
    CHARGE OF COURT — INCOMPLETE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.
    Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
    The Hanauer Automobile Company v. Percy Evans.
    Decided, January 8, 1910.
    Where the evidence is not all set out in the bill of exceptions, a reviewing court can not say that the portions of the charge to the jury which are complained of were not properly given.
    
      Paxton, Warrington & Seasongood, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Mitchell Wilby, contra.
    The plaintiff below recovered a verdict for $250 against the automobile company on account of injuries from being struck by one of their autos.
    Smith, J.; Giffen, P. J., and Swing, J., concur.
   Upon the authority of the Supreme Court in the recent case of Duffy v. Queen City Box Company (reported without opinion, 81 Ohio State, reversing 11 C. C.—N. S., 69), the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

For aught that appears, the entire evidence not being set out in the bill of exceptions, we can not say but that there was evidence upon which the court might properly charge as it did in those portions of the general charge complained of by plaintiff in error.-

We do not think the court charged or intended to do so upon the doctrine of " last chance, " but merely called the attention of the jury to the duty that was upon the defendant if he saw the automobile .approaching.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.  