#### MRS. CLAUDIA HEWITT v. JOHN URICH and A. J. HEWITT v. JOHN URICH.

(Filed 14 October, 1936.)

Appeal by plaintiffs from Bless, J., at February Term, 1936, of McDowell.

No error.

Separate actions were instituted by the plaintiffs for damages alleged to have been caused each of them by the negligence of the defendant in *836tbe operation of an automobile in wbicb they were riding as defendant’s guests. There were allegations that tbe defendant drove at an excessive speed over pavement rendered slick by rain, causing tbe car to skid and overturn down an embankment. Two suits were, for convenience, consolidated for trial. Tbe jury answered tbe issues of negligence in favor of tbe defendant, and from judgment on tbe verdict plaintiffs appealed.

W. R. Chambers for plaintiffs, appellants.

Wmborne & Proctor for defendant, appellee.

Per Curiam.

There was no error in consolidating the two actions for trial. Fleming v. Holleman, 190 N. C., 449; Ins. Co. v. R. R., 179 N. C., 255. Nor can the exceptions to the judge’s charge be sustained. The instructions to the jury relative to the speed of the automobile were in accord with the decisions of this Court in S. v. Webber, ante, 137, and S. v. Spencer, 209 N. C., 827. The charge of the court as to the skidding of an automobile was free from error (Springs v. Doll, 197 N. C., 240; Waller v. Hipp, 208 N. C., 117), and the rule applicable to sudden emergencies was properly stated. Ingle v. Cassady, 208 N. C., 497; Luttrell v. Hardin, 193 N. C., 266.

Issues of fact were raised and these have been decided by the jury against the plaintiffs. In the trial we find

No error.