Action fob Negligence—Collision of Street-car with Foot-passenger—Evidence Warranting Verdict. — In an action for negligence in causing a street-car to collide with the plaintiff, who was a foot-passenger upon the sidewalk, where the evidence showed that the car was crossing the sidewalk at the car-house at the rate of three miles per hour when the collision occurred, and that no warning or signal was given, and no lookout was kept to avoid a collision, the jury were warranted in concluding that the injury to the plaintiff from the collision was the result of the defendant’s negligence.

Id. — Contributory Negligence of Plaintiff—Question for Jury.— It cannot be said, as matter of law, that it was contributory negligence for the plaintiff to cross the track, which ran over the sidewalk into the car-house, under the circumstances in proof; but it was a question for the jury to determine.

Id.—Negligence, when a Question of Fact—Absence of Conflicting Evidence—Different Conclusions.—Negligence is a question of fact for the jury, even though there is no conflict in the evidence, if different conclusions upon the subject can rationally be drawn from the evidence. If one sensible and impartial man might decide under the facts that the plaintiff had exercised ordinary care, and another that be had not exercised such care, the question of contributory negligence must be left to the jury.

Id.—Refusal of Correct Instruction — Contributory Negligence— Danger Unknown to Defendant—Charge of Court.—The refusal of a correct instruction, requested by the defendant, upon the subject of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff if there was a failure to use ordinary care in looking and listening, and the non-liability of the defendant for the injury if plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and the plaintiff’s danger was actually unknown to the defendant, even, though the defendant was guilty of negligence, is not prejudicial^, where all the elements ojf such instruction were included in the charge given by the court. ‘

Id. — Instruction as to Discovery of Plaintiff’s Danger—Neglect to Avoid Accident—Proximate Cause of Injury. — An instruction, that if the defendant’s employees discovered the plaintiff’s danger, notwithstanding plaintiff may have been negligent, in time to have avoided the accident by the exercise of ordinary care, the later negligence of the defendant’s employees, if any, is the proximate cause of the injury, was properly given, where a basis therefor was laid in the cross-examination of a witness for the defendant.

Id.—Verdict not Excessive.— A verdict for one thousand dollars damages is not excessive, where it appears that, as the result of the defendant’s negligence, the arm of the plaintiff was broken near the wrist, and was kept in splints for two months, and at the time of the trial, eleven months after the injury, was still weak, and was subject to attacks of rheumatism upon change of the weather.