to wit, that ‘ ‘ the evidence establishing and demonstrating that plaintiff gave false testimony relating to the state of her mental and physical condition prior to the accident in question, and supporting the issue that her physical condition was purely mental and imaginary, and that she was a malingerer within the theory of the defense”, goes merely to the effect either that the evidence introduced by the defendants largely preponderated over that presented by plaintiff, or that the latter evidence was insufficient to support the judgment. In that connection, an examination of the evidence introduced on the trial of the action merely leads to the inevitable conclusion that, as between the evidence offered by plaintift and the defendants respectively, a conflict existed. In such circumstances,…