davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-22
HEAD NOTES OF THE DECISIONS
 OF THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT

and of great weight. and person who was upon it while turning would be in danger of being injured; that plaintiff, an infant of six years, went upon the turntable and, while playing with com. panions of like tender years. had his hip and back caught in or by the turntable, and was badly mashed. bruised and lacer- ated; that defendant we'll knew the cir, cumstances, but negligently left said turntable unlocked, uninclosed, or other wise guarded. Held: Such count is not , subject to demurrer on the ground that it shows that plaintiff was d trespasser, but fails to charge defendant with any willful or wanton injury to plaintiff; and that it fails to state any cause of action against defendant.
 2. Same: same; same-In an action against a railroad company by an infant for damages for injuries received while playing on defendants turntable, a count of the complaint alleges that defendant kept turntable at its depot, an open | and accessible place, where children re- sorted to play; that defendant knew, or had reason to know, that children re- sorted or would resort. there to play; that it was a machine or structure dan gerous for children to play on; that not withstanding this knowledge on the part of the defendant, he negligently allowed the turntable to remain unattended, un- incIosed and unguarded so that children could easily gain access to and move or turn the same; and that plaintiff, child of six years received the injuries com plained of while playing thereon. Held
 That such count is nat subject to demur- rer on the ground that it shows that plaintiff was a trespasser. but fails to charge defendant with any willful or wanton injury to plaintiff; and that it fails to state any cause of action against defendant.
 g. Same; same; same.-In an action by an infant against railroad company for damages for injuries received while play ing on defendants turntable. a count of the complaint alleges that defendant kept a turntable at its depot in an open and accessible place, where children resorted to play; that defendant knew that many children resorted there to play; that the turntable was a dangerous machine or structure for children and that several children had been Injured thereon, but nevertheless defendant negligently all lowed the turntable to be unfastened, uninclosed and unguarded, so that chill dren could easily gain access and turn the same: that plaintiff was injured there, and the injury was caused by the negli- eence of defendant in leaving the turn table unfastened. and unguarded, though it was aware of the above stated facts. Held: That such count is not subject to demurrer on the ground that it shows that plaintiff was a trespasser, but fails to charge defendant with any willful or
The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-22
Opinion by Dowdell. J.
CAPITAL CITY INSURANCE co. V
 COFTELD.

CAPITAL CITY INSURANCE co. V.
 COFTELD.
 Action on policy of fire insurance.-Ap-
 peal from the Circuit Court of Gle
 burne.
 1. Time for signing bill of exceptions. A motion to strike a bill of exceptions on the ground that 1t was not signed by the presiding judge until after appeal to the Supreme Court will not be sustained 2. Issue of fact joined on rejoinder proof; judgment regardless of merit.--In an action on policy of fire insurance where defendant pleads in bar a failure on plaintiffs part to comply with con dition of the policy which required him to make proof of his loss resulting from fire, such as visiting the scene of the fire and examining the books, as a waiver of condition. and defendant for rejoinder sets up written agreement between de- fendants agent and plaintiff wherein it was agreed that any action taken by de- fendant fin Investigating the cause of fire and the amount of loss should not waive or invalidate any condition of the policy. an issue of fact Is joined on the re- joinder. and the written agreement is without objection or dispute admitted in evidence the rejoinder is thus complete ly proved. and the defendant should have judgment regardless of the other issues and the merit of the rejoinder.
 Reversed and rendered.
 Opinion by Sharpe, J.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-22
SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO.,, V COUCH

SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO.,. V COUGH. Action for malicious prosecution. -Ap-
 peal from Circuit Court of Jefferson.
 1. Action for malicious prosecution; admissibility of evidence.-In an action against the Southern Epxress Company to recover damages for malicious prosecu- ton, where the principal issue in the case was as to whether the defendant had instijgated or encouraged the prose- cution of the plaintiff for robbing an epxress car, inquiries and statements addressed by the detective or special agent of the defendant to witness, after the plaintiff had been arrested and before his discharge, concerning plalnti1' $ movements and expenditure of money re- gently after the robbery. are competent and admissible in evidenc as indicating that the defendant employed efforts to obtain evidence for use in said prosecu- tion.
 ?. Same: same-In such a case. 1t IS competent for the plaintiff on cross ex- animation of the person who swore out the warrant for his arrest. to show that the special agent or detective in the en- ployment of the defendant expressed the opinion to such person that he had suf- ffcent evidence to convict the plaintiff of the robbery charged.
 3. Same: same.-Tn such a case, it is competent for the defendant to show that the person. upon whose affidavit the war rant of arrest of the defendant was sued out before making said affidavit and suing out such warrant, submitted fully and fairly all the facts in regard to plaintiffs guilt to a reputable practicing attorney. and was by him advised that the evidence was sufficient to justify plaintiffs conviction; such evidence hav- ing a tendency to show that the prosecu- tion of the plaintiff was by such person independent of defendants influence.
 Reversed and remanded
 Opinion by Sharpe, J
The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-22
ADAIR q co. V FEEDER ct al.

ADAIR a co. v. FEEDER ct aL Bill in equity to annul attachment pro-
 ceedings.-Appeal from the Chancery
 Court of Henry.
 l. Suficiency of plea in chancery suit: how considered on appeal when no ruling shown.-Where, in a chancery suit, there are pleas interposed and a motion to strike them is filed. ont such motion was not considered by the court nor submit ted to be passed on, it will be presumed on appeal that the motion was abandon ed, and that the cause was tried upon is- sue taken on said plea.
 2. Same; decree should be rendered for defendant if pleas proven.-If the defend ant in a chancery suit pleads to the whols bill and the complainant takes issue on the plea and it is established by the testi- mony, decree should be rendered for the defendant and the bill dismissed; and this is true though the plea was in- sufficient and would have been so held if properly attacked.
 3. Bill to annual proceedings in attach ment suit; burden of proof; sufficiency of evidence.-Where a bill is filed by cred itors to have annulled proceedings in an attachment suit, whereby the goods of eomplainants debtors were seized and sold, upon the ground that the attach ments were sued out by the attaching creditors in collision with tho debtor without the existence of any statutory ground therefore, and for the purpose oi hindering. delaying and defrauding the complainants and their creditors. the bur ren of proving the charges made is upon the complainant; and where the evidence introduced shows without conflict that the defendant in attachment was indebt- ed to the plaintiffs in said suit and the evidence further tended strongly to show that there was at least probable cause for the issuance of the attachment, the aver ments of fraud contained in such bill are not sustained, and upon such evidence the complainants are not entitled to re- lief
 {. Attachment; mere fact that the de- fendant knew of issuance does aot show fraud.-The mere knowledge on the part of the defendant in attachment that the plaintiffs in such suit were purporting to sue out wrlts of attachment, or a will. lingness on the part of such defendant that the attachment should be sued out does not, of itself, raise the presumption that there was a covinous agreement or fraudulent collision between the plaintiffs and the defendant in suing out tho at- tachment.
 Reversed and rendered.
 Opinion by Sharpe, J.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-22
GULL. Admr., '. HOUSE.

GULL, Admr., v. HOUSE.
 Action of assumpsit--Appea rom the Cir-
 cult Court of Etowah.
 1. Action by administrator to recover purchase price of land; eufflciency cf complaint-In an action by an adminis- trator to recover the purchase price of lands belonging to the intestates estate, where. by the averments of the complaint. 1t IS shown that the sale of the land was a judicial sale made through the plaintiff as administrator under a decree of the Probate Court, and that such sale had been reported to the court rendering the decree, as was contemplated by the stat ute under which the sale was had Code, Section H5D), a plea setting up that the sale was at public auction, and that a memorandum of it was not made by the auctioneer, etc, presents no answer to the complaint and is subject to demurrer. 3. Same: same.-In such a case. the sale being judicial one. plea setting up the misrepresentation of the administra- tor while acting as the agent of the court in making the sale, as to the quantity of the land sold. presents no defense to the action; the maxim of caveat emptor ap- plying to sue ha sale.
 3. Same; same.-In such a case, a plea averring that the sale referred to in the complaint was never confirmed by the Probate Court ordering said sale, and for this reason he never became liable to plaintiff on account of said purchase is bad and presents no defense to the action. Reversed and remanded.
 Opinion by Mcclellan, c. q.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-22
KICKER V. THE STATE.

Indictment for BamiuS-Appedl iEohi tho
 City Court of Montgomery.
 i. Gaming; house where game played within the statute.-On 8 trial under an indictment charging that the defendant bet money at a game played with cards. at a storehouse for retailing spirftuous liauors or house or place where spirituous liouors were at the time sold, retailed or given away" it was shown that the game was played in room in the second story of a store; that in the room was bed with a mattress on it and table and chairs; that in the first story or ground floor of said building there was storehouse for retailing spirituous, vinous or malt liauors; that to reach the room where the game was played there was stair way which led from the sidewalk to the second story, and there was wooden partition which separated the stairway from the store and extended from the stairs to the ceiling; that there was no opening between the stairway and the store; and that there was no opening connecting the room where the game was played with the store room underneath where the liquor was sold, but it was all in the same building. Held: That such place of gaming came within the provi- sions of the statute Code, Sections 4192- 479O.
 Affirmed. H8
 Opinion by Dowdell, J.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-22
JAMES V. THE STATE.

Indictment for Gaming--Appeal from the
 City Court of Montgomery.
 l. Gaming: admissibility of evidence On a trial under an indictment for gam ing, where the States witnesses testified to the defendant having played and bet at a game played with dice, and that aIl- other certain named person was also in the game it is competent for the defend ant, upon cross examination of a witness. who has testified that the other person named as having played in the game was in his employ during the month the game was shown to have been played. to ask him whether said person ever got of from his work during such month; an affirm ativc answer to such question going to the credibility of the testimony of the States witnesses as a whole.
 2 Same; same.-In 8 trial under an in- dictment for gaming, testimony that a certain named person who was said to have been in the game at the same time the defendant was playing. was not in the county when the case was tried, is irre- levant and inadmissib1e.
 3. Same; same.-On a trial under an indictment for gaming. where on the cross-examination of the States witness there was an effort made to show that he had been officious in the prosecution of gaming cases, it is permissible for the State to prove that such witness attended the grand jury in obedience to subpoe- ma, and not voluntarily.
 4. Gaming; what is a place forbidden by the statute; charge to the jury.-The back yard of a storehouse where spirit uous, vinous or malt liquors are sold. and ingress and egress to and from such yard is through the back door of said store, comes within the prohibition of the statute against gaming Code. Sec tions 4792-47g7; and charge so instruct ing the jury on trial under an indict- ment for gaming is properly given.
 Reversed and remanded.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-22
GRIDER V. THE STATE

Indictment for Embezzlement.-Appea
 from the Circuit Court of Macon.
 l. bmbezzlement; what necessary to constitute statutory offense-In order to sustain a conviction for the offense of embezzlement under the statute Code, Sec. 6469). 1t must be proved CD that the accused was the clerk. agent, servant or apprentice of a private person; @ that the money came into his possession by virtue of his employment; (O that he em- bezzled or fraudulently converted it to his own use or fraudulently secured it with the intent to convert it to his own use; and on trial under an indictment for cmbezzlement where there is no evil dence tending to show that the defend ant either received from or for his em- ployer any money which he could pos sibiy convert or embezzlc. the defend ant can not be convicted.
 Affirmed.
 Opinion by Dowdell, J,
The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-22

If you get a hard, dry, strong and ransid Ham as a gift, then you will have to put up with the quality; but if you have to pay for it, get the Par fridge Ham. They have no equal in flavor; they are mild and juicy, ten der and sweet. J. M. McCool,
 -2t Phone 607.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-22

ordinance, a complaint is filed by the city, the fact that in such complaint the city claimed the amount of the fine imposed on the defendant by the Mayor. does not render 1t demufrahle.
 Reversed and remanded.
 Opinion by Haraison. J.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-22

8. Charge to the jury must be com plete in itseif.--A charge requested to be given to the jury must be complete in itself; and charge which instructs the jury that "A reasonable - is a doubt which naturally arises in the mind in considering the evidence" is properly re- fused because 1t is incomplete.
 4 Charge of court to 1ury--In the trial of a criminal case, a charge which in- structs the jury that 'the proof of suspicious facts against the accused. does not even require him to rebut 1t. and the jury can not convict on suspicious facts merely" is erroneous and properly re- fused, in that it assumes the proof of suspicious facts and at the same time ignores other evidences in the case.
 5. Evidence; admissibility of declara- tions and conduct of conspirators.-When the evidence introduced in a criminal case is such as would justify the jury in reasonable inferring the existence of a conspiracy between the defendant and other persons to commit the crime with which the defendant Is charged. the acts. declarations and conduct of the other conspirators. in promotion of the purpose of the conspiracy, or in further ance of the common design to commit the crime, are competent and admissible as evidence against the defendant.
 Affirmed.
 Opinion by Dowdeli, J.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-22
OUR SPECIALITY.

Fresh arrival each day of Fresh Water Trout, Bream, Perch, and Dressed Catfish also nice Flyers, at Morris & Stuckey's. Phone 324.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-22

Captain Andre. Chicago life-saving official has devised steel rocket which. when used to throw life lines to wrecked vessels. leaves trail of light behind 1t and enables life savers to locate the distressed ship.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-22
Opinion by Dowdell, J.

ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RAIL-
 ROAD co. V. CROCKER.
 Action by an infant against Railroad
 Company for damages for personal in
 juries received on a turn-table.-Ap-
 peal from the County Court of Tusca
 loosa.
 1. Negligence; complaint: demurrer In an action by an infant against rail- road company for. damages for injuries received while playing on defendants s turntable. the first count of the com plaint alleges that the defendant com pany kept a turntable at it's depot, in q public and open place. where many peo- ple were accustomed too pass and chil- dren resorted to play: that it was att tractive to children of tender years. and dangerous because it was easily turned
The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-22

The Vulcan shipbuilding yards of Stettln have recently inaugurated pension fund. All employees who receive an annual salary of more than 1,500 marks (S35D are eligible to mem bsTshin
The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-22

At Rsikjavik. Ireland the temperance women who known as "white-ribboners" have taken 10 standing at the doors of public houses from p m. until closing hours urging men not to enter.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-22
CoosA MANUFACTURING CO.
 WILLIAMS.

WILLIAMS.
 Action by employee against employer to
 recover damages for personal injuries
 Appeal from the Circuit Court ct
 Calhoun.
 1, Action by employee; contributory negligence-In an action by an employee against a cotton mill company to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by reason or the negligence of the superintendent of such cotton mill in directing the plaintin to put a belt upon pulley which, at the time, was in motion and making three or four hundred revolutions minute, where the evidence shows plaintin was an experienced mill man, had worked TOT long time in the mill in which his in- juries were received and in the capacity of foreman of the section of the mill m which he was hurt, and he knew all about putting betting upon pulleys in motion, the fact that the plaintiff obeyed the orders of the superintendent in attempt ing to put the belt upon the pulley while in motion if there was danger in making such attempt, showed such want of care and prudence on the plaintiffs part and such negligence contributing to his own injury as to constitute full defense against the alleged negligence or the superintendent in giving the direction. z. ing negligence-In an action against a cotton mill company to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while he was attempting to put belt upon a pulley which was in mo- ton and making between three and four hundred revolutions a minute. one or the counts of the complaint charged. that ths superintendent of the defendants mill negligently ordered another employe to raise the belt with a pole while the plaintiff was engaged in putting 1t on the pulley, and that in carrying out such order the other employe raised the belt | in such manner as to cause it to lap and double around the revolving shaft. on which was the pulley, as a result Of the | tapping and doubling of the belt, the plaintiffs arm was caught therein and inflicted the injury complained of. The evidence showed that the superintendent had directed the other employe to raise the belt with pole. but there was a total lack of evidence to show that the tapping and doubling of the belt was a necessary or a probable result of lifting the belt with a pole, or that such result could have been within the reasonable ap- prehension of an ordinarily careful super intendent. Held: That such evidence was not sufficient to support the charge that the superintendent was guilty Of negligence in giving the order to the other employe to raise the belt. and that, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover upon such count.
 Reversed and remanded.
 Opinion by Mcclellan, C. J.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-22
SOUTHERN CAR AND FOUNDRY vs
 STATE OF ALABAMA.

SOUTHERN CAR AND FOUNDRY vs.
 STATE OF ALABAMA.
 Appeal from the City Court of Anniston.
 1. Action for license tax; sufficiency of plea.-In an action to recover license or privilege tax. a plea which ayers that the defendant procured a license from the proper authorities to do business in Alabama for the time mentioned in the complaint. lis bad and subject to demur- Ter, in that it does not aver in said plea that the license alleged to have been pro- cured was paid for.
 g. Same: same; statute of limitations Under the authority of the statute (Acts of 1s9S-99, p. 2O2 Sec. 16). a suit for the recovery of license tax can be brought any time within five years from the time the license becomes due; and, therefore in an action to recover license tax pleas setting up the statute of limitations of one and two years as 8 bar to the ac- ton are bad and subject to demurrer.
 B. License tax; sale by one corporation to another does not assign a license.- The purchase of the stock. property and business of one corporation by another ccrporation, does not authorize the lat ter company 10 do business under license issued to the former company nor is the latter company entitled to be credited to the amount of the license tax paid by the selling company on license tax acquired by the buying company for the years in which the purchase is made
 4 Same statute imposing such tax on corporations constitutional.-The statute requiring all corporations, foreign and domestic, doing business in this State, not otherwise specially required to pay a license tax. to pay an annual privi- lese tax graduated by the paid up capi- tai of the corporation Code Sec 2l42, suhd. 55), is the, exercise of legitimate authority of the legislature. and such statute is valid and not unconstitutional,
 c. Same: interest recoverable.-Intercst is recoverable on unpaid license taxes.
 Affirmed
 Opinion by Dowdell, J,
The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-22

wanton injury to plaintiff; and that 1t fails to state any cause of action against defendant.
 f. Complaint; pleas; demurrer.-In an action by an infant against a railroad company for damages for injuries re- ceived while playing on defendants turn table, where the complaint alleges. In substance, that defendant kept turn table In public, open place. where many people were accustomed to pass. and children to play;' that said turn-table was dangerous: that several children had been injured while playing thereon; that although defendant was aware of these facts, it negligently allowed the turn table to be unfastened and unguarded; that plaintiff, an infant. of six years. while playing thereon, was mashed and bruised by having his hip an1 back caught in the machine: and that the negligence of the defendant caused the injury, pleas CD that the turntable on which plaintiff was injured was con- structed on the land of defendant, and was used by defendant as necessary adjunct in it's business; that defendant did not invite plaintiff to go upon the table, and at the time of the accident had no knowledge that plaintiff was there; that the turntable Was properly COI2SIEuCJeus anu, N-i ttioe ~ f''N time of receiving the injury plaintiff was trespasser and the injary was not caused by wanton or willful negligence on the part of the defendant, present no defense. and arc subject to demurrer.
 5. Affirmative charge; when should not be given.-Tn an action by an infant against a railroad company for injuries received while playing on defendants turntable. it is error to give the affirma- tive charge at the request of the plain tiff. if the evidence does not establish as legal conclusion that the turntable, having regard to it's structure and situa- tion, was of a kind which if left un- fastened or unguarded was likely to att tract children or that the danger was so apparent that the defendant ought, in the exercise of ordinary prudence, to have anticipated that children wouldNre- sort to the machine and be injured.
 Reversed and remanded.
 Opinion by Sharpe. J.