Ohio Court of Appeals October 26, 1928 (Mayhew v. Bailey)

FARR, J

Upon the trial below all testimony relating to an overcharge for the work was excluded by the trial court, and it is claimed that this was error. Testimony relating to defective work was admitted but *108the defense was not permitted to go farther than that.

It is insisted that the court erred in excluding. testimony as to the overcharge. It will be recalled that Dr.