The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-10-18

a railroad company to recover damages for the alleged negligent killing of plain tiffs intestate, who was. at the time or the accident, in the employment of the defendant, where it is shown that the injuries were sustained while the plain tiff's intestate was assisting in placing a derailed car back upon the track, and that in order to do this jack screws were being used, it is competent to show by a witness who testified that he had for ten years worked upon a section of a railroad. the efficacy of jack screws in an efort to place a derailed car back upon the track G. Action against railroad company; charge as to appliances being used by well-regulated companies.-While the nt- ness of railroad appliances for special usage may be tested by what is shown to be the custom on well-regulated roads, with respect to such uses under like cir cumstances, the practice or custom of few well-regulated companies does not have that effect as conclusion or law, and, therefore, in an action against railroad company to recover for personal injuries. where one of the issues involved was whether the appliances used at the time of the accident were suitable for the especial use to which they were put, charges which propose to make stand ard test of the fitness of such appliances by the usage of eight companies, are in- vasive of the province of the jury and properly refused
 g. Same; sama.-In an action by an administrator against railroad company to recover damages for the alleged neg ligent killing of plaintiffs intestate, who was killed while assisting in putting derailed car back upon the track where the negligence complained of was that of the superintendent in charge of such work using jack screws to support the car which was being lifted, and that such appliances were not suitable for the use | to which they were put, charges which withdraw from the jury the question of whether there was negligent superintend- ence in emitting the use of supports in addition to the jack screws, are erroneous and properly refused.
 TO- Same; charge to the jury.-In such an action, charges which predicate the intestate's contributory negligence upon his doing certain acts with which he was charged. in a particular way. and pre- termtting all inquiry as to the fact of whether or not he had knowledge that such acts on his part were negligent, are erroneous and properly refused.
 H. Same; same.--In such a case. charge is properly refused which in- structs the jury that If they find that the plaintiffs intestate "expended all his earnings upon the support and mainten- ance of himself and his mother and sin gle sister, and that he saved nothing from his earnings, and charge you that If you find for the plaintiff the damages assessed by you must be such sum as being put at interest at the rate of per cent per annum. will each year. by talk ing part of the principal and adding it to the interest will yield the amount an- nually expended on the mother and sis ter, and so that the whole remaining principal at the end of the life expec- tancy of Walter T. Jones. added to the interest on this balance for the last year of such expectancy, will equal the amount annually expended on the mother and sister"
 F. Charge to the jury; properly refused when giving undue prominence to par ticular portion of the evidence.-A charge to the jury which gives such undue prom thence to a particular phase of the evil dence favorable to the person asking said charge, as to depreciate the other evil dence not so favorable, is erroneous and properly refused.
 Reserved and remanded.
 Opinion by Sharpe, Jr.