
    H. A. OLIVER v. WILTS VENEER COMPANY.
    (Filed 22 September, 1920.)
    Evidence — Questions for Jury — Instructions.
    In tbis action to recover damages for tbe alleged negligence of bis employer in causing an employee a personal injury, it is beld that tbe case was properly submitted to tbe jury, under correct instructions, and defendants’ exceptions to tbe evidence were without merit.
    Appeal from Lyon, J., and a jury, at April Term, 1920, of "WASHINGTON. From judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appealed.
    The following are the issues passed on by the jury:
    “1. Was plaintiff, H. A. Oliver, injured by the negligence of defendant, Wilts Yeneer Company, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: ‘Yes.’
    “2. Did plaintiff, by Ms own negligence, contribute to Ms injury, as alleged by defendant? Answer; ‘No.’
    “3. Did plaintiff, H. A. Oliver, execute the release, as alleged by the "defendant, Wilts Yeneer Company? Answer: ‘No.’ ”
    
      Tbe jury assessed plaintiff’s damages at $6,000.
    From tbe judgment rendered tbe defendant appealed.
    
      Majette & Whitley for plaintiff.
    
    
      Z. V. Norman and Small, MacLean, Bragaw & Rodman for defendant.
    
   Eer Curiam.

Tbe plaintiff wa.s injured while wiping oil off a shaft in tbe veneer plant of defendant, tbe sleeve of bis jumper catching in tbe cogs, causing bis arm to be drawn between tbe cogs and severely mashed.

Tbe motion to nonsuit was properly overruled, there being abundant evidence justifying bis Honor in submitting tbe issues to tbe jury.

There are 56 assignments of error, 39 of them being to tbe evidence and tbe remainder to tbe charge. We think that there is no merit in tbe exceptions to tbe evidence, and that, taking tbe charge as a whole, it is a full, clear, and fair presentation of tbe issues to tbe jury.

No error.  