The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-12-23

of defendants track, when the car which struck the buggy passed along said street going west, that the car passed the buggy without any trouble; that in about ten minutes when the car returned and was moving down the same street towards the horse and buggy, he noticed that the per- son sitting in the buggy and the buggy and horse were in the same position as they were when he was going west; mat the motorman having passed the buggy safely continued to move the car down the track and slowed up his car In order to go on the switch of said street; that when the front of the car was within twenty feet of the horse the motormdn saw that the horse became frightened and began to back the buggy on to the track: that upon seeing the perilous po- sition of the horse and buggy the mo- torman applied the brakes and used all the appliances at hand to stop the car, but was unable to do so before the col- lision occurred, is insufficient as plea of contributory negligence and subject to demurrer.
 4. Action against street railway conn pany to recover for injuries to horse; ad- instability of evidence.-In an action against a street railway to recover dam ages for injuries to plaintiffs horse. al- legged to have been caused by reason of the defendants negligence which result ed in a collision, where among the dam ages alleged to have been sustained to the horse was that of rendering the horse wild and unsafe and spelling it's temper 1t is competent for the plaintiff to introduce evidence to show that before and up to the time of the collision the horse was docile not afraid of cars, etc., and also that after the collision the horse tVN a fNF r a Vd and was difficult to handle anywhere near cars.
 5. Admissibility of evidence: testimony of expert.-A person who is shown to have had experience with horses and to have been engaged in the study of veteri- nary surgery for year is competent witness to testify to the value of horse which he had seen and examined before and after the injury.
 6. Action for injuries to horse: adInis- sibility of evidence as to his value.-In an action against street railway com pany to recover damages for injuries to a horse. 1t is competent during the exam nation of the plaintiff to ask him What was the horse worth before 1t was ln- jured?" Such question calling for an opinion as to the market value of the horse.
 I. Examination of witness; impeach- ment-In an action against street rail way company to recover damages for in- juries to a horse and buggy, resulting from a collision which was alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants employees, where the motor man of the car which collided with the horse and buggy, during his examination as a witness for the defendant testified that he had exercised every possible care to avoid the collision. 1t Is competent for the plaintiff. during the cross examination of such witness. for the purpose of lay- ing a predicate for his impeachment. to ask him if he did not, immediately after the accident, tell a certain person who was present at the time of the accident, that the accident never would have hap pened if he had been more careful; such statement by the witness. if made, being in conflict with his testimony on the trial and affecting his credibnity.
 8. Action for damage to buggy; admis- sibility of evidence. Tn action against a