State Ex Rel. Charuhas v. Heffelfinger

Pbr Curiam. At 5 :30 P.M. on August 15, 1959, described as a clear, dry day, Mary Ann Charuhas was struck by an automobile driven by the appellee-defendant, Phillip J. Heffelfinger, Jr., as she was crossing University Boulevard, between street crossings, in Montgomery County, and she died the next day as the result of injuries sustained. At the trial of a suit in which the plaintiffs were the State of Maryland to the use of Manuel J. Charuhas, husband of the deceased, and the husband in his capacity as executor of the estate of the deceased, and the defendants were the appellee and John L. Parker, owner of the automobile, a motion for a directed verdict by the defendant Parker was granted at the close of the plaintiff’s case, but the same motion was then denied as to the appellee, and again denied at the conclusion of the case for the defense. Instructions were given by the trial court, to which no objections were made by appellant.

After closing arguments the jury returned a verdict for the defendant-appellee. The questions raised by the appellants here are: (1) Were the jury’s findings contrary to the evidence and law in the case? (2) Was appellants’ cause prejudiced by the manner in which the trial court propounded certain questions to one of the appellants’ witnesses? (3) Was it error for the trial court to allow into evidence a sketch depicting the scene of the accident, which had been drawn by the appellee, as evidence of how the accident occurred?

(4) Were the charge and instructions to the jury improper, unfair and misleading as to the law in the case, causing prejudice to the appellants? (1) It would serve no useful purpose for us to review the evidence as to this unfortunate accident, since it is clear from the record that the question of the sufficiency of the evidence is not properly before us. The sufficiency of the evidence to authorize a recovery will not be reviewed on appeal unless the question has properly been presented to the lower court. ⁴⁹⁶ Maryland Rules 522, 885; Webb v. Oxley, 226 Md. 339, 347 , 173 A. 2d 358 (1961). No motion was made by the appellants for a directed verdict, a step which would have preserved the question for review.

Rule 563; Webb v. Oxley, supra. (2) Appellants claim that the trial judge caused great prejudice to their case by subjecting one of their witnesses to a cross-examination type of questioning which tended “to disparage, belittle and cast doubt as to the truth and veracity of the testimony of that witness.” A reading of the record also “casts doubt” as to the merits of this contention. However, even if the questions propounded by the trial judge were prejudicial (which is not apparent), the failure of appellants to object to the questions or move for a mistrial