The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-02-04
Opinions Rendered
 By Supreme Court

to be presented by such assignments of error.
 & Action for personal injuries; admissi- bllity of evidence; expert testimony.-In an action against a street railroad com pany by a passenger to recover damages for personal injuries. which are alleged to have permanently injured plaintiff and materially impaired her health, where it Is claimed by the defendant that the plaintiff was suffering from hysteria aug mented by the pendency of her suit and there was some evidence introduced by defendant tending to sustain the claim, If a physician introduced as d witness for the defenuant testifies to the plaint- ifs suffering from hysteria and gives his medical opinion as to the cause of hysteria it is not incompetent for the witness on the cross-examination of such witness to ask him "ls a patient any more responsible for a hysterical condi- tion than for any other condition?"
 9. Same; Same; Same-In such u case, where the physician being examined as to the hysterical condition of the plaintiff, stated that he did not say that persons who pretended there Is something the matter with them, while their law suits
  1t Is not improper or incompetent for the plaintiff to ask such witness. Are they hysterical?
 10 Expert Witness; Competency Cannot Be inquired Into-Where a physician has been examined as an expert in the trial of case the opinion of other physicians as to whether or not such witness was qualified to draw correct medical conclu- sions cannot be introduced in evidence.
 Il. Action for Personal Injuries Admis- sibility of Testimony of Physician-In an action against a street railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries alleged by plaintiff to have permanently disabled her and seriously impaired her health where a physician introduced as a witness for the defendant testified that several years before the time of the alleg- ed accident he attended the plaintiff, and that during those years the plaintiff made complaints about her physical condition and her suffering, and that on the day prior to his examination, he had again examined the plaintiff. at which time she made complaints of her suffering, 1t Is competent for the defendant to ask said witness whether or not the complaints made by the plaintiff when 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 question calling for state ments of a matter of fact and not the conclusions of the witness.
 12. Same; Admisslbillty of Evidence-ln an action against street railroad com- pany by a passenger to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused to plaintiff while attempting to board train, by the car after 1t was stopped, starting too quickly and with a jerk, the speed with which said ear ap- preached the station where the plaintiff attempted to board the car is imma aterial, 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 injury, and that he moved or started the car at the time plaintiff is alleged to have been injured, and then testiies as to how he started the car, and how much current he turned on for this purpose, 1t is com- petent for the plaintiff, on the cross. examination of said witness. to ask him how do you usually start your cars off rom the station or other questions asked for the purpose of showing what was usually done by defendants motcr- men In starting cars from the station.
 IA. Evidence; examination of witness as to character of other witness. The general character of a witness in the community in which he lived cannot he proved unless such witness general character has been attacked: and the fact that during the rross examinati )n Of witness he was asked whether or not he had served term in the penten- tiary or had ever been convicted does not constitute an attack ipon the wit ness character, as to authorize the subsequent proving of his general char acter by another witness
 15 Charge of court to jury-It Is not error for the court in the course of it's general charge to the jury to instruct them that they were not Ito be gov verned by the number of witnesses. but by the weight and preponderence of the evidence; 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 ito be governed furnishes no ground of complaint to the defendant, if the court, after stating that he did not believe that 1t was necessary to add the words suggested, still to please counsel he would do so, and thereupon instructed the jury that they were mot necessarily to be governed by the number of wit nesses, but by the weight and prepon- derence of the evidence"
 Is. Action for personal injuries; charge of court to Jury.-In an action against a street railroad company by a passen- ger to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff while att tempting to board said car, and there was testimony tending to show that the injuries complained of were caused by the sudden starting of the car with a jerk, and 1t was averred In the complaint and some of the witnesses testified that the plaintiff was first thrown one way by reason of the jerk and then the other way, q 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 plaint- fir was not jerked slung or thrown the other way. your verdict must be for the defendant"
 Reversed and remanded-opinion by Haralson, J.
 Peters vs. Southern Railway Co.--Action
 Against Railroad Company to Re-
 cover Damages for Personal Injuries
 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jef-
 ferson
 1. Negligence; What Constitutes Wan tonness.-To constitute wantonness IL