
    The Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Skellie et al.
    
    1. Rules of a railroad company prescribing the duties of its agents, not promulgated as notice to the public of the powers and authority of such agents, but merely intended as private instructions to the company’s employees, are not admissible in evidence in behalf of the company against a plaintiff not shown to have con-traded with reference thereto nor to have had any knowledge thereof.
    2. The verdict was amply sustained by the evidence, and a new trial was properly refused.
    January 9, 1893.
    Before Judge Miller. City court of Macon.
    December adjourned term, 1891.
    R. F. Lyon, for plaintiff in error.
    J. L. Anderson, contra.
    
   Lumpkin, Justice.

This case was before this court at the October term, 1890, and is reported in 86 Ga. 686. A new trial was then ordered at the instance of the railroad company, and in the opinion delivered by Justice Simmons, the questions to be determined by the jury were clearly stated. Upon the second.trial these issues were properly submitted to the jury, who found in favor of the plaintiff upon testimony amply sufficient to sustain their verdict. No legal question is now presented for determination by this court, save that stated in the first headnote, and the correctness of the ruling therein made is obvious, we think, without further discussion. No error was committed by the trial judge ; there was ample evidence to sustain the verdict, and a new trial was properly refused. Judgment affirmed.  