t 42 · FEDERAL REPORTER.
is one of the public thoroughfares, which it is the duty of the city to
keep inrepair the same as all other streets, and this duty is not lessened
by the fact that the lot in front of which this walk was laid was occu-
pied by agents of the state, any more than it would have been if occu-
pied by a private individual. The walk was originally laid at the ex-
pense of the city, and it was peculiarly incumbent upon the defendant
to keep it in repair. By section 307 of the charter it is provided that
the board of public works, a recognized agent of the city, shall supervise
the grading, repairing, and improving of all streets within the city, and -
by section 308 that they shall supervise the laying down of all side-
walks and cross-walks. No exception is made of streets upon which po-
lice stations are located, or of the sidewalks opposite such station; nor
is it anywhere! provided that the police commissioners shall either pave
the streets, build sidewalks, or repair them in front of their stations.
We understand it to be the law that where authority is given to repair
streets and sidewalks, and means are fumished to make the repairs, the
corporationis charged with the duty, and upon it rests the liability for
damages consequent upon this neglect of duty. Cooley, Torts, 625. — ·
— A In Barnes v.- Distwkrt 0f·Oolumbrb., 91 U. S. 540, it was held that the
District of Columbia, as a. municipal corporation,_was liable for injuries
caused by the defective condition of its streets, although the streets were
by act of congress placed under the control of a board of publictworks
appointed by the president, and removable by him; thecourt saying
that such a board was not an independent organization, but represented ’
the municipality, although the municipality had no voice in the appoint-
ment of its members. t Thisisa much stronger case against the defend-
ant than the present one. “See,a1so, Rehberg v. Mayor, etc., 91 N. Y.
137. r T .
7. That the court refusedrto charge that plaintiH` was guilty of con-
tributory negligence upon her own testimony, and that of Bateson and
Moore. ~ * t.   l C r
This testimony, putting it in its strongest light for the defendant,
shows that she walked along the streetfrom Michigan avenue without
paying any attention to the walk; that it was notoriously rotten, so that
any one could see the earth beneath the planks. t The witness Moore
states that thedangerous condition of the walk could be seen from Mich-
igan avenue without going on·to Church street. The testimony, how-
ever, shows quiteclearly that the worst part of the walk was at the easterly
end, from 25 to» 50 feet east of the spot where the accident occurred.
At this spot there seems to have been a hole in one side of the walk, and
several rplanks loose, so that the defect was visible to a person passing.
While this evidence undoubtedly tends to show contributory negligence,
we do not think it so conclusive as to have justified the court in direct-
ing a verdict for the defendant. There are undoubtedly cases of this kind
where this course may be properly taken, and in several actions of this
descriptionwe have felt justified in directing a verdict for the defendant
upon this ground; but the evidence ought to be so clear as to withdraw
the questiontrfrom the region of reasonable doubt. For instance, if this