Negligence — Railroad — Trespasser upon Private Right of Wat.— The engineer of a railroad train being operated upon the railroad’s private right of way at a usual speed, at a usual time, and under adequate working equipment, is not charged with the duty of watching for trespassers upon the right of way. His duty is fulfilled if, upon the discovery of such a trespasser, at and after the time of the discovery, he adopts reasonable precautions to avoid injuring him.

Id.—Employment of Minors—Act of 1911 Regulating—Forbidden Hours of Employment—Watchman at Railroad Tunnel.—Section 1 of the act regulating the employment and hours of labor of children (Stats. 1911, pp. 282, 910), which prohibits the employment of minors under the age of eighteen for moro than nine hours in any one day in any manufacturing, mechanical, or mercantile establishment, “or other place of labor,” should be construed to forbid such employment only in the places specified and in other like establishments, and does not limit the hours of employment of a minor as a watchman to look out for a tunnel upon a railroad track. Section 2 of such act forbids th§ employment of such minor in any occupation between the hours of 10 P. M. and 5 A. M.

Id.—Employment of Minor as Watchman for More Than Nine Hours a Hay.—In an action against a railroad company to recover for the death by the alleged negligence of the defendant of a minor under the age of eighteen, who was . employed by the company as a watchman of a tunnel upon its track, and whose hours of employment were from 12 o’clock noon to 12 o’clock midnight of each day, it was error to instruct the jury that the employment of the minor in such occupation for more than nine hours a day was forbidden by such statute.

Id.—Employment of Minor to Work During Forbidden Hours—Injury During Permissible Working Hours—Presumption of Absence of Contributory Negligence.—in such action, where the death of the minor employee occurred prior to 10 P. M., the mere fact that by the terms of Ms employment it was contemplated that he should work during the forbidden hours does not warrant the presumption contained in the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1911 (Stats. 1911, p. 796), to the effect that “it shall be conclusively presumed that such employee was not guilty of contributory negligence in any case where the violation of any statute enacted for the safety of employees contributed to such employee’s injury.”

Id.—Penalty—Action for Damages.—Such action is not one to enforce a penalty for a violation of the statute.

Id.—Violation of Statute for Safety of Employees—Contributory Negligence.—Such provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1911 means, that if an employer shall have violated any statute enacted for the safety of Ms employees, and this violation shall have contributed to an employee’s injury, the employer shall not be allowed to avail himself of the defense of contributory negligence which otherwise would have been open to him.

Id.—Violation of Statute must Contribute to Injury.—To warrant such presumption in a civil action by the employee to recover damages, not only must injury be shown, but it must further be shown that the employer’s violation of a statutory duty contributed to this injury.

Id.—Contract Violative of Statute ' Regulating Terms of Employment.—A mere contract of employment can never be a contributing cause to an injury to an employee; and if an injury results during the course of employment under a contract which is denounced and forbidden by the law as to certain of its terms, it must be shown

that the employee’s doing of the act, forbidden to the employer, in some manner contributed tó his injury.

Id.—Contract Limiting Hours op Labor.—Under statutes limiting the hours of labor, it must be shown not only that the employee was laboring during the forbidden or excessive hours, but that his injuries in some proximate way resulted from this fact.