Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
It is undoubtedly the duty of the defeated party to have the shorthand notes of the reporter, or at least such portion of them as is material in the settlement of the bill of exceptions, transcribed into longhand in order to enable the court and the opposing counsel to learn, from a comparison of the transcribed evidence with the narrative of the evidence relating to the questions still in controversy, whether or not the narrative is correct and sufficient. When, however, a trial has been completed, and the errors assigned in it are about to be reviewed by the court above, many portions of the evidence generally become practically immaterial. It is seldom that it is necessary that all the evidence should be presented, as it was given, to either court or counsel.
In this case, plaintiff Lee sued the defendant railway company Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. for damages because while plaintiff was a passenger on one of its trains, it ran through an open switch into collision with some cars on a side track and shocked, bruised, and injured plaintiff’s neck and head and his nervous system. He suffered and continues to suffer pain, his neck and shoulder became stiff, and his arm partially paralyzed. For its part, defendant denied the material averments of the plaintiff and averred that at the time of the accident, and ever since, the plaintiff was suffering from rheumatism and Bright's disease, that these diseases were not aggravated and plaintiff was not injured by the collision, and that, if he has suffered, all his sufferings were caused by his rheumatism and his disease. A large amount of evidence was introduced at the trial upon the issue whether plaintiff’s condition and sufferings after the accident were the effect of traumatic neurasthenia, as he claimed, or of rheumatism or Bright's disease, as insisted by the defendant. The trial court instructed the jury that the evidence was so conclusive that the plaintiff was suffering from a disease that it could not permit a verdict for the plaintiff to stand, and they must return a verdict for the defendant.
Were there substantial evidences that would sustain a verdict for the plaintiff?
The court held that the court only decided the question that, it was unnecessary to have all the evidence in the case transcribed in the form of question and answer and to insert it in the bill of exceptions, thus, this court was unable to find that there was any error in the ruling of the court, especially as it has expressly certified that the bill of exceptions contained all the evidence introduced in the case. The conclusion was that the bill of exceptions in this case was sufficient to present for review the question whether or not there was so much and such substantial evidence at the trial as would have sustained a verdict for the plaintiff.