At the close of plaintiff’s evidence and at the close of all tbe evidence, the defendant made motions in the court below for judgment as in ease of nonsuit. O. S., 567. The court below overruled these motions, and in this we can see no error. The only exceptions and assignments of error made by defendant were to the refusal of the court below to grant the motions of nonsuit. The evidence on motions for nonsuit is taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff. The plaintiff’s evidence fully sustained the allegations of the complaint.
Plaintiff testified, in part, that Euclid Avenue in the city of Charlotte was 40 feet wide. Templeton Avenue, about 30 feet wide. He was driving west on Templeton Avenue, and when he came to Euclid Avenue he was driving at a slow rate of speed. There was a stop sign and he practically came to a stop. His wife, who was in the car, testified that he “stopped at the stop sign.” Plaintiff hesitated to see if the way was clear. There was no obstruction either way. There was only one car in sight on Euclid Avenue which was headed south, and that car was practically a block away, and the one that struck plaintiff’s car. At the time of the impact plaintiff had practically cleared Euclid Avenue, and the rear of plaintiff’s car was about 4 feet from the west curb of Euclid Avenue. Defendant’s car which struck plaintiff was coming about 75 miles an hour, travelling 5 or 6 times as fast as plaintiff’s car. The evidence was not only sufficient to be submitted to the jury, but defendant, in running 75 miles an hour in the city, contrary to all the rules of the road, from plaintiff’s evidence, may be guilty of criminal negligence.
In the judgment of the court below there is
No error.
DeviN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.