City of Chicago

<p>Case 20 — Action to Recover Damages for Personal Injuries.</p> <p>APPEAL FROM BARREN CIRCUIT COURT.</p> <p>Judgment-for Plaintiff and Defendant Appeals.</p> <p>Appellant ,was injured by coming in contact with a barbed wire stretched across one of the streets of the city of Glasgow in the night time; on his way to the depot and has sued the city for damages, claiming that thé city negligently failed to provide danger signals or lights about said obstruction, and said obstruction and the absence of lights, were known to the city, its agents and servants and unknown to him.</p> <p>Appellant in its answer denied negligence and alleged the obstruction was placed across the street without its knowledge, consent or authority.</p> <p>In the second paragraph appellaht avers that a.n ordinance was passed for the grading and macadamizing of Washington street, and it proceeded to contract with one McClosky as an independent contractor to do said work, who proceeded to do the work according to specifications furnished him by said city; and that it exercised no control over said street during the time said work was being done, and if any obstruction was placed across said street by said contractor, it was without the knowledge, consent or authority of said city, and it pleaded the independent contract with McClosky as a bar to any recovery against it for the alleged injuries.</p> <p>In the third paragraph it pleads contributory negligence on the-part of appellant.</p> <p>Appellee’s demurrer to the second paragraph of appellant’s answer was sustained and a trial was had resulting in a verdict for appellee for $220 from which this appeal is prosecuted.</p> <p>The evidence showed that during the progress of the .work the contractor stretched a wire across the street at each end; that on the south side of the street; the entire length of it, was a good smooth pavement for pedestrians, which was not enclosed or obstructed. Appellee testified that' when he got within about fifty fee