The chief question presented by the record is whether or not there was sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant Pope to be submitted to the jury.
The plaintiff testified that the defendant Pope said, “that the horse was getting so fat that he could not plow it in corn, because he walked too fast, and that he thought he would carry the horse to the log woods and work the horse down a little, and then put the horse back in the plow.” The defendant denied making such statement to the plaintiff. Thus an issue of fact was sharply drawn, and it was the province of the jury to determine the truth of the matter. If believed by the jury, the alleged statement of the defendant, was sufficient evidence of the fact that the horse was worked in the logging operations of the defendant with his knowledge and consent if not by his express direction. Hence the defendant would be liable for any negligence in working the horse in his business operations.
The verdict of the jury, therefore, was supported by evidence, and no error of law appears upon the face of the record warranting a new trial.
No error.