Shannon

Action for personal injuries and damage to an automobile, arising out of a collision at a street intersection. Trial was had before a jury, which resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendants. Motion for a new trial was made and denied. From the judgment and order plaintiff has appealed.

Appellant bases Ms appeal upon two contentions: First, that counsel for defendant Haiden Auto Rental Service, Ltd., hereinafter designated as the Haiden company, made certain remarks to the jury which it is claimed constituted misconduct; second, insufficiency of the evidence to warrant the verdict. Appellant does not seriously urge the point that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the verdict, his claim being that such evidence being weak, the claimed misconduct might have been and in all probability was largely, if not absolutely, responsible for the verdict rendered, for which reason the error complained of warrants a reversal of the judgment even though the misconduct alone would not compel a reversal.

It may be said at the outset that in our opinion the evidence going in support of the verdict is not weak. The record shows a substantial conflict on material matters…