{ "id": 8719399, "name": "Edwards v. Clark", "name_abbreviation": "Edwards v. Clark", "decision_date": "1925-03-02", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "103", "last_page": "106", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "168 Ark. 103" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "133 Ark. 105", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1575108 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/133/0105-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 Ark. 327", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1530674 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/81/0327-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 Ark. 74", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1491123 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/80/0074-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 Ark. 159", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1320440 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/54/0159-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 Ark. 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8723453 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/74/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 Ark. 31", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "10 A. L. R. 296", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "14 Ark. 296", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "133 Ark. 105", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1575108 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/133/0105-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 377, "char_count": 6056, "ocr_confidence": 0.439, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.2085048201651911 }, "sha256": "0774bc48201d5702e07078cc7e0430b0f6d7c3204903ac2f3728772b0bb4a3e1", "simhash": "1:2232185f3a805d59", "word_count": 1074 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:11:28.689459+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Edwards v. Clark." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Wood, J.\nThis is an action by the appellee against the appellant for damages alleged to have accrued to appellee by reason of the negligent and willful act of the appellant in driving his car against the appellee\u2019s ear. The answer denied the allegations of the complaint. The appellant abstracts the testimony as follows:\nJ. A. Clark testified that tire time of day when the collision occurred was about fiye o\u2019clock. Tbe sun was shining, and the defendant was going towards the sun, down the hill, and the plaintiff was going away from the sun, up hill. The defendant (appellant) testified that \u201cthe sun was a little bit bad about 5:30 in the afternoon, but I could see the street very well ahead. I could not see as well as if there were no sun in my face.\u201d The witness was asked the following questions:\n\u201cQ. Weren\u2019t you figuring on that as a defense until now \u2014 because the sun was shining in your face, and it was an accident? A. No sir. Q. Mr. Bratton told you that wouldn\u2019t do, didn\u2019t he? A. No sir, I don\u2019t think he did. Q. Didn\u2019t Mr. Bratton tell you since that time that the sun business wouldn\u2019t work, or something to that effect, and you backed off of it? A. No sir; not especially. Q. Well, he said something about it, didn\u2019t he? A. Well, he said something about it, yes sir. I hadn\u2019t complained I couldn\u2019t see the street; if I had, I would have stopped, because I\u2019ll admit the sun does obstruct you some. Q. And you will further admit that you didn\u2019t see this car until you were within five or six feet of it? A. Yes sir. Q. I\u2019ll give you a foot difference. A. Yes sir.\u201d\nAfter setting out the above testimony, the bill of exceptions contains the following statement: \u2018 \u2018 This was all the testimony introduced in the trial of this cause with reference to the sun shining in the eyes of the defendant.\u201d The bill of exceptions concluded as follows: \u201cAnd now comes the defendant herein and presents this as its bill of exceptions herein to the judge of the court trying said above entitled cause, and prays that the same be by the said judge signed and approved, and the judge, after examination, doth sign and approve said bill of exceptions, containing only the excerpts of certain testimony and of certain witnesses, and doth order that the. same by the clerk be filed and made a part of the record herein. \u2019 \u2019 The bill of exceptions was signed by the trial judge. The official court stenographer certified that \u201cthe foregoing pages of typewritten matter, numbered 1 to 13, both inclusive, contain a full, true, perfect, correct and complete transcript of all of the testimony introduced in the trial of the above entitled cause with reference to the sun shining in the face of the defendant Edwards, and a full, true, perfect, correct and complete transcript of all of the instructions given in the trial of 'this cause. \u2019 \u2019\nThe fifth ground of the motion for a new trial is as follows: \u2018 \u2018 The court committed error in giving instruction No. 6, wherein the court told the jury that, if the sun was shining in defendant\u2019s face and blinding him, it was defendant\u2019s duty to stop his automobile, and that, if he failed to do so, it was negligence, and that for that reason could find against him.\u201d\nThe sixth ground of the motion for a new trial is as follows: \u201cInstruction No. 6, as given by the court, was not justified by the evidence .in the case and is not the law applicable thereto; said instruction attempts to point out a particular circumstance which did not occur and Which was not proved, and thereby mislead the jury; said instruction has no application to any part of the evidence offered by either party.\u201d\nThe verdict and judgment were in favor of the appellee in the sum of $150,- from which judgment is this appeal.\nThe bill of exceptions does not show affirmatively or inferentially that it contains all the evidence. In the case of Abbott v. Kennedy, 133 Ark. 105-108, we said: \u201cIn order to make the error of the court appear, it is necessary that the appellant present here a bill of exceptions which shows either by express statement that it contains all the testimony that was adduced at the trial, or it must contain statements from which it appears \u2018inferentially and by natural implication\u2019 that it contains all the evidence. \u2019 \u2019 This rule has been adhered to by this court in numerous cases, and we believe has never been departed from. See cases cited in the above case and also the appellee\u2019s brief.\nThe judgment is therefore correct, and it is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Wood, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Jeff Bratton, for appellant.", "D. G. Beauchamp, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Edwards v. Clark.\nOpinion delivered March 2, 1925.\nAppeal and eRkor \u2014 necessity of bringing up all the evidence. \u2014 An assignment of error in giving a certain instruction as \u201cnot justified by the evidence in \u00a1the ease\u201d will not be considered on appeal where the bill of exceptions does not show- either expressly or \u25a0inferentially that it contains -all the evidence.\nAppealed from Greene Circuit Court, G. E. Keck, Judge;\naffirmed.\nJeff Bratton, for appellant.\nInstruction No. 6 given by the court was erroneous. The instruction was given after argument of the case had commenced, and laid undue stress upon the matter of the \u00a1sun shining in appellant\u2019s eyes, practically amounting to instructing a verdict for the plaintiff, and that, too, upon a proposition injected into the case by the plaintiff not based on any allegation in the pleadings and not supported by any evidence of any consequence. As sustaining the contention of appellant, see 14 Ark. 296; 14 R. C. L. p. 780,784; 10 A. L. R. 296. If section 1292, C. & M. Digest, is to be construed literally, the instruction came too late and was improper. Instruction No. 1 was erroneous in that no qualification was made to -the statement as to \u201cthe law of the road.\u201d 136 Ark. 31.\nD. G. Beauchamp, for appellee.\nThe bill of exceptions did not contain all the evidence. Where there is no affirmative or inferential showing that all the evidence is contained in the bill of exceptions, the rulings of the court, etc., are presumed to be correct. 74 Ark. 551; 54 Ark. 159; 80 Ark. 74; 81 Ark. 327; 133 Ark. 105." }, "file_name": "0103-01", "first_page_order": 121, "last_page_order": 124 }