The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-08-16
Iiead-Notes cf he Decisions
 1 Alabama Supreme Court.

tract of the defendant company, but said first payment was made to the authorized agent of said company .and was made during the life time and good health of the assured, is insufficient and subject to demurrer: the facts averred in said plea not being denied, and the statements in the replication az to the ownership of the notes being nothing more than the conclusion of the pieader.
 Trial and it's incidents; when bill of exceptions not, considered on appeals--On an appeal to the Supreme Court of a judgment rendered by the City Court of Besseraer,t where 1t appears that the bill ok exceptions was not signed until after sixty days from date of the trial and no order of the court or sgreement of coun- sel for extension Of the time for signing is shown, such bill of exceptions cannot, under ths act establishing the City Court of Bessenier tActs i9oo-is0l. ?. 1S5D be looked to for any purpose,
 Reversed and rernarded. Opinion by Dowdeil, J.
 BIRMINGHAM TRACTION co. " RE-
 WILLIE
 Action against street railroad company
 by empIoye to recover damages for per-
 sonai injuries. Appeal from the Circuit
 Court of Jefferson.
 1. Action against strest railroad for personal injuries; sufficiency of com piaint-In an action by an employe against a street railroad company to re- cover damages for personal injuries caus- ed at switch on the defendants road. count of the complaint which ayers that said injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendant in that part of defendants ways and works were defective, in that there was no spring at said switch or other proper appliance by which the point of the switch rail was kept in it's proper position. so as to al- low its cars to pass without becoming derailed. and plaintiff ayers that the above named defective condition arose from or had not been discovered or rem edied owing to the negligence of the de- | fendant or of some person in its em- | ployment and entrusted by it with the duty of seeing that a spring or other appliance was used in connection with 1 said switch so as to hold the switch l states a cause of action and is not sub I ject to demurrer.
 ?. Same: sufficiency of plea-In an ac- ton by an employe against a street rail- road company to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by reason of the defective con I dition of 6 switch on the defendant s road. plea which ayers that the de- l fendant's track was constructed as re- quired by the ordinance contract with | the city under the direct supervision and subject to the approval and control of the city engineer. and that the switch where the accident occurred and the work in laying 1t were approved by the said engineer and after the switch was put in it was inspected and was first class in every respect. is faulty.
 l 3. Action against street railroad com pany for injury to employe: admissibll- 1 ity of evidence-In an action against a street railroad company by an employe to recover damages for personal inju- ries, where 1t is alleged in one of the counts of the complaint that the inju- ries were caused by the negligence of 1 the defendant in that a part of its ways were defective by reason of the track | where the car was derailed being too narrow and of not proper gauge, and l that this defective condition arose from or had not been discovered or remedied l owing to the negligence of some person in the defendants employment entrusted with seeing that it's ways, works and machinery were in proper condition it is competent under the Issues presented by such counts for the plaintiff to prove not
 only that the attention of the person en- trusted by the defendant with seeing that the road was in proper condition was called to the fact of the gauge being too
 narrow, but 1t is also competent to prove what Sucn person salu Tn response to a | statement made to him. that the track at the point in question was out of gauge; such response evidencing a consciousness on his part that he understood the state ment and recognized the condition of the track as pointed out.
 f. Action against street railroad com
 pany to recover, for personal injuries;
 when negligence a question for the jury; general affirmative charge-In an action
 against a street railroad company by an employe to recover damages for personal
 injuries caused by the derailment of one
 of the defendants cars at a switch,
 where it is averred in the complaint that
 there was no spring at the said switch
 or other proper appliance by which the
 point of the switch rail was kept in it's proper position, so as 10 allow its cars
 to pass without becoming derailed, and this defective condition was caused by
 the negligence of some person in the de-