The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-19

the plaintiff, while attempting to aiigh, from said car at said place. stepped ane fell upon said lumber and thereoy re. ceived the injurits complained or SUI. ciently states a cause of action and is not subject to demurrer. x
 {. Same; same.--In such case, a. count of the complaint which ayers that 1t wal the duty of the plaintiff to use proper care to have it's car stopped at the usual place. provided for passengers to aiishs at the station to which plaintiff was go ing, then ayers that the defendant dis regarding It's said duty ''did not stop said car the usual stopping place where plaintiff could with safety have alight- ed from said car. although signalled by plaintiff in ample time to do 50, but ran said car beyond said regular stopping place, a distance Of about thirty feet. af a place where lumber and other obstruc- tions were lying on the ground. and where there was no light to appr!se plaintin of the situation, and then and there stopped said car in the midst of said lum- ber," and plaintiff believing that said car had stopped at the usual place. at- tempted to alight therefrom and stepped and fell upon said lumber or other ob- structions. among which the dcferda 1t had neghgentiy and carelessly stopped said car, and thereby the plaintiff sus- tained the injuries complained of. states a sufficient cause of acticn. and Is not subject to demurrer. E
 B. Same; su ciency of plea of con- tributory nesligences-In an action by . passenger against a Street Railway Con- pany to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by him when atighting from one of the care of the defendant, which injuries were alleged to have been sustaind by reason of the defendant step ping in or upon pile of lumber negii- gently placed by the defendant near its track, a plea which ayers that when the car stopped the lights from the car shone for ten or twelve feet on either side of the track. and that plainiff could have seen he alleged lumber and debris before he stepped thereon, by tho exercise ot ordinary and reasonable care on his part, is insufficient as a plea of contributory negligence. in that it does not aver that that the plaintiff failed to exercise ordi- nary and reasonable care, or that he saw the lumber. s
 G. Same; same.-In such a case, a plea which ayers that the defendant stepped from said car without knowing or in- quiring of the defendant or its agent as to whether or not the situation was rea- sonably safe for him to aiight where said car was stopped" is insufficient as plea of contributory negligence and is demur- rable.
 2. Same; same.-In such a case. a plea which alleged that the plaintiff volun- tarily alishted therefrom without request ing the defendant or its agent to carry him back to the regular stopping place. and without ascertaining before he alighted from said car that he was al Iivht at fa ,,la i. zlS plea of contributory negligence and de. murrable. -
 8. Same; same.-In such an action a plea seeking to set up contributory negli- gence on the part of the plaintiff which ayers that the plaintiff boarded said car of the defendant knowing that 1t was be- ing operated without any one to look after the safety of his alighting, and that he. plaintiff, "alighted from said car without first ascertaining or attempting to ascertain that he was at a safe place to alight therefrom,'' is insufficient and subject to demurrer.
 9. Street railroad company: duty a. to passenger.-Street railway companies are under duty of exercising the highest degree of diligence and care to conserve the safety of their passengers. and thi. duty extends to and includes the safe landing of passengers at the termination of their journey or ride; and for failure to stop one of its cars at a place safe fol a passenger to alight, or in stopping 1t: car at dangerous place, the street rail way company is liable for damages sus tained by a passenger by reason of sucf failure or by reason of a passenger alighting at such dangerous place.
 10. Action against street railway com pany; hospital fees paid by plaintiff re, coverable; admissibility of evidence.-Ir an action against a street railway com pany to recover damages resulting from personal injuries. hospital fees including the expenses of a ward in hospital ana nurse. paid by the plaintiff while seek, ing recovery from the injuries sustained constitutes an element of recoverable damages by the plaintiff: and such items of expense incurred by the plaintiff art admissible in evidence.
 Il. Deposition under the statute; should be suppressed when taken before only one or two named commissioners.-Wher in a civil case. lnterrogatorics are filed un- der the statute Code, Sec. 1S35). and the commission issued by the clerk names two persons as commissioners, and the certificate attached to the deposition taken under said commission Is signed by only one of the commissioners. and recites that he alone took the deposition of the witness to whom the interrogatories were propounded, and the adverse party is shown not to have waived the absence of the other commissioner. the taking oi the deposition by only one of the com. missioners was invalid .and upon a mo- ton properly made, the deposition SC taken will be suppressed. and this Is true although it was not shown why the absent commissioner did not act. and there was no evidence that he did not have notice as required by the statute but it was shown that the commissioner who acted was suggested by the party propounding the interrogatories and the name of the other commissioner was in serted in the commission upon the sug. gestion of the adverse party. -Dowdell, J. dissenting.)
 F. Trial and its incidents; admissibili- ty of evidence relating to the manner oi arriving at verdict by jury on motion fol new trial.-On a motion for new trial evidence by the juries who tried a case as to the manner of their arriving at ( verdict. is inadmissibe in evidence.
 13. Damages for personal Injuries when not shown to be eessive.-In an ac ton against a stret railway company to recover damages for personal injuries where it is shown that by reason of thu injuries sustained the plaintiffs righ arm was paralyzed and the injury re sulting in his being sick and disabled fol several months. and being subjected t' heavy expenses for medical and hospita fees. and had suffered great mental ant physical pain. and was prevented iron performing the duties of his occupation for several months. verdict assessini his damages at $500 can not be said t be excessive.
 Reversed and remanded.