(furnace); Tissue v. Baltimore &c. R. Co. 112 Pa. St. 91; s. c. 2 Cent. Rep. 596 (dynamite magazine); Houston &c. R. Co. v. Gaither (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. Rep. 179 (no off. rep.) (railroad-track); Chapman v. Southern Pac. Co., 12 Utah 30; s. c. 41 Pac. Rep. 551 (platform emery-wheel); Maxwell v. Zdarski, on side of car); Rush v. Spokane Falls &c. R. Co., 23 Wash. 501; s. c. 63 Pac. Rep. 500 (explosion of dynamite carried in caboose); Crouse v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 104 Wis. 473; s. c. 80 N. W. Rep. 473 (derailment of engine); Deisenrieter V. KrausMerkel Malting Co., 92 Wis. 164; s. c. 66 N. W. Rep. 112 (fumes of sulphur and salt); George v. Clark, 85 Fed. Rep. 608; s. c. 56 U. S. App. 505; 29 C. C. A. 374 (car so loaded with poles as to leave insufficient space between the ends of the poles and a box-car); Gowen v. Bush, 76 Fed. Rep. 349; s. c. 40 U. S. App. 349; 22 C. C. A. 196 (gas in mine); Haas v. Balch, 56 Fed. Rep. 984; s. c. 48 Alb. L. J. 327; 6 C. C. A. 201; Herrick v. Quigley, 101 Fed. Rep. 187; s. c. 41 C. C. A. 294 (crossing for employés out of repair); Lafayette Bridge Co. v. Olsen, 108 Fed. Rep. 335; s. c. 47 C. C. A. 367; 54 L. R. A. 33 (breaking of plank); Laporte v. Cook, 22 R. I. 554; s. c. 48 Atl. Rep. 798 (trench); Mississippi River Logging Co. v. Schneider, 74 Fed. Rep. 195; s. c. 34 U. S. App. 743; 20 C. C. A. 390; Oregon &c. R. Co. v. Tracy, 66 Fed. Rep. 931 (view obstructed); Ryan v. New York &c. R. Co., 115 Fed. Rep. 197 (falling of car door); Tennessee &c. R. Co. v. Currier, 108 Fed. Rep. 19; s. c. 47 C. C. A. 161 (low place in mine); Texas &c. R. Co. v. Gentry, 163 U. S. 353; s. c. 41 L. ed. 186; 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1104 (roadengine and flat-car for switching purposes); Westland v. Gold Coin Mines Co., 41 C. C. A. 193; s. c. 101 Fed. Rep. 59 (breaking and falling of a stul in defendant's mine). Whether the master had provided his servants with reasonably safe and suitable machinery, tools and appliances: McAlpine v. Laydon, 115 Cal. 68; s. c. 46 Pac. Rep. 865 (failing to cross-bolt the "head block" of a pile-driver); Hayden v. Smithville Man. Co., 29 Conn. 548; Ousley v. Central R. &c. Co., 86 Ga. 538; s. c. 12 S. E. Rep. 938 (drawbar on railroad-car); Harvey v. Alturas Gold Min. Co., 3 Idaho 510; s. c. 31 Pac. Rep. 819 (defective tools); Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Delaney, 169 Ill. 581; s. c. 48 N. E. Rep. 476; aff'g s. c. 68 Ill. App. 307 (locomotive); Ide v. Fratcher, 96 Ill. App. 549; s. c. aff'd, 194 Ill. 552; 62 N. E. Rep. 814 (bursting of an 93 Ill. App. 334; Anderson v. Illinois &c. R. Co., 109 Iowa 524; s. c. 80 N. W. Rep. 561 (implement proper and generally used); Covington &c. Bridge Co. v. Goodnight, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1242; s. c. 60 S. W. Rep. 415 (no off. rep.) (injured by chain); Cumberland &c. R. Co. v. State, 37 Md. 156; Cumberland &c. R. Co. v. State, 45 Md. 229; Flaherty v. Norwood Engineering Co., 172 Mass. 134; s. c. 51 N. E. Rep. 463 (appliances for handling molten iron); Gibson v. Sullivan, 164 Mass. 557; s. c. 42 N. E. Rep. 110 (placing terra-cotta coping on a wall); Jones v. Pacific Mills, 176 Mass. 354; s. c. 57 N. E. Rep. 663 (breaking of ladder); Knight v. Overman Wheel Co., 174 Mass. 455; s. c. 54 N. E. Rep. 890 (jackscrew); McGivern v. Wilson, 160 Mass. 370; s. c. 35 N. E. Rep. 864 (giving way of a guyrope); Wheeler v. Wason Man. Co., 135 Mass. 294 (circular saw); Weiden v. Brush Elec. L. Co., 73 Mich. 268; s. c. 41 N. W. Rep. 269 (defects in a cable); Closson v. Oakes, 69 Minn. 67; s. c. 71 N. W. Rep. 915 (box-cars); Moon v. Northern Pac. &c. R. Co., 46 Minn. 106; s. c. 48 N. W. Rep. 679 (defective brake); Pruke V. South Parke Foundry &c. Co., 68 Minn. 305; s. c. 71 N. W. Rep. 276 (caught by a set-screw); Theisen v. Porter, 56 Minn. 555; s. c. 58 N. W. Rep. 265 (bursting of pipe while letting in steam); Conroy V. Vulcan Iron Works, 62 Mo. 35; Geary v. Kansas City &c. R. Co., 138 Mo. 251; s. c. 39 S. W. Rep. 774; 60 Am. St. Rep. 555 (whether locomotive-engine was properly inspected); Guttridge v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 105 Mo. 520; s. c. 16 S. W. Rep. 943 (iron handhold on side of car); Higgins v. Missouri &c. R. Co., 43 Mo. App. 547; Norton v. Ittner, 56 Mo. 351; Tateman v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 96 Mo. App. 448; s. c. 70 S. W. Rep. 514 (whether locomotive-engine was properly inspected); Comben V. Belleville Stone Co., 59 N. J. L. 226; s. c. 36 Atl. Rep. 473; Flanigan v. Guggenheim Smelting Co., 63 N. J. V. L. 647; s. c. 44 Atl: Rep. 762 (ladder); Auld v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 165 N. Y. 610; s. c. 58 N. E. Rep. 1085; aff'g s. c. 34 App. Div. (N. Y.) 491; 54 N. Y. Supp. 222 (elevator door operated by pneumatic pressure); Bailey v. Rome &c. R. Co., 139 N. Y. 302; s. c. 56 N. Y. St. Rep. 550; 34 N. E. Rep. 918 (brake-rod); Fort v. Whipple, 11 Hun (N. Y.) 586; Goodrich v. Pennsylvania &c. R. Co., 29 Hun (N. Y.) 50 (defective drawhead); Mehan Syracuse &c. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 585; Mikkelsen v. Ocean &c. Co., 31 N. Y. St. Rep. 408; s. c. 9 N. Y. Supp. 741 (injury to seaman from parting of rope); Rooney v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 10 Daly (N. Y.) 241 (breaking of rope); Sneider v. Treichler, 56 Hun (N. Y.) 309; s. c. 30 N. Y. St. Rep. 959; 9 N. Y. Supp. 584 (thrashing-machine); Sweeney v. New York &c. R. Co., 32 N. Y. St. Rep. 416; s. c. 10 N. Y. Supp. 305 (Breaking of coupling link); Sweeney v. New York &c. R. Co., 32 N. Y. St. Rep. 416; S. C. 10 N. Y. Supp. 305; Wright v. Southern R. Co., 127 N.. C. 225; s. c. 37 S. E. Rep. 221 (defective machinery); E. P. Breckenridge Co. v. Reagan, 22 Ohio C. C. 71; s. c. 12 Ohio C. D. 50 (machine used for cutting tin); Lake Shore &c. R. Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 31 Ohio St. 479; De Grazia v. Piccardo, 15 Pa. Super. 107 (insufficient appliances for stopping a machine); Fordyce v. Yarbrough, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 260; s. c. 21 S. W. Rep. 421 (coupling appliances); Hilsboro Oil Co. v. White (Tex. Civ. App.), 3 Am. Neg. Rep. 104; s. c. 41 S. W. Rep. 874 (no off. rep.); Dorsey v. Phillips &c. Co., 42 Wis. 583; Egan v. Sawyer &c. Lumber Co., 94 Wis. 137; s. c. 68 N. W. Rep. 756 (failure to guard a small circular saw); Great Northern R. Co. v. Kasischke, 104 Fed. Rep. 440; s. c. 43 C. C. A. 626 (coal); Guinard v. Knapp-Stout &c. Co., 95 Wis. 482; s. c. 70 N. W. Rep. 671 (set-screw); Kreider v. Wisconsin River Paper &c. Co., 110 Wis. 645; s. c. 86 N. W. Rep. 662 (set-screw on paper-winder projecting nine-sixteenths of an inch); Homestake Min. Co. v. Fullerton, 69 Fed. Rep. 923; s. c. 36 U. S. App. 32; 16 C. C. A. 545; 2 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. (N. S.) 596 (protruding bolts); Van Dyke v. Atlantic Ave. R. Co., 67 Fed. Rep. 296 (sand-boxes on trolley-car). If the defect is glaring, and the employer continues in the use of the instrument or machinery, he will be held to be guilty of negligence as a matter of law: Patterson v. Pittsburg &c. R. Co., 76 Pa. St. 389. Whether the master had negligently employed or retained in his employ incompetent fellow_servants: Calumet Electric St. R. Co. v. Peters, 88 Ill. App. 112; Joch v. Dankwardt, 85 Ill. 331; Pagels v. Meyer, 88 Ill. App. 169; Webster Man. Co. v. Schmidt, 77 Ill. App. 49; Rice v. King Philip Mills, 144 Mass. 229; s. c. 4 N. Eng. Rep. 59; 11 N. E. Rep. 101; Nutzmann v. Germania Life Ins. Co., 78 Minn. 504; s. c. 81 N. W. Rep. 518; s. c. aff'd, 82 Minn. 116; Coppins v. New York &c. R. Co., 122 N. Y. 557; s. c. 34 N. Y. St. Rep. 214; 44 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 618; 19 Am. St. Rep. 523; 25 N. E. Rep. 915; aff'g s. c. 48 Hun (N. Y.) 292; 17 N. Y. St. Rep. 916; Irwin v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 59 App. Div. (N. Y.) 95; s. c. 69 N. Y. Supp. 80; Pleasants v. Raleigh &c. R. Co., 121 N. C. 492; s. c. 28 S. E. Rep. 267; 61 Am. St. Rep. 674; B. Lantry Sons v. Lowrie (Tex. Civ. App.), 58 S. W. Rep. 837 (no off. rep.); New York &c. S. S. Co. v. Anderson, 1 U. S. App. 176; s. c. 1 C. C. A. 529; 50 Fed. Rep. 462. Whether the master has made and enforced proper rules and regulations for the conduct of his business: Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Martin, 59 Kan. 437; s. c. 4 Am. Neg. Rep. 266; 12 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 4; 53 Pac. Rep. 461 (applicability of rules); Reagan v. St. Louis &c. R. Co., 93 Mo. 348; s. c. 12 West. Rep. 367; 6 S. W. Rep. 371; Berrigan v. New York &c. R. Co., 59 Hun (N. Y.) 627 (mem.); s. c. 37 N. Y. St. Rep. 414; 14 N. Y. Supp. 26; Hanningan v. Lehigh Valley &c. R. Co., 91 Hun (N. Y.) 300; s. c. 36 N. Y. Supp. 293; 71 N. Y. St. Rep. 61 (enforcement); Little Rock &c. R. Co. v. Barry, 84 Fed. Rep. 944; s. c. 56 U. S. App. 37; 28 C. C. A. 644 (reasonableness). Whether the master had employed such precautions as a reasonably prudent employer would have used under the circumstances to prevent injury to his employes: Chicago v. Richardson, 75 Ill. App. 198; Dwyer v. Buffalo &c. Elec. Co., 20 App. Div. (N. Y.) 124; s. c. 46 N. Y. Supp. 874 §7404. A Collection of Cases in which the Negligence of the Defendant was Deemed a Question of Law.-Courts will sometimes decide as a matter of law whether a municipal corporation has been guilty of negligence with regard to defects in highways, but such is seldom the case, as this is generally a question for the jury under proper instructions. It was deemed a question for the court whether a 6 (injury to lineman from electric shock); Wild v. Oregon &c. R. Co., 21 Or. 159; s. c. 27 Pac. Rep. 954; Walker v. McNeil, 17 Wash. 582; s. c. 50 Pac. Rep. 518. Whether the master had discharged his duty of warning his servants of danger: May v. Smith, 92 Ga. 95; s. c. 18 S. E. Rep. 360; Donovan v. Overman &c. Cordage Co., 22 Ky. L. Rep. 777; s. c. 58 S. W. Rep. 798 (no off. rep.); Abel v. Butler-Ryan Co., 66 Minn. 16; s. c. 68 N. W. Rep. 205; Kaillen v. Northwestern Bedding Co., 46 Minn. 187; s. c. 48 N. W. Rep. 779; Bowman v. Texas Brew. Co., 17 Tex. Civ. App. 446; s. c. 43 S. W. Rep. 808; Egan v. Sawyer &c. Lumber Co., 94 Wis.. 137; s. c. 68 N. W. Rep. 756. Whether the master had properly instructed youthful or inexperienced employes as to the dangers of their employment: Alton Paving &c. Co. v. Hudson, 74 Ill. App. 612; s. c. aff'd, 176 Ill. 270; 52 N. E. Rep. 256 (operating steamshovel); Ryan v. Tarbox, 135 Mass. 207; Albertz v. Bache, 32 N. Y. St. Rep. 1014; s. c. 10 N. Y. Supp. 639; Borgeson v. United States Projectile Co., 2 App. Div. (N. Y.) 57; s. c. 37 N. Y. Supp. 458; 72 N. Y. St. Rep. 548 (hydraulic draw-bench); Ferguson v. Smith, 15 Misc. (N. Y.) 251; s. c. 71 N. Y. St. Rep. 465; 36 N. Y. Supp. 415 (operating buzzsaw); Ogley v. Miles, 28 N. Y. St. Rep. 893; s. c. 8 N. Y. Supp. 270 (boy sixteen years old operating buzz-saw); E. P. Breckenridge Co. v. Reagan, 22 Ohio C. C. 71; s. c. 12 Ohio C. D. 50 (girl fifteen years old); Promer v. Milwaukee &c. R. Co., 90 Wis. 215; s. c. 63 N. W. Rep. 90 (car kicked rapidly down a track without warning or signal); Wolski v. Knapp-Stout &c. Co., 90 Wis. 178; s. c. 63 N. W. Rep. 87; Bethlehem Iron Co. v. Weiss, 100 Fed. Rep. 45; s. c. 40 C. C. A. 270. Whether the master was negligent in the conduct of his business: Duffy v. Kivilin, 98 Ill. App. 483; s. c. aff'd, 195 Ill. 630; 63 N. E. Rep. 503 (starting hoist with sudden and violent jerk); Murray v. Fitchburg R. Co., 165 Mass. 448; s. c. 43 N. E. Rep. 190 (pushing car with such force as to move standing cars upon which the brakes were set); Wastl v. Montana Union R. Co., 24 Mont. 159; s. c. 61 Pac. Rep. 9 (switching in the dark); Schmitt v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 13 App. Div. (N. Y.) 120; s. c. 43 N. Y. Supp. 318 (running elevator while workmen were repairing shaft); Smith V. Southern R. Co., 75 Fed. Rep. 105 (hand-car closely following another). Whether the master was negli gent in giving orders, in obeying which his employés were killed or injured: Illinois Steel Co. V. McFadden, 196 Ill. 344; s. c. 63 N. E. Rep. 671; aff'g s. c. 98 Ill. App. 296 (employé ordered by superintendent to remove bosh-plate from blast-furnace in operation, and killed by gush of flame); Gagnon v. Seaconnet Mills, 165 Mass. 221; s. c. 43 N. E. Rep. 82 (loading timber on car with narrow sides up, and directing employés to hold it); Egan v. Sawyer &c. Lumber Co., 94 Wis. 137; s. c. 68 N. W. Rep. 756 (imposing such duties as to confuse and distract employé). "Prideaux v. Mineral Point, 43 Wis. 513; Schmidt v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 83 Ill. 405. 6 Independence v. Jeckel, 38 Iowa 427; Willey v. Belfast, 61 Me. 569; Hall v. Lowell, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 260; Johnson v. Haverhill, 35 N. H. 82; Stack v. Portsmouth, 52 N. H. 224; Stark v. Lancaster, 57 N. H. 88; Hume v. New York, 47 N. Y. 639; Perry v. John, 79 Pa. St. 412; Cassedy v. Stockbridge, 21 Vt. 391; Green v. Danby, 12 Vt. 338; Kelsey v. Glover, 15 Vt. 709; Leicester v. Pittsford, 6 Vt. 245; Rice v. Montpelier, 19 Vt. 470; Sessions v. Newport, 23 Vt. 9; Barstow v. Berlin, motorman was negligent in failing to stop his car and avoiding injury to a deaf street sweeper, after seeing fellow workmen of the sweeper running toward him, the motorman not knowing that the sweeper was deaf; and whether a railroad company was negligent in failing to put a butt-post at the end of a stub-switch in the switch-yard." § 7405. Miscellaneous Examples in which the Negligence of the Defendant was Deemed a Question for the Jury.-Under the circumstances noted, the following questions were held to be for the determination of the jury:-Whether a railroad company was negligent in not ringing its engine-bell to warn a traveller at a street-crossing, where the company was in the habit of operating gates at certain hours of the day, but not at the time in question ; whether a railroad company was negligent in the construction or maintenance of a gate at a private crossing;10 whether a railroad company was negligent in failing to furnish a conductor for a train which ordinarily carries quite a number of passengers and is so scheduled as to encourage travel upon it;11 whether a railroad company was negligent in not adopting a rule requiring a sig nal-light to be placed on a car on a side-track, where there is no evidence that such a rule had been adopted and applied by other companies ;12 whether, after having stopped the train to avoid collision, it was negligence to give the whistle signal for "off brakes," with knowledge that a team driven by a woman was about one hundred and fifty feet away, where there was no evidence that the engineer knew that the horses would become frightened at the whistle;13 whether every available precaution was taken to prevent the spread of fire in a railroad-train in which merchandise was carried together with combustible substances.14 In addition to the cases cited in the preceding paragraphs, a few additional cases are given in the note below in which the negligence of the defendant was deemed a question for the jury. The author will content himself by indicating briefly the na 34 Wis. 357; Benedict v. Fond du Lac, 44 Wis. 495; s. c. 6 Repr. 799; Burns v. Elba, 32 Wis. 605; Cremer v. Portland, 36 Wis. 92; Hammond v. Mukwa, 40 Wis. 35; McMaugh v. Milwaukee, 32 Wis. 200. 7 Lyons v. Bay Cities &c. R. Co., 115 Mich. 114; s. c. 4 Det. Leg. N. 797; 73 N. W. Rep. 139. Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Driscoll, 176 III. 330; s. c. 4 Chic. L. J. Wkly. 130; 12 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 644; 52 N. E. Rep. 921; rev'g s. c. 70 Ill. App. 91. Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Durand, 65 Kan. 380; s. c. 69 Pac. Rep. 356. 10 Mears v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 103 Iowa 203; s. c. 72 N. W. Rep. 509. 11 Means v. Carolina &c. R. Co., 124 N. C. 574; s. c. 45 L. R. A. 164; 14 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 363; 32 S. E. Rep. 960. 12 Shepard v. New York &c. R. Co., 44 N. Y. St. Rep. 816;. s. c. 18 N. Y. Supp. 665. 13 Ochiltree v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 99 Iowa 373; s. c. 68 N. W. Rep. 832; 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 30. 14 Empire Transp. Co. v. Wamsutta Oil &c. Co., 63 Pa. St. 14. ture of the action, as the matters involved have been more fully developed in preceding volumes.1 15 15 Persons run over in the highway: Fernandez V. Sacramento City R. Co., 52 Cal. 45; Quirk v. Holt, 99 Mass. 164; Williams v. Grealy, 112 Mass. 79; Johnson v. Hudson River R. Co., 20 N. Y. 65; Pendril v. Second Avenue R. Co., 43 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 399; s. c. 2 Jones & Sp. (N. Y.) 481; Baxter v. Second Avenue R. Co., 3 Robt. (N. Y.) 510; Williams v. O'Keefe, 9 Bosw. (N. Y.) 536; Myers v. Dixon, 45 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 48; Belton v. Baxter, 58 N. Y. 411; s. c. 54 N. Y. 245; Rottenberg v. Segelke, 6 Misc. (N. Y.) 3 (running over child in turning street corner); Hodges v. Westcott Exp. Co., 39 App. Div. (N. Y.) 545; s. c. 57 N. Y. Supp. 318 (child slipped and fell in front of defendant's horse); Christian v. Commercial Ice Co., 3 Pa. Super. 320; s. c. 39 W. N. C. (Pa.) 538 (injury to pedes trian at junction of two streets, by being struck by heavy truck). Collision of teams in the highway: Park v. O'Brien, 23 Conn. 347; Larrabee v. Sewall, 66 Me. 376; Griggs v. Fleckenstein, 14 Minn. 81; Welling v. Judge, 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 193; Campbell v. Kearney, 45 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 87; Smith v. Clark, 3 Lans. (N. Y.) 208. Leaving horses unhitched and unattended on a public street: Dexter v. McCready, 54 Conn. 171; s. c. 2 N. Eng. Rep. 841; Doyle v. Detroit Omnibus Line Co. (Mich.), 62 N. W. Rep. 1031; 2 Det. Leg. N. 77; Wasmuth v. Butler, 86 Hun (N. Y.) 1; s. c. 33 N. Y. Supp. 108; 66 N. Y. St. Rep. 710. Failure to erect barriers on bridges: Ross v. Ionia Twp. (Mich.), 62 N. W. Rep. 401; Mechesney v. Unity Twp., 164 Pa. St. 358; s. c. 30 Atl. Rep. 263. Leaving noxious agent exposed: McNamara v. Northern Pacific R. Co., 50 Cal. 581; McKee v. Bidwell, 74 Pa. St. 218; Clark v. Chambers, 3 Q. B. Div. 327; s. c. 7 Cent. L. J. 11; 17 Alb. L. J. 505. Use of dangerous agent: Hanlon v. Ingram, 3 Iowa 81; Crist v. Erie R. Co., 1 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 435; McCully v. Clarke, 40 Pa. St. 399; Frankford &c. Turnpike Co. Philadelphia &c. R. Co., 54 Pa. St. 345; Lackawanna &c. R. Co. v. Doak, V. 52 Pa. St. 379; Spaulding v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 33 Wis. 589. Proper equipments being shown, however, by uncontradicted testimony, for controlling the escape of fire, no question remains for the jury: Read v. Morse, 34 Wis. 315. Other cases: Southern Pac. Co. v. Von Schmidt Dredge Co., 118 Cal. 368; s. c. 50 Pac. Rep. 650 (injury to barges by being left by bailee in shallow water off lee shore during severe storm); People v. Kilvington, 104 Cal. 86; s. c. 43 Am. St. Rep. 73; 37 Pac. Rep. 799 (police officer shooting in the direction of one suspected of having committed a felony, for the purpose of stopping him); Davis v. First Nat. Bank, 118 Cal. 600; s. c. 50 Pac. Rep. 666 (bank sent a draft, entrusted to it for collection, to a bank of another State, with which the holder had done business, to identify his signature); Boyle v. McWilliams, 69 Conn. 201; s. c. 37 Atl. Rep. 501 (injury to mule in public highway by runaway horse); Field v. French, 80 Ill. App. 78 (injury to customer by falling of elevator in defendant's store); Mayer v. Brensinger, 180 II. 110; s. c. 54 N. E. Rep. 159; aff'g s. c. 74 Ill. App. 475 (permitting person presenting power of attorney to remove contents of safety-deposit box without identification and without retaining power of attorney or learning name of notary before whom it was acknowledged); Leach v. Durkin, 98 Ill. App. 415 (injury from object falling from building in process of construction); Cook v. Piper, 79 Ill. App. 291 (injury to child from ice falling from rear end of wagon); Illinois &c. R. Co. v. Light, 39 Ill. App. 530 (animal dying during transportation); Sunman v. Clarke, 120 Ind. 142; s. c. 22 N. E. Rep. 113 (sawing lumber so as to render it unmarketable); Escridge v. Cincinnati &c. R. Co., 89 Ky. 367; s. c. 12 S. W. Rep. 580; 11 Ky. L. Rep. 557; 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 176 (whether death was caused by willful negligence of defendant); Eaton v. Lancaster, 79 Me. 447; s. c. 4 N. Eng. Rep. 772; 10 Atl. Rep. 449 (nightwatchman allowing intoxicated men to go into a hay-loft with pipes and |