1. Jurors — Challenges—Examination—Review—Record.

Under Code Civil Proc. Or. § 187, providing that an opinion already formed by a juror is not alone sufficient to sustain a challenge, but that the court must he satisfied from all the circumstances that the juror cannot try the case impartially, the ruling of the court on the juror’s qualifications will not be reviewed unless all of the evidence taken at the examination he presented in the record, although the testimony produced shows the juror to have a fixed opinion on the merits of the cause. State v. Tom, 8 Or. 179, followed.

2. Same — Challenges.

Under Code Civil Proe. Or. § 831, providing that the point of exception to a juror must he particularly stated, it is not sufficient to challenge for cause without stating the particular reasons for such challenge.

3. Same — Review.

Th.e discretionary finding of the trial judge in passing upon a juror’s qualifications will not be reviewed unless it appears to have been exercised arbitrarily.

4. Same — Exceptions.

Rejection, by the court, of a challenged juror for insufficient reasons, is no ground for exception when it appears that the remainder of the jury was made up of persons to whom the excepting party made no objection.

,S. Same — Review.

To base error upon the court’s rultag that a juror need not answer as to his prejudice against corporations, it must appear that the party making the challenge was thereby prevented from ascertaining whether the juror had such prejudice as would interfere with his conclusions in arriving at a verdict.

6. Personal Injuries — Evidence as to Family.

In an action for personal injuries it appeared that plaintiff had no external hurt except a slight bruise, but that he had been in bed ever since the accident, — a period of several months. Evidence was admitted without objection that he had a wife and home. Held proper to admit further evidence that he had two children, of seven and five years respectively, not for the purpose of increasing the damages, hut as explaining why the members of his family were not called to testify as to his condition during that time, and as tending to show that he was not shamming illness.

,7. Same — Medical Experts — Verdict.

In a damage suit for personal injuries, where the evidence points to some internal hurt, manifesting itself in symptoms of hysteria, the medical testimony being conflicting, an instruction that the testimony of defendant’s witnesses, who had had experience in similar oases, was entitled to the greater weight, is not necessarily disregarded in a verdict for plaintiff, where the latter had produced other testimony tending to show the serious nature of his injuries.

8. Same — Excessive Verdict.

A verdict for $10,900 for personal injuries to an adult is not excessive where the testimony of the attending physician, corroborated by that of another medical ex¡pert, was that plaintiff could not regain liis health, and other evidence tended to show the serious nature of the injuries, even though physicians called by defendant testified that plaintiff ought to recover soon.