Mr. J.W. Vincent, for appellant, submits: The magistrateand Circuit Judge should have allowed some amount inexcess of three cents: 42 S.E. 598; 48 S.E. 252. Messrs. F.B. Grier and J.W. Manuel, for respondent, submit: A finding of fact in the Circuit Court, in an appealfrom the magistrate's Court, will not be disturbed by theSupreme Court, where there is any evidence to sustain suchfindings: 90 S.C. 79; 72 S.E. 637; 90 S.C. 366; 73 S.E. 637; 73 S.E. 772; 107 S.C. 503; 93 S.E. 191. January 25, 1919.

Messrs. Osborne Butler, for appellant-respondent, cite: Evidence of disability: 153 S.C. 401; 151 S.E., 67; 106 S.C. 359; 91 S.E., 326; 166 S.C. 316; 164 S.E., 878; 166 S.C. 367; 164 S.E., 881; 172 S.C. 404; 174 S.E., 235; 178 S.E., 125. After-discovered evidence: 165 S.C. 355; 164 S.E., 11; 87 S.C. 157; 69 S.E., 97; 33 S.C. 403; 12 S.E., 8. Messrs. Johnson Johnson, for respondent-appellant, cite: Failure to take exception to rulings of trial Judge: 51 S.C. 306; 28 S.E., 943; 52 S.C. 309; 29 S.E., 722; 53 S.C. 24; 30 S.E., 617; 64 S. C, 311; 227 U.S. 8; 57 L.Ed., 393; 97 S.C. 148; 81 S.E., 426; 93 S.C. 119; 78 S. 1C., 384; 224 U.S. 126; 56 L.Ed., 693; 91 S.C. 55; 70 S.C. 315; 115 S.C. 500; 106 S.E., 769; 90 S.C. 366; 73 S.E., 772; 104 S.C. 16; 245 U.S. 637; 62 L.Ed., 525. As to disability: 120 S.C. 328; 133 S.E., 141; 4 Ann. Cas., 815; 164 S.C. 444; 170 S.C. 439; 173 S.C. 213; 106 S.C. 356. June 27, 1935.

Messrs. W. Turner Logan and James Allen, for respondent, cite: As to qualified jurors: Sec. 548, Code Proc.; 84 S.C. 48; 120 S.C. 535; 129 S.C. 476; 55 S.C. 90. Noassumption of risk here: 72 S.C. 346; 141 S.C. 687; 72 S.C. 264; 75 S.C. 487; 71 S.C. 53. Contributory negligencemust be pleaded: 67 S.C. 146; 70 S.C. 470; 76 S.C. 553; 99 Pac., 384; 56 S.E., 557; 34 So., 194; 82 S.C. 549; 99 S.C. 297; 127 S.C. 505. Employee of streetrailway corporation: 128 S.C. 138; Art. 9, Sec. 15, Const.; Sec. 5038, Code. Error in admission of evidence is harmlessor not reversible if the same or similar testimony has beenadmitted without objection: 41 S.C. 415; 82 S.C. 87; 90 S.C. 366; 91 S.C. 523; 93 S.C. 168; 95 S.C. 9; 127 S.C. 505. August 13, 1929.

Messrs. F.B. Grier and Harley Blatt, for appellant, cite: Liability for communicated fires: 1 Civ. Code, 1912, Sec. 3226; 83 S.C. 87 S.C. 180. Circumstances as a basisfor circumstantial evidence cannot be presumed, but mustbe proven: 92 S.E., 1; 100 U.S. 693; 1 Moore, Facts, 600. No testimony on which to base verdict: 99 S.C. 417; 197 S.C. 367. Messrs. Holman Boulware, for respondent, cite: Grounds of objection must be stated: 79 S.C. 120; 90 S.C. 366; 90 S.C. 513; 92 S.C. 236; 100 S.C. 115; 94 S.C. 324; 110 S.C. 122; 111 S.C. 463. Sufficientevidence to support verdict: 115 S.C. 500; 113 S.E., 73; 80 S.C. 460. May 28, 1923.

Messrs. Wm. N. Graydon and Jno. Hughes Cooper, for appellant, cite: Error to hold that only nominal damagesrecoverable for breach of contract: 81 S.C. 181; 75 S.C. 58; 77 S.C. 182; 53 S.C. 378; 110 U.S. 338; 28 L.Ed. 168; 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 81. Uncertainty of amount does notmake damages speculative: 70 S.C. 13; 103 S.C. 467. Punitive damages recoverable: 70 S.C. 108; 96 S.C. 240; 90 S.C. ___; 90 S.C. 366. Court could not say no testimonyto go to jury without charging on facts: Art IV, sec. 26, Const. 1895; 47 S.C. 488; 49 S.C. 481; Hughes Instructions to Juries, sec. 187. Jury was coerced: 103 S.C. 277; 106 S.C. 150; 107 S.C. 115. Additional groundsurged by respondent not properly to be considered in jurycase: 23 S.C. 96; 106 S.C. 317-19; 64 S.C. 571; 75 S.C. 156. Rules of Court violated by size of case: 98 S.C. 454; 110 S.C. 518.

Messrs. Marion Marion, for respondent, cite: As to theadmission of testimony as to fellow servant's incompetency: 80 S.E. 52 (N.C.); 70 S.C. 325; 61 S.C. 488; 63 S.C. 569. The objection of counsel falls short of stating a formalobjection and the ground therefor. Trial Judge shouldnot be convicted of error upon insufficient objection: 89 S.C. 385; 60 S.C. 9; 62 S.C. 546. No motion was made tostrike out testimony complained of, and if the admission waserror, it was not prejudicial: 100 S.C. ___; 97 S.C. 148. Almost the identical testimony had been previously given bysame witness without objection, and testimony of a similarcharacter was subsequently introduced by plaintiff withoutobjection, and defendant was permitted to introduce on itsbehalf testimony of an exactly similar character: 90 S.C. 366; 91 S.C. 523; 93 S.C. 168; 95 S.C. 9. The testimonywas admissible as the opinion of an expert: Hick's case (63 S.C.); 59 S.C. 318; 69 S.C. 104; 96 S.C. 371; 2d Elliott Evidence 1036; 74 S.C. 233. Even if the testimony was notadmissible as the opinion of an expert, the witness had theright to express his opinion upon stating the facts upon whichthe opinion was based, and the trial Judge had discretion indetermining whether the testimony was admissible, and hisruling should not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneousand prejudicial: 90 S.C. 271; 57 S.C. 448; 92 S.C. 304; 74 S.E. 886 (N.C.). The testimony as to Parker's reputationwas clearly competent: Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 1621 (7); 89 S.C. 22. Appellant cannot now complain ofthe admission of Robinson's testimony — no objection havingbeen made at the time: 90 S.C. 470; 93 S.C. 397. Again,appellant's objection is untenable, because the testimony wasfavorable to it: 91 S.C. 507; 97 S.C. 278. If Parker wasincompetent no notice to t

Mr. Philip H. Arrowsmith, for appellants, submits: Under the evidence, which was conflicting, the verdict of thejury was final, and should not have been disturbed on appeal: 106 S.C. 123; 106 S.C. 337. This case is not within therule laid down in Cable Co. v. So. Ry. Co.: 94 S.C. 143. Messrs. McNeill Olliver and F.L. Willcox, for respondent. Mr. Willcox submits: Findings of fact Circuit Courton appeal from magistrate are conclusive when there is anyevidence to support them: 90 S.C. 366; 79 S.C. 198; 93 S.C. 272; 87 S.C. 267; 70 S.C. 178; 70 S.C. 554; 90 S.C. 79. The facts in this case clearly warrant the findingby his Honor, the Circuit Judge, that McAllister was guiltyof contributory negligence: 94 S.C. 143. June 24, 1918.