#### William T. Thompson and Alexander H. Thompson, by his father and next friend, William T. Thompson, *v.*United Traction Company, Appellant.

*Negligence—Street railways—Infant—Province of court and jury.*

In an action against a street railway company to recover damages for injuries to a boy ten years old, inflicted while crossing a street at a public crossing, the question of the motorman’s negligence in not slacking the speed of the car is for the jury where several witnesses testify that when the boy started to cross the street he was but eight feet from the track and was in full view of the motorman on the ear, and that the car was then sixty-five to seventy feet distant from the crossing.

Argued Oct. 30, 1899.

Appeals, Nos. 139 and 140, Oct. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Feb. T., 1899, No. 131, on verdict for plaintiffs.

Before Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Fell and Brown, JJ.

Affirmed.

*556Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Evans, J.

At the trial it appeared that Alexander H. Thompson, a boy about ten years old, was run over by one of defendant’s electric cars, on November 16, 1898, at four o’clock in the afternoon, and so injured as to make amputation of one foot and the toes of the other foot necessary.

The motorman testified: “ J ust before coming to Taylor avenue, about a car length or two, I threw the power off, and let it drift, and as there was no stop to make, there was nobody to get on, and I got no bell to stop, after crossing Taylor avenue I fed the car up again, going up to Jackson street, fed the power on until I felt a jolt. I felt the car give a jump, and then received three bells from the conductor, which is a signal to stop, and I did so without any difficulty.”

There was some difference in the testimony as to the boy’s position, some of the witnesses saying that the boy ran directly in front of the car, others saying that he ran into the side of the car, and fell down, and that his foot was crushed by being run over by the hind wheel.

Other facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Defendant asked for binding instructions.

The court submitted the case to the jury.

Verdict and judgment for William T. Thompson for $500, for Alexander H. Thompson for $3,000. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.

*Homer L.*Castle, with him *William A. Stone*and *W. P. Potter,*for appellant,

cited Pletcher v. Scranton Traction Co., 185 Pa. 147; Funk v. Electric Traction Co., 175 Pa. 559; Bulger v. Albany Ry. Co., 42 N. Y. 459; Gould v. Union Traction Co., 190 Pa. 193.

*Rody P. Marshall,*with him *Thos. M. Marshall,*for appellees, were not heard.

*557November 6, 1899:

Per Curiam,

These two cases were consolidated and tried as one. The actions were brought to recover damages for injuries to the boy, Alexander H. Thompson, while crossing the street at a public crossing. Several witnesses testified that when the boy started to cross the street he was but eight feet from the track and was in full view of the motorman on the car, and also that the car was then sixty-five to seventy feet distant from the crossing. The question of the negligence of the motorman in not stopping or slacking his car sufficiently to avoid a collision was necessarily submitted to the jury, who found for the plaintiffs. There was no error in the charge and answers.

Judgment affirmed.