
    Archer A. Hale vs. The F. L. Bradbury Company.
    First Judicial District.
    Argued October 7th
    decided December 22d, 1919.
    Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant’s servant in the operation of one of its commercial automobiles, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County and tried to the jury before Burpee, J.; verdict for the plaintiff for $10,000, which the trial court refused to set aside as against the evidence, and from the judgment thereon the defendant appealed.
    
      No error.
    
    
      Edward K. Nicholson, for the appellant (defendant).
    
      Hugh M. Alcorn, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Per Curiam.

The issues presented by this case cast upon the plaintiff the burden of proving that the defendant’s servant was negligent and the plaintiff free from contributory negligence. The verdict of the jury imported that it found that he had established by a preponderance of proof the affirmative upon both these issues. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in not setting aside the verdict as being against the evidence in both respects. The issues were of fact pure and simple, and involved inquiries of a nature to make their determination peculiarly appropriate for the deliberations of a jury. Farrell v. Waterbury Horse R. Co., 60 Conn. 239, 257, 21 Atl. 675, 22 id. 544. Our examination of the record satisfies us that the oft-stated conditions justifying the intervention of the trial court to set aside the verdict rendered did not exist.

There is no error.  