specifications error in Indiana

1978And, as in Ind. S. Bd. of Tax Com’rs. v. Lyon & Greenleaf Co. (1977), 172 Ind. App. 272 , 359 N.E.2d 931 (transfer denied), each section of argument contains numerical reference to the specifications of error in the motion to correct errors relating to each section of argument.

1978And, as in Ind. S. Bd. of Tax Com’rs. v. Lyon & Greenleaf Co. (1977), 172 Ind. App. 272 , 359 N.E.2d 931 (transfer denied), each section of argument contains numerical reference to the specifications of error in the motion to correct errors relating to each section of argument.

1970In Rush v. Clinger, 142 Ind. App. 677 , 236 N. E. 2d 840, 841 , (1968), this court stated: “There are numerous cases which set forth the legal principles which govern the consideration of a motion for directed verdict and peremptory instruction.

1970In Rush v. Clinger, 142 Ind. App. 677 , 236 N. E. 2d 840, 841 , (1968), this court stated: “There are numerous cases which set forth the legal principles which govern the consideration of a motion for directed verdict and peremptory instruction.

1967From the argument advanced by the Appellant in his brief it appears that he considered one of the plaintiff’s witnesses to be incompetent to give “Testimony as to the future earning prospects of Plaintiff’s two deceased children.” We cannot agree with this contention, since the rule is that it is always within the province of the trial court to determine as to the competency of a witness and “there is and can be no fixed standard as to the amount or kind of knowledge required to classify any witness as an expert, but if he is shown to have such knowledge as to render him competent to give an o

1967From the argument advanced by the Appellant in his brief it appears that he considered one of the plaintiff’s witnesses to be incompetent to give “Testimony as to the future earning prospects of Plaintiff’s two deceased children.” We cannot agree with this contention, since the rule is that it is always within the province of the trial court to determine as to the competency of a witness and “there is and can be no fixed standard as to the amount or kind of knowledge required to classify any witness as an expert, but if he is shown to have such knowledge as to render him competent to give an o

1967O’Neal et al. v. Deveny et al. (1963), 135 Ind. App. 446 , 194 N. E. 2d 413 , 2 Ind. Dec. 388 . *114 *113 In examining the record in this case, we conclude that Instruction No. 13, tendered by the defendant and given by the *114 court, is supported by evidence given at the trial, which evidence we have heretofore held was properly admitted and which is in support of issues framed by the pleadings.

1967O’Neal et al. v. Deveny et al. (1963), 135 Ind. App. 446 , 194 N. E. 2d 413 , 2 Ind. Dec. 388 . *114 *113 In examining the record in this case, we conclude that Instruction No. 13, tendered by the defendant and given by the *114 court, is supported by evidence given at the trial, which evidence we have heretofore held was properly admitted and which is in support of issues framed by the pleadings.

1967From the argument advanced by the Appellant in his brief it appears that he considered one of the plaintiff’s witnesses to be incompetent to give “Testimony as to the future earning prospects of Plaintiff’s two deceased children.” We cannot agree with this contention, since the rule is that it is always within the province of the trial court to determine as to the competency of a witness and “there is and can be no fixed standard as to the amount or kind of knowledge required to classify any witness as an expert, but if he is shown to have such knowledge as to render him competent to give an o

1930The second assignment is waived by appellant failing to discuss the same in his brief under “Points and Authorities.” Kunkalman v. Gibson (1909), 171 Ind. 503 , 84 N. E. 985 , 86 N. E. 850 ; Black v. State (1908), 171 Ind. 294 , 86 N. E. 72 . *688 One of the specifications of error in appellant’s motion for á new trial is that the court erred in its rulings on the giving and refusing of instructions, but it does not appear that the instructions were brought into the record by a bill of exceptions.

1930The second assignment is waived by appellant failing to discuss the same in his brief under “Points and Authorities.” Kunkalman v. Gibson (1909), 171 Ind. 503 , 84 N. E. 985 , 86 N. E. 850 ; Black v. State (1908), 171 Ind. 294 , 86 N. E. 72 . *688 One of the specifications of error in appellant’s motion for á new trial is that the court erred in its rulings on the giving and refusing of instructions, but it does not appear that the instructions were brought into the record by a bill of exceptions.

1930The second assignment is waived by appellant failing to discuss the same in his brief under “Points and Authorities.” Kunkalman v. Gibson (1909), 171 Ind. 503 , 84 N. E. 985 , 86 N. E. 850 ; Black v. State (1908), 171 Ind. 294 , 86 N. E. 72 . *688 One of the specifications of error in appellant’s motion for á new trial is that the court erred in its rulings on the giving and refusing of instructions, but it does not appear that the instructions were brought into the record by a bill of exceptions.

1930The second assignment is waived by appellant failing to discuss the same in his brief under “Points and Authorities.” Kunkalman v. Gibson (1909), 171 Ind. 503 , 84 N. E. 985 , 86 N. E. 850 ; Black v. State (1908), 171 Ind. 294 , 86 N. E. 72 . *688 One of the specifications of error in appellant’s motion for á new trial is that the court erred in its rulings on the giving and refusing of instructions, but it does not appear that the instructions were brought into the record by a bill of exceptions.

1905As the joinder in error did not waive objections to the specifications of error, the appeal is dismissed upon the authority of Spitzer v. Miller, supra.

1900Dorsett v. City of Greencastle, 141 Ind. 38 ; Gowen v. Gilson, 142 Ind. 328 ; Wood v. Hughes, 138 Ind. 179 ; Johnson v. Conklin, 119 Ind. 109 ; Kennedy v. Anderson, 98 Ind. 151 ; Bozarth v. McGillicuddy, 19 Ind. App. 26 ; Elliott’s App. Proc. §595; Ewbank’s Manual, §116.

1900Dorsett v. City of Greencastle, 141 Ind. 38 ; Gowen v. Gilson, 142 Ind. 328 ; Wood v. Hughes, 138 Ind. 179 ; Johnson v. Conklin, 119 Ind. 109 ; Kennedy v. Anderson, 98 Ind. 151 ; Bozarth v. McGillicuddy, 19 Ind. App. 26 ; Elliott’s App. Proc. §595; Ewbank’s Manual, §116.

1900Dorsett v. City of Greencastle, 141 Ind. 38 ; Gowen v. Gilson, 142 Ind. 328 ; Wood v. Hughes, 138 Ind. 179 ; Johnson v. Conklin, 119 Ind. 109 ; Kennedy v. Anderson, 98 Ind. 151 ; Bozarth v. McGillicuddy, 19 Ind. App. 26 ; Elliott’s App. Proc. §595; Ewbank’s Manual, §116.

1900Dorsett v. City of Greencastle, 141 Ind. 38 ; Gowen v. Gilson, 142 Ind. 328 ; Wood v. Hughes, 138 Ind. 179 ; Johnson v. Conklin, 119 Ind. 109 ; Kennedy v. Anderson, 98 Ind. 151 ; Bozarth v. McGillicuddy, 19 Ind. App. 26 ; Elliott’s App. Proc. §595; Ewbank’s Manual, §116.

1900Dorsett v. City of Greencastle, 141 Ind. 38 ; Gowen v. Gilson, 142 Ind. 328 ; Wood v. Hughes, 138 Ind. 179 ; Johnson v. Conklin, 119 Ind. 109 ; Kennedy v. Anderson, 98 Ind. 151 ; Bozarth v. McGillicuddy, 19 Ind. App. 26 ; Elliott’s App. Proc. §595; Ewbank’s Manual, §116.

1900Dorsett v. City of Greencastle, 141 Ind. 38 ; Gowen v. Gilson, 142 Ind. 328 ; Wood v. Hughes, 138 Ind. 179 ; Johnson v. Conklin, 119 Ind. 109 ; Kennedy v. Anderson, 98 Ind. 151 ; Bozarth v. McGillicuddy, 19 Ind. App. 26 ; Elliott’s App. Proc. §595; Ewbank’s Manual, §116.

1896“The rule is well settled in this court that the assignment of errors in the appellant’s complaint, and that the specifications of error, must apply to rulings affecting all joining therein, or they cannot be considered.” Cannelton Water Co. v. Burkett, 13 Ind. App. 277 .

1895Town of Ladoga v. Linn, 9 Ind. App. 15 .