The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-02-04


 meaning of subdivision one of the em-
 ployers liability act. Code. Sec. l'4s,;
 nor Is such count subject to demurrer
 Tor not sufficiently imputing notice 10
 defendant of the alleged defective con-
 dition of said ways works or plant. 7. Same; same.-In such action, count of the complaint, which, after a,- leging the predatory facts as above set out. and averring that to prevent said
 belt from shifting of its own motion or | accidentally from one pulley to the other | there was attached to said machine
 shifting bar describing it) to control the
 movements of the belt. which shifting bar formed part of the machine, then ayers | that at the time of the accident said | bar was not attached to the machine, but had been negligently removed there- | from by defendant. and that by reason | of the absence of sad shifting bar the belt slipped from the loose pulley to the | fixed pulley. whereupon the machine, | which plaintiff was o!ling. suddenly start
 ed and inflicted the injuries complained of. states a cause of action under Subdi- l vision 1 of the employers liability act. | Code. Sec. l749.)
 3. Same; same; when not necessary to r ailege name of party to whom negligence is attributed,-I an action against an l employer to recover damages for personal injuries to an employe, where 1t Is alleged In the complaint that the injury was | caused by reason of defects in the con- dition of the ways, works. machinery or
 plant of defendant. which defect arose from, or had not been discovered by | reason of tho negligence of some person entrusted by defendant with the duty
 of seeing that the ways. works. ma | chinery or plant were in proper condition, | Code, Sec. 174s, Subdiv. D, it is not nec- essary to aver the name of the person | so entrusted with such duty.
 1. Evidence; competency of testimony
 showing bias of interest of witness - Where a person has been examined as a witness in case. 1t Is competent to in-
 troduce testimony showing his partlality
 or his interest In the case being tried;
 and. therefore. in an action against a | manufacturing company by an employe
 to recover damages for personal injuries.
 where the president, who was supern- | tendent. is examined as a witness, it Is
 competent, as tending to show his par tialty or interest in the case, to prove | that said president tried to get a co-em- ploye of plaintiff to give statement that | the injuries complained of were caused
 by plaintiffs own fautl or carelessness;
 and for the same purpose, it Is competent
 to cross-examine said president and su- perintendent about his effort to secure
 said co-employe of plaintiff to make such | sta tement.
 5. Evidence: submission of irrelevant evidence will not work a reversal If it subsequently, becomes relevant.-If evi- dence prima facie irrelevant becomes rel evant at any stage of the cause, its ad- mission is not error which will operate a reversal. although when offered and re- ceived it 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.
 z. Same; error cured by subsequent
 withdrawal of evidenee.-Error in the admission of irrelevant evidence IS cured by its subsequent with irawal.
 &. Evidence: expert witness; cross-ex- animation In an dc ion by an employe gainst his employer to recovers damages for personal injuries alleged to have been | caused by reason of defects in the ways. works, machinery or plant of defend- | ant, where the defendant has examined a witness as an expert and ehcited from him evidence tending to show that the
 
 dition, at the time Of the accident 1t is competent for the plaintiff. on the cross l examina ton of said witness, to test his | knowledge as to the safety of said ma chnery by asking him IS to it's safety under hypothesized conditions that may have existed; and this is true even in the absence of evidence that all such hy- pothesized conditions actually existed in fact.
 9. Action to recover dana ges for per sonal injuries: charge of court as to in
 ference drawn from the evidence,-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 defendants factory, and re
 ceived while plaintiff was engaged in oil ing said machine in the discharge of his duties, where 1t is alleged that the ma chine was suddenly started by reason of the belt accidentally or of Its own motion slipping from a loose pulley to a fixed pulley, and that this was made possible by reason of a shift bar which controlled said belt being negiigently removed from the machine and there was evidence in- trodueed by the plaintiff that on previous occasions the belt had accidentally or of Its own motion slipped from the loose to the fixed pulley, starting the machine. but a witness for the defendant testified that at the time of the accident the belt was shifted to the fixed pulley by one of the defendants employees. charges re- quested by the defendant 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 its own motion and started the machine, are erroneous and properly re- fused.
 10. Same: duty of employer to employe; charge in reference thereto.-In an action by an employe against an employer to recover damages for personal injuries all legged to have been sustained by reason of defects in the ways. works, machinery or plant of the defendant. charges which instruct the jury that if they find from the evidence that the defendant exercised reasonable care and diligence In the se- lection of suitable and safe machinery and that the same was suitable and safe for the purposes for which it was being run. then the plaintiff can not re- cover, are erroneous and properly re- fused, since an employer owes its em ployes the duty to use care in the main tenance of its machinery, as well as in providing it originally.
 II. Action to recover for personal in- juries; contributory negligence; charge In reference thereto.--In an action by an employe against an employer to recover damages for personal injuries alleged tq1 have been caused by defects in the waysN works, machinery or plant of the de- fendant and to have been sustained by oiling a machine in the discharge of his HrAx AIzz