Willard

(after stating the facts as above). The evidence in the case is without any substantial conflict upon any material point. It shows that the ties in question were cut from the farm of one C. W. Magers, and by him sold to the plaintiff in error, he agreeing to haul and pile them at Springdale, which he did with the assistance of his two sons. Magers, who was a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, testified, among other things, that;

The record shows that when the defendant company offered in evidence the directions posted in the depot (designated in the record as Defendant’s Exhibit No. 7), specifying how the ties should be piled, the plaintiff objected to its introduction, which objection was sustained by the court, and which ruling is here assigned as error. That exhibit was a notice reading, in part, as follows:

*716 We think the railway company was entitled to introduce the exhibit in evidence for the purpose of showing that by the terms of the sale the ties in question were not stacked by the company but by the seller, Magers, and to have that fact considered by the jury in connection with the balance of the evidence, in the event the case should be submitted to them. ,But…