
    WILLIAM KLOCKENBRINK, Respondent, v. ST. LOUIS & MERAMEC RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
    St. Louis Court of Appeals,
    October 31, 1899.
    Negligence: contributory negligence: notice to defendant of plaintiff’s danger. This case as to tbe facts, is the same as the one reported in this volume, cmte 351, except this is for damages to property, instead of damage on account of personal injuries. For the reasons given in disposing of that appeal, judgment herein is affirmed.
    Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Pembrooh B. Flitcraft, Judge.
    Aeeirmed.
   BOND, J.

The issues and facts in this case are identical with those presented upon the appeal in a case between the same parties, ante 351, the.only difference between the two cases being that one is an action for injuries to the person, and the other for damage to property, each resulting from the same accident. For the reasons given in disposing of that appeal, the judgment herein is affirmed.

All concur.  