age who was employed by defendant to drive chickens out of the grass in front of a mowing machine, the court below properly refused to instruct the jury, as requested by plaintiff, that defendant was guilty of negligence in the manner indicated therein, where, under the evidence, the question was one for the jury.

3. TRIAL INSTRUCTIONS-REQUESTS TO CHARGE.

Where the substance of a requested instruction was given by the court in its general charge, it was not error to refuse the request.

4. SAME.

In determining whether a case was properly submitted to the jury, the charge should be construed together as a whole.

In an action for personal injuries to an infant nine years of age, where the age of the boy, his negligence, if any, and his opportunity to observe obvious danger, were all dwelt upon by the court, in his charge to the jury, as was the claimed negligence of the defendant, held, the case was properly presented to the jury.1

Error to Jackson; Parkinson, J. ary 14, 1919. (Docket No. 35.) 1919.

Submitted JanuDecided April 3,

Case by Albert G. White, an infant, by his next friend, against Lizzie Allen Cowing for personal injuries. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Price & Whiting, for appellant.

W. S. Cobb, for appellee.

STONE, J. The plaintiff, on July 22, 1913, when he was nine years and three or four months old, lost his left foot by coming in contact with a mowing machine driven by the defendant, and this action was brought to recover damages for such injury. The plaintiff's parents lived in a tenant house on the farm known 'See notes in 17 L. R. A. 79; L. R. A. 1917F, 10.

as the "Allen farm," and plaintiff's father worked for defendant's sons, who worked the farm and lived with defendant on the farm. Plaintiff was born in England, and came to this country with his parents about two years before the injury, and plaintiff's family moved onto the farm about three months before the injury. Plaintiff testified on the trial that he had had no experience with mowers, and did not understand the manner in which grass was cut by a mower, although he saw the grass fall; and that he had never seen a mowing machine work before they went to the Allen farm. The defendant's sons had a piece of alfalfa to cut, and she, assisting them, was driving the mower herself. They had a large number of chickens, and the coops were in and near one corner of the field, and as plaintiff's brother, Arthur, who was four years older, was passing the defendant's house in the morning, defendant spoke to him, and asked him if he would ask the plaintiff to come down and drive the chickens out of the grass, while she was mowing. Arthur told the plaintiff as requested, and he went immediately down into the field. When he reached the field where the defendant was mowing, he described in his testimony what occurred as follows:

"The chickens were right in the edge of the field. There were coops there, and there were a good many chickens. They were about five or six weeks old. When I went down there to the field, she told me she wanted me to keep the chickens away from in front of the mower. She didn't say anything else to me. She didn't give me any caution or warning about the mower, about getting in the way of it."

After testifying to his inexperience with mowers, he continued:

"The chickens were just on one side of the field, and when she went around two or three times I started to keep the chickens away again where they were, and I

seen a frog, and I started after him, and I stepped right in front of the knives. The chickens were on one side of the field in which she was mowing-the north side. When I was cut she was going north. "The Court: May I ask a question here? Were these mower knives, the cutting part of the machine, on the right side of the machine or on the left side? "A. On the right side.

"Q. Then as she was going north she was on the west side of the field?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And the knives were to the right, or east side of where she sat?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Were you on the west side of the field?

"A. Yes. The coops where the chickens were, were kind of at the northwest corner of the field. I wasn't very far from the corner.

"Q. What had you done the other two times she had gone around in the way of driving those chickens. What did you do, or how did you keep them out?

"A. I got in the grass and drove them back. "Q. When you started after the frog, how many steps did you take before you got your foot cut?

"A. About three. These steps were taken all one way. The machine was about four rods from me when I started after the frog.

"Q. Did she come that four rods while you were taking three steps?

"A. Yes. I was reaching down all the time to get the frog.

"Q. What?

"A. Yes, because I was reaching down all the time to try and catch the frog.

"Q. You were reaching down. Did the frog keep straight ahead all the time?

"A. Went right straight one way.

"Q. What I want to get at here is whether-you say you were reaching down-did the frog go straight ahead after you started after him, or did he jump zigzag?

"A. First one and then the other. He didn't jump straight ahead. Kind of went one way and then the

205-Mich.-21.

other, then kind of straight; kept going straight, not all the time, first one way and then the other.

"The Court: If you grabbed for him, he dodged from you, didn't he?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Then you would go for him and miss him again? "A. Yes.

"Q. How many times did that happen to you while you were after him?

"A. About two or three times.

"Q. As she came along with the team, were you facing her, or was she coming behind you or to the side of you?

"A. Coming kind of one side of me. The frog went west. The lane was on the north side of this field, and the team was going towards the lane.

"Q. Which way was the frog going, toward the lane or away from it, or parallel with the lane? Which way was it the frog jumped?

"A. Going west-the frog was. *

He kept

going off one side, then the other, but he was kind of going west all the time. He was going toward the cut alfalfa. I was out in the uncut alfalfa. The frog had not got out of the standing alfalfa when I got hurt. The last time I dove after the frog I moved a step or two. I was going towards the west.

"Q. Towards the west. Going right straight toward the machine that was coming up against you? "A. Yes. It was the left foot that was cut. "Q. Which side was nearest the machine, which foot, as you were after that frog the last time?

"A. The right foot was.

"Q. How did you get your left foot cut, then? "A. I thought you meant which foot was nearest

the knives before the other one got cut.

"Q. No. At the time you dove after that frog the last time, you say you took a step or two. Which foot was next to the machine, the way the machine was going, closest to the machine?

"The Court: Do you remember which way you were facing? You would know then how to answer it. "A. My left foot. I was facing west. * * * "The Court: The knives were on the east side and he was going west, and his left foot was nearest the

knives. You were going toward the west, were you, chasing the frog?

"A. Yes.

"Q. How far away from where the machine would have cut its swath would you have been, if you had remained out there and hadn't started after the frog? Would the knives have come very close to you?

"A. Yes.

"Q. This is what I mean: We will say this is the alfalfa (illustrating); here are the horses and the knives right back that way and cutting a swath right along. You were out in the alfalfa to the west; you took after the frog. Would the knives have gone by without hitting you if you hadn't taken after the frog, if you had stood still where you were when you first went after the frog, would the cutter bar have gone by you without hitting you?

* * *

"A. Maybe it would just went by. I couldn't say. "Q. Would it have hurt you at all if you hadn't been following the frog west, do you think?

"A. It might have went by me. The last time the frog jumped was toward the west.

"Q. What direction did it jump in before that, the last time before that, if you recall?

"A. Jumping toward the west.

"Q. Was it jumping toward the west all the time? Then it didn't jump first one way and then the other, as you said awhile ago?

"A. It was going towards the west, but then it didn't go exactly straight. My foot was cut just above the ankle. It was left just hanging a little bit, was all. I have an artificial foot now. * ** * Mrs. Cowing was driving two horses. There was no one else in the field when it happened, but the defendant and myself. I couldn't say for sure whether she had mowed any in the field before I went down there, or whether I was there the first time round."

The foregoing is substantially all of the testimony of the plaintiff, upon the subject of the injury, on direct examination.

The record shows that the plaintiff was a large boy of his age, and, as shown by his testimony, was in no respect deficient mentally, but a bright and active