The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-02-04

| DlTUliHHHdn AAahHo5 anu lO. vs. Ellard-Action Against Street Rail-
 way Company by Passenger to Re
 cover Damages for Personal Injuries Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court. 1. Trial and It's Incidents; Examination of Witnesses-In the examination of a witness it is the duty of the court to see that an orderly examination is conducted snd that the witness Is not unduly hast ened; and if in the crosse examination Of witness. she asks to be given time and the court says to the counsel examining her to give her time to answer the ques lions, to which the counsel replies that he has given the witness plenty of tirne it is not error for the court to say to counsel, in the presence of tho Jury, Sometimes you don't" such matters be- ing within the discretion of the court.
 ?. Action for Personal InIufios; Compc- teney of Evidence Expert Testimony-In an action against railroad company by a passenger to recover damages for per. sonal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants In which, among other injuries, the plaintiff claimed to have suffered from a sprainea ankle, where the plaintiff introduces | physician who had examined her and he tells of the plaintiffs condition as he found 1t. and Said witness was eross-ex- amined as to the plaintiffs ability to walk with a sprained ankle, il Is not error for the plaintiff, on the redirect examina- tion of said witness, to ask his medical opinion upon a hypothecated question de- signed to support his theory or version Of the facts connected with plaintiffs in- jury and her conduct during the day of the injury, 1t being shown that after tn ? alleged injury she walked some distance.
 g. Same; Same.-ln such a case, where the evidence for the plaintiff tended to show that by reason of the injuries com plained of, she was permanently injured and her health was greatly impaired, but 1t was claimed by the defendant that the condition of the plartiffs health suhse- quent to the accident was substantially the same as 1t was prior thereto. and on the cross examination by the defendant or the plaintiff as a5 witness it was at tempted 10 be shown that she had. for a h ng time, been laboring under similar ailments to those which she claimed to be suffering from as the result of the ac- cident complained of, 1t Is not error for the court to allow the plaintiff to be re- called and examined touching the con- dition of her health prior to the injury.
 1. Same; same-In an action against a street railroad company by a passenger 10 recover damages for personal inju- ries, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant while the plaintiff was attempting to board one of the defendants cars, 1t is not competent to ask witness being examined wheth- CT or not he saw anything happen at the time of the accident that would have a tendency to hurt anybody; such question calling for the conclusions of the witness
 5. Trial and It's incidents; examination of witness as to violation of the rule Where a witness in a ccse has been put under the rule, and upon the subsequent examination of one of the witnesses her answers have tendency to show that after having been so put under the rule the witness violated the courts instruc- tions by talking 10 some one about the case, 1t is not improper or erroneous for the court to permit such witness to be asked as to such alleged violation, and as to whether or not she understood the instructions of the court when she was put under the rule.
 G. Action for personal injuries; admis- slbility of evidence.--In an action against a street railroad company by passen- ger to recover damages for personal in JuTleS dltBtQ lO Dtth St'hSoA p' the negligence of the defendant. in which 1t was claimed by the plaintiff that by reason of the injuries complained of her health had been permanently injured and impaired where. upon the examina- ton of witness for the defendant said witness testified to facts tending to show that before the accident the plaintin was a weak and delicate woman, 1t is per missible for the plaintiff, upon cross-ex- animation of such witness to prove by her facts which have tendency to snow that the plaintiff was not in bad health prior to the accident.
 '. Trial and its incidents; what not suf- ficient insistence in argument on appeal upon assignments of error.-Where the assignments of error are based upon rul- ings of the trial court upon questions propounded to witness, the insistence in argument and brief of counsel that eacn question was improper and that the court erred in overruling defendants objection thereto" is not such insstence as will require the review of the questions sought