
    No. 846
    SPAETH v. ROTH
    Ohio Appeals, 2d District, Franklin County
    No. 1096.
    Decided Oct. 4, 1923
    166. ERROR.
    Verdict for defendant in automobile collision cast! held not manifestly against weight of evidence.
   BY THE COURT.

Epitomized Opinion

This -was an action for damage to an automobilj caused by a collision. Th,e plaintiff’s car was strucil by another car. The plaintiff ^stifled that thj collision was due to the negligence of the driver oj the-other car. ...This was-¡contradicted by both thj driver of the other car and a passenger in it. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, whereupon the plaintiff prosecuted error. In sustaining the judgment of the lower court, the Court of Appeals held:

Attorneys-F. S. Monnett and G. H. Doll, for plaintiff; Saffin & Sandles~ for defendant.

1. That it could not be said that the verdict was manifestly against the weight of the evidence, as reasonable minds might differ on the issues involved.

Attorneys — J. R. Kistner, for Trumbull Co.; J. H. C. Lyon and C. J. Well, for Plaintiff.  