KEEP V. INDIANAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS E. 00. 627 �Indianapolis & St. Louis, consisting of one baggage car, two passen- ger coaches, and a sleeping car, pulled across the track of the Ohio & Mississippi about 10 or 15 feet, and then stopped. At the time this -was done a gravel train was standing on the track of the Ohio & Mississippi, waiting to coma over the crossing.. The engine of this gravel train was on the west end of it, and when the passenger train of the Indianapolis & St. Louis had cleared the crossing the watch- manstationed there gave the signal to the gravel train to start. Accordingly that train was put in motion and began approaohing the crossing, which was about 150 feet from its first gravel car. �As soon as the passenger train stopped, the Indianapolis & St. Louis engine that had been hauling it was eut off and moved away to the round-house ; then the engine of the Union Eailway & Transit Company backed up from a switch and attempted to couple on to this passenger train. In doing so it pushed the train backward, se that the rear end of the sleeper in which plaintifif was riding was over the crossing down which the gravel train of the Ohio & Missis- sippi was moving, and a collision ensued, the sleeping car was thrown over and wrecked, and the plaintiff, who was riding in it as a passen- ger, received the injuries sued for. At the time of the accident the train had not reached the Eelay depot in East St. Louis, where its passengers are discharged for that station. �L. B. Vaillant and Joseph Dickson, for plaintiff. �John T. Dye, for I. & St. L. E, Co. �S. M. Breckenridge, for U. E. & T. Co. �Treat, D. J., (charging jury.) These two cases have been tried at the same time, yet each is a separate case, to be determined on the law and facts applicable thereto, requiring a distinct verdict. The plaintiff alleges that he received a through ticket from New York to St. Louis, one of the coupons of which called for passage over the Indianapolis & St. Louis Eailroad ; that^ said coupoh ticket was taken up while he was on said road, by the conductor or some other offieer thereof, and in lieu thereof he received a bridge and tunnel ticket to St. Louis; that while in East St. Louis, on the train bound for St. Louis, he was injured through the negligence of the defendant rail- road, for which injury he claims damages. �If the said railroad was one of several, whereby a continuons through route from New York to St. Louis was established by an arrangement among themselves, and the defendant railroad was the terminal road at St. Louis, with bridge and terminal arrangements for itself, and if the injUry compJained ol happened at East St. ��� �
