aff is not entitled to recover. Other witnesses have been called, who in part corroborate the story of the watchman, and in some particulars corroborate the story of the plaintiff.'

The whole case was thus fairly placed before the jury, upon the issue as to whether the defendant's servants, in executing its regulation as to deck passengers, used unwarrantable force and thereby caused the injuries of which the plaintiff complains.

One objection made by the defendant to the admission of evidence deserves to be noticed. The plaintiff in his evidence described the manner in which, as is contended, he was dragged by the watchman from the boxes. After stating that he was thrown to the floor, and was being roughly pushed by the watchman, he proceeded: Then I saw another man coming with the uniform of the boat on, and the cap, and he said: 'All such men as you ought to be killed.' I says, 'What do you want to kill me for?' he says, 'You farmers are so stingy; you are too stingy to buy a state room, and you [649] ought to be killed. I said, 'You ought not call me stingy;' then he said, 'Have you looked at your ticket?' I think he had 'Third assistant mate' on his cap, the cap had a yellow cord, the same as the officers of the boat wore.' It appeared, in proof, that the person here referred to was one of the mates of The Richmond.

The defendant objected, at the trial, to the competency of the statements of the mate. The objection was overruled and an exception taken. It is now insisted that the defendant is not responsible for the brutal language of its servants, and that the declarations of the mate to the plaintiff were not competent as evidence against the carrier. We are of opinion that these declarations constitute a part of the res gesta. They were made by one servant of the defendant while assisting another servant in en1052

forcing its regulation as to deck passengers. They were made when the watchman and the mate, according to the evidence of the plaintiff, were both in the very act of violently "pushing" him, while in a helpless condition, to that part of the boat assigned to deck passengers. Plainly, therefore, they had some relation to the inquiry whether the enforcement of that regulation was attended with unnecessary or cruel severity. They accompanied and explained the acts of the defendant's servants out of which directly arose the injuries_inflicted upon the plaintiff. Vicksburg & M. R. R. Co. v. O'Brien, 119 U. S. 99, 105 [ante, 299, 302]; Ohio & Miss. R. R. Co. v. Porter, 92 Ill. 437, 439; Toledo & Wabash R. Co. v. Goddard, 25 Ind. 190, 191. As bearing upon this point, it may be stated that the jury were instructed that the case, as presented, did not authorize vindictive or punitive damages, and that in no event could they award the plaintiff any larger amount than would reasonably compensate him for the injuries received; thus guarding against undue weight being given to the harsh words of the Company's servants, apart from their acts.

Other questions arise upon the admission of evidence against the objection of the defendant; upon the refusal of the court to grant requests for instructions in its behalf; and upon certain parts of the charge to which it excepted. In our opinion none of these questions require [650] consideration; and the action of the court, in respect to them, constitute no ground for the reversal of the judgment. The charge of the court embodied all that need have been said. It correctly stated the propositions of law arising in the case. No substantial error having been committed, the judgment is affirmed. True copy. Test:

James H. McKenney, Clerk, Sup. Court, U. S.

121 U. S.