Aungst

In this action, tried before a jury, a verdict was returned in favor of the defendant. Upon motion of counsel for the plaintiff a new trial was granted. The defendant appeals from this order.

The facts involved in this action are identical with those presented in the companion cases of Helen P. Bennett v. Central California Traction Co., ante, p. 1 [ 1 Pac. (2d) 47 ], and G. A. Schilling v. Central California Traction Co., ante, p. 30 [ 1 Pac. (2d) 53 ], A detailed statement of the facts involved is set forth in the opinion of this court filed in the Bennett case on June 13, 1931. In the instant case all the legal questions involved in the Bennett ease are again presented, but as we are satisfied with our conclusions in the Bennett case we will content ourselves with referring thereto concerning all questions involving the admission of testimony and the rulings of the court, other than as hereinafter set forth. The testimony introduced in this case being in all respects similar to that introduced in the Bennett case, it is sufficient, without setting it forth, to justify the ruling that it was sufficient to send the cause to the jury.

The plaintiff began this action under the…