Coelho

The action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for the loss of the sight of his right eye, occasioned by its penetration by a chip of steel, brought about through the alleged negligence of the defendant. As the result of a trial before a jury judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $1,250. The appeal is by the defendant from the judgment and from an order denying its motion for a new trial.

Several points are discussed in the briefs, but at the oral argument counsel for the defendant stated that the defendant relied upon but one of those points for a reversal of the judgment, viz., that the trial court committed prejudicial error in refusing to allow the following questions on the cross-examination of an oculist, who had attended the plaintiff for about five weeks and was produced as a witness in his behalf.

(1) “Do you consider the wound one that would interfere at all with the labor activity of an ordinary laboring man?”

(2) “Do you consider that it would interfere with his work as a factory man, for example?”

(3) “Would it interfere with such work as he was doing, chipping steel with a sledge-hammer?”

(4) “Take one of the ordinary charts…