ARK.] DE QUEE,N & EASTERN RAIL,WAY CO. v. THORNTON. DE OuEEN & EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY V. THORNTON. Opinion delivered February 27, 1911. APPEA L A ND ERROR—W HEN ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE HAEMLEss.—The improper admission of evidence is not prejudicial if the fact it tended to prove is otherwise established by undisputed evidence. (Page 62.) 2. SA ME —PRESUMPTION PROM FAILURE TO. ABSTRACT EVIDENCE.—The refusal to. give a certain instruction cannot be relied upon as error unless all of the instructions given are set out , in appellant's abstract, as otherwise it will be presumed that the theory embraced in the refused instruction was fully covei-ed by other instructions that were giVen. (Page 63.) 3. SAME—surricIENcv OF APPELLANT'S AnsmAcr.—Appellant cannot insist upon appeal that the trial court erred in submitting a certain igsue to the jury because it was not raised by the pleadings or evidence, where appellant fails to abstract the pleadings and evidence so that it dan be seen what issues were properly before the jury. (Page 63.) Appeal from'Howard Circuit Court ; James S. Steel, Judge; affirmed. . SaM & SaM and John S. Kirkpatrick, for appellant. W. P. Feazel, for appellee. There is no abstract of the pleadings, nor of the motion for new trial; only a portion of the evidence and only two of the
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.