Russo-Chinese Bank v. National Bank of Commerce of Seattle

(after stating the facts as above). [1] It is manifest that if the special issue in response to which the special verdict was returnéd was supported by sufficient evidence, and there was no substantial error in the admission or rejection of evidence bearing on it, and the jury was not wrongly instructed in respect to that question, the judgment must be affirmed.

The record shows that the plaintiff in error requested the court to instruct the jury, among other things, as follows;

The court refused to give the instruction, and submitted the issue to the jury, to which action the plaintiff reserved an exception, and its ■ counsel here insist that “there is no evidence whatever that the draft was paid.”

The record shows that the plaintiff in error’s Port Arthur branch , caused the draft to be protested, and the plaintiff introduced other evidence tending to show that it was not paid, but it is a mistake to say, *651 as does counsel for the plaintiff in error, that there is no evidence to the contrary. We find in the evidence of the defendant’s witnesses Davidson and Short, and in that of Clarkson, as well as in the circumstances of the case, much evidence upon which the special…