When this case was here before,1 upon full consideration we rejected the appellant’s contention that a verdict should have been instructed for it, and, reversing for error in the charge, sent the cause back for retrial.
Again appealing from a verdict and judgment against it, appellant is here insisting, as it did before, that it should have had an instructed verdict, and, if not, that the cause should be reversed for errors in the charge.
A careful examination of the record convinces us that the request for an instructed verdict was properly denied and that the claim of reversible errors in the charge is not well taken.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
. 179 F.2d 593.