
    W. D. POOLE v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY.
    (Filed 16 March, 1932.)
    Master and Servant C l> — Evidence of employer’s negligence held insufficient.
    In this ease held: evidence of employer’s negligence was insufficient to he submitted to the jury in action by foreman to recover for injuries sustained when workman moving heavy barrels under his direction stepped on his foot. ■
    Appeal by plaintiff from Small, J., at October Term, 1931, of Wake.
    Affirmed.
    
      H. L. Swain for appellant.
    
    
      Simms & Simms for appellee.
    
   Pee Ctjeiam.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injury alleged to bave been caused by tbe negligence of tbe defendant. Tbe defendant’s motion for nonsuit was granted and tbe plaintiff excepted and appealed.

Tbe plaintiff, an employee of tbe defendant, was in charge of a labor gang working in tbe defendant’s yard in Raleigb. Tbe allegation of negligence is concise. In reference to it tbe plaintiff testified: “I was instructed to stay with my gang of laborers and direct tbeir work. If I did not do so I was hollered at. None of my superiors were around there when I was' hurt. On tbe day I was hurt in August, 1921, I bad received orders from Mr. Lane to straighten up some barrels of paint lying on a platform. Tbe paint was used to paint box cars. Both old ears' and new ears. It was full of paint and weighed six or seven hundred pounds. I told tbe three Negro men to grab bold of tbe barrel and end it up. I told them to grab it up. While they were doing this it became overbalanced and Richard Háll, in jumping to catch it stepped on my left foot. I was around there telling tbe Negroes what to do, I was bossing them. I told tbe men to go there and set up tbe barrel. I was three or four feet from tbe barrel when my foot was stepped on. There were some other barrels back on tbe platform and I could not bave gotten further back but could bave gotten to either side out of the way. I could have seen tbe movement of Richard Hall if I had looked and be could bave seen me if be bad looked.”

The judgment of nonsuit was- correct. Simpson v. R. R., 154 N. C., 51; Lloyd v. R. R., 168 N. C., 646; Potter v. R. R., 197 N. C., 17. Judgment

Affirmed.  