Negligence—Street-railroajds—Municipal Ordinances Regulating Speed—Violation op Ordinance as Evidence of Negligence.— A city may by a general municipal ordinance, or by a special ordinance granting a particular franchise, prescribe reasonable conditions and regulations under which a street-railroad company shall operate its cars over or across the streets of the city, including the rate of speed, and a violation of such regulations is per se evidence of negligence rendering the company responsible for any injury occasioned thereby, provided a violation of the ordinance próximately contributes to the injury complained of.

Id.—Ordinance Granting Franchise—Absence of Penalty,—Such rule is applicable to a special ordinance granting a franchise to a street-railroad company, notwithstanding the only penalty provided for a violation of its provisions is that the city may forfeit the franchise.

Id.—Death Caused by Car Running at Excessive Speed Over Street Crossing—Ordinance Admissible in Evidence.—In an action against an electric street-railroad company to recover damages for the death of a person who was run over by a car of the company at a public street crossing in a city, alleged to have been caused through the negligence of the company in running its car over the crossing at an excessive rate of speed, in violation of a special ordinance of the city granting the company a franchise, the special ordinance, limiting the rate of speed at which the company could run its cars over street crossings, is admissible in evidence.

Id.—Conflict of Evidence—Signals Showing Intent to Stop Car— Warning Signals.—In such action, in view of the conflict of the evidence, it is held that it was for the jury to determine whether certain signals by the motorman as the ear approached the crossing indicated an intent to stop the car at the crossing, or were warning signals given to indicate that the car would not stop.

Id.—Contributory Negligence—Confusion Caused by Headlight— Crossing in Front of Car.—It is held further that the evidence respecting the signals given by the motorman of the approaching car, and the confusing nature of the headlight thereon, was such as to warrant the jury in finding that the deceased, who expected to board the ear as a passenger, was not guilty of contributory negligence in crossing the track in front of the car.

Id.—Evidence of Damages—Physical Condition of Children of Deceased at Time of Death.—In an action to recover for such negligent killing of a man who was married and the father of several minor children, evidence is admissible, on the question of damages, ' to show the permanent crippled condition of certain of the children at the time of the father’s death.

Id.—Evidence of Physical Condition of Members of Family After Death of Deceased.—It is not, however, permissible to introduce evidence of the condition of the family respecting illness or misfortune suffered by some of its members subsequent to the death of the deceased, and not following as a proximate result thereof.

Id.—-Appeal—Remitting Part of Damages—Affirmance on Condition That Damages are Remitted.—Where upon appeal by the defendant in such action from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and from an order denying it a new trial, the appellate court determines that the only ground warranting a reversal was the erroneous admission of incompetent evidence on the subject of damages, it may, instead of ordering a reversal, affirm the judgment and order, on condition that the plaintiff remit such a portion of the judgment as is shown to measure the extent to which the defendant was prejudiced by the introduction of the incompetent evidence.