
    James J. Edwards, Appellee, v. Prest-O-Lite Company, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 22,308.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richabd S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed December 18, 1916.
    Rehearing denied December 29, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by James J. Edwards, plaintiff, against Prest-O-Lite Company, a corporation, defendant, for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff as the result of the defendant’s running into an automobile truck which the plaintiff was repairing in an alley. From a judgment for plaintiff for $2,250, defendant appeals.
    WilliS G. Shockey, Wiley W. Mills and Henrietta Krighel, for appellant.
    James V. Cuuniugham, for appellee; Charles A. Scott, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Trial, § 215 —when refusal to direct verdict not erroneous. It is not erroneous for the trial court to refuse to direct a verdict for the defendant where the evidence presents a question for the jury as to the negligence of the defendant.

2. Automobiles and gabages, § 3*—when evidence shows negligent operation of defendant’s auto truck. In an action for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while repairing his automobile truck in an alley twenty-one feet wide, as the result of the truck’s being struck by the defendant’s automobile truck, which was seven feet wide, evidence held to show that the defendant was negligent in the operation of his truck and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.

3. Appeal and ebbob, § 1420*—when error in trial court will not reverse. When the Appellate Court can see from the record that an error committed by the trial court in progress of the case was a harmless one, or that its injurious effect of a harmless character was obviated, so as not to affect injuriously, in the final judgment, the rights of the party against whom the error was committed, it should not be allowed to work a reversal.  