
    JOHN J. KLICK v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
    
    May 16, 1919.
    No. 21,220.
    Damages not excessive.
    Action for personal injury. The nature and character of the injuries were in dispute. Verdict for $8,200, reduced by trial court to $6,500 as a condition to the denial of defendant's motion for a new trial. On appeal held the damages, as reduced, are not so excessive as to warrant the supreme court in ordering a further reduction or a new trial. [Reporter]
    Action in the district court for Stearns county to recover $15,000 for injuries received while in defendant’s employ. The answer alleged that plaintiff knew and appreciated the dangers incident to the operation of the handcar and assumed the risks. The case was tried ¡before Roeser, J., and a jury which returned a verdict for $8,200. From an order granting defendant’s motion for a new trial unless plaintiff consented to a reduction of the verdict to $6,500, defendant appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      M. L. Countryman and A. L. Janes, for appellant.
    
      Donohue & Stephens, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 172 N. W. 958.
    
   Pee Ctjbiam.

Plaintiff recovered a verdict for the sum of $8,200 for personal injuries suffered by reason of the negligence of defendant. On defendant’s motion for a new trial the trial -court ordered a reduction thereof to $6,500 as a condition to a denial of the motion. Plaintiff accepted the reduction, and defendant appealed from the order denying a new trial. The only question presented by the appeal is whether the damages as -reduced are so excessive as to justify this court in ordering -a further reduction or granting a new trial. A careful examination of the evidence leads to a negative answer. The trial court was confronted with the plaintiff, and with full opportunity of measuring the extent of bis injuries fixed his compensation at $6,590. We find no sufficient reason for disapproving that conclusion. A discussion of the evidence would add nothing of value and we refrain. The nature and character of the injuries are in dispute, the dispute being that usually found in such cases.

Order affirmed.  