O'farrell v. Templeman, (No. 19096.)

• Decision Date: 22 January 1929
• Docket Number: (No. 19096.)
• Citation: 146 S.E. 914,39 Ga.App. 222
• Parties: O'FARRELL. v. TEMPLEMAN.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

39 Ga.App. 222

146 S.E. 914

O'FARRELL.

v.TEMPLEMAN.

(No. 19096.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 2.

Jan. 22, 1929.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; G. H. Howard, Judge.

Action by G. H. O'Farrell against L. V. Templeman. Judgment for defendant, plaintiff's motion for new trial was overruled, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

G. Seals Aiken, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

McDaniel & Neely, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

STEPHENS, J. [1] 1. It appearing that no bona fide effort has been made to brief the evidence in this case by reducing it to narrative form, as is required before this court can be called upon to consider the evidence, but what purports to be the brief of evidence being questions and answers, matter excluded from evidence, objections as to the admissibility of testimony, and rulings of the court thereon, and interpolations and colloquies by counsel, this court will not consider the evidence. Section 6093, Civil Code 1910; Roberts v. Rowell, 152 Ga. 97, 10S S. E. 466; Jackson v. Dorsey, 26 Ga. App. 372, 106 S. E. 210.

Judgment affirmed.

JENKINS, P. J., and BELL, J., concur.

On Motion for Rehearing.

STEPHENS, J. [2, 3] 2. In a suit to recover damages to the plaintiff alleged to have been received as the result of a collision between an automobile which he was driving and an automobile belonging to the defendant at the intersection of two streets, a charge by the court submitting as applicable to the case ordinances of the city in which the collision occurred, which provide that, at intersections of streets, vehicle drivers on the right of other vehicles shall have the right of way, and that drivers failing to recognize this right of way are guilty of reckless driving, and that the driver of a vehicle, when making a left turn into an intersecting street, shall have the vehicle under full control and shall not turn until the vehicle shall have passed beyond the center of the intersecting street, was not error upon the ground that the ordinances were not applicable and imposed no duty upon the plaintiff where the approaching automobile operated by the defendant was itself being operated in violation of an ordinance of the city requiring it to be equipped with lights. The failure of the defendant to comply with a law made for the plaintiff's protection does not excuse the plaintiff's violation of a law made for the defendant's protection.

3. No error of law...