child of the parents by adoption to the full extent as if born to them in natural wedlock, and whatever legal consequences follow, the natural relation of child and parent thereafter exists between the adopted child and the adopting parent with the exceptions referred to in the statute, none of which applies to the case at bar. "Succession to property" means succession under the laws regulating the descent and distribution of intestate property. Attorney General v. Clark, 222 Mass. 291, 295. Bolinger v. Beacham, 81 Kans. 746. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway v. Ryan, 62 Kans. 682. In a case recently decided by this court, it was held that under the workmen's compensation act, the adopting parent of a deceased employee stood in the relation of next of kin to such employee. Cowden's Case, 225 Mass. 66.

2. There was evidence to show that the intestate had some knowledge of the dangerous qualities of electricity. Still, in view of his age, it could not be ruled that he was not in the exercise of as high a degree of care as naturally would be expected of a boy seventeen years old. We do not think as matter of law that he was negligent because upon this dark and stormy night he failed to see the wire lying in the grass, or because he mistakenly believed that sparks emanating from it were fire-flies. We do not understand the defendants to contend that he took hold of the wire with knowledge of what it was, and that it was charged with electricity. The question whether he failed to exercise due care was a question of fact to be determined by the jury. The burden was upon the plaintiff to show such care affirmatively in order to recover. The presumption created by St. 1914, c. 553, does not apply to this case because the cause of action occurred before the statute went into effect.

3. The evidence was conflicting whether the accident occurred within the limits of the highway or outside thereof. The witness Repetto testified that he and the intestate were walking in the centre of the sidewalk and that the latter stepped about two steps and stooped down; that the intestate was about a foot in on the grass. There was also testimony that the street line at the place of the accident was about a foot from the edge of the grass on the inside of the sidewalk and that the latter was about eight feet in width. We are of opinion that the question whether the accident occurred within the limits of the highway or outside of

it was for the jury. Upon the evidence, the plaintiff could have been found to be a traveller upon the highway.

This brings us to a consideration of the question whether the action against the city of Malden should have been submitted to the jury. The declaration in that case contains four counts; the third and fourth allege that the city owned and negligently maintained certain poles and wires upon the way, but there was no evidence to sustain these allegations. It follows that no recovery could be had on those counts.

The first and second counts allege that the intestate was a traveller upon the highway and was injured by reason of a defect and want of repair in the way. While there was evidence which would have warranted a finding that he was a traveller upon the way, there was nothing to show when the wire was broken or how long it had been hanging in the street; nor was there evidence that the city knew or by the exercise of proper care and diligence might have had reasonable notice of a defect in the way, if such a defect existed. For this reason in the case against the city a verdict was rightly ordered for the defendant. R. L. c. 51, § 18. The case of Wright v. Chelsea, 207 Mass. 460, is plainly distinguishable from the case at bar. O'Donnell v. North Attleborough, 212 Mass. 243.

4. There was evidence of negligence of the Malden Electric Company. If the jury found that its poles and wires were maintained without the permission of the town of Revere or of the city of Malden, and that without any permission it authorized the Suburban Gas and Electric Company to place wires upon its poles, such evidence in itself was evidence of negligence of the Malden Electric Company. Brunelle v. Lowell Electric Light Corp. 194 Mass. 407. Donovan v. Connecticut Valley Street Railway, 213 Mass. 99.

There was evidence that the Malden Electric Company had permitted the wire with which the intestate came in contact to remain upon its poles in a rusty, corroded and dangerous condition for at least two years before the accident, without taking any steps either to remove it, or to provide by guard wires or otherwise against its coming in contact with the high tension wires below it, which wires also could have been found to have been in an unsafe condition due to defective insulation; and that

the unsafe and dangerous condition of the wire which fell, as well as that of the wire with which it came in contact, could easily have been discovered by reasonable inspection. Although the defendant did not own either of these wires, still it owned the poles on which they were supported, and if the wires were placed there with its knowledge the defendant might be found liable if it failed to adopt such precautions as were reasonably necessary to avoid a danger which might result in the death of or injury to persons lawfully travelling upon the highway. O'Donnell v. Boston Elevated Railway, 205 Mass. 200. Mahan v. Newton & Boston Street Railway, 189 Mass. 1. Lutolf v. United Electric Light Co. 184 Mass. 53. Leahan v. Cochran, 178 Mass. 566. Griffin v. United Electric Light Co. 164 Mass. 492. Newcomb v. Boston Protective Department, 146 Mass. 596. Milford v. Holbrook, 9 Allen, 17. It could not properly have been ruled that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of this defendant.

5. The question whether the Suburban Gas and Electric Company was negligent was also for the jury. There was testimony that it maintained its wires upon the poles of the Malden Electric Company at the place of the accident without permission and in violation of the ordinances of the city of Malden; that its wire (with which the fallen wire came in contact) carried the current of electricity which resulted in the death of the intestate, and was allowed to become worn; that its insulation was defective and that it was bare in places; that by reason of these defects at the time of the accident, and for a long time previously, it had been in an unsafe and dangerous condition, and that such condition could have been discovered by reasonable inspection, and remedied. Besides, as previously stated, it could have been found that the wire which broke was rusted and corroded and had been in an unsafe condition for a long time before the accident; that its dangerous condition also would have been apparent on proper inspection. It cannot be doubted that this evidence was amply sufficient to justify a finding of negligence. Romana v. Boston Elevated Railway, 218 Mass. 76. McCrea v. Beverly Gas & Electric Co. 216 Mass. 495. Griffin v. United Electric Co., ubi supra. Lutolf v. United Electric Light Co., ubi supra.

6. Upon the question of conscious suffering there was evidence that immediately after the intestate came in contact with the

wire and received the shock, he exclaimed "Oh!"; "that the yell was a very loud one; that the boy fell backward and lay about a foot over the gravel on the grass." There was other evidence that afterwards he rolled upon the ground and exclaimed “O dear!" We are of opinion that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that his death was preceded by conscious suffering, and that a contrary ruling could not properly have been made. Knight v. Overman Wheel Co. 174 Mass. 455, 463.

7. The plaintiff excepted to the exclusion of the following offers of proof: "Referring to the green or open space between the Moore house, so called, and pole B, the plaintiff offers to show that for more than thirty years the said space has been open, unrestricted, unfenced and used for common passage and travel by all persons coming down Lynn Street and desiring to go to Lawrence Street, or vice versa, at their will; that there is and has been a travelled path across it, although the deceased was not at or in the path at the time of the accident; that there has never, for thirty years, been any trespass sign; that a United States Post Office box is and for many years has been within the limits of said green so that any one depositing letters in said box must pass within the limits of said property; that children have played there without let or hindrance for more than thirty years and that the memory of any of the inhabitants in the vicinity does not hold any memory of any person whomsoever being warned off the said green or forbidden its use for common and public passage and play." This evidence was offered "against the two defendant electric light companies, to show that the plaintiff's intestate, if as a matter of fact found to have been on private property at the time when the accident happened, which the plaintiff denies, was there rightfully, by license of the owner, and to show that the defendant electric light companies were chargeable with notice that persons might be expected to be where the intestate was (if found to have been on private property) and as affecting, therefore, their negligence in allowing an electric light wire to fall down upon private property (if it shall be found that the wire was on private property when the plaintiff's intestate was injured)." The wire which broke and fell had been attached to poles B and C. Both of these poles were located in the highway near the line which divided the open lot from the highway. The

wire broke and fell to the ground at a point about midway between poles B and C and close to the sidewalk on Lynn Street.

The defendant companies contend that, if the plaintiff's intestate was upon the open space, he was a trespasser thereon, and if that be the fact, as matter of law the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.

If, as the plaintiff offered to prove, it was shown that the open space had been used by the public as a playground and had been used as a common passageway and for travel by persons travelling between Lynn Street and Lawrence Street, and that such uses had been made of the open space with the knowledge and consent of the owner, it could have been found that there was an implied invitation by the owner to the public including the intestate to travel over it. Under such circumstances the latter would not be a trespasser as against the owner but would be rightfully upon the land by his permission.

If the evidence showed that the land was used by the public as a playground and for purposes of travel and had been so used for thirty years, the defendant companies could have been found to have had knowledge of such uses, and would be charged with notice that persons might be at any time upon the land with the permission of the owner.

If the defendants maintained or used poles upon the highway and near the line between the highway and the open space upon which wires were attached carrying a high voltage of electricity, they were bound to exercise reasonable care so to maintain their wires that persons rightfully upon the land would not be injured.

If the evidence offered by the plaintiff had been admitted, it could have been found that the intestate was upon the land by the implied invitation of the owner. If so, he was there in the owner's right and would have the same rights against the defendant companies that the owner would have.

It does not appear that the defendant companies had any right to use the open space for the erection of poles and the maintenance of its wires. If we assume however that they were licensees in placing their wires over the land, the question then presented is: What duty did they owe to persons who were rightfully upon the land in the right of the owner and of whose presence there the defendants were charged with notice?