The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-02-04
HEAD NOTES OF THE DECISIONS : OF THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT

e<E&%ANkE*<s<S;Ns<&ffe0
 to recover damages for personal injuries
 alleged by plaintiff to have permanently disa bled her and seriously impaired her l health, where . physician introduced as
 witness for the defendant testified that several years before the time of the al- legged accident he attended the plaintiff.
 and that during those years the plaintiff made complaints about her physical con- dition and her suffering. and that on the l day prior to his examination, he had again examined the plaintiff, at which time she made complaints of her suffer- ing. 1t is competent for the defendant | to ask said witness whether or not the
 complaints made by the plaintiff. when l he examined her the day before he was | testifying. were the same complaints she
 made during the time he treated her
 prior to the alleged accident; such aues- l ton calling for statements of a matter of fact and not the conclusions of the witness.
 | IF. Same; admissibility of evidence.- | In an action against a street railroad
 company by passenger to recover dam ages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused to plaintiff while attempting
 to board train, by the car. after it was | stopped, starting too quickly and with I hs proached the station where the plaintiff
 attempted to board the car is immaterial, | irrelevant and incompetent evidence. 13 Same; same.-In such an action,
 where the witness examined for the de-
 fendant testified that he was acting as motorman at the time of the alleged in-
 jury, and that he moved or started the
 car at the time plaintiff Is alleged to have been injured, and then testifes as | to how he started the car. and how much
 current he turned on for this purpose
 1t is competent for the plaintiff, on the cross tion of said witness. to ask | him ''how do you usually start your l cars of from the, station" or other ques- tions asked for tho purpose of showing
 what was usually done by defendants
 motormen in starting cars from the sta | ton.
 | 14. Evidence; examination of witness as
 to character of other witness.-The gen. | eral character of witness in the com
 munity in which he lived can not be l proved, unless such a witness's general l character has been attacked; and the 1 fact that during the cross-examination | of a witness he was asked whether or not he had served a term in the peni- | tentiary or had ever been convicted, does not constitute an attack upon the wit l ness's character, so as to authorize the
 subsequent proving of his general charac- l ter by another witness.
 l 15. Charge of court to jury.-It is not | error for the court in the course of its
 general charge to the jury, to instruct | them that they were not ''to be gov 1 erned by the number of witnesses. but | by the weight and preponderance of the evfdence;" and upon counsel for the de- | fendant in such case insisting that the | word necessarily should be incorpor- ated in said instruction just before the | words "to be governed furnishes no
 ground of complaint to the defendant. If the court, after stating that he did not believe that it was necessary to add
 the words suggested still to please coun- sel he would do so, and thereupon in- structed the jury that they were mot necessarily to be governed by the num-
 Der of witnesses, but by the weight and preponderance of the evidence" 16. Action for personal injuries: charge | of court to jury,-In an action against a street railroad company by a passenger | to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff while attempt l ing to board said car. and there was tes- \ timony tending to show that the injuries | complained of were caused by the sud | den starting of the car with jerk, and | 1t was averred that the plaintiff was | first thrown one way by reason of the | jerk and then the other way, a charge is erroneous and properly refused which | instructs the jury: If you believe from the evidence that by the starting of the car the plaintiff was not jerked. slung or thrown one way, and by the stopping of
 the car the plaintiff was not jerked. slung or thrown the other way, your verdict must be for the defendant"
 Reversed and remanded. Opinion by Haralson, J.
 CAMPBELL V. H. B. CHAPLIN co.
 Bill in Equity for the Appointment of a Receiver.--Appeal from the Chancery Court of Madison.
 1. Equity pleading; how exceptions to
 registers report should be reserved;
 when not reviewed.-The appropriate
 functions of an exception to a registers
 report Is to point out distinctly and clear ly the matter complained of as error; and the mere general objection to rulings or conclusions of the register or to the results attained by him in the statement of an account or the making of a report, will not be entertained.
 Affirmed. Opinion by Tyson. J.
 HOUSTON BISCUIT co. V. DIAL. Action by Employes Against Employer
 to Recover Damages for Personal h.
 juries.-Apeal from the City Court of
 Birmingham.
 1. Action by an employe for personal injuries: suficiency of complaint.-In an action by an employe against his em- ployer to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the starting of a ma chine in the defepdant's factory. and re- ceived while engaged in oiling said ma chine. in the discharge of the duties of his employment. count of the complaint which ayers that the machine was not in motion when plaintiff began to oil 1t, but the operation of said machine, run by steam, was controlled by belt ar- ranged to run interchangeab bly, on pulleys, so that when the belt was on the fixed pulley the machine was put In motion, and when it was on the loose pulley the ma chine would be stopprd. that there was originally attached to the machine a sliding bar usad for shifting such belt from one pulley to the other and such bar was necessary to the safe operation of the machine. that at the time of the accident complained of said sliding bar had been removed from the machine by the president, (naming him) of the de- fendant who was instructed with the superiDtSndence of it's entire business management, that if said sliding bar had been in place and properly adjusted the machine would not have been injured, that ''said defect had been of long stand ing and was well known to the defend ant company by and through its said president" but was not known to the