The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-03-26

vase executed to plaintiff by It's agent imported an affirmation of the agents authority.
 2. Bills and notes; action; pleading; consideration of note; evidence--Whe the defendant pleaded in bar to the action on the note a contract by which he was entitled to return the plano for which the note was given, that plain tin has declined to receive it, and that defendant was ready to deliver to plaintiff, 1t was error to exclude evil dence of defendants offer and readi- ness to deliver the piano to plaintiff, In the absence of verified replication denying the execution of the contract.
 Appeal from Jackson Circuit, Court.
 Heard before Hon. W. M. Haralson.
 sRehearing denied November IS. 1908.
 Reversed and remanded--O Opinion by Weakley. c. ].
 Haralson. Dowdell and Denson. JJ.. concur.
 BURGESS v THE STATE. Carrying Concealed Pistol. (Dectded
 July 6, 1906 42 So. Rep. 6s1)
 i. Grand jury; summoning of jury Where it appeared to the County Court of Cleburne County that no grand jury had been summoned to serve at the July term, and that it was necessary that a jury be drawn, the court proper ly ordered the sheriff to summon eighteen persons to appear on Monday, the 31st day of July, and to order that the jury term be temporarily adjourn ed to such date. Code 1896. Section 4ess, Local Acts 1S9s-s. p. ss.
 3. Criminal law; evidence; confess sion--The defendant having offered himself as witness to deny the carry ing of the weapon concealed, the pros- ecution had the right to lay a predf- cate to contradict him by proving ad- missions or confessions without show ing that they were voluntary.
 8. Same: instruction: requests for-- Where several instructions are request ed in bulk, 1t is not error to refuse all, if any one of them was bad.
 4. Same; instructions; questions of law--A charge asserting that before a confession of guilt could be considered. the corpus delicti must first be proven was properly refused, as it was error to refer to the jury the determination of the meaning of the phrase corpus delicti.
 sRehearing denied December 6, 1906.
 Appeal from Cleburne County Court.
 Heard before Hon. T. A. Johnson.
 Afarmed--Opinion by Haralson. J.
 Tyson, c. J.. Dowdeil and Denson, JJ.. concur.
 BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY. LIGHT &
 POWER COM, V. KING.
 Action for Injuries to Passenger. tDe-
 cided Nov. 27th, 1906--42 So. Rep.
 1. Carriers; Injury to passenger: complaint; sufficiency-A complaint which alleges that the defendant was a common carrier operating an electric car line, and that plaintiff was a pass enger thereon for hire, that on reach- ing the station the car stopped and while plaintiff was in the act of alight- ing the car moved off suddenly throw ing plaintiff to the ground and severe ly injuring him, and that said injuries were proximately cased by the negIi- gence of the defendants employe in charge of the car, in the management thereof, Is not subject to demurrer as being vauge and uncertain, and as not stating facts showing negligence of de- fendants employees. or in what they were negligent, or that they were neg Hgent in the line of their employment Count two charging the negligence to the motorinan in the operation of the car and count three charging negli- gence to the conductor, on the same all legations of facts as count one, are neither subject to such demurrer 9. Witnesses; examination; answer; responsiveness-It is not error to ex- clude the answer of a witness which is not responsive to the question pro- pounded.
 3. Appeal: review; harmless error If 1t was error to exclude an answer of a witness, this error was cured by the subsequent admission of testimony substantially covering the testimony excluded.
 4. Trial; instructions; construction In passing upon the oral charge of the court, where portions thereof are excepted to, the charge must be con- strued as a whole.
 5. Carriers; injury to passengers; instructions-The court instructed the jury that if the car was suddenly jerk ed forward while plaintiff was alight- ing. she could recover, unless guilty of contributory negligence. The court modified this charge by instructions to the jury that the defendant did not owe plaintiff the absolute duty to deliver him safely-that they were not insur- ers-absolute insurers-of the safety of passengers, but they owed the passen- gers the highest degree of care to de- liver them safely. As modified, the instruction was correct.
 6. Trial; instruction; argumentative instruction--An instruction asked as an answer to argument of counsel, assert ing that defendant had no absolute right to have the plaintiff examined to determine the extent of the injuries was an argument and properly refused
 2. Same; misleading instructions Instructions misleading in their ten dencies are properly refused
 Appeal from Birmingham City Court.
 Heard before Hon. c. W. Ferguson.
 Affirmed. Opinion by DowdelI, J.
 Tyson, c. J., Anderson and McCIeI- Ian, U. concur.