#### CROWN RICHARDSON v. AMERICAN COTTON MILLS.

(Filed 25 November, 1925.)

Appeal by defendant from Francis D. Winston, Emergency Judge, June Special Term, 1925, of GastoN. No error.

Henry L. Eyser and 8. J. Durham for plaintiff.

Garland & Austin for defendant.

Pee Cueiam.

This case was here before and a new trial granted defendant. Richardson v. Cotton Mills, 189 N. C., p. 653. Tbe principles of law applicable were clearly set forth in tbat case. From a careful-perusal of tbe record, tbe judge below followed tbe law as laid down in tbe former case. Tbe court, following tbe decision, defined “licensee” *875and. “fellow-servant,” explained tbe distinction between tbe two and definitely instructed tbe jury as to tbe facts upon wbicb Lainer would be deemed a licensee and as to those upon wbicb be would be deemed a fellow-servant. Tbe court below laid down tbe long established rule: “It is tbe duty of tbe master, in tbe exercise of ordinary or reasonable care, to furnish or provide bis servant a reasonably safe and suitable place in which to work. This duty is primary and nondelegable.” Barnes v. Utility Co., ante, 387; Riggs v. Empire Mfg. Co., ante, 256; Thomas v. Lawrence, 189 N. C., 521. Tbe failure of tbe master in this duty, if tbe proximate cause of tbe injury, was properly presented to tbe jury.

We can find no prejudicial or reversible error in tbe record. Plaintiff recovered in tbe first action and a new trial was granted defendant for errors in law. In tbe present trial tbe court below followed tbe opinion heretofore written. Tbe questions of fact were found against tbe defendant — this was in tbe province of the jury.

We can find

No error.