It is not the province of this Court on writ of error to reverse
if dissatisfied with the verdict of the jury; if there was evidence
proper for the consideration of the jury, objection that the
verdict was against the weight of evidence or that excessive
damages were allowed cannot be considered.
An amendment to a bill of exceptions, after bond on appeal had
been given and approved, so as to make the record conform to the
fact as to the conditions under which certain testimony introduced
by plaintiff in error on the trial was given
held not
error, as it was not unjustified or objected to and the exception
related simply to the inclusion of such testimony in the
record.
A judgment cannot be set aside on an exception to the refusal of
the trial court to allow an expert to testify where the record does
not show what testimony the witness was expected to give or that he
was qualified to give any.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Page 219 U. S. 45
MR. JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This action was brought in the District Court of the United
States for Porto Rico to recover damages for personal injuries
resulting from the fall of a portion of the building owned by the
plaintiff in error which it was alleged he had negligently allowed
to remain in a dangerous condition. It was tried by a jury, who
gave a verdict against plaintiff in error for the sum of $9,000.
Judgment was entered accordingly, and the case comes here on writ
of error.
The argument on behalf of the plaintiff in error proceeds upon
the assumption that this Court may review the evidence as to
negligence and as to the damages recoverable, and may reverse the
judgment if the court is dissatisfied with the findings of the
jury. This, however, is not the province of the Court upon writ of
error. As there was evidence proper for the consideration of the
jury, the objection that the verdict was against the weight of
evidence, or that the damages allowed were excessive cannot be
considered.
Express Company v.
Ware, 20 Wall. 543;
New York, Lake Erie &
Western Railroad Company v. Winter, 143 U. S.
60,
143 U. S. 75;
Lincoln v. Power, 151 U. S. 436-438;
Humes v. United States, 170 U. S. 210.
Nor was any exception taken by the plaintiff in error to the
instructions which the trial court gave to the jury. The only
questions which are properly before us for review are as to certain
rulings upon the admissibility of testimony.
Error is assigned in admitting the testimony of a physician, Dr.
Joaquin Martinez Guasp, "as correct," and it is further urged that
the court "erred in changing the record
Page 219 U. S. 46
relative thereto after the bond on appeal had been given and
approved." It appears that the witness was appointed by the court
to examine the plaintiff below in order to ascertain his condition
at the time of the trial, and that this action was taken with the
consent of the counsel for the defendant (the plaintiff in error).
The examination was made and the witness subsequently testified
without objection. In fact, the counsel for the plaintiff in error
conducted the direct examination, and there was no
cross-examination. No question therefore is presented with respect
to the admissibility of this testimony. The bill of exceptions was
amended so as to show that the court stated, when the testimony was
introduced, not only that the physician's examination had been made
by consent, but that counsel had "agreed that his evidence should
be considered as correct." This amendment, as the district judge
states, was to conform the record to the fact. Assuming, as we
must, that the statement was made by the court, it does not appear
that it was unjustified or that it was objected to. The exception
of the plaintiff in error is simply to its inclusion in the
record.
It is further insisted that the court erred in refusing to allow
one Dr. Gonzalez to testify. As to this, the record merely sets
forth that counsel
"offered to present the testimony of one Dr. Gonzalez, as an
expert, which testimony is not allowed by the court, and to which
ruling of the court counsel for defendant thereupon noted an
exception."
Manifestly, the judgment cannot be set aside because of this
ruling, for it does not appear what testimony the witness was
expected to give, or that he was qualified to give any.
We have examined the other rulings of which plaintiff in error
complains, with respect to the striking out of certain testimony,
and we find no error.
Judgment affirmed.