¶1 The action is for damages to plaintiff’s automobile resulting from a collision with the automobile of defendant at -the intersection of two public highways.
¶2 Defendant’s refused charge No. 2 seeks to invoke the speed limit provision of subdivision 3, subsec. (b), § 51, Highway Act of 1927, General Acts 1927, p. 367, and its violation as contributory negligence pn the part of plaintiff. Its refusal was justified for failure to hypothesize that such negligence “proximately” contributed to the injury.
¶3*617 The evidence presented a clear i-ssue for the jury. No error appears in the court’s overruling a motion for new trial on the ground of weight of evidence.
¶4 Affirmed.