School District No. 1 v. City of Helena

1. Trial — Misconduct of counsel in argument to jury — Medical expenses. In an action for injuries where the court instructed that there was no evidence upon which the jury could find any doctors bill from the Mayo Clinic, and the court admonished the jury during argument Page 594 that the jury could not consider medical expenses incurred at the Mayo Clinic, alleged misconduct of counsel in arguing to the jury that they should consider medical expenses incurred at the Mayo Clinic was not ground for reversal. 2. New tiral — Order denying motion constitutes implied finding. On conflicting affidavits in support of a motion for a new trial, the order of the court denying the motion constitutes an implied finding against the appellants on the facts. 3. Appeal and error — Misconduct of counsel in argument to jury — Traveling expenses. In an action for injuries, alleged misconduct of plaintiffs counsel in argument to the jury regarding the cost of a trip to consult a specialist, as an element of damage was not ground for reversal. 4. Trial — Curing improper argument. Generally, a new trial will be denied where improper argument has been checked by the court, and the jury have been instructed to disregard the improper statement. 5. Trial — Action of trial judge not misconduct. In an action for injuries sustained by a bus passenger, the action of the trial judge upon noting during the argument of defendants counsel that the passenger was weeping, in calling bailiff to the bench and asking him to suggest to passengers husband that he sit beside his wife and see if he could get her quieted, did not constitute misconduct as manifesting acts of sympathy for the passenger. 6. Trial — Orderly conduct of trial. The trial court has the duty to require orderly conduct of the trial and has a large discretion in such respect and should not be put in error for its conduct of the trial and its control of witnesses except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. 7. Appeal and error — Bill of exceptions — Duty of appellant. Appellant had the duty to have the bill of exceptions correctly prepared and settled, as required by statute, and objections and exceptions allegedly taken by appellant to the argument of opposing counsel to the jury, but omitted from the bill of exceptions, were not properly before the Supreme Court.