Negligence—Electric Wire Across Highway—Injury to Traveler— Presumption op Negligence.—The fact that a person, while traveling along a public highway, was injured by coming in contact with a highly charged electric wire belonging to an electric light and power company, which was down across the public highway at the point where the accident occurred, raises a presumption of negligence on the part of the company maintaining the wire.

Id.—Evidence Supports Findings op Negligence.—The evidence, although conflicting, is held sufficient to support the special findings of the jury that the defendant’s power line had been negligently constructed; that the negligence consisted in the use of a weak pin on the cross-bar carrying the wire that fell and that the falling of the wire was caused by this weakness, and that the line was negligently maintained, in that the man in charge neglected to repair the pin after his attention had been repeatedly called to its dangerous condition.

Id.—Measure of Damages for Death—Province of Jury.—In the assessment of damages for a negligent death much is left to the sound discretion of the jury, and its action and that of the trial court will be reversed only where the amount of damages is obviously so disproportionate to the injury proved as to justify the conclusion that the verdict is not the result of the cool and dispassionate discretion of the jury.

Id.—Pecuniary Loss Limit of Recovery.—In actions for injuries causing death, instituted by the surviving wife and children of the deceased, the plaintiffs are limited in their recovery to the pecuniary loss suffered by them.

Id.—Verdict of Twenty Thousand Dollars Not Excessive.—In such an action, a verdict of twenty thousand dollars, for the death of a healthy man, fifty-seven years of age, who had been contributing at least two hundred dollars a month to the support of his family, cannot be held excessive.

Id.—Earnings of Deceased as Evidence.—Evidence of what such a person had earned in the past furnished at least some, if not, indeed, the most satisfactory, basis for estimating what he would in all likelihood have done in the future.

Id.—Instructions as to Proof of Negligence—Want of Conflict.— In such an action am instruction, to the effect that the plaintiffs were bound to prove the defendant’s negligence by a preponderance of evidence, is not in conflict with an instruction to the effect that proof of killing by coming in contact with the fallen wire raised a presumption of the defendant’s negligence, and cast upon it the burden of meeting the presumption; and that such presumption need not be overcome by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, but it would be overcome if sufficient evidence were produced to balance it.

Id.—Immaterial Instruction Ignored by Jury.—An instruction as to an element of negligence that was not within the issues is immaterial, when the special verdict of the jury shows that the only negligence found and acted upon by them was that alleged.

Td.—Enlargements of Photographs—Evidence of Maker to Prove Accuracy Unnecessary.—It is for the trial court to determine, from the evidence before it, whether enlargements of photographs of the locus in quo that were received in evidence, are correct representations thereof. The accuracy of the enlargements need not be proved by the maker thereof.

Id.—Statements to and Admissions of General Agent of Defendant.—In such action, evidence of statements made to the general agent of the defendant having charge of its power system concerning the condition of the defective supporting pin, and his replies thereto, were admissible to establish notice to him of the defective construction and to show negligence in maintenance. It was not necessary to lay a foundation for such declarations by asking the preliminary questions appropriate to an attempt to impeach a witness by proof of contradictory statements made at another time.

Id.—Witness Familiar with Business Affairs of Deceased.—A witness familiar with the business affairs of the deceased was properly permitted to testify to the amount he had been earning in his business.

New Trial—Misconduct of Jury—Conflicting Affidavits—Appeal. —The refusal to grant a new trial for alleged misconduct of the jury will be upheld on appeal when the affidavits relied on to show misconduct were contradicted by counter affidavits.