1. Master and Servant (§ 264*) — Master’s Liability for Injury to Servant —Actio ns — V ariance.

In an action by á motorman against a street railroad company to recover for a personal injury resulting from the exploding of a fuse which was designed to explode in case an excessive amount of electricity passed through it, where the only negligence alleged was the placing of the fuse where it was dangerous to the motorman, whereas it could have been so placed as to avoid such danger, the admission of evidence showing the manner and cause of the explosion was not error as allowing plaintiff to prove a different act of negligence, where the jury were charged that plaintiff must prove the negligence alleged to be entitled to recover, but the evidence was admissible as explaining the circumstances surrounding the accident.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Gent. .Dig. § 865; Dee. Dig. § 264.*]

2. Appeal and Error (§ 1051*) — Review—Harmless Error — Admission op Evidence — Facts Otherwise Established.

Where the jury upon the undisputed evidence must have reached the same conclusion as an expert witness, or where his evidence is on a point on which the jury are entirely competent to decide in accordance with the general experience, the admission of expert testimony will not be regarded on appeal as ground for reversing the judgment.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4161-4170; Dec. Dig. § 1051.*]

3. Evidence (§ 219*)'— Admissions — Personal Injury — Settlement with Insurance Company.

In an action for a personal injury, evidence that plaintiff held a policy of accident insurance, and that after the injury, but two months before commencement of the action, he settled with the insurance company on the basis of an injury less serious than that alleged in the complaint, did not intend to prove the admission of any fact by plaintiff tending to contradict the allegations of the complaint, and was properly excluded.

[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. § 767; Dec. Dig. § 219.*]

4. Master and Servant (§ 295*) — Master’s Liability por Injury to Servant —Actions—Instructions.

Instructions, in an action by an employs against the master for a personal injury, on the issue of assumption of risk, considered as a whole, held not erroneous.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 1168; Dec. Dig. § 295.*]

Ross, Circuit Judge, dissenting.