
    Parkes, Appellant, vs. Lindenmann, Respondent.
    
      November 15, 1911
    
    January 30, 1912.
    
    
      Trial: Setting aside perverse verdict: Appeal: Bill of exceptions: Error not affirmatively shown.
    
    1. A perverse verdict is one rendered in disregard of the law as given to- the jury hy the court.
    2. Where the hill of exceptions does not contain any part of the charge to the jury, this court cannot say that the court below committed error in holding a verdict p'er.verse.
    Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: J. 0. Ludwig, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    This is an action for personal injuries resulting from a collision with defendant’s automobile. The plaintiff on the afternoon of November 2Í, 1908, went to the southeast corner of National and Sixth avenues in Milwaukee, intending to board an east-bound street car at that corner, and took a position in the street about fifteen feet north of the curb and about two feet south of the south rail of the east-bound track, on which track a car was approaching from the west. While she was standing at this point the defendant drove his automobile up Sixth avenue from the south at the rate of about four miles an hour. He proposed to turn east on National avenue. As he reached the south line of that avenue he was a little west of the center of Sixth avenue, and he made a turn towards the east. He saw the plaintiff standing and looking towards the car, and testifies that he sounded his horn and steered his machine so as to go in front of her; that when he was within ten feet or so of her she started forward four or five feet, so as to bring her within the intended course of the machine, and he then turned his machine to go back of her and she ran back in front of the machine, and before he could stop it she had been knocked down and seriously injured, although slie was not run. over. Tbe jury returned tbe following special verdict:
    “(1) Was tbe plaintiff injured by being struck by defendant’s automobile at tbe intersection of National avenue and Sixth avenue, in tbis city, on November 21, 1908 ? A. (by tbe court)/Yes.
    “(2) Was tbe defendant, wben be turned into National avenue from Sixth avenue and up to and at tbe time of tbe accident, guilty of any want of ordinary care ? A. Yes.
    “(3) If you answer tbe second question 'Yes,’ state in wbat respect defendant failed to use ordinary care. A. Tbe defendant bad sufficient space on either side to pass plaintiff, and thus avoid tbe accident.
    “(4) If you answer tbe second question ‘Yes,’ was such want of ordinary care on tbe part of the defendant tbe proximate cause of the injury? A. Yes.
    “(5) Was tbe plaintiff guilty of a want of ordinary care which proximately contributed to tbe injury ? A. No.
    “(6) At wbat sum do you assess plaintiff’s damages? A. Seven thousand (1,000) dollars.”
    On motion of defendant tbe court set aside tbe verdict and granted a new trial on tbe ground that tbe verdict was perverse, and from tbis order tbe plaintiff appeals.
    Eor tbe appellant there was a brief by Otjen & Otjen, and oral argument by Henry Otjen.
    
    
      O. Doerfter, attorney, and IValter H. Bender, of counsel, for tbe respondent.
   Tbe following opinion was filed December 5, 1911:

Winslow, C. J.

In tbis case tbe defendant’s motion to set aside tbe verdict and for a new trial was based on a number of different grounds, but tbe record shows that it was granted on one ground only, namely, for tbe reason that it was perverse.

A perverse verdict is one rendered in disregard of tbe law as given to tbe jury by tbe court. 2 Bouv. Law Dict. (Rawle’s Rev.) 663; Black, Law Dict. (2d ed.) 896.

In tbe present case we are not informed as to wbat propositions of law were given to the jury by the court. The bill of exceptions does not contain the charge of the conrt or any part of it. Not knowing what the instructions given by the court were, it is manifestly impossible for us to say that the trial court was in error when it decided that the jury disregarded its instructions. As error must affirmatively appear before we can reverse the order, it must necessarily be affirmed.

By the Gourt. — Order affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied January 30, 1912.  