
    PIERCE v. UNION PAC. RY. CO.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    February 20, 1895.)
    No. 479.
    Charities — Hospital por Railroad Employes — Liability por Negligence— Railway Co. v. Artist, 9 C.. C. A. 14, 60 Fed. 365, Followed.
    In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Iowa.
    This was an action by H. C. Pierce, administrator of Ralph H. Pierce, against the Union Pacific Railway Company,-to recover the amount of damages which it is claimed the estate suffered because of his death. The facts of the case are stated as follows in the brief for defendant in error:
    Ralph BC. Pierce, the plaintiff’s intestate, on the 15th day of January, 1891, left the defendant’s hospital at Ogden, Utah, and nothing was known of or could be ascertained about him until some few weeks afterwards, when his body was found in the Weber river. The distinct charge of negligence made against the defendant, and complained of by the plaintiff, is that the defendant, through its agents, servants, and employes, and those in charge and control of its hospital at Ogden, permitted said Ralph H. Pierce, while temporarily insane, to wander away from its said hospital, and that, while thus mentally unsound, he fell into the Weber river, and was drowned.
    Tbe case was tried before Judge Shiras and a jury, at Des Moines, Iowa. At the close of all the testimony in the case, the defendant filed a motion for a verdict, and the motion was sustained. A ver-diet was directed for the defendant, and judgment rendered thereon for defendant, and against plaintiff for the costs of the suit; and this writ of error was sued out to reverse that judgment.
    Charles A. Clark, for plaintiff in error.
    John H. Baldwin filed brief for defendant in error.
    Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.
   SANBORN, Circuit Judge.

The facts iu this case are the same in all essential particulars as were those in the case of Railway Co. v. Artist, 9 C. C. A . 14, 60 Fed. 365; and the judgment below is affirmed, with costs, on the authority of that case.  