Singer Manufacturing Company v. Rogers
| Decision Date | 01 March 1902 |
| Citation | 67 S.W. 75,70 Ark. 385 |
| Parties | SINGER MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. ROGERS |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court, JAMES S. THOMAS, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
C. F Greenlee, for appellant.
The verdict is so plainly against the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice, and should be reversed. 21 Ark 468; 24 Ark. 224; 13 Ark. 71; 8 Ark. 155; 10 Ark. 309; 2 Ark 360; 5 Ark. 407; 6 Ark. 86; ib. 428; 10 Ark. 138, 491; id. 638; 26 Ark. 309; 39 Ark. 491; 34 Ark. 640; 57 Ark. 468.
This is an appeal from the Monroe circuit court. The appellee filed no brief, and the case was submitted on the brief of the appellant only. The main ground on which the appellant relies for a reversal is that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict, but the typewritten transcript of the record which appellant has filed here is such a blurred and indistinct copy that the evidence cannot be read without some trouble, nor without more or less strain on the eyes. If we knew that a simple remonstrance would stop clerks from sending such transcripts here in the future, we would put up with this transcript, and only call attention to the defect in disposing of the case, but we have tried this with little or on effect. It is not infrequent that clerks send up just such blurred and indistinct copies of the record as the one in this case. As they are required to file only one copy of the record, we know of no reason why they should not send here a first copy, which has not been blurred by the taking of other copies from it.
To consider evidence presented in the shape that this record presents it is inconvenient and annoying, and tends to delay. For this reason we feel justified in refusing to consider the record in its present shape, and therefore order that appellant file another copy of the transcript within thirty days, or its appeal will be dismissed.
[An amended transcript having been filed, the following opinion was delivered April 26, 1902.]
RIDDICK J. J. D. Rogers, of Brinkley, Arkansas, was in 1894 employed by the Singer Manufacturing Company to act as its agent in the matter of selling machines and collecting the price thereof. He entered into a contract with the company for that purpose, and executed a bond in the sum of $ 500 for the faithful performance of his duties. Rogers acted as agent of the company for two or three years, when he was discharged or quit the business. Afterwards the company brought this action against him to recover the sum of $ 306.56, which sum it alleged was due from Rogers for moneys collected and machines sold and for other matters set out in the complaint. Rogers filed an answer denying that he was due the company the sum named in the complaint, but alleged that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. State
...a verdict, see also 1 McLain, Cr. Law, § 409; 43 Mont. 31; 114 P. 112; Ann. Cas. 1912 C, 235; 50 N.W. 59; 109 Iowa 624; 70 Ark. 385; 57 Id. 492; 10 Id. 492; Id. 639. The testimony of defendant and his witnesses is uncontradicted and the jury had no right to disregard it. 101 Ark. 532; 96 Id......
-
Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad Company v. Hickey
...facts as to make the verdict clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence and to shock the sense of justice. 26 Ark. 310; 34 Ark. 632; 70 Ark. 385, 79 Ark. Wood & Henderson, for appellee. 1. There was no error in refusing to strike out the amendment to the complaint. 23 La.Ann. 612; 36 Ar......
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Freeman
...of the switch stand, switch points, frogs, etc., after the wreck, the verdict is so palpably erroneous as to shock the sense of justice. 70 Ark. 385. 2. there was a defect in the engine, and if the flanges were too short, it was such a defect as the deceased knew or by the exercise of ordin......
-
Brock v. State
...in support of the proposition that the court will reverse where the evidence does not sustain the verdict, 93 Ark. 195; 63 Ark. 65; 70 Ark. 385; 88 Ark. 579; 79 Ark. 84 Ark. 555. 2. The argument of the attorneys for the State to the jury, objected to by appellant at the time, and here urged......