Matos v. Rodríguez

Appellant says that the district court erred in deciding the conflict in the evidence adversely to defendant, and in rendering judgment for plaintiff, because the averments of the complaint are not sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. A careful reading of the two fifty-page briefs and of the stenographic record in the light of the argument contained in such briefs does not disclose any manifest error in the weighing of the evidence.

Another contention is that the district court erred in holding that by virtue of paragraph (e) of section 12 of “An Act to regulate the operation of motor…