
    Leo Kravitz, by Julius Kravitz, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Defendant in Error.
    Gen. No. 23,362.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. M. L. McKinley, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed April 24, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Leo Kravitz, a minor, by Julius Kravitz, his next friend, plaintiff, against CMcago City Railway Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to. have been received through being struck by defendant’s car at a street intersection. To reverse a judgment for defendant, plaintiff prosecutes this writ of error.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Street railroads, § 131
      
      —when shown that plaintiff was injured while “flipping’’ defendant’s street car. In an action to recover for personal injuries, evidence examined and held sufficient to support a finding that plaintiff, a boy between 12 and 13 years of age, was injured while “flipping” defendant’s street car.
    2. Instructions, § 10*—limitation on number. The number of instructions given may not be arbitrarily limited by the trial court.
    3. Street railroads, § 140*—when instructions in action for personal injuries not reversibly erroneous. In an action against a street railway company for personal injuries, instructions given, examined and held not ground for reversing a judgment for defendant. •
    , 4. Instructions, § 14*—when reiteration of principles of law is not ground for reversal. Even though a number of instructions involve the reiteration of certain principles of law which are more favorable to one party than the other, the repetition is not ground for reversal if the instructions are appropriate to the law and evidence of the case.
    Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for plaintiff in error.
    John E. Kehoe and Watson J. Perry, for defendant in error; W. W. G-urley and J. R. G-uilliams, of counsel.
    
      
      See lUinois Notes Digest, Vola. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number#
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.  