The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-02-07

tion," is the addition of an entirely new party defendant; and such amendment Is improperly allowed.
 Reversed and remanded. Opinion by Ty- son, J.
 Southern Railway Company vs. Crowder.
 Action by Husband for Damages for h.
 jury to Wife.-Appeal from the City
 court of Birmingham.
 1. Husband and Wife; Right of Husband at Common Law to Recover for Injuries
 to Wife.-At common law the husband could sue and recover damages for a wrong to the wife occasioning loss of her companionship and services and for all expenses incurred by him as a proxi- mate result of such wrong.
 ?. Same Code, Sections 2521, 2527; Dam ages.-Sections 2521 and 2527 of the code do not affect the reciprocal duties of husband and wife growing out of the marriage state within their domestic relation, and the husband has a marital right to the wife's companionship and services to himself and the family. and for the loss of which he has right of action in dam- ages against one by whose wrong the loss was caused, and in such action he Is entitled to recover all expenses paid or incurred by him on account of her fn- juries.
 B. Code. Section 2521; Effect of. as to Duties of Wife in Marital and Domestic Relations.-Section 2521 of the code, maK- ing the wfe's earnings her separate property, does not absolve her from the duties and obligations imposed by the marriage VOW in her marital and domestic relations.
 4 Code Section 2527; Effect Upon Hus- bands Right to Action for Injuries 10 Wife.-Section 2c527 of the code, providing that for all injuries to her person the wife must sue alone does not deprive the husband of his right of action for loss 10 him proximately resulting from the in- juries to her.
 5. Action by Husband for Injuries to Wife; Damages; Loss of Salary While Nursing Wife. In ascertainng the amount of damages to which the husband may be entitled by reason of an injury inflicted on his wife the amount of sal ary lost by the husband while nursing his wife cannot be taken into considera- ton, and evidence as to time lost by the plaintiff while nursing his wife is not ad- missible.
 6. Negligence; Pleading; Certainty.-In an action against a railroad company for damages to passenger a count in the complaint is sufficiently definite and cer- tain in it's averments of negligence. which, after alleging the time and place of the injury and the duty owing by defendant to the injured passenger alleges that de- fendant ''negllgently failed to safely car ry said passenger as 1t was its duty to do, and so negligently and unskillfully con- ducted itself in that regard that the in- jury complained of resulted.
 2. Freight Trains; Jerks and Jars; Common Knowledge-It is common knowledge that jerks and jars ordinarily attend the handling and running of freight trains, to a greater degree than passenger trains.
 S. Passengers on Freight Trains; As sumed Risks-A passenger on a freight train is charged with Knowledge that in the handling and running thereof jerks and jars occur and to a greater degree than passenger trains. and he as- sumes the risks of the ordinary and usual jerks and jars of such train
 g. Judicial Knowledge; Charge of Jury-Matters of common knowledge are not questions for the determination of a jury, and 1t is improper for the court to submit them to the jury.
 10. Trial. Objections; Error Without Injury-Where an answer to question is favorable to the party objecting to the question, error in everything such ob- lection is without injury.
 Reversed and remanded. Opinion by Dowdell, J.