#### Neil Moore, Appellee, v. P. H. Murphy, Appellant.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Master and servant, § 701 * —when evidence insufficient to sustain verdict for injury to operator of tin cutting machine. In an action for the loss of three fingers while operating a tin cutting machine for defendant, a verdict for plaintiff, held, manifestly against the weight of the evidence where it is not clear from the evidence whether the accident happened in the manner claimed by *500plaintiff and. the plaintiff is contradicted by two entirely disinterested witnesses.

*499Appeal from the City Court of Bast St. Louis; the Hon. W. -M. Vandeventer, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1913.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed October 9, 1913.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Neil Moore, a minor, by William N. Moore, his next friend, against P. H. Murphy to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff while operating a tin cutting machine for defendant. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for two thousand dollars, defendant appeals.

Errors assigned by counsel were in substance: That the plaintiff assumed the risk; that the injury was occasioned by plaintiff’s own negligence; that the plaintiff operated the machine in direct violation of his instructions; that the judgment is not supported by the evidence; that remarks of plaintiff’s counsel to jury constitute reversible error.

Wise, Keefe & Wheeler, for appellant.

Kramer, Kramer & Campbell and C. H. G. Heinfelden, for appellee.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice McBride

delivered the opinion of the court.

*5002. Master and servant, § 825*—when remarles of counsel prejudicial. Remark by counsel in closing argument to the jury. “We are not asking you to put your hands in Mr. Murphy’s pockets because he is a rich man and owns a big plant out here,” held, prejudicial.

3. Trial, § 113*—when remarles of counsel improper. Statement of counsel explaining why his first declaration was prepared in the manner it was, held, improper.