1. There was evidence from which the jury could infer that the machine by which the plaintiff below was injured was dangerous to an inexperienced person, and that the danger was not sufficiently obvious to be apparent to such a person without proper explanation and warning. That the plaintiff was not a child but was seventeen years of age, would not deprive him of the right to be warned, if, as a question of fact, the employers, or the man representing them, ought, under all the circumstances, to have inquired of him as to his expe
2. The evidence was conflicting, but taking it most favorably for the plaintiff, as the jury probably did, it was sufficient to warrant the verdict, and there was no error in denying a new trial. Judgment affirmed.