Appeal — Review of Order Granting New Trial — Grounds of Order. — Upon an appeal from an order granting a new trial, the appellate court •will review the entire record upon which the order was based, and if the record discloses any error which would have justified the trial court in making the order, the order will be affirmed, irrespective of the particular ground given by such court, whether in its opinion or by a statement in the order itself.

Id.—Limitation of Rule — Review of Conflicting Evidence.—The foregoing rule has a limitation in cases where one of the grounds upon which the new trial is sought is the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or decision. If in such a case the trial court, in its order granting a new trial, excludes this as a ground of its action by direct language, the appellate court will accept the conclusion of the trial court, and not re-examine the evidence.

Negligence— Master and Servant — Defective Shaft ■—Contributory Negligence — Voluntary Act of Servant out of Scope of Employment— Nonsuit. —A servant employed in a malt-room was engaged in cleaning the malt-elevator, and having an endless towel upon his shoulder, which impeded him in his work, threw it over the projecting end of a shaft, about six feet above the floor, the end of which had been battered by hammering, so that its edges were jagged and rough, and the engine was afterwards started, causing the shaft to carry the towel around with it, and he, thinking the towel, in its movements, might interfere with his work beneath the shaft, attempted to remove it, and in so doing was caught by the shaft and injured. The act of the servant in hanging the towel upon the shaft had no connection with the service for which he was employed, hut was his voluntary act, done by him for his own convenience. Held, that he is not entitled to recover from the master for the injury received by him as the result of such act, and that a nonsuit should be granted in a suit by the servant, where the testimony for the plaintiff shows that the injury was so received.

Id.—Defective Machinery Extraneous to Employment—Proximate Cause of Injury. — The right of a servant to recover from the master for injuries received by him from defective machinery depends upon the negligence of the master in respect to the machinery upon which the seivant is employed to work, and cannot be maintained by showing negligence on the part of the master in reference to other machinery with which the servant’s employment has no connection, unless such machinery is in some way incidental to the service in which he was engaged, and was the proximate cause of the injury.

Id.—Duty of Master — Object of Machinery — Use for Uncontemplated Purpose—'Hanging Towel upon Shaft—^ Risk of Servant. — A master is under no obligation to his servant to make machinery suitable for a purpose not designed, or which could not have been contemplated by the master, and is not liable for an injury received by the servant from the machinery while used for his own purposes as a place on which to hang a towel for his convenience; but the servant assumes the risk of such use, and of any attempt to take such towel from the shaft.

Id. —Proximity of Shaft to Plage of Work. — The fact that the shaft upon which the servant hung the towel was close to the place where he was working would not affect the liability of the master, although it may have determined the servant’s selection of it as a place on which to hang the towel. •

Id. — Evidence — Knowlege of Master as to Condition of Shaft — Motives and Opinion of Informant. —In an action by the servant against the master for injuries alleged to have been received from a defective shaft, although it is proper for the court, for the purpose of showing that the master had knowledge of the condition of the shaft, to allow a witness to testify that previous to the injury to the servant he had informed the foreman of the condition of the shaft, yet it is error to allow the witness to testify as to the motives which prompted him to inform the foreman, and as to his own opinion concerning the shaft.

Id.—Testimony of Experts — Danger from Rough End of Projecting Shaft — Questions for Jury. — In such case it is error for the court to‘ admit expert testimony as to whether it is more dangerous for a shaft having a rough surface or end to project into the room than it would be if the shaft were smooth, and as to whether a towel could he more safely taken from a smooth revolving shaft than a jagged and rough one. Such matters are not the proper subject of expert testimony, but are properly questions of fact for the jury to determine, either from their own experience in matters of common observation, or from all the evidence in the case.

Id. —Verbal Evidence of Admissions — Caution of Jury—Instruction as to Matter of Fact. —Where evidence was given at the trial tending to show that shortly after the injury the plaintiff had made statements to the effect that it was the result of his own fault, and that the accident had been brought about by a different cause from that shown at the trial, it is for the jury to say, as an inference of fact, whether or not the evidence was liable to he erroneous, and was therefore to be received with caution, and not a presumption or conclusion of law to he declared by the court; and it is error, in charging the jury as to matter of fact, to . instruct them that verbal evidence of such admissions is liable to be erroneous, and should be received by the jury with great caution; and the error in such instruction is not obviated by telling the jury to give to the evidence the consideration to which it is entitled.

Id. — Province of Jury — Invasion by Court. —It is the province of the jury to weigh the evidence and find the facts in a case, and an instruction by the court that any particular evidence which has been laid before them is not entitled to receive weight or consideration from them, is an invasion of stich province.