The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-01-29
DAVIS N5. hOf<NAl4AIN.
 Action by injured EnpAoSee Chuet
 EmpIoyer's AcL-Appeal rom

DAVIS N5. hOnNHlAN.
 Action by injured EmpAoyee Onder Employers Act.-Appeal rom MouIIe Circuit Court
 1. kvIuence; what lnadmlssiole when iniured employee sues.-W nere an m Jured empIoyee brings sulI asdSist his smployer Tor damages Tor personal ln- uriss. inc measure of ms damdses Is inc ioss W hicn ne has sustained py ms injuries. and it IS not permlssIDte TOT nim to snow that ne Was industrious and worked steadily prIOr to ms ln- lury Sucn testimony sneds no hSnI on the issues involved. and its only effect is to create sympathy for the p,alntiff and improperly increase hls damages. ,.
 2. Same; not ot-permissiole to snow subsequent precautions against accl- dent from same machine.--It is not permissible in a suit for personal ln- 1urIes caused by flying studs from a broken belt on a blaming machine, to show that subsequent to the accident baords of protectors had been put up about the machine to protect the Work- men from flying belts or studs.
 8. Same; not permissible to show that tikhtener had been removed from the machine prior to the accident.-ln such a suit, where the presence or ao- sence of a tightener on the machine IS not shown to have some casual con- nection with the running of the ma chine and the injury. 1t Is error to all low A witness to testify that such a contrivance was on the machine orig inally and had been removed prior to the accident.
 {. Same; testimony as the ownership of property by the plaintiff not admis- sible.-In a suit for personal injuries brought by an injured employee against his employer. it is not per missible for the plaintiff to testify that he owns no property of any kind.
 5. Same; with oss may testify as to necessary precautions to protect op- eratives.-In an action by an employee against his employer to recover dam ages for personal injuries sustained by him while employed in operating a machine in a blaming mill, alleged to have been caused by ret son of the neg llgence of the superintendent in pro- Viding for the machine belt, fastened with what is known as Blake studs, |" which broke, where a witness testihes that it Is dangerous to run a planer with belts fastened with Blake studs, " he may be asked what are the proper precautions to take to guard em- ployees. and men working by the planer from being struck when you are using Blake studs?" and his re- ply, Tt Is according to the way you run the belts. Behind the machine, and on the sides of the beltA, we have boards there to protect the beJts," is competent as tending to show negli- gence in person operating such plan CT without such protection.
 6. Same; what permissible to show negligence in person having superln- tendence.--In such an action, when 1t has been shown that the plaintiff was injured by certain belt studs which broke out of a belt on a blaming ma- chine at which he was employed, 1t is competent for the purpose of showing negligence of the person having super intendence, for a witness who has tes- tifed that belts fastened with such studs sometimes broke and he had known the studs to fly out and for one or two to strike other persons, to give the names of the other persons and state where they were struck.
 z. Same; same.-In such an action, it is likewise permissible for a wit ness who has been injured at a diff ferent time by the same machine by which plaintiff was hurt, to state that at the time witness was injured, he was standing back of the machine, and handing up lumber to feed it, and one of the studs flew out and struck him on the thigh and hurt him. and that the superintendent saw the accident.
 s. Same; samee-In such an action, a witness who has been injured by the