The  court  refused  these  instructions,  as  inapplicable  to  the  evi-
dence produced,  and  instructed  the  jury  as  follows,  viz. :  —

That  if  the  jury  find  that,  in  May,  1873,  the  plaintiff  was  inter-
ested in  a  car-coupling,  which  had  been  used  on  the  cars  of  the
defendant  since  December  previous,  and  that  the  officers  of  the
company  were  desirous  that  the  plaintiff  should  meet  them  at
Montreal  to  arrange  about  the  use  of  such  couplings  on  their  cars
by  defendant,  and  they  agreed  with  him  to  pay  his  expenses  if  he
would  come  to  Montreal,  and  he  agreed  so  to  do,  and  took  passage
on  defendant's  cars,  and  was,  by  the  reckless  misconduct  and  negli-
gence of  the  defendant,  and  without  negligence  on  his  part,  injured
whilst  thus  a  passenger  in  defendant's  car,  the  defendant  is  not
exonerated  from  liability  to  plaintiff  for  his  damages  occasioned  by
such  negligence,  by  reason  of  the  indorsement  upon  the  pass  pro-
duced in  evidence.
There  was  a  verdict  and  judgment  for  the  plaintiff.  The  defend-
ant then  sued  out  this  writ  of  error.
