In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Oregon.

Action by Leander Uassilla, by Josephine Sommerville, guardian ad litem, against the Beaver Hill Coal Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

The defendant in error was the plaintiff in an action brought against the plaintiff in error to recover damages for personal injuries. The complaint al-Uged that the idaintiff in error employed the defendant in error to work about its coal mine as a general roustabout; that on or about March 6, 1903, the foreman in charge of the coal mine, and who was in charge of the employes therein and gave them their orders, directed the defendant in error to work in an abandoned tunnel, known as “Gangway No. 3,” in removing old rotten timbers therefrom and retimbering the same; that the defendant in error was a minor of the age of .17 years, inexperienced and unfamiliar with the work he was required to perform, and by reason of his tender years and inexperience was unacquainted and unfamiliar with the hazards and dangers incident thereto; that the plaintiff in error knew that the work in which the defendant ■in error was directed to engage was extra hazardous, and that the gangway No. 3 was in an unsuitable and dangerous condition, that the timbers therein were likely to give way and fall at any time, all of which was unknown and not appreciated by the defendant, in error, as was known by the officers and agents of the plsiintiff in error then in charge of the-mine; that they carelessly and negligently failed and neglected to caution and warn him of the dangerous condition of said gangway or of the hazards and dangers incident to* working therein; that while defendant in error was so engaged in said work a large portion of the ceiling in said gangway suddenly and without warning fell down upon him, throwing him to the ground, breaking his arm, and inflicting other serious injuries upon him. The answer denied the allegations of the complaint, and' pleaded as affirmative defenses assumption of risk and contributory negligence, and alleged that the plaintiffs in error furnished all materials and supplies necessary for making the place where the defendant in error was working safe, and that the cause of the accident was the failure of the defendant, in error and his fellow servants to use the supplies, implements, and appliances so furnished. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant in error, and judgment was thereupon rendered.