
    ETHRO D. HILL v. MRS. VICTORIA WARD and RAYMOND JOSEPH WARD.
    (Filed 21 October, 1959.)
    Appeal by defendants from Foimtain, S. J., at May, 1959 Term, of Lenoir.
    Civil action to recover of defendants property damages proximately caused by the actionable negligence of defendant in the operation by Raymond Joseph Ward of an automobile owned by Mrs. Victoria Ward and usedi for family purposes.
    Upon trial in Superior Court plaintiff offered evidence. On the other hand defendant introduced no evidence. And the case was submitted to the jury upon these three issues, which the jury answered as indicated:
    “1. Was the plaintiff's automobile damaged by the negligence of the defendant, Raymond Joseph Ward, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.
    “2. If so, was Raymond Joseph Ward driving an automobile of Mrs. Victoria Ward, and was said automobile maintained by her as a family purpose vehicle and being so operated by Raymond Joseph Ward at the time, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.
    “3. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover: Answer: $1,567.50.”
    From judgment in favor of plaintiff in accordance with the verdict defendants appeal to Supreme Court and' assign error.
    
      Joríés, Reed & Griffin for •plaintiff, appellee.
    
    
      J. Faison Thompson & Son for defendants, appellants.
    
   Pee CüRIAM.

A reading of the evidence shown in the record of case on appeal taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff tends to support the verdict rendered. The case appears to have been presented to the jury in accordance with well established legal principles, and prejudicial error is not made to appear. Hence in the judgment from which appeal is taken there is

No error.

Higgins, J., not sitting.  