#### Oby Dawson, Appellee, v. East St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company, Appellant.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison county; the Hon. Geobge A. Cbow, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 13, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Oby Dawson, plaintiff, against the Bast St. Louis & Suburban Railway Company, defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by *235plaintiff’s team and wagon, being struck by one of defendant’s cars. From a judgment for plaintiff for $100, defendant appeals.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Street railroads, § 133 * —what are questions for jury in action for injuries due to collision of team with car. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as the result of plaintiff’s team and wagon colliding with one of defendant’s cars, the evidence being conflicting, held that the questions whether plaintiff was in the exercise of due care for his own safety prior to and at the time of the injury complained of, or whether defendant was guilty of negligence in the operation of its car at the time of such injury, or whether such negligence, if any, was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, were for the jury.

2. Appeal and error, § 1411*—when judgment on conflicting evidence not disturbed. Where the evidence was conflicting, judgment held not reversible upon the ground that finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

3. Trial, § 195*—when refusal to direct verdict for defendant is proper. Refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant, held not erroneous where the evidence tended to support the averments of the declaration.

4. Instructions, § 151*—when refusal of cumulative proper. It is hot error to refuse to give instructions already covered by other given instructions.

Williamson, Burroughs & Ryder, for appellant.

Geers & Geers, for appellee.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.