Dwyer

The appellant asks for a new trial upon two grounds: 1st. Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict; and 2d. Errors in the instructions of the court.

There are two respects in which it is claimed the evidence was insufficient: 1st, as to the cause of the fire, which burned the plaintiff’s wood, and damaged his barge — whether it was caused by sparks from the smokestack of the defendant’s boat, or by some other means, with which the defendant was not connected; and 2d, as to the condition of the bonnet or spark-catcher attached to the smokestack of the defendant’s boat.

We have read with care all the evidence contained in the transcript, and the presumption is, that it contains all the evidence offered at the trial, having any relation to the foregoing points, and have no doubt as to the sufficiency of the evidence in both respects. Upon the question whether the fire was caused by sparks from the smokestack of the defendant’s boat, there is no pretense for saying, as claimed by counsel for the appellant, that there is no evidence in favor of the proposition that the fire was so caused. If counsel means to say that none of the witnesses testified that they saw a spark…