The morning journal-courier., 1908-04-22

No Alum, No Lime Phosphate charge were changed and omitted In many sections, The part of the dc. fendants request 10 charge that was read was as follows:
 Rights of the Autoist
 f--The use of an automobile on public streets is neither nuisance nor unlawful, and when operated with due regard to the rights of oth- CTS is not negligent
 2-The exercise by the operator ol an automobile of reasonable care and caution for the safety of others. Is all that the law requires.
 S-Thc driver of an automobile may ovcrtale and pass other vehicles going in the same direction if in tho opinion of reasonable person Il car he accomplished in safety.
 The Pedestrian.
 IA pedestrian Is bound to mako usc of all his senses and exercise rca. sonable care to prevent receiving ar Injury. which care must be in propor, ton to the danger in which he |, placed
 5-The driver of an automobile will not be liable for injuries receiv. cd by n pedestrian with whom hls machine has collldcd unless the driv. CT was guilty of some negligent act ar omission which was the prcdomi. nant cause of the accident
 G-Therc can be no recovery fol injuries received from an unavoidable accident
 1-The contributorv negligence of the person injured will bar any re- covery for such injuries, and this rule applies equally to pedestrians and persons in vehicle.
 The Burden of Proof.
 S-Thc burden of proof is on tho plaintiff. not only to establish the negligence of the defendant but his own freedom from negligence as we'll
 9-Ordnnry, or due care, k that degree of care which an ordinarily prudent man would exercise under all the surroundings.
 lo-onc who alights from n rapidly moving, open trolley car withou, looking back to see If the way bo clear, assumes the risk of any lninry which Inc may receive by so doing.
 1i--lt is negligence for one about ia alight from rapidly moving. open trolley car, to fail to look to the rear to see if the way be clear. and if hc fail to do so and alights suddenly and without warning and Is struck almost instantancously by an automo- bile approaching from the rear. his own negligence will bar his recovery l2-ordlnary care and prudence re- qlire that a person who is about to alisht from a rapidly moving. open trolley car on q public highway where vehicles of all kinds pass ire should at least look to the rear before attempting to alight.
 l3--As bearing upon the question of the palntllf's negligence. it is for yon to say, gentlemen, whether the act of a man who allghts suddenly and without warning from rapldlv open trolley car on publlc highway where vehicles of all kinds pass Frequently, without looking back to sec If tho way he clenr. is tho act of | reasonably prudent man under all the circumstances.
 RcasnabIc Care.
 1.-The driver of an automobile proceeding along the public highway in the roar of rapidly moving open trolley car, is not bound to anticipate that n passenger on such trolley car will suddenly and without warning jump off right in front of his auto. mobile, and if he does so jump off and collision occurs. the driver of the automobile will not be liable for the injury sustained.
 15--if the defendant at and inst prior to the accident was proceeding along the highway behind rapidlv moving open trolley car at a proper rate of speed and keeping n proper lookout ahead. he cannot be held lia- ble for injuries sustained hy pass. nnger who, having alighted suddenly and without warning from said car while the same was in rapid motion. was run into by the defendants auto mobile.
 The Speed Laws.
 16--The violation of a state statute )r municipal ordinance regulating he speed of automobiles is not in it. 'elf negligence.
 l. In this case it was the duty of he defendant to exercise a reasonable legree of care and prudence in man lging the vehicle he was driving in, 50 IS not to injurc any one. and if the ury finds that the defendant, or that one one acting for him and under his ontrol, through carelcssness and neg igence as alleged in the complaint, aused the injuries to the plaintiff ds ct forth in the complaint and proved pon the trial, and the plaintiff him elf was not in any way guilty of neg gence, then the plaintiff is entitled 0 verdict for such damages as the ury may find will be reasonable and ust compensation for his injuries.
 ,. It was the duty of the defend mt or his driver eff you should find hat the machine was not driven by he defendant, but driven by q per on acting for him and in his employ nd charge), to so manage and control he movements of the automobile as a easonably prudent person would rive, operate and control such a ve- icle under the same circumstances { was his duty to keep reasonable )okout for other vehicles or persons n tha liohuDN IA ,Np,Inp ,,4.,i.i I,.