Negligence—Doctrine of Bes Ipsa Loquitur.—Where a thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defend- ■ ant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.

Id.—Death of Engineer of Sugar-beet PLant—Explosion of Preheater— Applicability of Doctrine.—The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to an action for damages for the death of a master mechanic having the oversight of the machinery of a beet-sugar plant, from the explosion of a “pre-heater” operated by a boy of the age of sixteen years, where it is shown that it was not the duty of the deceased to personally operate the boiler, and he was informed that the heater would safely carry a steam pressure of seventy pounds, when, in fact, it was only built for a maximum pressure of forty pounds.

Id.—Pleading—Specific Acts of Negligence—Bight to Bely upon Doctrine—Lack of Waiver.—In such an action the plaintiffs are not precluded from relying upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur because they charged specific omissions of duties or acts of negligence.

Id.—Bisks of Explosion not Assumed.—A master mechanic intrusted . with the oversight of all the machinery of a sugar plant does not assume the risk of the explosion of a pre-heater used in connection with the plant, where there is no evidence that the same was out of repair, or that there is any imperfection in it calling for repair, _ or that it is not in thorough running condition, and the same was operated by an employee under the directions of the superintendent of the plant, and not of the deceased, and upon the representation that it would withstand a steam pressure of nearly double its actual maximum resisting capacity.