The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-07-24

said road were liable to be injured, and
the defendant by special plea sets up that
IL exercised reasonable care to prevent
its wfrs from becoming detached from
its poleS, and that u did not know, and
by the exercise OF reasonable care could
not have known that the wires had be-
come detached from the pole, until after
the injury to the plaintiff. and where the
evidence for the plaintiff tends to show
that at the point where the injury was
alleged to have been caused the wire
owned and operated BY the defendant
had become disengawed from the pole to
which Il was attached. by reason OF the
cross pole being rotten. and that the wire
had been detached for two days or more
before the injury complained was In
fiicted, 1t is question for the Jury
whether due care alleged had been proved,
or whether due care had been exercised
to discover and remedy the defective con-
dition Of the wire; ana. therefore, the
general Affirmative charge requested by
the defendant IL properly refused.
T. Same; same; charge to the jury. LIN
such a case, charge Is properly refused
which instructs the jury as follows:
That although the jury may find from
the evidence that the cross arm which
II appears from the evidence was de-
tached from the pole at the point OF de-
PENDANTS line where the alleged injury
occurred was rotten. or partially rotten,
yet. In this case no recovery can be had
because Of such alleged rotten or partial
ly rotten cross arm ~
5. Action for negligence; charge OF
court as to failure to cali in physician. =
In an action to recover damages for per-
sonal injuries alleged to have been caused
by the negligence of the defendant a
charge is erroneous and properly refused
which instructs the fury that. II they
find from the evidence that no doctor
was employed by the plaintiff to treat his
alleged injuries. the Jury may look to this
fact, II found from the evidence to be a
fact. as a circumstance tending to show
that plaintiff was not seriously hurt al
the time and place named In the com.
plant and evidence"
g. Action to recover for personal inju-
ries; admissibility Of evidence.-In an ac-
ton to recover damages for personal in
turies. where there was evidence tending
to show that the plaintiff continued ia
suffer more or less from the injury ever
since was received, 1t is competent TO ask
witness who was shown to have been
with the plaintiff, as to whether or not
he had heard. the plaintiff give expires.
sions Of pain or suffering since he re.
ceived the injuries complained of.
Z. Action against telegraph company;
inconsistency of court In rulings upon
charges requested by defendant.--In an
action by one who was travelling alone
public. road. against telegraph com.
pany, to recover for personal injuries al.
legged to have been caused by reason OF
the defendants negligence IN allowing a
wire charged with electricity to be or re.
main on or a short distance above the
road, whereby the travelling public along
said road were liable to be injured, there
Is no Inconsistency on the part of the
trial court In giving a charge at the re-
quest of the defendant which left the
jury free to find that the wires. poles and
cross-arms of defendants line were not
in safe and good condition when they
were last inspected, and upon so finding
to return a verdict for the plaintiff, and
refusing at the request Of the defendant
the general affirmative charge in its be-
half
s. Trial and it's incidents: new trial car
not be granted because court gave charge
at the request Of moyant.--where in tn,
trial Of a cause. there is Judgment rem
dered for the plaintiff. 1t constitutes nj
ground for the granting of new trial
that the court at the request Of the de.
PENDANT gave the general charge in it.
behalf.
Tried before the Hon. A. A. Coleman
Opinion by Mcclellan, C.sJ.