Cronin v. Hoage
| Decision Date | 06 March 1922 |
| Docket Number | 10035. |
| Citation | 71 Colo. 194,205 P. 271 |
| Parties | CRONIN v. HOAGE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Charles C Butler, Judge.
Action by Charles E. Hoage, a minor, appearing by his next friend of his own selection, Hattie Hoage, against M. V. Cronin, doing business as the Cronin Auto Livery Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
John T Maley and Paul De Laney, both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Jacob V. Schaetzel and Walter E. Schwed, both of Denver, for defendant in error.
Defendant in error, appearing by his mother as next friend, recovered a judgment against the plaintiff in error in an action for personal injury.
Defendant in error, a boy 14 years of age, about 5:35 on a January morning, was riding across the Fourteenth street viaduct with another boy named Broadie, both on bicycles. The Broadie boy was about 10 feet in advance of the plaintiff, riding in the right hand track of an automobile, which had passed over the viaduct subsequent to the fall of five or six inches of snow. Plaintiff was riding in the left-hand track of said vehicle. An automobile belonging to the defendant, and driven by one Kidd, ran down the plaintiff, and inflicted upon him the injury of which he complains.
The testimony as to the accident consisted of that of the two boys, the only eyewitnesses of the accident, of a police officer who testified as to the automobile and bicycle tracks, as did the husband of plaintiff in error, who was at the scene of the accident an hour or more after it occurred. The driver of the automobile was not a witness.
Plaintiff in error contends that the evidence is wholly insufficient to support the verdict. A reading of the record does not sustain this contention. There was evidence from which the jury might reasonably have found as they did, though there was other evidence from which a contrary inference might have been drawn. Under that condition we cannot disturb the verdict.
It is further contended that the court erred in permitting counsel for plaintiff to read from a complaint filed by the defendant in an action for the alienation of her husband's affections. The court admitted this evidence solely as bearing upon plaintiff in error's testimony that she was living with her husband, and with him visited the scene of the accident on the morning it occurred. We find no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Compton v. People
...of Mr. Justice Sheafor in Eachus v. People, 77 Colo. 445, 448, 236 P. 1009, 1010: 'We can say here, as we said in the Cronin Case [71 Colo. 194, 205 P. 271] that: 'there was from which the jury might reasonably have found as they did, though there was other evidence from which a contrary in......
-
Wilson v. People
...identified by the prosecuting witness. He admitted being in the company of Comella during the preceding night. We said in Cronin v. Hoage, 71 Colo. 194, 205 P. 271: 'There was evidence from which the jury might reasonably have found as they did, though there was other evidence from which a ......
-
Eachus v. People
...P. 120. As to what is required in support of a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, see the following: Cronin v. Hoage, supra; Ward v. Atkinson, Barron v. People, 66 Colo. 32, 34, 179 P. 815; C., S. & I. Ry. Co. v. Fogelsong, 42 Colo. 341, 94 P. 356; 29 Cyc. p. 9......
- Steere v. McComb