Wallden

From ajudgment, awarding the plaintiff damages in the sum of $7,500 for injuries sustained in a street-ear accident the defendants have appealed. They contend (1) the verdict and judgment are excessive and wholly unsupported by the evidence; (2) counsel for plain tiff was guilty of prejudicial misconduct in Ms argument to the jury; (3) the court erred in its instructions to the jury; and (4) the court erred in refusing to charge the jury as requested. As a foreword they contend that the amount of the verdict when weighed with, the injuries actually sustained demonstrates the prejudicial character of the errors of which they complain.

There was evidence that the plaintiff’s injury was slight, if any; that after the accident the corporate defendant furnished her all necessary medical care in a reputable hospital at its expense and that in a short time the plaintiff had made practically a complete recovery—in other words, that the plaintiff’s damages, if any, were negligible. In this connection it should be stated that there was evidence that prior to the accident the plaintiff had suffered from, and at the time of the accident she was suffering from, generalized osteo-arthritis. On…