Practice—Special Verdicts—Judgment Supported bt One op the Verdicts.—When more than one special issue, which would sustain a judgment, is submitted to a jury, and the jury’s general verdict is supported by one of these special verdicts and is not supported by the others, if there be no self-destroying inconsistency between these special verdicts, that one which is correctly found will sustain the judgment, and the incorrect special verdicts become harmless error.

Id.—Special Verdict Part op Judgment-Roll.—Under subdivision 2 of section 670 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a special verdict of the jury, returned under section 625 of that code as it formerly stood, controlled the general verdict, and constituted a part of the judgment-roll.

Id.—Appeal—Diminution op Record—Stipulation as to Correctness op Transcript—Adding Special Verdicts to Judgment-Roll.— Motwithstanding the fact that the respondent had stipulated to the correctness of the transcript on appeal, if the appellant seeks to overthrow the general verdict of the jury and the judgment based thereon, by showing that error was committed as to one of the issues involved, the respondent may, under diminution of the record, complete the judgment-roll by adding thereto special verdicts, which were omitted from the transcript, and which would show that the judgment is sustainable regardless of the alleged error.

Id.—Settlement op Bill op Exceptions—Estoppel op Respondent.— The respondent was not estopped, by any stipulation or conduct in connection with the settlement of the bill of exceptions herein, from completing the judgment-roll by adding thereto the special interrogatories submitted to the jury and their findings thereon.

Id.—Examination op Witness—Leading Questions.—The asking of leading questions on direct examination is within the .control of the trial court, and is permitted or not in the court’s discretion.

Id.—Use bt Counsel op Derogatory Epithet Applicable to Depend-ant.—In an action on a policy of fire insurance, it is not a reversible error for counsel for the plaintiff, in questioning a witness, to use the epithet “welching” in reference to the defendant, if such adjective was withdrawn.

Id.—Testing Recollection op Witness—Discretion in Allowing Questions.—The allowance or refusal to allow a specific question on cross-examination upon a most minor and immaterial matter, solely to test the recollection of the witness, is within the discretion of the trial court, and its refusal will not warrant a reversal even if the appellate court were of the opinion that the question might have been permitted.

Id.—SUBRBBUTTAL—REFUSAL TO ALLOW REOPENING OF CASE.-It ÍS within the discretion of the trial court to refuse to allow a party, on surrebuttal, to offer evidence with respect to subject-matters as to which the witnesses for the party had testified in chief.

Id.—Fire Insurance—Loss by Earthquake—Spreading Fires—Instruction.—In an action on a policy of fire insurance, in which the defense was that the loss was directly or indirectly caused by earthquake, the defendant requested an instruction to the jury that if an earthquake caused directly or indirectly one or more fires, “and such fires or any one or more of them burned uninterruptedly from building to building . . . until they . . . reached and burned the insured property, then the defendant was not liable,” the court gave an instruction, substantially as requested, except that the word “uninterruptedly” was omitted. Seld, that the instruction as given was more favorable to the defendant than the one requested, and that the omission of the word was without injury.