It is conceded in the State’s brief that the solicitor was perhaps infelicitous in the question he propounded to the officer as to how the collision occurred, whether sidewise or head-on, but as the culpable negligence of the defendant is abundantly established by the record, the error, if such it be, is not regarded as hurtful or reversible. S. v. Jessup, 183 N. C., 771, 111 S. E., 523; S. v. Gray, 180 N. C., 697, 104 S. E., 647.
Indeed, it would seem that the officer’s testimony, if not a “short-hand statement of a collective fact,” and admissible as such, S. v. Skeen, 182 N. C., 844, 109 S. E., 71, should be regarded as the statement of an ultimate fact, rather than the expression of an opinion. S. v. Sterling, 200 N. C., 18, 156 S. E., 96.
Nor can the court’s misstatement that the sign-post “has been introduced in evidence,” made in giving the State’s contentions, be held for reversible error on the present record. The inaccuracy, if deemed material, should have been called to the court’s attention at the time. S. v. Lea, 203 N. C., 13, 164 S. E., 737. In any event, the matter is too attenuate to work a new trial. There was ample evidence as to the sign-post without the exhibit being in evidence. The case of S. v. Love, 187 N. C., 32, 121 S. E., 20, is easily distinguishable.
The remaining exceptions call for no elaboration.