In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western Division of the Western District of Washington.

Action at law by Tony Curtz, a minor, by Agnes Curtz, guardian ad litem, against the Northern 'Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

The defendant in error brought an action against the plaintiff m error to recover damages for personal injuries. The complaint alleged that on or about September 12, 1908, the plaintiff in error held on its switches on Dock street in Tacoma three or four empty cars which had recently been unloaded of wheat; that there was loose wheat lying on the floors of the cars; that the plaintiff in error customarily stored at that place cars from which wheat had been unloaded; that it was customary for many people, including women and children, residing in Tacoma, to collect the wheat in the cars by sweeping the floors thereof; that the plaintiff in error well knew this custom, and permitted and licensed and encouraged said people, including boys of tender years, to enter said cars and sweep up and remove the wheat therefrom; that the defendant in error, a boy of 11 years of age, was carelessly and negligently invited and permitted by the plaintiff in error to board one of its said box cars so standing on said storage tracks for the( purpose of sweeping up wheat in said ears; that he was of immature judgment, and unaware of the dangers connected therewith, and that while he and other boys were in said car the servants and employes of the plaintiff in error, knowing that they were there, and in a dangerous position, negligently and carelessly and without warning to the defendant in error or to others propelled a locomotive to which was attached some other cars with great and unnecessary violence and force against the car in which the defendant in error was standing, and thereby caused the same to be moved suddenly and with great violence, throwing the defendant in error from the car and onto the track in front of the wheels of the car, whereby he was injured. The answer put in issue the allegations of negligence, and denied that the plaintiff in error invited or permitted'the defendant in error or others to enter said cars for any purpose. On the trial of the case judgment was rendered for the defendant in error.