Complaint  is  also  made  of  appellee's  instruction  numbered
two,  given  by  the  trial  court

We  have  examined  that  instruction  with  some  care,  and  in
our  judgment  it  announces  substantially  the  correct  rule  of
law  in  this  State  upon  the  question  of  fellow  servants.  It
contains  the  true  hypothesis  of  association  to  create  or  avoid
liability,  upon  the  doctrine  of  respondeat  superior^  and
states  the  rule  firmly  establisliod  in  this  State  upon  that  sub-
ject, as  laid  down  in  the  Moranda,  Geary  and  Kelly  cases,
above  cited.  The  fact  that  this  instruction  refers  to  the  appel-
lee as  belonging  to  a  ''gang  of  track  laborers,"  when  lie  was
in  fact  a  foreman  thereof,  could  make  no  difference.  If  the
instruction  was  not  as  full  as  it  might  have  been  it  was  sub-
stantially the  law,  and  with  the  very  full  and  favjorable
instruction  given  on  the  part  of  the  appellant,  we  think  the
jury  could  not  have  been  misled  in  their  investigations  or
findings  in  this  case.  The  other  instructions  given  for  the
appellee,  of  which  complaint  is  made,  seem  to  have  been
framed  upon  the  allegation  of  the  second  count  of  the  decla-
ration. These  instmctions  also  contain  the  legal  and  correct
hypothesis  of  co-laborers  in  the  same  association,  or  fellow
servants,  in  this  State,  as  stated  in  the  cases  before  referred  to.
Upon  a  careful  examination  we  think  the  evidence  fairly
shows  that  the  appellee  was  in  the  exercise  of  ordinary  care.
He  was  not  apprised  in  any  manner  of  the  fact  that  the
standing  mold  contained  an  ingot  or  was  a  '*  butt "  mold,
which  made  it  liable  to  fall  over,  and  he  liad  no  reason  to  sus-
pect that  such  was  the  fact,  and  in  this  used  ordinary  care.
