Greenwood

This was an action for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received by the defendant in error, who was the plaintiff in the court below, while a passenger on board a gasoline launch alleged to have been at the time owned and operated by the plaintiff in error between Nome and Bluff, in the district of Alaska. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. For the plaintiff in error, who was the defendant below, exception was taken to the refusal of the trial court to direct a verdict for the defendant, and to its refusal to give certain requested instructions to the jury.

In support of the first exception mentioned, it is contended that the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant was operating the boat at the time in question, failed to show that it was a common carrier, and failed to show that its alleged negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. An examination of the record clearly shows that counsel for the plaintiff in error is wrong in each particular. In the first place, the testimony of George T. Williams, who was president and manager of the defendant company, plainly shows that the company was a common, carrier…