The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-04-15
pinion by Mcclellan, c. J.
HARDEN V. CUNNINGHAM.

RARDEN V. CUNNINGHAM. Trespass De Bonis Asportatis.-Appeal from City Court of Bessemer. 1. Receipt for money paid. not conclu- sive.-A receipt, rsciting payment in full of an indebtedness. is not conclusive up- on the party signing it, but may be ex- evidence. 2. Account stated, impeachment of.-In | an action on account stated for balance shown by an acco Intiag between the par | ties, the balance shown on such settle | ment Is only prima facie correct, and is subject to impeachment or falsifcation Tn whole or in part
 8. Trial; production of papers.-A plain tiff. having in his possession in court re- ceipts which defendant requires as evil l dence, may be required to produce them, | on motion, and on Failure to do so may | be non-sufted.
 | 4. Trespsss; evidence; relevancy: form | CT suit between parties.-In an action of l trespass de bonis asportatis, where de- | fendant justified the taking under a mortgage the payment of which was dis puted, evidence that defendant had sued plaintiff on a note not connected with the mortgage is irrelevant and fmmaterial s. Same evidence; bias of witness | For the purpose of showing bias or per sonality, it is permissible to ask a witness | if he was not pretty hot about being sued | by defendant.
 6. Evidence; experts.-whether or not a mule is blind Is not question for ex- | pert evidence.
 '. Evidence; entries on books.-The | entries on defendants books are not ad- missible in evidence to show payments | made by plaintiff on a mortgage debt, | where the evidence fails to disclose that l such entries were ever assented to by plaintiff as being correct, or that the wit
 ness to the entries, at or about the time | the entries were made. knew their con- | tents and knew them to be correct | 8. Evidence: objections.-A motion to
 exclude statement as whole. part of
 which is competent, is properly overruled. g. Trial; bill of exceptions; general ex- ception.-A recital in bill of exceptions | that defendant askel the following | charges, all of which the court refused, | and defendant saverally and separately excepted, does not show that the court was requested separately to give each | charge or that separate exception was | reserved to the refusal of each, and is
 unavailing unless all of the charges should have been given.
 10. Charge to jury; abstract charge A charge based upon evidence which has l been excluded on motion Is abstract and properly refused.
 Reversed and remanded. Opinion by Tyson, j.
 ROBINSON V. AETNA FIRE INSUR- ANCE COMPANY. | Action on Fire Insurance Policy.-Appeal from the City Court of Montgomery. | 1. Fire insurance; iron safe clause; pro- ! duction of books and inventortes.-A fire insurance company has right to stand | on the warranty contained in the iron | sate clause, and to set up in bar of a suit | on the policy a breach of that warranty without any demand to produce the books
 and inventories, unless there has been a | waiver of such breach.
 2. Same; demand for production of | books.--A demand for the production of
 books and inventories Is not necessary,
 under a clause providing that fin the | event of failure to produce such set of
 books and inventories for the inspection | of the company this policy shall become
 null and void" when 1t appears that the
 books and inventories were destroyed by fire.
 8. Same; retention of unearned portion of pr, . Nlium.-Where there is no evidence
 of knowledge or notice on the part of an Insurance company. prior to the loss of plaintiffs violation of the iron safe clause and nothing In the policy requiring re- payment by the company to the assured of any portion of the premium after the policy has ceased to be continuing In surance by reason of the destruction of the property by fire the retention by the company of part of the unearned premium will not prevent 1t from insisting on a
 forfeiture by reason of a violation of the
 iron safe clause.
 {. Evidence. conclusions; agency.-An agent of an insurance company may state
 as witness, that he had no other au-
 thority as such agent than that expressed in his commission, the statement not be- ing objectionable as a conclusion. g. Same.-The statement by a witness that as agent for defendant insurance
 company he had no authority other than
 that expressed in his commission, and
 had no authority u adjust losses or ac-
 cept notice of loss of inventories. is not
 objectionable as involving a construction
 by the witness of his commission.
 Affirmed.
 Opinion by Dowdell. J.