The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-06-19

 to authorize the signing. of the bill of
 exceptions within the thirty days after
 the rendition of the judgment. though the term of the court at which such judg-
 ment was rendered expires before the ex-
 piration of the thirty days from the ren.
 dition of said judgment.
 3. Action against railroad company for
 wrongful election of passenger; sufficien- cy of plea.-In an action against a rail- road company by a passenger to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by his wrongful ejec- tion from the train, pleas of the defend ant which aver in Justification of the election of the plaintiff that he was in- toxicated and was guilty of boisterous conduct in using abusive and obscene language, and that 1t was necessary for the defendants conductor in the exer- else Of his duty, to eject the plaintiff from the train, are insufficient when they do not further aver that the conductor in the exercise of such alleSed duty, used only such force as was Fecessary to acs complish the plaintiffs removal from the train
 1. Same; same.-In such a case a plea Is insufficient and subject to demurrer which ayers that the defendant was in no way responsible for the conduct of it's conductor at the time of the alleged injury, because the conductor was at that time acting as police officer of the State of Alabama by virtue of the power conferred upon him under Section 3457 or the Code of Alabama;" such plea not denying that in the exercise of the au- thority conferred the conductor used more force than was necessary.
 5. Action to recover damages for al- legged wrongful election from train; ad- instability of evidence.-In an action against railroad by passenger to re- cover damages for his alleged wrongful election from a train, the fact that the plaintiff after boarding the train tried to borrow money from his son, or that he asked a friend to take care of him af- ter he had received the injuries com- plained of, are wholly irrelevant to any issue involved in the case and wholly inadmissible.
 6. Same; same.-In such a case, where the evidence for the defendant tended to show that the plaintiff was elected be- cause he was cursing or using profane language and was guilty of boisterous conduct, the fact that people on the out Side of the car were cursing or using ob- scene language is wholly irrelevant and Is not admissible
 2. Action against railroad company for wrongful election of passenger; charge of court 10 Jury.-1n an action against a railroad company to recover damages for the alleged wrongful election of the pialntin from one of the defendants trains, where the negligence counted on Tn the complaint Is that the conductor wrongfully and forcibly elected the plain- tiff from the train, and the evidence for the plaintiff tended to show that the con- ductor pushed the plaintiff out of the car 10 the platform and then threw him rom the platform to the ground. while the evidence for the defendant tended to snow that at the time complained of. the plaintin was drunk and the conductor oniy pushed him to the platform from which place plaintiff fell to the ground on account of his drunken condition. A cnarse Is erroneous and properly refused which instructs the jury, if they believe that the conductor knew at the time ne elected the plaintiff that he was so drunk as to be unable to protect him sei1, then 1t makes no difference whether plaintiff fell off said platform or was pushed off, the defendant would be lia- pie to damages; the negligence referred to in the said charge not being counted upon in the complaint
 <. Action against railroad company: charge as to facts showing bias of wit ness.-In an action against a railroad company to recover damage for personal injuries. where the witness for the de- fendant testified that they were furnished with passes by the defendant to attend the trial and their expenses during the trial were paid by the defendant, A charge is erroneous which instructs the jury that 'The fact that the defendant paid the actual expenses of it's witnesses. while attending this trial has nothing to do with the issues in this case. such payment by the defendant was right and proper
 9. Misleading and abstract charges The giving of misleading or abstract charges does not constitute a reversible error.
 Reversed and remanded. Opinion by Tyson, J. " RICHTER V. SOUTHERN BUILDING S
 LOAN ASSOCIATION.
 Bill In Equity to have Mortgage Can
 celled and Annulled,-Appeal from the
 Chancery Court of Cullman.
 l. Building and loan association. o,r