his assent, express or implied, to the change of employer. Any fact or circumstance having a logical bearing on this proposition was admissible. And it seems to us that the incident referred to had a tendency to sustain plaintiff’s contention that he had no knowledge of the agreement between the Director General and the coal company, and that he never consented to being transferred to and becoming an employee of the coal company.
It is also asserted that the court erred in unduly restricting the cross-examination of the witness Johnson. As already indicated, Johnson was the locomotive engineer. He had been subpoenaed by the defendants. The plaintiff called him as a witness, and interrogated him as to certain matters. We are unable to say that the trial court restricted the cross-examination to such extent as to violate the rules of evidence. It seems to us rather that the court merely limited the cross-examination strictly to the matters inquired into on direct examination, and this, of course, was not error. Jones on Evidence, ¶ 820; Knapp v. Schneider, 24 Wis. 70. But, even if the cross-examination was unduly restricted, the error was fully cured, for the defendants.subsequently called Johnson as their own witness, and he was examined and testified fully with respect to the matters sought to be inquired into (and excluded) on his cross-examination. See 38 Cyc. 1466, 1467.
Error is also assigned upon the admission in evidence of the articles of incorporation of the coal company, and a blank used by the engineer in making reports while engaged at work in connection with the mine at Wilton. Little argument is advanced in support of these assignments, and, in our opinion, they are devoid of merit.
There were introduced in evidence in behalf of the plaintiff two X-ray photographs, one of a portion of plaintiff’s spine, and the other of one of his feet. The doctor who took these photographs was placed upon the stand as a witness for the plaintiff. After identifying the plates, and stating that they were in the same condition as when they were taken, he was permitted to interpret and explain them. He also vas permitted to give his opinion as an expert as to the nature and extent of the injuries as disclosed by such plates. It is contended that the rulings incident to the reception of all of this evidence were erroneous.
While it is argued that the X-ray photographs should not have been admitted in evidence, no error is assigned upon the rulings admitting them; hence defendants are now in no position to argue that these photographs should not have been admitted. We deem it proper to say, how-
