1. Trial — Admission of Evidence — Order of Proof

The order of proof is largely within the discretion of the court, and the admission of evidence without the requisite preliminary or connecting proof is not prejudicial error, where such proof is subsequently introduced.

2. Master and Servant — Action for Injury to Servant — .Evidence.

In an action by a servant against the master to recover for an injury caused by the caving in of a tunnel in which plaintiff was working, evidence of the character of the timbering was admissible on the issue of defendant’s negligence, when supplemented by evidence tending to show that it was defective, and knowu to be so by defendant, and that such defects were responsible for the injury.

8. Same — Contributory Negligence.

A servant injured by the caving in of a tunnel in which he was working, and which was insufficiently timbered, cannot be charged with contributory negligence as matter of law, where it was shown that he was inexperienced in the work, and there was evidence tending to show that the master assured him the place was safe, and that planks were put up by direction of the master to hide the danger from the workmen.

4. Same — Negligence of Fellow Servant.

Negligent acts of fellow servants cannot bo relied on as a defense to an action by a servant for a personal injury, where it is clearly shown that such acts were done under the direct orders of the master.

3. Evidence — Opinions of Experts — Hypothetical Questions

It is proper to permit a witness testifying as an expert to answer a hypothetical question stating only facts which there is evidence fairly tending to prove, and it is not necessary, as a general rule, that such question should embrace all the facts of the case.

6. Master and Servant — Assumed Risks.

A servant does not assume the risk of injury from the negligence of the master in failing to exercise ordinary care to make the place where the servant works reasonably safe, considering the nature of the employment.1

7. Damages — Personal Injury — Future Incapacity to Work.

Where there was evidence tending to show that plaintiff had, ever since the injury sued for, been incapaciated from work in a greater or less degree, and that such incapacity would continue for some time, It was not error to instruct that the jury in estimating the amount of his compensatory damages should take into consideration the loss sustained through inability to work “during the period of his incapacity and probable incapacity alleged in the complaint.”

8. Trial — Instructions—Refusal of Requests.

If the charge of the court, in its own language, embraces all the points of law arising in the case, it is not error to refuse further instructions requested, although they correctly state the law. It is the duty of the court to simplify its directions to the jury, and a repetition in different language not only tends to confuse the jury, but to give undue prominence to the proposition repeated.