Helm

Appellant was seriously injured on the eleventh day of September, 1926, in a collision between an automobile being driven by himself and one driven by A. M. Bagley, which occurred at a street intersection in the city of Los Angeles.

At the close of the plaintiff’s case the respondent, Easy Housekeeping Shop, a corporation, made a motion for non-suit upon the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove that A. M. Bagley was operating the automobile in the course of his employment by respondent, and that the evidence failed to show that Bagley was acting for or on behalf of the Easy Housekeeping Shop or within the scope . of his employment by it. This motion was granted. The sole question to be determined upon this appeal is whether or not appellant’s evidence was sufficient to raise an issue for the jury upon the question of whether or not Bagley was acting within the scope of his i employment in driving the automobile at the time of the injury to appellant, the employment of Bagley by respondent being admitted.

The evidence upon which appellant must rely in order to establish his contention that Bagley was acting for his employer and within the scope of his employment is…