not to object, but that if he did it would make no difference, that the shaft had to go in, and that he would never be disturbed by it, and the shaft remained wholly under the care and management of the defendant, neither the tenant nor his employee can be held to have assumed any of the risks incident to its maintenance.

ID. RESPONSIBILITY OF LANDLORD-DUTY TO PROTECT MACHINERY.— Where a landlord retains or has control of a portion of leased premises, the responsibility rests with him to see that no injury results to those having rights there by reason of the manner in which such portion of the premises is occupied or used; and, if he puts dangerous machinery thereon, it is his duty to fence it, or use other proper means to protect those rightly in its vicinity. ID.-CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE QUESTION FOR JURY.-The rough projections of the shaft not being visible to the plaintiff, and not being apparent while the shaft was in motion, it cannot be said, as matter of law, that he was guilty of contributory negligence in allowing his clothing to be caught in those projections; but the question as to whether he was guilty of contributory negligence is a proper one for the jury. ID.-ILLUSTRATION OF TESTIMONY-REFERENCE TO PIECE OF IRON.-It is not error to permit a witness, in illustration of his testimony with reference to the size and condition of the shaft, to refer to a piece of iron of about the same dimensions, used, not as a model, but simply to illustrate more clearly the testimony of the witness.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

C. H. Wilson, for Appellant.

Under the facts in the case the defendant owed no duty to the plaintiff, who was a mere licensee wandering about the premises. ( Balch v. Smith, 7 Hurl. & N. 736; 2 Shearman and Redfield on Negligence, sec. 684; Sullivan v. Waters, 14 I. R. C. L. 460; Wright v. Rawson, 52 Iowa, 329; 35 Am. Rep. 275; Heinlein v. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 147 Mass. 136; 9 Am. St. Rep. 676; Pfeiffer v. Ringler, 12 Daly, 437; Evans v. American etc. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 519; Pierce v. Whitcomb, 48 Vt. 127; 21 Am. Rep. 120; Wilkinson v. Fairrie, 1 Hurl. & C. 633-35; Severy v. Nickerson, 120 Mass. 306; 21 Am. Rep. 514; Kauffman v. Maier, 94 Cal. 269; 1 Taylor's Landlord and Tenant, 8th ed., sec. 175 a, p. 198; Schmidt v. Bauer, 80 Cal. 565; Sterger v. Van Sicklen, 132 N. Y. 499; 28

Am. St. Rep. 594; Redigan v. Boston etc. R. R. Co., 155 Mass. 44; 31 Am. St. Rep. 520; Zoebisch v. Tarbell, 10 Allen, 385; 87 Am. Dec. 660; Bedell v. Berkey, 76 Mich. 435; 15 Am. St. Rep. 370; Flannigan v. American Co., 11 N. Y. Supp. 688; Hounsell v. Smith, 7 Com. B., N. S., 731; Parker v. Portland Publishing Co., 69 Me. 173; 31 Am. Rep. 262; Faris v. Hoberg, 134 Ind. 269; 39 Am. St. Rep. 261; Knox v. Hall Steam Power Co., 69 Hun, 231; McCarthy v. Foster, 156 Mass. 511; Storey v. Ashton, L. R. 4 Q. B. 476; Mitchell v. Crassweller, 13 Com. B. 237; 22 L. J. Com. P. 100; Wood's Master and Servant, 2d ed., 540, et seq.; Kline v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 37 Cal. 400; 99 Am. Dec. 282.) The defendant owed no duty to the plaintiff to place a guard about the shaft. (Bolch v. Smith, supra; Coombs v. New Bedford Cordage Co., 102 Mass. 572-85; 3 Am. Rep. 506; Sullivan v. India Mfg. Co., 113 Mass. 396-99; Townsend v. Langles, 41 Fed. Rep. 919; Schroeder v. Michigan Car Co., 56 Mich. 132; Hale v. Cheney, 159 Mass. 268; Tinkham v. Sawyer, 153 Mass. 485; Kelley v. Silver Spring Co., 12 R. I. 112; 34 Am. Rep. 615; Sanborn v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 35 Kan. 292; Mathews v. Bensel, 51 N. J. L. 30; Ryan v. Wilson, 87 N. Y. 471-74; 41 Am. Rep. 384; Goodnow v. Walpole etc. Mills, 146 Mass. 261; Foley v. Pettee Machine Co., 149 Mass. 294; Kauffman v. Maier, 94 Cal. 269.) Davis, by failure to object to the erection of the shaft, assumed for himself and for his employees, the risk of injury therefrom. (Dunn v. Spurrier, 7 Ves. 291; Powell v. Thomas, 6 Hare, 300; Williams v. Earl of Jer-sey, 1 Craig & P. 97; Davies v. Marshall, 10 Com. B., N. S. 697; Stephens v. Benson, 19 Ind. 368; Bankhardt v. Houghton, 27 Beav. 425; Brewster v. De Fremery, 33 Cal. 341; Sieber v. Blanc, 76 Cal. 173; Daley v. Quick, 99 Cal. 179; Jaffe v. Harteau, 56 N. Y. 398; 15 Am. Rep. 438; Ivay v. Hedges, 9 Q. B. Div. 80; Bowe v. Hunking, 135 Mass. 380; 46 Am. Rep. 471; Tuttle v. Gilbert Mfg. Co., 145 Mass. 169; Cowan v. Sunderland, 145 Mass. 364; 1 Am. St. Rep. 469; 2 Wood's Landlord and Tenant, 870; l'an Every v. Ogg, 59 Cal. 566; Smith v. Buttner, 90 Cal. 99;

O'Brien v. Campbell, 59 Barb. 497; Donaldson v. Wilson, 60 Mich. 86; 1 Am. St. Rep. 487; Nelson v. Liverpoo! Brewing Co., L. R. 2 C. P. D. 311; Henkel v. Murr, 31 Hun, 29; Roulston v. Clark, 3 E. D. Smith, 366-74; Fellows v. Gilhuber, 82 Wis. 639; Monteith v. Finkbeiner, 21 N. Y. Supp. 288; 66 Hun, 633.) Plaintiff could not recover against his employer, and therefore could not recover against the defendant. (Balch v. Smith, supra; Hale v. Cheney, supra; Tinkham v. Sawyer, supra; Coombs v. Cordage Co., supra; Sullivan v. India Mfg. Co., supra; Townsend v. Langles, supra; Schroeder v. Michigan Car Co., supra; Kelley v. Silver Spring Co., supra; Sanborn v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., supra; Mathews v. Bensel, supra; Ryan v. Wilson, supra; Kelly v. Barber Asphalt Co., 93 Ky. 363; Stephens v. Duncan, 73 Wis. 404; 9 Am. St. Rep. 806; Goodnow v. Walpole etc. Mills, supra; Palmer v. Harrison, 57 Mich. 182; Russell v. Tillotson, 140 Mass. 201; Sjogren v. Hall, 53 Mich. 274; Moulton v. Gage, 138 Mass. 390; Ciriack v. Merchants' Woolen Co., 146 Mass. 182; 4 Am. St. Rep. 307; Chaffey v. Chapel, 2 N. Y. Supp. 648; Kean v. Detroit etc. Rolling Mills, 66 Mich. 277; 11 Am. St. Rep. 492; Carey v. Boston etc. Ry. Co., 158 Mass. 228; Taylor v. Carew Mfg. Co., 140 Mass. 150; Berger v. St. Paul etc. Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 78; Foley v. Pettee Machine Works, supra; Kauffman v. Maier, supra; Rock v. Indian Orchard Mills, 142 Mass. 522; 1 Taylor's Landlord and Tenant, 8th ed., sec. 175 a, p. 197; O'Brien v. Capwell, supra; Robbins v. Jones, 15 Com. B., N. S., 221; Nelson v. Liverpool Brewing Co., L. R. 2 Com. P. 311; Jaffe v. Harteau, supra; Johnson v. Tacoma etc. Lumber Co., 3 Wash. 722; 2 Shearman and Redfield on Negligence, 4th ed., sec. 711.) Plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. (Kenna v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 101 Cal. 26; Holmes v. South Pac. Coast Ry. Co., 97 Cal. 161; Sanborn v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 35 Kan. 292; Berger v. St. Paul etc. Ry. Co., supra; Nagle v. Allegheny etc. Ry. Co., 88 Pa. St. 35; 32 Am. Rep. 413; Bond v. Smith, 113 N. Y. 378; Taylor v. Carew Mfg. Co., supra; Erie v. Magill, 101 Pa. St. 616; 47 Am. Rep. 739; Corlett v. Leavenworth, 27 Kan. 673;

McCrory v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 531; Morrison v. Board of Commrs., 116 Ind. 431; Allen v. Johnston, 76 Mich. 31; Stone v. Oregon City Mfg. Co., 4 Or. 52; Travis v. Carrollton, 7 N. Y. Supp. 231; Splittorf v. State, 108 N. Y. 205; Railway v. Murphy, 17 Ill. App. 444; Schoenfeld v. Milwaukee etc. Ry. Co., 74 Wis. 433: Goldstein v. Chicago etc Ry. Co., 46 Wis. 404; Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. v. Depew, 40 Ohio St. 121; Dale v. Webster Co., 76 Iowa, 370; Mansfield Coal etc. Co. v. McEnery, 91 Pa. St. 185; 36 Am. Rep. 662; Metcalfe v. Cunard Steamship Co., 147 Mass. 66; Schaefler v. City of Sandusky, 33 Ohio St. 246; 31 Am. Rep. 533; Knox v. Hall Steam Power Co., 69 Hun, 231; Patton v. Philadelphia Traction Co., 132 Pa. St. 76.) The question is one of law for the court. (McQuilken v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 50 Cal. 7; Glascock v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 73 Cal. 137; Nagle v. California etc. R. R. Co., 88 Cal. 86; Kenna v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., supra.) The use of a model by the witness was improper, the model not being shown to be an exact representation of the shaft. (Ruloff v. People, 11 Abb. Pr., N. S., 245; 45 N. Y. 213; People's Pass. Ry. Co. v. Green, 56 Md. 84; Hollenbeck v. Rowley, 8 Allen 473.)

George A. Rankin, for Respondent.

Defendant was a trespasser upon the tenant's premises. (Satterlee v. Bliss, 36 Cal. 516; Cooley on Torts, 2d ed., 384, citing Luther v. Arnold, 8 Rich. 24; 62 Am. Dec. 422; Bryant v. Sparrow, 62 Me. 546; Crowell v. New Orleans etc. R. R. Co., 61 Miss. 631; Glickauf v. Maurer, 75 Ill. 289; 20 Am. Rep. 238; Center v. Davis, 39 Ga. 210; Priest v. Nichols, 116 Mass. 401; Marshall v. Cohen, 44 Ga. 489; 9 Am. Rep. 170; Meyers v. Farquharson, 46 Cal. 190; Gray v. Boston Gas Light Co., 114 Mass. 149; 19 Am. Rep. 324; Donnelly v. Hufschmidt, 79 Cal. 74.) A landlord keeping control over any portion of the premises is liable for injury resulting from his negligence. (Loony v. McLean, 129 Mass. 33; 37 Am. Rep. 295; Toole v. Beckett, 67 Me. 544; 24 Am. Rep. 54; Glick

auf v. Maurer, supra; Gill v. Middleton, 105 Mass. 477; 7 Am. Rep. 548; Watkins v. Goodall, 138 Mass. 534; Stapenhorst v. American Mfg. Co., 15 Abb., N. S., 355; Kirby v. Boylston etc. Assn., 14 Gray, 249; 74 Am. Dec. 682; Readman v. Conway, 126 Mass. 374; Norcross v. Thomas, 51 Me. 503; 81 Am. Dec. 588; Priest v. Nichols, supra; Elliott v. Pray, 10 Allen, 378; 87 Am. Dec. 653; Jones v. Freidenberg, 66 Ga. 505; 42 Am. Rep. 86; Shipley v. Fifty Associates, 106 Mass. 194; 8. Am. Rep. 318; Jessen v. Sweigert, 66 Cal. 182; Kalis v. Shattuck, 69 Cal. 593; 58 Am. Rep. 568; Stewart v. Harvard College, 12 Allen, 58; Miller v. Woodhead, 22 N. Y. Week. Dig. 58; 2 Shearman and Redfield on Negligence, 4th ed., sec. 719; Nash v. Minnesota Mill Co., 24 Minn. 501; 31 Am. Rep. 349.) The question of contributory negligence in this case was for the jury. (Irelan v. Oswego etc. Plank Road Co., 13 N. Y. 533; Fernandes v. Sacramento City Ry. Co., 52 Cal. 45; Glascock v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 73 Cal. 137; 1 Shearman and Redfield on Negligence, sec. 54; Leishmann v. Brighton R. R. Co., 23 L. T. 712; Higgins v. Deeney, 78 Cal. 578; Orcut v. Pacific Coast Ry. Co., 85 Cal. 291; Wilson v. Southern Pac. R. R. Co., 62 Cal. 172, 173; Chidester v. Consolidated Ditch Co., 59 Cal. 197; Shafter v. Evans, 53 Cal. 32; New England Glass Co. v. Lovell, 7 Cush. 321; Schierhold v. North Beach etc. R. R. Co., 40 Cal. 447.) It cannot be imputed to the plaintiff as negligence that he did not anticipate negligence on the part of the defendant. (Newson v. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 29 N. Y. 383, 391; Ernst v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 9, 35; 90 Am. Dec. 761; Barton v. Syracuse, 37 Barb. 292, 299; Fox v. Sackett, 10 Allen, 535; 87 Am. Dec. 682; Carroll v. New York etc. R. R. Co., 1 Duer, 571; Reeves v. Delaware etc. R. R. Co., 30 Pa. St. 454; 72 Am. Dec. 713; Colegrove v. New York etc. R. R. Co., 6 Duer, 382; affirmed 20 N. Y. 492; 75 Am. Dec. 418; Owen v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 516, 518; Cook v. Champlain etc. Co., 1 Denio, 91; Gee v. Metropolitan R. R. Co., L. R. 8 Q. B. 171; Cleveland etc. R. R. Co. v. Terry, 8 Ohio St. 570; Robinson v. Western Pac. R. R.Co., 48 Cal.409;