
    Swift et. al. vs. Applestone.
    There is no error in allowing the next friend of an infant plaintiff to act as an interpreter fot a witness in the case.
    tu an action for damages for injuries occasioned by the bite of a dog, the defendant’s knowledge of the vicious character of his dog maybe considered in estimating damages.
    Error to Oakland Circuit.
   Opinion by

Cooley, J.

The Court held that it could not he said that the permitting the next friend of an infant plaintiff to be sworn as an interpreter for a witness who did not speak the English language, was error, whatever objections of policy might seem to apply to such a course. The common law rules excluding parties and interested persons from testifying in civil cases are entirely done away witin this State.

Nor did the Court err in refusing to strike out the testimony of the witnesses Baumer and Bell. They seem to have been examined to show that the defendant below had knowledge as to the vicious character of the dog which inflicted the injury. This knowledge is properly taken into account by the jury in estimating the damages.

Plaintiffs in error argued that the Court below erred in not awarding judgment for them upon the whole record, inasmuch as the verdict was for them (defendants below, on the first and third counts and was inconsistent with any verdict against them on the second count, which was for the same cause of action as the others. Also that'the Court erred in not giving judgment in their favor for costs upon the issues found in their favor. It was deemed-sufficient as an answer to these arguments to say that the record did not show that any motion in arrest of judgment was made on this ground — The Court further held that the three counts in the declaration were not, as a legal proposition, for the same cause of action.

The course taken to double the damages was correct, knd the judgment was affirmed with costs.  