
    Henry Pollenz, Administrator, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company and Chicago Railways Company, Appellants.
    Gen. No. 23,922.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Benjamin W. Pope, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed April 29, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Henry Pollenz, administrator of the estate of Louis P. Dreuth, deceased, plaintiff, against Chicago City Railway Company and Chicago Railways Company, defendants, to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate, while employed by defendants, alleged to have been caused by being run over by a car through defendants’ negligence. From a judgment• for plaintiff for $5,000, defendants appeal.
    John E. Kehoe and Frank L. Kriete, for appellants; W. W. G-urley and John R. Cuilliams, of counsel.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Master and servant, § 537*—what are independent allegations in declaration in action for death of street car employee. Allegations in a count of the declaration in an action to recover for the death of an employee, killed by being run over by a street car of defendants, that while deceased walked behind the car in the performance of his duty of replacing the trolley on the wire, defendants negligently failed to securely brake and hold the car and permitted it to move down grade upon deceased, and as to defendants’ negligence in failing to furnish a safe place to work and in the operation of the car following the one which struck deceased, do not cover acts so correlated to the_ accident that the failure to prove any of these particulars is a failure to prove that the accident happened through defendants’ negligence, but each of such allegations is independent.
    2. Negligence, § 128*—when duplicitous count is cured. A count demurrable for duplicity as alleging several different acts of negligence is, after verdict, cured -of its imperfections.
    3. Master and servant—when rule requiring conductors of street cars to remain on platform while replacing trolley on standing car not proved. In an action to recover for the death of a street car conductor who was run over by his car while replacing its trolley on the wire, evidence that it was customary for conductors to stand on the platform at this part of the track and watch the trolley as the car was moving is insufficient to prove a rule requiring conductors to remain on the platform while replacing the trolley on a standing car.
    4. Master and servant, § 177
      
      —what not defense in action for death of street car conductor killed hy hacking car while replacing trolley. In an action to recover for the death of a street car conductor who was run over by his car moving down grade upon him, by reason of the brake being released while he was replacing its trolley, no signal being given by the motorman, the car being dark and another car being a few feet behind, it is no defense that the motorman had no reason to know that the conductor would stand back of the car.
    David K. Tone and Frank A. Bookhold, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court  