Gardner v. Detroit St. Ry. Co. (Mich.) 58 N..W. 49; Taylor v. N. Y. Central & Hudson Ry. 63 App. Div. 586, 71 N. Y. S. 884; Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Stewart, 56 Fed. 808.
“If the amendment objected to would not be a bar to a recovery under the original complaint, it ought not be allowed. It is only where the same evidence would settle both claims that the amendment is permissible.” J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Eichinger, 15 S D. 530, 91 N. W. 82; Mares v. Worington, 8 N. D. 329, 79 N. W. 441.
“The very fullest freedom of speech within the duty of his profession should be accorded to counsel; but it is license, not freedom of speech, to travel out of the record, basing his argument on facts not appearing and appealing to prejudice irrelevant to the case and outside of the proof.” Thompson on Trials, § 963 and cases cited; Lindsey v. Pettigrew (S. D.) 52 N. W. 873; Bendetson v. Moody (Mich.) 59 N. W. 252.
“A person who is in the general employment of one person may be temporarily in the service of another with respect to a particular transaction or piece of work, so that the relation of master and servant arises between them, even though the general employer may have an interest in the special work.
In such case the duty of using care to see that a safe place to work is furnished, or proper warning given, devolved upon the special employer.” Westeover v. Hoover, 129 N. W. 285; Coughlan v. City of Cambridge, 44 N. E. 218; Miller v. Minnesota & N. W. Ry. Co. et al. 29 N. W. 188; Hitte, Adm’r. v. Republican Val. R. Co. (Neb.) 28 N. W. 284.
“He is the master, who has the choice, control and direction of the servants. The master remains liable for the negligence of his servants, unless he abandons their control to the hirer.” Pioneer Fireproof Cons. Co. v. Hansen, 176 Ill. 108, 52 N. E. 19; Coughlan v. City of Cambridge, 166 Mass. 268, 44 N. E. 218; Consolidated Fireworks Co. v. Kochl (Ill.) 60 N. E. 87; McInerny v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 82 Hun. 615, 151 N. Y. 412; See 26 Cyc. 1522.
The giving of general instructions as to the law of the case where a special verdict is to be returned, is improper. Boyce v. Schroeder, (Ind.) 51 N. E. 376; Stayner v. Joyce, 120 Ind. 99, 22 N. E. 89; Mauch v. Hartford, 112 Wis. 40, 87 N. W. 816.
“In returning a general verdict, the jury apply the law to the facts, and pronounce generally upon all of the issues. In a special verdict
