Morgan

Heydenfeldt, J., concurred.

It does not appear from the record in this cause, that the reading, by plaintiff’s counsel in his address to the jury, of any portion of the answer which may have been stricken out, had any tendency to prejudice defendant’s cause.

The mere fact that counsel had read upon trial, a part of the answer which had been stricken out, would not of itself be error in this Court. It might frequently be necessary to read the portion of a pleading, which had been stricken out, just previous to a trial, in order to make sense of that which remained. The appellant could have asked the Court to rule it out as testimony, and charge the jury to disregard it in the cause. It is not every impropriety, committed in the trial of a cause, which can be set down as error in this Court. This Court has *410 repeatedly ruled, that error, which is relied on, must be shown clearly and affirmatively. Rabe v. Wells & Co., 3 Cal., 148 . The same general doctrine is also held in Clayton v. West, 2 Cal., 381 ; and in Kilburn v. Ritchie, 2 Cal., 145 . It does not appear, that any question of interest was mooted in the Court below; nor does the record raise any such question. Errors…