Schwartz

Reversal is sought of a judgment in favor of plaintiff against the defendant for failure in duty owed plaintiff, as in *193 vitee upon its. premises at Tucson, Ariz., for plaintiff’s safety.

Concisely stated, it is charged, and evidence produced tended to show, that a dangerous and deceptive condition in defendant’s baggage and parcel room was maintained and permitted to exist; that plaintiff, wholly ignorant thereof, and not having been warned of such condition, walked into the same, slipped and fell to her hurt.

Eight errors are assigned, viz.: (1) Overruling defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint; (2) error in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict; (3) error in giving plaintiff’s requested instructions 4, 5, 6, and 7, and refusal to give defendant’s requested instruction (8) error in denying motion for a new trial.

The appellant in its brief, “for the sake of brevity,” argued the assignments together. Error 3 is insufficient to raise a question on appeal, in that it does not show the ground of objection to the instruction. Royal Finance Co. v. Miller, 47 F.(2d) 24 , at page 27 (C.C.A.9); Sacramento, etc., Co. v. Loucks (C.C.A.) 36 F.(2d) 921 ; Dayton…