davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-16
CASsIMUs BROTHERS V. scoTTrsH UNION & NATIONAL INSuR-
 ANCE CO

Acuon on Fire insurance Policy.-Appeal
 From Montgomery Circuit Court.
 l. Action on fire insurance policy: suf hclency of plea.-In an action upon A hre insurance policy, a plea which ayers that In the policy of insurance sued on. It was expressly stipulated and agreed that the entire policy, unless otherwise provided by agreement endorsed tnereon or added thereto, should be void if the hazard was increased by any means with m the control, or knowiedge, of the in- sured, and that the hazard was increaseo by means within the knowledge and con- FoI or the insured, in that the plaintift Kept within the building covered by sato policy large amount of easily ignitable and infiammable material, to wit. ten gallons of gasoline; and there was no agreement endorsed on or added to saio policy consenting thereto. presents a de- Iehse to the maintenance of said action. ana is not subject to demurrer,
 z' same; Same.-In such an action. A plea which ayers that 1t was expressl, supuiated' understood and agreed tha, said policy, unless otherwise provided by agreement endorsed thereon or addet thereto, should be void, If there shou,n be kept, used or allowed on the premises covered by said policy. any gasonne, ana that there was kept, used and aI4owe,, on said premises. and there was present thereon at the time of the fire a larg, amount Of gasoline, and that it was ne yer provided by agreement endorsed on O. added to said policy, Sthat the same could De kept, used or allowed on said prem ises, nor was the same consented to. presents defense to the maintenance ot Ihe action, and is not subject to de. murrer.
 3. Insurance; right of insurance com pany to deny liability under policy:-Tne fact that fire insurance company, upon the receipt of notice and proof of loss denied liability under a policy former. issued by it, and states at the time tha. its conditions had been violated In only one particular, does not prevent saiu company from afterwards setting up in defense of an action upon said policy other and different breaches of the con ditions of the policy; 1t not being shown that the plaintiff was misled to his in. jury by the denial of liability on the particular ground stated.
 {. Action on insurance policy; sufh- ciency of replication.-In an action upon a fire insurance policy. to recover fol the destruction of a stock of goods, where the defendant sets up by special plea as defense. a claim of forfeiture of the policy. by reason of the plaintiff keeping gasoline on the premises insured. con- trary to the supulations of the policy. q replication to said plea which ayers that in the policy the stock of merchandise in
The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-16
ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RAIL-
 ROAD COMPANY V. TAMIL TON ADMR

@0ANs EAA~SAASs
 Action to recover Damages for Personal
 Injuries.-Appeal from the City Court
 of Birmingham.
 1. Wanton negligence; when shown; general charge.-In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for the alleged wanton or willful killing of plaintiffs intestate, the defendant is not entitled to the general affirmative charge where there was evidence showing that the train which killed the intestate was at the time, going at a speed of from twenty-five to forty-flve miles an hour, on an upgrade. and could have been stopped in distance of 125 yards: that the engi- neer discovered the iatestate. sitting on the end of one of the cross-ties, more than 200 yards ahead of the engine: that the intestate was then asleep and was killed while he was asleep: that the engi- neer made no effort to stop the train uu- til the man was struck and killed; and the engineer himself testified that when he saw the man ahead of the engine, he was sitting in a stopped over position as If he was nodding, and witness could see his head moving backwards and for wards.
 2. Same; knowledge of perilous posi- tion; physical disability to leave track; charge.-one who is so sound asleep on a railroad track as not to be awakened by the noise of an immediately approaching train, is unable. from physical or other disability. to leave his position and one who knows of such position is chargeable with knowledge that he is unable to move; and charges asserting a proposi- ton to the contrary are unsound.
 3. New trial; review; presumptions- There is prima facie presumption in favor of the correctness of the judgment of trial court denying a motion for new trial, based on the sufflciency of the evidence to warrant the verdict; and it is only when the record shows that such judgment was plainly erroneous that it will be reversed.
 Affirmed,
 Opinion by Mcclellan, c. J.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-16

1. Same; contributory negligence; as- sumed risks: pleading. Said plea is not one of contributory negligence, and fails to answer the charge of negligence made in the complaint, as 1t merely sets up that intestate assumed risk incident to his employment.
 5. Employer and employe; assumed risks.-An employe, by entering upon the performance of his duties, whatever may be the danger incident thereto. does not assume risk created by his employers s negligence.
 6. Trial; scope of cross examination Where witness has stated on direct ex- animation that he heard the conductor tell the deceased to couple the air brakes. he may be asked on cross-examination if he did not say to the conductor shortly after the accident that deceased was not coupling the cars, but was coupling the air as the conductor had ordered him to do, as it tends to impeach or contradict the witness.
 2. Same.-Where a witness had testified on direct examination that he had not ordered deceased to go in between the cars at the time he was hurt, and that when he went in between them he did so voluntarily, he may be asked on cross examination, for the purpose of discred- iting or impeaching him. if the deceased did not say To nm snoruy aIter ne was injured, that he was not trying to make the coupling, but was trying to attach the air, as he (witness) had ordered him to do, and if he (witness) was not silent l when that was said.
 g. Evidence as to duties of conductor Where a conductor Is charged with neg Iigence in causing the death of brake man, it is proper to sustain an objection to a question to him. seeking to show that it was his duty, as soon as an acci- dent happened to telegraph at once the l number and initials of the cars, where the accident happened; as showing his duty only, without more, did not tend to prove that he performed the duty. g. General charge; when properly re- fused.-The general charge is properly re- fused where the evidence as to the mate rial issues is conflicting.
 Affirmed. Opinion by Haralson, J.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-16
AS TO INSURANCE RATE
RECOMMENDED THAT MONT GoMERY RISKS BE REDUCED.
Committee of Commercial and Indus. trial Association to Ask City Government for Closer In-
 spectlon of Buildings.

At the meeting of the Montgomery Commercial ana Industrial Association Tuesday night much interest was taken in report of the insurance Committee of that body which recommended a reduc- tiou in Montgomery insurance risks and closer inspection of buildings.
 The report was submitted by Chairman I. T. Moses. So much interest in the matter has been awakened that it is here with printed in full:
 To the Officers and Members of the Com-
 mercial and Industrial Association:
 'GentIemen-Your Committee on Insur- ance beg leave to submit the following report:
 Tn presenting this report we thought 1t best to give both sides of the question. 60 that a careful reading of this paper will give you a clearer insight into the reasons why our rates are high and also what we believe is the best remedy for same.
 The main question with us is how to obtain lower rates of insurance. We. like the people generally. are under the im- precision that insurance companies are growing rich. owing to the high rates charged in this and other Southern States. In conducting their business, the man agers of the insurance companies en- deavor to make al average on each class of risk: and in fixing the rates they base their charges from past experience, but in many cases find that they have made an error and either are compelled to raise the, rate or else place such risks on their prohibited list. This prohibited list, while a safeguard to the companies, Is a source of much trouble and annoy ance to the agent as well as the assured.
 There are many risks on the outski! ts of the city rated at from per cent to 10 per cent: yet the agents have trouble in placing these risks even at such tempt ing rates, and many companies will not write at any figure risks beyond the city limits.
 "Underwriters would sooner insure a risk at 1 per cent as in the case of the Baldwin building on South Perry Street, than the building occupied by the Mont gcmery Fair at per cent, for the req son that, in the first instance, the build building occupied by The Fair Is ex- posed on all sides The remedy for high rates is the proper protection against fire from our nelghbors, and the con- struction of buildings to guard against extensive conhagrations.
 Tt Is too early to give the figures for the year 1902 but those for 1901 will no doubt prove interesting.
 During 1901 there was paid for fire in- suraree in this State $l 696. 4S9. and paid to policy holders for fire osos S945. .0S2 or s5 s-10 per cent of the premiums. During the past five years the aggregate losses
The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-16

those jurors whose names had been draw1 and laid aside returned into court with verdict, and were, therefore, ready ts serve as jurors in said pending cause and before an order Is made for thl drawing and sunmoning of talesmen, f IS not error for the court to require the names of said jurors, which had been st laid aside. to be put again into the hat and for the drawing of the jury to pro ceed; and If from these jurors the iur1 in the case Is completed the defendant obtains jury to try his case from tht special venira drawn and summoned fol the trial of his case. and has no Rround for complaint.
 g. Robbery: when no duress shown, Sufnciency of evidence.-On A trial undea an indictment for robbery, it was shown by the evidence that teh defendant wen to the place where the robbery was com mitted, in company with one J.; thay said J. drew his pistol and caused thi persons present at such place to hold LII their hands and then requested or com, nnanded the defendant to search them while he. J. held the pistol drawn ThaI the defendant did as directed by J. and turned over all the money obtained b1 by the evidence that the defendant went him from the search to said J. That aftaa the search J. left the scene and was sooH joined by defendant, who was agaiS seen with J. during the day. The evidence for the defendant was that J. made him search the parties and dc what he did," and that the part M took in the affair was at the command of J. while he had a pistol In hls hand and that he got none of the moaey taken" Held: There was sufficient evi, dence from which the jury might hayG reasonably inferred the defendants com, plicity in the robbery committed by J, and there was nothing to authorize thG inference that defendant acted under duress of life or great bodily harm, and was, therefore, excusable. lTyson, J, and Sharp, J. dlsserting.)
 Affirmed
 Opinion by Dowdell, J.
 Tyson J. and Sharpe. J. dissenting.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-16
MoRNINGsTAR V. L. & N. RAILROAD
 COMPANY


 Action by Passenger to Recover Damages
 for Election from Train.-Appeal from
 the Circuit Court of Mobile.
 l. Duty of common carrier to passen- gers: limitation of ket.-Where, in a passengers ticket over a railroad, there Is nothing expressed to the contrary, the stipulation purporting to limit the use of said ticket to a specified time, fixes that time as the latest for commencing and not completing the journey: and if the journey Is commenced within the time specified, the passenger is entitled to be carried to his destination named in said ticket.
 2. Same; same.-Where the holder of passenger ticket, purchased from a Iaiiroad company for transportation over It's road. is prevented from enterlnk upon his Journey until midnight of the day stipulated upon the ticket for it to ex- pire' by reason of delay of the train scheduled to leave his place of starting before midnight; and because of such lateness of the train said passenger does not make connection at a junction along the line of said railroad, with the train going to his place of destination. and after arriving at said junction said pas- senger Is diligent in attempting to pursue his Journey and takes passage upon inc nrst train leaving said junction going to his place of destination as stated on said ticket, such passenger is entitled to be carried to his place of destination by the use Of said ticket and upon the conduc- tor of the train which he boarded refus- ing to accept said ticket for his passage and ejecting him from the train. the rall- road company is liable to said passenger for damage sustained.
 Reversed and remanded. Opinion by Sharpe, J.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-16
ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RAIL
 ROAD CO N BROOKS ARMRX
Opinion by Mcclellan. c. J.

ROAD co. V. BROOKS. ADMRX. Action against Employer for Damages
 for Death by Wrongful Act.-Appeal
 from the City Court of Birmingham.
 1. Employer and employee; pleading In an action by the administrator of a deceased empIoye. against the employer, counts in the complaint are sufficiently definite and certain in the averment of facts showing negligence, which show the fact of employment and the nature of intestates duties, the name of the negli- gent employe. and that he was in charge of a locomotive or car causing the in- jury, and that his negligence consisted in ''negligently running car which was att tached to said engine down to and against another car near or ny which plaintiff s intestate was standing In the discharge of his duties, thereby crushing and killing the intestate"
 negligence; averment If facts.-A plea is not bad because 1t does not state. in terms. that a danger incurred by plaintiff was obvious. if the facts stated show that it was obvious.
 8. Same; averment of obvious danger In an action by the administrator of a deceased employe against his employer, to recover damages for negligently caus- ing his death, plea averred that plain tiffs intestate voluntarily and unneces- sarily went in between two cars on de- fendant's track, when he knew or by req sonable diligence could have known that car or cars were approaching the ones between which he went, and that they would probably collide. and that thereby he assumed the risk of being injured when the cars came together" Held: That 1t was demurrabIe flor failure to show danger in mskinE tt& coupling and that lt was obvious.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-16
THOMAS V. rHE srArE.

Indictment for robbery-Appeal from the
 City Court of Montgomery.
 1. Organzation of petit jury for trial of capital case in the City Court of Mont gomery.-Under Section 10 of the act ap- proved March 2, 1901 "to more effeetually secure competent and well qualified jurors in the county of Montgomery" (acts of ls00-1so1. p, 1ssD where, in the drawing and empannelling of jury for the trial of a capital case some of the jurors. whose names are drawn for the trial of such cases were serving upon a jury which was out considering verdict in another case, and the names of such jurors when drawn are laid aside. if, after exhausting the list of names drawn and summoned for the trial of such eases the jury is still incomplete, and
The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-16
HEAD NOTES OF THE DECISIONS
 OF THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT

eft which does not result from the na-
 ture and character of the sale. and which the law operating upon the sale would not confer. such facts constitute a res- eryation of the use or benefit to the gran tor In said conveyance, rendering the sale fraudulent as to his other creditors. {. Sales; conveyances of real estate car
 ries with it the right to the use and rents. -The rights to the use and bene-
 hts of land is one of the appurtenances and accompanies the conveyance of said
 land: and where land under lease is sold and conveyed by warranty deed, the gran tee in said deed. after it's execution and
 delivery. Is entitled to the accrued rents,
 unless such right to the rents or the right to collect them is reserved to the grantor; but 1t is not necessary that this reservation of the rents and the right to collect them should appear on the face of the deed.
 Aff1rmed in part and reversed and rend- cred In part. Opinion by Haralson. J. DOWNS V. BAILEY.
 Action of Detinae.--Appeal from the Cir cult Court of Montgomery.
 l. Action of 5erinus; presumption as
 t. possession. n.-Possession being a fact
 continuous in its nature, when its ex- isteuce Is once shown. 1t will be pre- sumed to continue until the contrary is proved; and .n an action of detinue,
 where the plaintiff proved that thret days
 before the institution of the suit the de- , ferdsnt was in possession of the property sued for, and there is no evidence show ing that the defendant had parted with said possession before the institution of the suit, the fact of possession by the
 defendant of the property sued for, at inc date nf the 0f ha arYit will be presumed, entitling the plaintiff
 to maintain said action.
 ?. Same: assessing value of property
 In controversy. .--In an action of detinue to recover several article of clothing, where the jury in rendering a verdict for
 the plaintiff does not assess the value of
 each article of clothing separately, but l assesses the value of each class or kind of articles separately. this Is sufficient;
 no difference being shown in the quality
 of the articles composing each class or
 kind.
 8. Same; effect of remittance of part
 of Judgment which is in excess of juris- dicuon of justice of the peace.-Where,
 in an action of deunue commenced be-
 fore a Justice of the Peace, an appeal is
 taken to the Circuit Court from a judg-
 ment in favor of the plaintiff. and in the Circuit Court judgment is rendered as-
 sessing the aggregate of the value of the
 articles sued for at the sum greater than
 that which limits the Jurisdiction of the
 Justice of the Peace. but after the rendi-
 tion of such judgment the plaintiff re-
 mlts part of the judgment so recovered,
 thereby bringing the judgment within
 the limit of the Jurisdiction of the jus
 tice, the defendant can not complain, and
 the fact that the judgment originally | rendered is in excess of the limit of the
 justices Jurisdiction does not warrant a reversal.
 Affirmed. Opinion by Tyson, J.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-16
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH co
 V. MILLSAP,

Action against telegraph company to re
 cover damages for failure to deliver
 telegram.-Appeal from the City Court
 of Birmingham.
 1. Telegraph company: when company liable to sendee for failure to deliver telegram sent by anothsr.-A contract made for one by his agent enures to the benefit of the principal, and may be made tho basis of suit at law, though the fact of agency be not disclosed in the thanking of the contract; and, therefore, where one who Is the agent of c sendeS sends q telegraph message to the latter, in accordance with his instructions, tho telegraph company Is liable to such sen- dee for failure to deliver the messagS so sent.
 Affirmed.
 Opinion by Sharp, J.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-16
Opinion by Haralson. J.
BLACKBURN V. THE HUBER MANU-
 FACTURING co.

BLACKBURN v. THE HOBER nANC- .
 FACTURING co. Bill in equilty to foreciose mortgage-Ap-
 peal from the Chancery Court Of
 Madison.
 l. Pleading and practice; appeals from decree on demurrer must be prosecuted within thirty days.-Under the provisions of the statute authorizing appeals from a decree upon a demurrer to a bill in equity Code, Sec. 42D tho time allowed for the prosecution of an appeal from such a decree is thirty days. after the rendition thereof; and if taken after the expiration of thirty days from the rendi- ton thereof. the Supreme Court is with out jurisdiction to entertain such appeal Appeal dismissed
 Opinion by Tyson, J.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-16
NIP IT IN THE BUD.
First Appearance of Dandruf a Fore
 runner of future Badness.

runner of future Badness.
 That suen IS the case has been conciu- niyely p.oven by scientific ressarl h, Prof. Unna. the no,ed European skin s,.e- cialist. declares that daudruff IS the bur- gowed-up euticle of the scalp, caused by parasites destroying the vitality in the hair bulb. The hair becomes lifeless. and, in time, falls out. This can be prevented.
 Newbro's Herplcide kills this dandruff germ, aud restores the hair to its natural koftness and abundancy.
 Herpicide Is now used by thousands of peopls-ait satisfied that 1t Is the most wonderful hair preparation on the mar ket today Sold by leading druggists. Send ioc ip stamps' for sample "a The llerpicide Co. Detroit, Mich. F. Grow lss, Special Agent fri
The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-16
Respectfully submitted,

J. T. MOses, Chalrman." The report was endorsed by the Asso- citation. after considerable discussion, and the insurance committee was instructed to bring the matters contained therein to the attention of the Mayor and City Coun- cil of Montgomery,
The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-16
Atlanta Team Wants to Play Mont.

gomery.
 W. F. Fry. Physical Director of the Young Mems Christian Association re- ceived yesterday a challenge from Hol. land Curran, manager Of the Atlanta football team to play the Montgomery '. M. c. A. football team. Mir. Cur ran requested that a guarantee Of Ssos expense money be made him. Mir. Fry gave out the information that he expected to organize a football team before the season Is on. but that ha could not consider an engagement soe some time.
  Lawyers delight in lengthy brists.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-16

Every little while. letters are received at this office addressed to the Art Editor or the Literary Editor. As they say over In Missouri, we haint got none.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-01-16
A FOOTBALL CHALLENGE.

Opinion by Sharp. J.
Lancaster enterprise. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1891-1905, 1903-06-10
AFRAID or NpAGN NmyiY.

IL l. understood '..' '.'''' .yas
a chaP'er "l local 'a'e' 81 cne
SPAN Kelly matter TH. VS.
mat the desperate man, vino AS
tor "h'.' u ingi''ve '~'" jas
'..' "..' .'' nn-
DER LOCK '"" "ey "li. -.&e ease
ana satisfaction TO al I,a.t one
disturbed family.
Ii seems from what The Times
can learn that The g2ntie-
ma" oI '"lS section VIII" ha, Ieas
on on |" be III al ease Wi,h lain
merry al large was wei guarded
""''''S all 'he time ioH. Kelly
was nee lie had requested pro-
'eCO'oh ''"m J"e SflerlH. because
1t ""u "eeh reported th&' Kelly
ma" made threats against III. .'fe
an" ''e ne o. ms |'Ie With whom
"' A"1 b|en very much III love,
oU' "N" d'd not return k@lIy's
'NIc''o"' II is SAID IAa' h".ly
Lancaster enterprise. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1891-1905, 1903-06-10

If You don't your food does not
DO lou much good. E0dol Dvs-
peYala Cure is the remedy that
every one should tane when there
is anything wrong with the stom-
ach. There Is no way to maintain
the health and strength Of mind
and body except by nourishmaDt.
There Ia no way to nourIsh except
through the stomach. The stom
ach must be kept healthy, pure
and sweet or the strength will
let down and disease will set up.
No appetite, loss of strength, ner.
yousness, headache, constipation,
bad breath, sour risings, rifting,
indigestion, dyspepsia and all
stomach troubles are quickly
cured by the use ofKodolDyspsp-
sia Cure. Sold by Crawford Bros.
Lancaster enterprise. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1891-1905, 1903-06-10
ONE PeRsONIN FACH TOWN

Can earn money selling our Family
Preparations among their neighhors.
Send Us s % and we VIII sent Won
all Agents Outtit consisting o. 500
worth of Goods, (which # yOu.are not
satisfied with, you may deliver back
to us and money will be refunde1.)
ONE OUTFIT ONLY WILL BE
SENT TO THE SAME PERSON and
all future lots will cost you donhle
the above price. Address A Lea
Wade, Adv Mgr, Boston, Mass.