We do not think the evidence objected to -by the plaintiff in error was erroneously admitted on the question of damages, and the judgment of the court below will be affirmed.
PROOF AS TO DAMAGES FOR. WRONGFUL DETENTION.
Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
Sadie Arnold v. Rudolph Wurlitzer Co.
Decided, March 6, 1909.
Replevin — Competency of Evidence — As to Damctges for Wrongful 'Detention of Musical Instruments — Probable Earnings of Such Instruments.
M. C. Lykins, for plaintiff in error.
Wm. S. Little, contra.
The jury fixed the damages for the.wrongful retention of one piano and one harp at $150. It was claimed that the testimony, offered by the plaintiff below, Wurlitzer Company, as to the probable earnings of these instruments during the period of wrongful detention, was improperly admitted.
Smith, J.; Giffen, P. J., and Swing, J., concur.