Meeks

1. The plaintiff was guilty of such contributory negligence as defeats the action. (Sims v. M. & N R. R. Co. 29 Ga. 95 .)

2. To the point that the failure to ring the bell did not entitle plaintiff to a recovery: The statute requiring a bell- to be rung on approaching a highway crossing, is for the benefit of j>ersons traveling along the highway—for the benefit of persons making a lawful use of the highway, and not for the benefit of those who unlawfully convert it into a bed to sleep upon. ( O'Donnell v. P. & W. R. R. Co. 6 R. I. 211; Holmes v. The Central &c. Co. 87 Ga. 596 .)

The plaintiff was not in a position to claim the benefit of the statute. He was not traveling upon the highway, nor was he, in fact, upon the traveled crossing.

3. Contributory negligence is the doctrine of this Court. (Kline v. Cent. Pac. R. Co. 37 Cal. 400 ; Needh am S. F. &. S. J. R. Co. 37 Cal. 409 ; Flynn v. S. F. & S. F. R. Co. 40 Cal. 14 ; Flemming v. W. P. R. Co. 49 Cal. 253 .)

C. N. C. Rowell and A. B. Paris, for Eespondent.

1. If defendant could have avoided running over plaintiff, they were bound to so.

*604 2. The defendant was negligent in not ringing the bell. The statute demands that…