The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-02-05
Opinions Rendered
 By Supreme Court

Houston Biscuit Company vs Dial.-Ac-
 tion by Employees against Employer to
 Recover Damages for Personal Inju-
 ries Appeal from the City Court of
 Birmingham.
 1. Action by Employe for Personal In- juries; Sufficiency of Complaint-In an action by an employe against his employ .er to recover damages for personal in- juries caused by the starting of a ma chine in defendants factory, and re- ceived while engaged in oiling said ma- chine, in the discharge of the duties of his employment a count of the complaint which ayers that the machine was not in motion when plaintiff began to oil it., but the operation of said machine, run by steam was controlled by a belt ar ranged to run interchangeably on pull leys. so that when the belt was on the fixed pulley the machine would be stop ped, that there was originally attached to the machine sliding bar used for shifting such belt from one pulley to the other, and such bar was necessary to the safe operation of the machine, that at the time of the accident complained of said sliding bar had been removed from the machine by the president naming him) of the defendant, who was instruct ed with the superintendence of it's entire business management, that if said slid ing bar had been in place and properly adjusted the machine would not have been injured, that said defect had been of long standing and was well known to the defendant company by and through its said president" but was not known to plaintiff, sufficiently states a cause of action arising from defect in defend ants ways. works or plant, within the meaning of subdivision one of the em- ployer's liability act (code 1749): nor is such count subject to demurrer for not sufficiently imputing notice to defend- ant of the alleged defective condition of said ways, works or plant
 ?. Same; ;ame.-In such action, count
 of the complaint, which, after alleging
 the predatory facts as above set out, and
 averring that to prevent said belt from shifting of it's own motion or accidental. ly from one pulley to the other there
 was attached to said machine shift ing bar describing it) to control the movements of the belt which shiftine bar formed part of the machine ther ayers that at the time of the accident said bar was not attached to the ma chine, but had been negligently removed therefrom by defendant and that by reason of the absence of said shifting bar the belt slipped from the loose pull ley 10 the nXed pulley, Whereupon the
 machine, which plaintiff was oiling. sud- denly started and inflicted the injuries complained of. states cause of action
 under subdivision of the employers lia- bility act (code, 1749).
 3. Same; same; When Not Necessary to Allege Name of Party to Whom Negli- gence Is Attributed--In an action against
 an employer to recover damages for per sonal injuries to an employe, where il is alleged in the complaint that the in jury was caused by reason of defects ir the condition of the ways, works, ma l chinery or plant of defendant. which de. fects arose from, had been discovered by reason of the negligence of some per son entrusted by defendant with the duty of seeing that the ways works, machin cry or plant were in proper condition | (code 1749, subdivision D, it is not nee essary to aver the name of the person SC l entrusted with such duty.
 | 4 Evidence; Competency of Testimony | Showing Bias on Interest of Witness l Where a person has been examined as z | witness in a case 1t is competent to in troduce testimony showing his partialitl | or his interest in the case being tried ] and, therefore, in an action against {