167 Mass. 402 | Mass. | 1897
The plaintiff contends that the accident to his intestate was due to the negligence of the engineer in stopping the train before he had received the motion to do so. The only evidence bearing on the matter comes from the man who stood on the car next to the engine for the purpose of repeating to the engineer, who guided his action thereby, signals given from the rear end of the train bj^ the plaintiff’s intestate and another man for that purpose. He testified' in part as follows : “ Q. At the time that you gave the down motion, [that is, the stop motion,] had the steam been shut off? A. Well, I felt a jar. I think it was shut off. — Q. What makes you think it was shut off? A. Because it jarred me just as I was giving the motion to stop before I gave it. —Q. What jarred you ? A. The stopping