UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE

While the pleadings and proofs should correspond, a rigid exactitude is not required, and no variance should be regarded as material where the allegation and proof substantially correspond.

Even if there is a variance between declaration and proof, if, as in this case, defendant is not misled, makes no objection to plaintiff's proof but replies to it by testimony of like kind, is familiar with the facts, does not indicate the variance and does not move for continuance, the variance cannot be regarded as fatal.

The extent of the knowledge of a defendant employer as to the use made of appliances by an employee by whose act another employee is injured, and the conclusions to be drawn therefrom, are questions for the jury, and cannot be reviewed here.

The substitution of "would" for "could" in an instruction to the jury in this case held not to have affected the minds of the jurors.

In this case, there was no reversible error because the court did not impress upon the jurors the fact that interest may affect credibility of witnesses, and quaere whether a party testifying exercises a privilege which may be emphasized as affecting his credibility.

31 App.D.C. 371, affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion. clubjuris

Page 218 U. S. 81