The opinion
Per Curiam.
Tbis case was before us at Fall Term, 1914, and is reported 168 N. C., 621 . Upon tbe second trial bis Honor very properly changed tbe wording of tbe third issue so as to bring tbe issue squarely under tbe laws of Virginia. In tbe former opinion
Justice Brown,
speaking for tbe Court, held that tbe liability of tbe defendant must be determined under tbe law of Virginia as expounded by its highest Court, and said: -
“For a similar reason, tbe contention that under tbe ruling of the Court of Virginia there is no sufficient evidence that tbe intestate was struck and killed by tbe train cannot be sustained. Tbis fact must be determined by tbe rules of evidence obtaining in tbis State, and under our decisions there are circumstances in evidence which justify tbe court in submitting that disputed fact to tbe jury.
Henderson v. R. R.,
159 N. C., 581 ;
Kyles v. R. R.,
147 N. C., 394 .”
Upon a review of tbe evidence upon tbe second trial, we are of opinion that there is circumstantial evidence sufficient to go to tbe jury to warrant their finding upon tbe first and third issues, and that tbe case was correctly submitted to -the jury.
No error.