The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-06-26


 said conductor was unnecessary to eject her from said train; that she had offered no resistance to his demands for her to leave the train. but had only besought him to allow her to remain. That notwithstanding all this. the said conductor wantonly, willfully or intentionally forcibly elected the plaintiff as aforesaid" causing the in- juries complained of Held: That said count states cause of action in rres- pass, and claims as recovery for damages for the alleged excessive force used by the conductor in ejecting plaintiff from the train; and that, therefore. all of the averments in said count as to plaintiff presenting the ticket to the defendants station against and the latter's statement and conduct in that connection is foreign to the trespass sued on; and should, upon defendants motion, have been stricken from said count.
 Reversed and remanded.
 Opinion by Sharpe, J.
 Statutory action of ejectment-Appea
 from the Circuit Court of Talla-
 1. Ejectment; admissibility of parol evidence to make certain a description of lands in a deed-In an action of ejectment, where 1t is shown that the defendant claimed under a deed which described the property conveyed there in as "one lot on Green Street in said Alexander City about twenty-Six feet feet front and runs hack thirty six feet and adtoins the brick store of Crayton Adams" it is competent for the defen- dant to introduce parol avedince tend ing to show that the description in said aw.A Al sued for, that there was never but one brick store on Green Street in Alex ander City known as Crayton's drug store and it was on the east side of said street, that there was never any other lot on Green Street fronting it and adjoining Crayton Adamss drag store running back thirty-eix feet and owned by Crayton Adams than the enc mentioned in the deed; and after the Introduction of such evidence making certain the description of the lands embraced in said deed, such deed is admissible in evidence.
 ?. Same; adverse possession; admis- sfbility in evidence of statement of agent while in possession of property In an action of ejectment to recover a lot which adjoined two store houses conveyed to the plaintiff by the same instrument under which she claimed title to the lot sued for, and which was between said store houses conveyed to the plaintin and another store house owned by the defendant, the plaintiff set up title by muniments and the de- fendant relied upon alleged adverse possession for a period of ten years. The testimony for the plaintiff, who was married woman, showed that she took possession of the two store houses conveyed in said deed by and through | her husband who acted as her agent, ana If the plaintiff ever had. possess sion of any part of the lot sued for t was held by and through her said hvs- band as her agent. who had full rower to act for her and represent her in. re- gard to said property. Held: That the testimony of a witness to the eff rect that several months before the | institution of the suit while ne was Tn conversation with the plaintiff'e hrs band in the store house adjoining the lot sued for, which was occupied by said husband at the time, and Lpon the witness offering to buy said ,ot, the husband of the plaintiff stated that said store house just about covered the | lot they were situated on, and that other parties owned the vacant lot te- tween said store and the store of the defendant. and the testimony of another witness to the effect that the plaintiffs husband offered to buy said vacant lot sued for, is admissible in evidence, the plaintiff having averred possession only through her husband as agent, his declaration disclaiming possession or the right of possession to | the lot sued for was evidence against her in the issue on trial.
 3. Same; same: Same-In such a. case the testimony of the plaintiffs husband l seeking to explain why he made such statement and to give reasons why he cid not consider that the plaintiff owned said lot ,is incompetent and in- admissible.
 1. Trial and it's incidents; exception reserved to refusal of court to give charges requested.-Where a general exception Is reserved to the refusal of the court to give several instructions requested collectively, such exception can not be sustained unless all of the charges requested ought to have been given; and where two or more instruc- tions are written on one sheet of paper, and being presented to the judge, he writes on the margin of the paper only the one word Refused" signed his name thereto, the refusal is to the charges collectively, and not to U this refusal will not be sustained un- less all the charges should have been given.
 5. Adverse possession; rights of trespasser-One who enters upon lands as a trespasser and asserts a claim of ownerhip thereto may have such ad- verse possession of the property as may be tackled to a succeeding posses sion in privity and ripen into title.
 6. Ejectment adverse possession; charge of court to Jury-In an action of ejectment, where the plaintiff sets up title by muniments, and the de- fendant claims title by adverse possess sion, a charge which instructs the jury that if they believe that the land sued for was conveyed In the several in- struments under which the plaintiff claims, the plaintiff Is entitled to re- cover, is properly refused in that it ignores the claim of adverse possession set up by the defendant.
 r. Charge to the jury; properly re- fused when giving undue prominence | to part of the evidence-Charges to | the jury which single out and give | undue prominence to a single part of | the evidence are properly refused.
 S.. Abstract and argumentative | charges are properly refused 9. Assignment of errors; when con | sidered on appeal-When the rulings | Of tba cOlIrF ho&