L Master and Servant—Negligence—Injury to Brakeman—Evidence.

A railroad section hand was on a hand car with other employes, under the control and superintendence of a section boss, and was going at the rate of 10 miles an hour. The brake appliances on the car had been supplied by the section boss, and were defective. Extra trains were being run over that section, without notice to the hands. A rapidly moving freight train approached through a cut and around a curve, giving no warning or signals. The brake on the hand car was applied without effect, and plaintiff, believing himself in imminent peril, jumped, falling between the rails, and the hand car ran over him. Held sufficient to warrant the jury in holding the company liable.

2. Same—Defective Appliances—Duty op Railroad Company.

The duty of a railroad company to furnish its employes with safe and reliable machinery and appliances adequate to the services in which they are engaged cannot be delegated to another servant so as to exempt itself from liability for injuries caused by its omission. Nor will the negligence of a fellow servant excuse the company from liability to a coservant for an injury which would not have happened had the proper machinery been furnished.

S. Same.

The employes on the hand car had a right to expect that those in charge of the freight train would give the usual warning in approaching places of danger; and the negligence of the officer in charge of the train in this respect was not one of the usual and ordinary risks assumed by the plaintiff as incident to his employment.

i. Trial—Examining Witness—Discretion op Court.

The mode of examining a witness is within the discretion of the court, and it is not error, therefore, to allow a witness to give his testimony in a narrative form, and if he states mattérs irrelevant or incompetent it is the duty of the party objecting to arrest the narrative, and move to have such testimony stricken out.

5. Practice—Nonsuit—Directing Verdict—Power op Federal Courts.

The federal courts have no power to order a compulsory nonsuit at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, or to direct a verdict for defendant before the latter has rested his case.

6. Bill op Exceptions—Suppiciency—Objections to Evidence.

A bill of exceptions which, in respect to certain evidence admitted at the trial, contains merely the formal record, “Objection taken; overruled; exceptions allowed, ”—is too general to present any question for review, as the ground of objection should be pointed out.

7. Appeal—Review—Excessive Verdict—New Trial.

The correction of an excessive verdict is a question for the trial court on a motion for a new trial, the granting or refusing of which will not be reviewed by the federal appellate courts.