IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set m^ ha^
at Mt. Verndii, this
A. D. 191 ^




o



t) ^ w



Opinion of the Appellate Court




AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at ML Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, the same
being the 26th day of March in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen.



Present:

Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Presiding Justice.
Hon. Harry Higbee, Justice,
u^^on. James C. McBride, Justice.
CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk.



211 I.A. 82



THOMAS E.



\SLEY, Sheriff.

And afterwards, to-wit: On the fifth day of April, A. D. W18, there was filed in
the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINIO/^ in the words and figures
following:



\



\



\

\

Homer E. Bail ^

Pl^ntiff in Error



\



No 14

October Term, 1917.



..Ma.ry.JN.ie'bru..e6ge.,...Jxe.c.u.tr;:|ji:., e.t.^».»

Defendant in Erfor





ERROR TO



Circuit COURT



Madison COUNTY



TRIAL JUDGE



HON LOUIS.-B.Il^IIREUTER.



Term Kn. 3 4. Xn tne ApLvi. * . .^ vwit,

fourth District.
Octo"ber Terrr.t A. P. 3 917.



A^«nu



ilaintiff in error.

ve.

JfRiy Kiebruefeiv*, ©jcecutrix of th«
Inst will and x,en\.n£x*xnt of ^iertian
Kiebrue64';e, deceased,

lefondivnt in c rr cu".



Krror to the Circuit
Court of iAMciiaon
County, lllinoit.



Upon a xx'ii'4. vi tid? cjiee in thv -•i.xcuj.T& v-aurt
judfcmefit was rendered in f.^ivor of txit? dtsfendjmt in error,
hereinafter called defondaiit, at.5iinet ti** ^.inintiil in «rrnr,
hereinafter celled plaintiff, for coutp of suit.

ij'rior to Juao ii>, 11/13, the deceai^ed, ;,:•;.;-. if-
bmeiit^e hj^.d lor several yvars- utien yfflicLc^d with st r.ervous
trouble. iiC 'nnd been tro'ttfd by the local pjiy^icinn*' for
aevernl ye*;re and aif^o o specialist frnn. . .ui* i>.''^(' ■'■■-
tended nnd pr€»cri1>ed for aim but tiiey v:er'.: un-..')l€ t^ curt
him. A fev dfiy? prior to June loth a jaan by the nanje of
C. iJellerttan, v*iO wrvg a professor in one of the achoole wt
Troy, ininr-.i?, vii?ited t:ie defcndnnt .t-.nd told uer nnd the
faraily of a-onae trouble vith ^sich he had \>tee-n j-.fflic te"
and thn J he had been treated by Loctor BailCj, the plaii-.tili,
and had been cured and rec «mr;ended tii.it they otcur.
doctor's f?erviceff ior tlic eceaeed. ;hi** oonvcrea i.u oc-
curred in the l.^itter nnrt f^t the we«V ^*^i^ ^4*1 imdm/ frtii«w«
ing the con-vernation Xr, bailey and ;iig eon, "..alttr . ■■ ^ilej^,



-1-



. .' .1 > ■



tltftl .BV

.sax* ,»Ui:^»in;(i!



n-i^iio



as J? o 6 i
X£^uX »i:i;r x^ bUltn^xf n9»cl bj$jri d^i .die



i ifi'iin!. t ni brrriio



who ira» p.3»o ft physician, came out to the i.cane of defe-nd'ijit
»t Troy, llllnole, ?ind arrived there nt alout ten o'clock
in the inomirifc;* he s^id he came toy the direction of Ktller-
irmn for the purpose of seeing deceaeed l;ut the defendant
olaliee th«,t »he told hiia they hnd nl ready expended p great
Riaount of money in troHtmcnt and it hsd done no ^^cod and
they did not care to expend any jsnore uoney unJes? they were
8ur«; of i\ cure, ind ei^imt; th«^t she reiueed to allo^ him to
tr«:Rt the patient, ish^ cpy© that he told hffr he had he;.rd
a good deal aoout tht r^atient frosi irofep!?or Kellerrian and
asked if s'he would permit iiim to pec the ■■'itient; she told
him hfe could and he went in and esrwuined the patient and
claiwe he gave patient a treatment, i.is son, ' r. *'»lter
Bailey, wae -with him at the time. After the treatuunt the
two doc tor p nnd tiie defcndnnt fl.nd her two dauf^hterp had a
convereation wliile unnn the poroh at which time defendnnt
claltne' that aii© told the doctor she did nit cnre to expend
any more isoney on deceased unle^j? "lie ?#as ah^oluttly J?ure
he could cure hia nnd th^t Toctor iJailey aptured then* he could
cure hlo and that he nov;.ld do o in three sveclcy "nd jjop'-'ibly
in two weeki hut that they would hnve to send .ira to a hos-
pital in i>t. Louie, and they al?o cl&iffi e.t that tiffi© the de-
fendant aeked tiie doctor what nis char^ e» '?fOuld ^ e wa,6 he
said not to talk about cnoney matters until after he had ef-
fected a cure, and that the ohargee then v/o-uld 'cc reaeonnble.
Thie is denied hy Xioctor Bailey and hie r-on, i^nd it i»
claimed by thea tlrxat the detendnnt requested him to come over
to Troy and nee tJienatient, imke Rrran£exafcnte to take hija

and tre?<t him RnrJ f-V>n + >!-» "■« e +« '•»« ♦V«o V«.c.* U<a «*n«>14 fny

hici; that ne gr»ve no rp^urance ii^atever. KellermRn teptifiee

-2-



■■I im-i

■JiiJ Hit-.

btmtaaaxa taa at inyn :ui ua-; Lxiicu ..
?itf I'^^IA .•ail >>



nv evi:i>;fJ'a;a \,






th«t he w»« amtiiorizecT by the faaily to fend ootor i.-vuey
over to tj«« t>ie iec«aee<l. 'iii-is, .ovipver, is denied by th«
JTatuily. On the next dray the deceased wai? taJktai to tJn« isafw.
tist .uc»pit»l in t ::»uiv, kispouri, by rhe dircctl'm of
;ijoctor .^aliey jnu ..< t.vn began the treatment of him and
continued the treatiucnts lor iivc weeko. It a);;peF.rsi froni a
preponderance of the »sf-vidence ti^at tne .leceaaed grisidually
tjrew vjorse under tlifc treatment and thot he ueoj^siae very ner»
voue, much more no than '.le m-d bfcen, and wfis fit tiinee un-
arle to recognijBc nie fritinde. '^hii? ip denied uy the doc-
tor and the nurse. kt the expiration of five veeke the
defendnnt wanted to tnke the deceased to j.i* home but the
uoctor ftdviit'ed her ths-t it v/.uld r,.ot oe :<ai(a to raeve 'oira in
hi© present C'-ndition. ^he tiicn cauued Lor iocil phypici^n
to go oyer and exRiaine the deoetieed sxid put? ii lie "Vf?*.? in &
fit condition to be no*i;d hoae, which wiis aonti, p.nd the doc-
tor advieed hie removal, which wag i.i«de iitaaiediatcly . After
the p'^ient h^d "aeen r amoved Jvoctor i^ailey -.ade another trir
to Tro/, IlJin-rii.', to see i-.ow dece«eed was j^etting along,
it further ftppG re tnat alter the deceased Vfus taken to
hie noffie he beci^rns sozae bettei and wa» «ii.'l€j to tiO about but
died on or aeout the iaonth of 3epteiaber li*l&. it further
aipears that a few days altrr tnie rt-voval Uint the plsintiff
ptnt the defendant ft bill for iW7C.OO lor treatjnent, vhioii
the defend 'int declined to pay. '"here w&e sotue effort oade
to cimprosjtise the r.iS, tter bit none effected, po the doctor
then brought euit for the- aniount of hia bill.

it further r:ppfs&tB from t/ie t-vidence that the
plaintiff had no lieenBc to practice rfedicine in the .tnte
of Illinois.

At ie cont«naec bj> counsel a or plaintiff that undtr
the evidence in tnis care ne ie" entitled to rfccover upon

-S-



»-■;•*



liiCTX






- " 00 'J

iiii






the atrlta and th-t the verdict of ti^e jury 1p mnnifertly
ngftlnft the weight of th« evldenoe, Alt?© that tiie croirt
erred in the giving of its instractioiiB and in it? rullnee
upon the adirtieelbility nf evit'ence-

Ae we view the n.n»e, the cr\icinl queptlon, r\ni the
one iii:jioh will finally dotermine tlie ii»!»ufcs involved^ is? p?
to whether or not the defendatit ImA n contr?!ict with the
plaintiff tiwt he v; (=- to cure the decenced. The evidenee
upon thlf quefiition va9 \»ry cf^nflicting, sr, isiuch eo th^it
It wae neoeeeary, for n proper determini^tion of the rifchte
of the nartie?, tJmt the Jury fee correctly instructed. If
the jury hnti been correctly instructed vfe would not te di im-
posed to dlsturTo the verdict but ae we view it ^ne r>f the
Instructions given for defendant wae errocneouc, so siuch «»«,
es to n«cee»ltate « reverepl -^f the cnne.

The firet instruction ^iven "by the cnv.rt - n he'c.r^lf
of the defendant wae ae foliO"&s, "The court inetructp the
Jury thnt wliile tii« plaintiff lm& the ri^rl^t to testify in
thie eult in hie ovm l>«hfllf the Jury hrve the right In de-
teiwinlng Jiow much credit should b» given to Jiie teetiaiooy
to taJc€ in to eoneidcration tiie fnct that he is the r^lsln-
tiff '^nd Interected in the r» suit of the ei.it". Owing to
the fpct thfit the ttetimony wae £?o lilghly corjtrRdictory ?i^nd
thnt the witnee^eee lor the defend?5nt ae veil s^e the pinin-
tltf were int^re^ted in the result cf the cult, we think
thnt thie inetruction wae crroneoue. It war calculated to
tmpreee the Jury with the thought thnt the court entertained
eome epeclsl reason for dlgcrediting the tef^tlssony of the
«2«}««4ff -.v4^v A* A «»* m^w^y *.^ fVfm «.e«4^inAny ot def»ndr>nt.
The Inetructlon should hive ceen of a char«'Cter tnf»t r.pie it

.4-



ba« atlroffl 9ctf



.^■^1



a«i^et»bl«nc>0 •# ill

Tit b»^3»T».'- "21*



yar-'*-



oato*



i.i/o«i» noUotft^viU «>fV



nppXioftbXc to the witnesses of nlsilntift and defendant. An
instruction eijaiiai* to thie one vf«» cotid^nmed as erroneou*
in tJae cnse of Ctutgcter v». Hatch, 134 Ap, ,?4 ,, it ir
true tf.B t jiii instruction piiailnr to tiiie wr-e rustftincd in

the CFt'e of r . cu ...... vi?. i;urri<Jgc, 211 m,,C, Lut

thr.t "WRB upon th.e fcrouiio that one of tiie partaee to th«
?uit ^pv R corx;oration said the court cayr, '.il, in the in-
ptruction 11CIV under consideration, the worrfp, "the pif?.intifl"
had "been •trioken out wherever they occurred ,'<nd the worde
"ft party" pu^b^tituted, the instruction v,'ould h-^-ve been en-
tirely unohjcction."-*Je, and yet the jury v-^nd h.'>v« knovu
thnt it C'3uld p.pply to none except the piaintiil, for t?ie
rearon that he ip tlic only pnrty to tue »uit v/i.o tsftilied.
Under puch circu-ni»t'-*nct!«s the fact t-) "t ii© was? identified ly
the instruction did. not Juctify iterefusal". The defendant
testified in tVda Gas« ar ^-feli ae tiiss lilaintii'i nnii the
t?aEi« rale should iiavti lecri n .>iicd to x-er teetimony tint w»»
qi.!>ii<;d to the '.Inintiii .

it is Glsc ineieted uy couneel for plaintiff tfc?:t
even if the evidence did ei'ovv an -^j-reeBient upon the r 'Tt
of t/Lc plftintli'f to cure the deceeped before he wns entitled
to ptiy, xhrt he was notwitiistanding entitled to v«!f f'^r t«e
llr)?t t;rip tir t he i-nde to eee the deeea««d and before th«
dccenstd v^^u sent to t)ic- hoepitHl. If the defendmit did not
F.uthorize the rlnintiff to c">li p.nd see the aece«eed or if
the plointiff mbb not permitted under t.'.e lave of jllinois
to practice raedioine in thi» tate, then eiti.^r of these
propositioni ^ouid defeat a recovery. Tne c^urt, hovever,
r..-.ff. -J, Instruction for the defendant that r.nlfcj??' the plp.in-
wj.-* .-.,.1.. ■ iicense ispved under the >^tnLc ^ - d of health



ntl"^



of Illinois autiicrisiiife, hin to t-ructicfe ::i€'iiciric- in t:ne
^tcte of lllinoip, that he could r.ot recover lor the s«r-
vleee rendered. ' contended tr.y t thie vr??.» error 'bocwuee

the plnlntiff wne ; ot en^Rjed in v;eneral pr»etice in 3131-
noi« out .cerely e^cwnined the pntient and dia^^osed iile CQ»e
for the -.:)urnope of determining i«hr t effeet if nny lilf T»>r30Tr>»l
to tiie oe-ital J' or finfil trew-tn^ent wouJd hn\e upon hins, nnd
cite© in support of this contention the cr -e of :ei(?ler vi?.
ill.T.»S: ;">.Bank, "45 in.,:uj". 'se do not rae^Td this e?>«7e
a© decieive of the queetinn h«*re invol\ed, '""he decieian
there ftrosfe under a contract lay whioh ':ieig^ler wlio wkp a
practicing phyeician in Illinois iiod coritrrtctcd with i rs.
i'cVicker in liiinoie to to with )ier to C.p3ilornip. and woit
u on her eind cure for her under n exccial cnntract. ■ ur
statute provide* ti^at, "/-o ▼j^rs'on 8ha,ll hereof tsr 06^ in
t>ie practicing of liedicix-u; or any of the "oranchca thereof
or Bidv-iifery in ttvie ^t^^te without fir?t applying for and
obt»ininfc a lioenne from the 5tnt# Jioard of I.ealth to do so",
jiec. 2 of Chaii.i:fi, Lcvir'ed rtfttutes. And Ifter on, ti-ie
I fcf.i«l;?.ture in delininf, whrt urap rie«nt by the r^rnetice of
medicine ?ayp, ''Any person shall >«- rcfc-nrded nc pr^jcticing
oedicine i^ithin the EeHninfr of this "ct i^ho eV.-'ll treat or
proifcft- to trent, ojer'jte r>n or ^^^ re scribe for nny physical
ailntnt or any j-hyeical injury to or dcforcity of another".
Sec. 7 oi sstiiae chapter. he cbject of this etatute vae to
prevent persons, who were not quelified, Irorr rri^cticing
ffiiedicina upon tne citizenp of this iitttte, pnd the stntute
ie certainly bro.;<i enouf.h to cover the vaeit sde by I^octor

i^Ailoy i'^T ">'$">» It-' rsftiu ^ii»«»Vo tft yf>etf\v»y n i ee , The fr^Ct

that he %'ie eeekint, to collect a It-c. for a prolespional
vieit phowe that he wae e.ne,f-iX'd in tiie rractice in lilinoie.

• 6-



si.i uii3^



iiJ^nij



;dj iiC



-■>•



It h»»i? ^een dtifrmin»6. \>y the Supreme Court of thl*> «»tct«
that pertons who vr«ctio« the proteeeion of osjteonRthy, «
cure by niears of manipulation, are within the terms of thie
Act and r^rjuire n license. ; eople vr?. Gordon, 164 aiLjl-e .
Ihe plRintil'f T:a» csrtainly pretending to i;«? ble to cure
the affliction oi t/ie ciece&eed oy hisr method of trcpttnient
and when he il. ced liimself in that pooition it t^ae necespnry
th-it he should poeseee a lio«mpe to jaiactice Biedicinf.- under
the laws of the ^tate of llllnoie. Teopie ve, I>unn, 256
ill.,2b\i.

3t if also ineisted hy covneel lor plaintiff that
the c^urt erred in refueinf; to permit V-alttr .-ailey to tee-
tiiy in the ceec. The Court refused tiiis testimony beeauee
it appeared to it th«t VJalter hailey wae interested in the
;njit, 3t was aduitted upon nn exarr-ination of tids! witnee?
thst the stationery end letter-head? nnd the lijl rendered
had nt tile imud thereof the nt^siee of doctor ^ omcr .► Bailey,
doctor ..'alter £.» Bailey fmd Doctor Arminta T^ailey, and that
the bill v.-fis rendered, "iar. Kerjs%n j.icbrutJt;* e, '"'roy. 111.,
to I^octore Bailey & bailey, Dr. Osteopathic >;hyu'iciene"j
.then ioliowe a stateatex^t oi the V.iJl, ikxiC the evidence
tlt'O Jthonre tJiat X^octor iifilter hailey feave c portion of the
trcfttientt to the deceneed, ■•nd whilt it ie true Doctor
Vfilter /iRiiey testified thrt he nod no interest in th« re-
eult of thie ©ui t yet the evi -enoe and cirou?fl»»tancee 'ivere
i^uch HF to warrnnt the court In ooncludin^ t}»Mt }ie did hf^ve
an interest in it. J^erely ^^^ecHuee lioctor ii«iley etnted
tii'it he hud no intere?-?t in tr.e repult of the eviit would net
require the court to 'belit've hiia if from the circuniFtnncee
end the evidence tefore him he thought he vir^e not ftnting the

-7-



lUO



f Itflttr



laoic correctly. >> ciurt ie not bouiici to ncccxit tin. tirti*
aiony of a witn«p» ae true n.er»iy l»eoaupe there is no dix'ret
tt*?timony contradlctinti it. if it contains 3iich inlurent
improtetilitice or contradictlonti an aione, or in connection
witii otiier circuraetanccj? in evioence, gntli'ly thfr.; of itf>
faltjity. uocolcii >». .'tone, Ibb 111. ,54 , c ■ re not
abi* to Hi*y Hict the court c-rrcu! in refvpirjfc to -je^rtnit
^ - octor }r».lley to tc-gtify bat It f!oee rpprrr thnt the repttcr*
concernlnff which hs »mp inquired about, except the trente^^i^nt
at the hospltnl and the condition of the patifent whil«
tlitere, ViCre h-II tt-atiiicd to by waiter Eailey I'^ter on in
tht( ctjse s»o we do »';ot think t}u-'re t/ms- nay error carifuitt«d in
thie ruling of the court.

other errors j.ave t.»«en atei^.ne-ci out v^e do not
regard them r. » oi tuch imx>ort.'^inc«.- r.3 t:o re uire further
considfere^ion, a» %i2 l»eli<: ve tfi t th« court did -'ot la^iter-
ial.iy tri' in tl^e trial of th.ip coco, oxce-^t ap nbovfe pts.tsd.

-« are (it the opinion thnt tj-\* Jury -."f-.r^ r.ot
fairly instructed a? to the credit to be feiven to the plain-
tiii by tii^^ jury and thnt tiie ^xxry cr^uld infr-r froH the in-
atructi n th^t Uie court itad por.e ??nccific reason ^^ny pp.r-
ticulur Attention ehould v.(=- tJven to hi? Int^roft in the
esse o^rr th^t of the other vitne«»!?eRi. Tn account of the
i^iving of the orroneou? inrtruction nl.cve •'uotc-d we -are of
the o; inion thnt the Judf^ip.ent «r,<^> - < '.r. v.. v^r-f^^ ""'■ the
cauee remanded.



iiOt to ht: reported in lull.



-6.



/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copg of the OPINION of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mi; office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set uw hand and affixed the seal of sqidJJourt^

at Mt. Verrumrthis yr . 2^^ . j ..dai; of

A. D. 191 J>.. /^ /^ f / /p




ClefJCWfHe Appellate Courts



o



(^



a (A-i^tA-' <Kj /j.X/yf~




/



Opinion of the Appellate Court



\ — ^^-^

AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the year of our Lord, one thousand "ine hundred and eighteen, the same
being live 26th day of March Bi the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen.

\



Present:



Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Presiding Justice.
Hon. Harry Higbee, Justice.



2111, A. 91



^ — Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk.



^'^



,*»!«»^*



THOMAS E. PASLEY, Sheriff.

And afterwards, to-wit: On the fifth day of April, A. D. 1918, there was filed ir
the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures
following:



Jphn.H.il.ler,:..Sr.,.^...A



APPEAL FROM



No 19

March
ijectabB- Term, 1917.




Circwiit COURT



Mt.,.01iy,g 4 Staunton .Coal... Co..,..
J^pellant



.Madison COUNTi'



TRIAL JUDGE



HON J.V...F..V...G.I..ILHAU:..



Term No. Id. In the Appellate Court, Agenda rfo.2y,

iourth l»i strict,

liarch Term, 1^17.



Joim hiller, ^r., Adf.lniutrRtor of)
iroderick liiller, deceniped,
Apy*ellee.

) Appeal from the Circuit
vs. ) Court (it i adieon

) County, Illinoip.
L't. 'live <». ;jtaunton Coal Cocipniiy, ]
Appellant, )



i Ca.ride



This apr-eal ie pros* ecu t«d by aprellnnt coal Corapftny
to revfTpe n judfTsent in f^svor cf nr.nellee reji'Jered by the
Circuit Court ol Madipon County.

The deci&ration conBiste of one count charging
th;<t appellee 'e inteijtate wBe etaployed r? a driver in Hr';el~
lant's Mine, hnulin^ coal iron the place v.here rdned tn the
bottosi of tlie shJift, i^nd that appellRnt, "Villfuny, iwintonly
end negligently pemitted a dangeroue defect to exist in the
roof of the roadway over which intestate w^e required to paee
«e euch driver in ;iRulint; coni to the bottom of the uiiaft,
in thfjt the roof and the oross-bor which gtupported the roof
at that point, "rherc eaid Srederick Killer wse injured, wne
too low to pftmit the driver UT>on ft loaded b'^r to papc under
It vlth rerasonsible anfety, Wiich ff^ct wp.p k-^ovn to the defen-
dant, or should h«ve been knovn to it by th« erercire of
reneonnnle care*. Tnnt inteutate w-'^" kilJed by cotnin(.]: in
contact with said cro^s-bar while hr^uling s lopded box of
coal alorjt- said roadiFTay,



-1-



.Viw4, f^anrn't iIsiaH



( .InBlXsi^jjA



,tt-:rf« •»!* io nto*#eo 'Jil^ o;f X«oo ;pilXu«> ai Y^vlit) riof^ »o
/ii bv^TOv'T^tft ctsldw Tn<f 890TO *CLt bam looT •<i^

tvbfitf • Tnrr-j t^vivb trfi ^ii!n»q •# woX or>^

.XAWi)jHO'x M«« sqoXb Xaoo



The evidence dleclopcB th^t the roadway in question runtf in
a -outherly direction from the prrtint; where loaded boxes
were left. It was intertate'e duty to take eranty ears fron
this pwrtinfc south to tht pl.nce v^here coal v/ap telng mined
and to trinfe' the loaded boxee back north to the parting.
•iliere Vfure no eye witneeeep to the injury vfhich resulted in
hie der.th. The e\idence ehoif/B that aoellee'e inteetatc
wae coming north with tif.'o loaded to-es oi coal. Another
driver viio wae eoriC (iietance north of hire heard him call
•'whoa" to hie mule end camti dovn to vrhere he wnt? to eec whst
waa the- lantter. he found inteetatc under tlit front car
dead and the laule etanding unhitched from the c.^r e few
feet further north. There vi!>e evidence ttnding to sliow
that the oody had been dratjgcd alone, the trrcic lor eome feet
but the evidence, iiowever, wne contrndiotory a:- to the dis-
tance. About twenty or twenty-five feet '^outh of where the
body w.-?e found three iron b?»r9 had been placed pg^ln^t the
root ae supports, extending acroe*? the IracJir and eur/';or-
ted by poets on ench eide of the roadi^fay. '-'hese birs hnd
been ■placed there s?or.i€ four or live ye.-.rp -rior to the
Injury. In Uu p rondway the roof had a i^enernl clearance of
about eix Ittt but at tliC >lnce v<here the b?ire Y,'ere placed
it WKe eciievjhat lowei, there ueinfe a clearance of aoout
fivt feet HRd eix inche? between the top surface of the track
and the botton eurf'ice cf the oroee-bare.

Appellee*!? theory of tht case xb that the deceased
Biet nis death by etriking hie hefd on the r il or bar 2ux}'oort-
int, the roof or thsit he wae knocked Ij-om hie -eat by ««o
etrikintc i.ie head and wee U^rcwn under the c«r. Tl;ip theory
is" supported by circiunetnntinl evidence oi firming, f few
hairr on the croj??-b.'^r which witnef^rep tor a^r-ellee tertified

.2.









baa 4>«#b



uro i»u^



ib««B«0



Xicosot >aaij tor



were like the hair of deeeaeed, and from finding; r br\ii«ed
place on the «ide oi the head nl the deceased « and rs> the

evidence of nvryellee tended to n\iOv thp.t the hody iipd been
drpfcged from ne^rr the croppwtirg to r/here it yf^^t* 3ying
y/hen found .

Councel n^ree th^it the rteclnr^tion in thio oaee
charges fin notion for negligence rtt coEiu-'.on laT?.

■'-'he npnellant liae n.gpi^'ned niany error? but the
only ones argufcd are thsit tiiC declnmtion did not ?tate a
cauee of action nor did the evidence r.rove a cnee of ncgli-
t^enoe againet apnellant and that the court erred in not di-
reotinfc a verdict lor the defendrnt, ?>nd in "ot euetaining
ite r^otion in «rrert of Judf3aent. '"his preBentf for our
dettin.i suction the single question a? to whether or not the
fact« disci oeed by the record nve. pufficient to w^rrsnt the
Jury in finding thnt tl.e defenfl^mt wap guilty of nef.ll^-ence
in failing to furniph tlrie decea(?ed with a rra^rinably ?« - !ft
place in vhich to perform hie work, ^he evi'^ence ip cer-
tainly sufficient to (jui'tnin the jury in finding that the
deceased came to Lif? death \)y tiip head hnvinp cnme in con-
tact Tifith the oros'n b.-^r in the roof Y!r>!ilt? he w^r eng^?ȣ,ed in
driving a raule attached to a ^it cnr lor»ded ^3th coal v.'hlch
wae then beint, hauled to b riartinfc in the mine.

the appellant r»p.r! elected not to operate itt- Kiine
under the compensation act and no question of th"t charac-
ter, or contributory netlife.tnce or assumption of risk can
arise.

It is? the contention of npnellant th<5t bp these
iron bare were -laced there to prev^^nt tf.e rool iroa lading
£uid that as it v?hb ai^own to have been done in a worknon like






sa^TBrfa



nit aolftM to •vuao






■frifO'sr












ri3id/ XiSr c



. «»f»i'






♦ 'x»jbnu



5M.U ;.':i.:A'






aifinner, timt Pt a natter of 1ri» it could not constitute a
dang«rou8 defect. Luch rtllance i^^ pl^^ced by counsel for
appellpjnt upon tht cr^pe of Jaoobe "ve. i r.d.if.'on Coal Corporp-
tion, 165 ill, At>p,,444, In fact this ic thfc only cnee cited
in their brief. Ve do rot reg-rd thie case .".s <?upceptible
of the conptruetion sought to "be t iven to it by counsel.
The declaration in th«t c^ee chorees thftt on nccount of a
b»d roof a numtoi^r of crose-barp had been placed in the roof
of tl:e entry to eiipport it m\d thp.t '■>. number ni croe«?-bar»
hr<6 becomf broken and s?if>jed ^nd conetituted .•; dajn(;eroue
condition unf?er the rrir-inp: ptntute rnd that defendant wll.
fully n<?rmitt«»d plaintiff to enter ti'.e mine before puch
danceroui" condition hjjd been recioved. the court In deter-
mining! thnt CRse held thnt, "No puch llrVility .- s? thnt .».l-
leged in the Uecl"rr<tion existed by statute nnd the declnrn-
tion did not aver a eauwe of actio.i". The court then, nfter
Levinfe renched tiiile conclueion, .?nd after havir^^ deterrriined
that the caee v-ould hr^\e to be revereied, proceeded to dis-
cus p other errnre p..nCi in. the dipcueeion decileU thf.t the