Oberlin v. Ruffing

*381OPINION

By FUNK, J.

Counsel for defendant claims that the court below committed error prejudicial to defendant in the following particulars:

1. In overruling the motion of defendant to strike certain allegations from the petition, and that plaintiff make the petition definite and certain as to the particular things plaintiff claimed “defendant did or did not do that was claimed to be negligent.”

We have examined the petition in respect to the matters set forth in the motion, and find no prejudicial error in this particular.

2. In excluding certain proffered testimony of Mr. Clancy.

We agree with…