The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-02-13
HEAD NOTES OF THE DECISIONS
 OF THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT

destination as shown by the plaintiffs testimony.
 5. Same same.-In such a case, 1t is not competent for such witness to testi- fy as to what, in his judgment, would have caused the injury to cattle if they had been loaded and shipped as the plaintiffs evidence tended to show was the manner of shipment of his cattle; such testimony being a conclusion of the witness as to the fact in issue, which 1t was the province of the jury alone to determine.
 6. Same; same.-In such case, con- versations between the plaintiff and the defendants agent relative to the trans portation of the cattle and during the course of the transportation of the same, are admissible in evidence as part of the res gestae.
 '. Common carrier; construction of pro- vision of bill of lading.-Where a bill of ladng contains a special stipulation which requires the shipper at the point of destination and before the removal of the cattle at the place of delivery, and before their mingling with the other cat tie, to give written notice to the carrier | of any claim of damages, condition pre- | cedent to any right of recovery for in Jury lO Sdlu CdlLle uuIlEb tnclT tTdHSpOE- | tation, such stipulation is not to be strict | ly construed against the shipper. and | the shipper has a reasonable time after | the removal of the cattle from the place of delivery, in case the injury is not then | discovered. in which to give such notice; and the fact that he has given the writ | ten notice required before the removal of the cattle from the place of delivery does | not preclude the shipper from the right | of giving additional notice within a reas- onable time of a claim for other injuries. | which had not been discovered and which | could not have been discovered at the , time of the removal by ordinary diligence. | s. Action against common carrier: mo- | tice required to be given; charge of court | to jury.-1n an action against a common carrier to recover damages for injuries
 to cattle alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant during the transportation of such cattle, where
 the bill of lading contained a special stipulation requiring notice of injury be- 1 fore the removal of the cattle at the place of delivery, and before their mingling with the other cattle, and 1t is shown that the only notice given to the defendant pursuant to such stipulation was for cattle which had died before the | removal of the cattle from the place of destination, the plaintiff Is not entitled | to recover for cattle which died after their removal. and charges which instruct | the jury to this effect should be given at | the request of tke defendant
 Reversed and remanded. Opinion by l Dowdell, J ; Tyson, J.. dissenting. | KEENE V. JEFFERSON COUNTY. | Bill to Declare Acts of the Legislature UncHnstitutIonal and void and to en- join Proceedings Hereunder Appeal l from the Chancery Court of Jefferson | l. Constitutional law; limitation as to | rights Of counties to contract debts-The | power of the Legislature to authorize the | counties of the State to contract debts for the promotion of public enterprises | in violation of the constitutional restric-
 ton as to life. liberty and property. is
 not restricted by the constitution of 1875
 further than is provided by Article XL
 Sec. 5, which prohibits any county of | the State to levy larger rate of tax. alton in any one year upon the value ot
 the taxable property therein than one-hal |
 Of per cent. except for the purpose ot
 paying past debt and for public build
 ings and bridges.
 2. Constitutional law; validity of ac
 making Jefferson County a sanitary dis
 trtct.-The act of the General Assembly approved February 2S, 1901, Ito make lief.
 ferson County a sanitary district ana
 To establish sanitary commission there.
 Tor etc, (Acts of 1900-19O1, D. l702) ant
 the act approved the same day authorjz
 ing the Board of Revenue of Jefferson
 county to issue bonds of said county fo,
 the purpose of providing means by whicl
 the provisions of the first act could he
 carried into effect are not unconstitu.
 uonal and void upon the ground that the,
 increase the rate of taxation of tb, county beyond the constitutional Umi.
 nor will such acts be construed to he an,
 acted for the benefit of a portion of tbs
 county and It's citizens to the exclusion ol l other portions, while the tax is made 1ep.
 erally upon all the county; it being nre.
 stunned that said acts were passed will | the consent and at the reouest oF tb1 | Taxpayers of said county made knowr | through their representatives
 | 5. Constitutional law; when notice ra. quired for local acts will be presumed te | nave been given.-In the absence of some
 thing appearing to the contrary in the
 Journals. 1t will be presumed that nrone, evidence of notice required by the Con.
 stitution, (Const. of 1S75 Art. xI. Sec 2D, was exhibited and proved to the Gen.
 erai Assembly before a special or loca
 law was enacted; and where the JournaI
 of the House in which the local or spe.
 cial bill originated Is silent as to the no.
 tice Of such bill being given, it will he
 presumed that such notice was given as
 required by the Constitution.
 Affirmed. Opinion by Haralson. J.