#### TOM RICH v. ANDREWS MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

(Filed 23 December, 1925.)

Appeal by defendant from Finley, J., at June Term, 1925, of CHEROKEE.

Civil action brought by plaintiff, an employee of tbe defendant, to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury, sustained by plaintiff while discharging bis .duties as such employee.

Upon denial of liability and issues joined, there was a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff, from which tbe defendant appeals, assigning errors.

Dillard & Mill and D. M. Tillett for plaintiff.

Martin, Hollins & Wright and M. W. Bell for defendant.

Pee Cueiam.

Tbe controversy on trial narrowed itself principally to issues of fact, which tbe jury alone could determine. Tbe chief assignment of error, or tbe one most strongly urged on tbe argument and in tbe brief, is tbe one addressed to tbe refusal of tbe court to grant tbe defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit, made first at tbe close of plaintiff’s evidence and renewed at tbe close of all tbe evidence. Viewing tbe 'evidence in its most favorable light for tbe plaintiff, tbe *878accepted position on a motion of tbis kind, we tbink tbe trial court was-justified in submitting tbe case to tbe jury, and tbat tbe verdict is fully warranted, thereby.

No benefit would be derived from detailing tbe testimony of tbe several witnesses, as tbe principal question before us'is whether it is sufficient to carry tbe case to tbe jury, and we tbink it is.

Tbe charge is largely a recapitulation of tbe contentions of tbe parties; but taking it as a whole, we are constrained to believe tbat, on tbe facts of tbe present record, it is not a sufficient departure from tbe requirements of C. S., 564, to necessitate a new trial.

Tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.