
    MIDLAND VALLEY R. CO. v. GREEN.
    No. 2577.
    Opinion Filed June 10, 1913.
    (132 Pac. 1086.)
    JUSTICES OF THE PEACE — Appeal and Error — Pleading—Sufficiency. Where the hill of particulars in a plain and direct manner states the facts constituting the plaintiff’s claim or cause of action, it is sufficient under the statute, and technical objections to such pleadings should not reverse a case, unless it affirmatively appears from the record that some substantial right has been prejudiced thereby.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Appeal from. County Court> Le Flore pountyj P. C. Bolg&r, Judge.
    
    
      Action "by W. H. Green against the Midland Valley Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Edgar A. de Meules and Sol. H. Kauffman, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Eben L. Taylor, for defendant in error.
   KANE, J.

This was an action commenced by the defen'dant in error, plaintiff below, against the plaintiff in error, defendant below, to recover the sum of $24 as stated by plaintiff in his bill of particulars for damages done him by the defendant- by running over and killing three of his hogs with their train. The defendant filed a general demurrer to the hill of particulars of the plaintiff, which after argument was overruled, and the defendant electing to stand upon its demurrer, judgment' was rendered against it. This proceeding was commenced to review the action of the court below in overruling the defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiff’s bill of particulars. The rule is that:

“Where the bill of particulars- in a plain and direct manner states the facts constituting the. plaintiff’s claim or cause of action, it is sufficient under the statute, and technical objections to such pleadings should not reverse a case, unless it affirmatively- appears from the record that some substantial right has been prejudiced therebyT (Gavin v. Harrell, 27 Okla. 373, 113 Pac. 186, 35 L. R. A. [N. S.] 862, Ann. Cas, 1912B, 744; Holden v. Lynn, 30 Okla. 663, 120 Pac. 246, 38 L. R. A. [N. S.] 239; First Nat. Bank v. Collins, 30 Okla. 497, 120 Pac. 245; Stevens, etc., Co. v. Dulaney, 31 Okla. 608, 122 Pac. 166.)

We have examined the bill of particulars before us, and are of the opinion that it sufficiently complies with the rule.

The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.

All the Justices concur.  