The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-02-05

manufacturing company by an enIloye to recover damages for personal injuries, where the president who was superin- tendent is examined as a witness. it s 'ccr:petent, as tending to sho Y his par tiality or interest in the case, to prove that said president tried to get a co-em- ploye of plaintiff to give a statement that the injuries complained of were caused by plaintiffs own fault or care lessness: and for the same purpose it is competent to cross-examine said presi- dent and superintendent about his effort to secure said co-employe of plaintiff to make such statement.
 5 Evidence; Admission If Irrelevant Evidence Will Not Work Reversal if it Subsequently Becomes Relevant-If evil dence prima facia irrelevant becomes relevant at any stage of the cause, its admission Is not error which will oper- ate a reversal, although when offered and received 1t was irrelevant.
 6. Same; Not Reversible Error to Admit Relevant Evidence for Wrong Purpose When evidence is admissible and rele- want for a particular object, and is re- ceived for another and different object, it's admission Is not a reversible error, as Its effect could have been limited by proper instructions.
 {. odine' ErrOr cured Dy subsequent withdrawal of Evidenee-Error in the ad- mission of irrelevant evidence Is cured by it's subsequent withdrawal
 B. Evidence; Expert Witness; Cross Exan nation-In an action by an employe against his employer to recover damages Tor personal injuries alleged to have been caused by reason of defects in the ways, works, machinery or plant of de- fendant where the defendant has exam ined witness as an expert and elicited from him evidence tending to show that the machinery in question was in safe condition at the time of the accident, 1t is competent for the plaintiff, on cross- examination of said witness to test his knowledge as to the safety of said ma chinery by asking him as o it's safety under hypothesized conditions that may have existed; and this Is true even in the absence of evidence that all such hvno- thesized conditions actually existed in fact
 9 Action to Recover Damages for Per sohai injuries; charge of court as to In- ference Drawn From the Evidence-In an action by an employe against his em- ployerA to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the starting of a ma- chlne In the defendants factory, and re- celved while plaintiff was engaged in
 olling said machine in the discharge of
 his duties, where 1t is alleged that the machine was suddenly started by reason of the belt accidently or of it's own mo- tlon, slipping from a loose pulley to a
 nxed pulley, and that this was made possible by reason of a shift bar which controlled said belt being negllgentlv removed from the machine and there was evidence introduced by the plaintiff that on previous occasions the belt had accidently of It's own motion slipped from the loose to the fixed pulley start ing the machine, but witness for the
 defendant testified that at the time of
 the accident the belt was shifted to the
 liked pulley by one of the defendant g
 employees, charges requested by the de-
 fendant instructing the jury that they could not infer from the evidence of what
 had previously occurred that at the time
 of the accident the belt slipped of it's own motion and started the machine, are erroneous and properly refused
 l0 Same; Duty of Employer to .sm- ploye; Charge in Reference Thereto-In
 an action by an employe against an em- ployer to recover damages for personal
 injuries alleged to have been sustained by reason of defects in the ways, works, machinery plant of the defendant.
 charges which instruct the jury that if
 they find from the evidence that the de- fendant exercised reasonapie care and diligence in the selection of suitable and safe machinery and that the same was suitable and safe for the purpose for which 1t was being run, then the plain tiff cannot recover, are erroneous and properly refused, since an employer owes
 it's employees the duty to use care in the
 maintenance of it's machinery as well
 as in providing it originally
 Il. Action to Recover for Personal h. l juries; Contributory Negligence; Charge in Reference Thereto-In an action by an employe against an employer to cover
 damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defects in the ways,
 works, machinery or plant of the defend-
 ant, and to have been sustained by the
 plaintiff while he was engaged in oiing a
 machine in the discharge of his duties and it appears from the evidence that the plaintiff, while oiling the machine was l wearing a glove, but there was evidence introduced tending to show that part l of the machinery necessary for it's safe l operation had been removed by the de- fendant's superintendent, a charge is erroneous and properly refused which in- structs the jury that if they find from l the evidence that the plaintiff at the time of the accident was oiling the de- fendant's machine with d glove on his | hand, and that the glove increased the | danger incident to oling the machine, i and that 1t was not necessary for the | plaintiff to have worn q glove, and that in oiling the machine the glove became l caught between the cog wheels then such
 was contributory negligence on his part, ! and which will bar a recovery" the ques- 1 tion as to whether the facts predicated in | said charge constituted contributory neg ligence. being a question for the determln- 1 alton of the jury. and not for the de- | termination of the jury, and not for the determination of the court ! 'Affirmed.-Opinion by Sharpe, J.
 | Shepherd vs. The State-Indctment for | Rape-Appeal from the Walker Law I and Equity Court
 l l. Indictment for Rape; AdmissibilitJ l of Evidence-On a trial under an indict-
 ment for rape. where it is shown tha' l the defendant was the stepfather of tin, | person ravished. who was girl 12 years I of age, ignorant, an illiterate. it is com l potent for the state to prove by the pros | ecutrix and other witnesses, that tns I mother of the prosecufrix had died about | three weeks prior to the commission O. the offense
 2. Same; Sane-On rial under an i
 dictment for rape. where the witness /