
    RIGHT TO COMMENT ON FAILURE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE.
    Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.
    The Cincinnati Traction Company, a Corporation, etc., v. Selma Muenchow, as Administratrix, etc.
    Decided, February 4, 1919.
    
      •Evidence — Counsel may Comment on Faihire of Opponent to Call Certain Witnesses — Argument may he Illogical Without Being Prejudicial.
    
    Argument to the jury to the effect that counsel for the defendant had failed to produce certain witnesses, at his command but unknown to the speaker, whose testimony had they been called might have had an influence favorable to the plaintiff, is not ground for reversal. '
    
      
      E. Kenneth Rogers, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Littleford & Ballard, contra.
   Per Curiam.

The defendant in error recovered a judgment in the court below against the plaintiff in error for causing the death of Gotthelf Muenchow. The sole error complained of is that counsel for plaintiff below was permitted to argue to the jury that they had the right to conclude from the fact that defendant’s conductor had taken the names of twelve witnesses and had only produced four that the evidence of at least one of the others would have been adverse to the company in one of the issues in the case.

Counsel had a right to comment upon the failure to produce evidence within the apparent control of the adverse party, and if his argument was illogical it was not the duty of the court to correct him. Thompson on Trials, Sections 983 and 989. The trial court was correct in refusing to rule as requested by defendant’s counsel.

Judgment is affirmed.

Jones, P. J., Hamilton, J., and Shoi-il, J., concur.  