The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-05-16

BrflGINGHAM SOUTHERN RAILROAD
co. v. CUZZART.
Action against Railroad Company oy I'm
q ploye to recover damages for Per
/ Donal Injuries. Appeal from the CITY
4 Court of Birmingham.
= Il Action against railroad company for
personal injuries; sumciency Of complaint
uany by an employee to recover dam
SeeG tor personal injuries. complaint
which alleges that while the plaintiff was
engagsd In the performance q his duties
the defendants engineer. naming him,
ssvsho was in charge and control and SUI
pSrintendence CT said engine" negligent
" moved said engine at q dangerous rate
Of speed up to and against a car on the
track OF the defendant. by reason Of
y.hich the coupling pin on, said car was
thrown with great force against the face
81 the plaintiff who was standing upon
the rdnuing board OF the engine for the
purpose of coupling said car. and by rea-
eon Of such blow the plaintiff suffered the
injury complatned Of. states q cause OF
action under subdivision Of Section i1ss
Acton AGAINST a railroad: admissi-
bility of evidence.-In an action against a
railroad company by an employe to re-
cover for personal injuries. where the
complaint alleges that by reason OF GER
enEineer the coupling pin was thrown
with great force against the piatntims
face striking him near his eye, whereby
SERIOUS injury was inflicted on the plain
srs sL' .sst eye Ds'a %hies
euffere1 great mental and physical pain
and anguish 1t is competsnt for the
plaintiff to introduce testimony showing
that from the stroke , or the 2ah ne n nad
N having pains darling through mis- head
n the region OF the eye.
q Same: same.-In such case. where
4he plaintiff had testified that since the
A. I'D N C0mnI21nI.
eyes or one Of them, had in consequence
a such injury been infamed and weak,
q y not competent for the defendant, on
cr0ss-examination OF the piaintin, 70
prove the condition Of the eyes or the
plaintif.a father and mother. or OF his
brothers and sisters.
4. Charge to the jury; properly refused
when assuming the truth of the testimony
Of 4 particular wftness--A charge to the
Jury which assumes as absolutely true
the testimony of particular witness IN.
troduced, and the absolute correctness OF
the opinion Of such witness who was ex-
nrnined as an expert, IL properly refused.
& Action against railroad company;
charge to the jury.-In an action against
= railroad company by an employe to re-
cover damages for personal injuries.
tbs plaintiff had been continuously at
work receiving practically the same
wages since the day of the accident. II
II not erroneous for the court to refuse
10 klEe 10 the July ECAAE8Cs AISc
them that the plltntiff had been able
since his injury to earn approximately az
much money as he had before.
6 Charge to the jury; properly refused
when giving undue prominence to a par
ticular fact.-A charge to the jury which
singles out and gives undue prominence
to q fact of which tbEre Is evidence, is
erroneous and properly refused; and the
fnnrmity of such a charge Is not re
lievec by the further instruction on the
part of the court that such fact was to
s. considered .along with che balance OF
the evidence In the case"
z New trial; properly refused.-The
1udxment Of trial court refusing new
trial on the ground that the evidence Is
not SUFFICIENT to support the verdict. OF
that the verdict is contrary to the evi'
dence, will not be reversed unless. aftei
allowing all reasonable presumption o
its correctness, the preponderance or th'
evidence against the verdict Is so de
cided as to clearly convince the cour,
that Il is wrong and unjust.
Affirmed.
1pi.,jor hv Mcclellan C., J.