
    Pettit v. North Fayette Township, Appellant.
    May 21, 1934:
    Argued March 28, 1934.
    Before Frazer, C. J., Simpson, Kephart, Schaffer, Maxey, Drew and Linn, JJ.
    
      Mayer Sniderman, for appellant.
    
      Charles G. Notari, of Marshall, Braun & Notari, for appellee, was not heard.
   Per Curiam,

Defendant appeals from refusal of its motions for judgment non obstante veredicto and for new trial after judgment entered for plaintiff in an action of trespass to recover damages for injuries received in an automobile accident about 6:40 p. m., October 28, 1930. Tbe alleged negligence of defendant was failure to maintain, in reasonably good condition, an unimproved township road, surfaced with a material known as “red-dog,” by permitting a depression some four feet long, three feet wide and twelve inches deep to exist in the roadway. The testimony as to whether or not a defect in the roadway, sufficient to charge the township with negligence, existed at the point of the accident, was quite contradictory, and presented a question peculiarly within the province of the jury to answer; and that question having been determined adversely to defendant, we are concluded by their verdict: Remppis v. Ettelt, 310 Pa. 479. The trial judge correctly charged as to defendant’s negligence, as well as to contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff, and a careful examination of the record discloses no reason for the award of a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.  