The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-11-02
zHll N | szIHEs V mf mHEsEmRmlE
GRIFFIN V. THE STATE.

Rape (Decided April 2s, 1908. 4s So.
 Rep. 4s1.)
 i. Rape; evidence; admissibility. - Evidence that after pposecutrix got away from defendant she ran to where her father was working, and that de- fsndant went to her house and left upon the porch the stick with which he had hit her. and the finding of the stick there, was competent.
 3. Same; character of prosecutrtx. There being at the time no evidence to show consent on part of the pros eeutrix to have intercourse, 1t was pre- mature and illegal to permit proseeu- trix to testify that she had never had intercourse with any one before de- fendant ravished her.
 2. Witnesses. cross examinations; Scope The defendant having been allowed to state that she had never had Intercourse with any one before the alleged rape. it was competent to ask her on cross examination concerning lstercourse with other men prior to the time of the alleged rape, but not subsequent thereto.
 4 Criminal law: evidence: hearsay. -A statement by a witness that the obtained information of defendants whereabouts, and that he was at tenants house back near the swamp was hearsay, and improperly admitted.
 Appeal from Dallas Circuit Court.
 Heard before Hon. B. NJ. Miller.
 Reversed and remanded. Opinion by panson. !.
 Tvson, c. J.. and Haralson and simpson. JJ., concur.
 RrRmrNcHAM RAILWAY. LIGHT
 AND POWER CO. V. HAGGARD.
 i. Carriers; injury to passengeF complaint: suficiency.--A complain. aSIegIng that defendant is carrier of passengers for hire and that Whhe passenger, plaintiff was thrown Vlo' lenfIy to the ground through the neg airance of the company's servants or nrenfs Tn carrying him as a passenger ,aWfFlrientlv conforms to the rule al- 19Srtre d non-specihc allegation Of the .sa1lErenca relied on, though general n it's averments of negligence.
 Negligence; wilful conduct con 4ributory negligence. e.-Contriou'o.S negligence is not defense to .it an ftoFs for injuries proximately result s-.,, wilIful or wanton miscon-
 Ynterrogatories; effect when not Avs fsAsored ed.-Interrogatories propeuhd- nsssfo an adversary and answered. as nrogided for by SectiondS5 Coue LeSo' ara not evidence and cannot DC S s''r., nsd4red either by the court or sne ths uu3sl properly introduced upon 'He
 E ipleaaInR: waiver; admission - ~xy5fNra 4he general issue has been m. s 1sf.aas inc fling of the plea or con- ertbxtory negligence does not adlhit 4faa negligence alleged Tn the com ,ssstvt arainst the defendant nor waive -ncs~sgtv for the introduction Of s-,4.senre to support the averment or ueaslrence of the company or lts ehi- s-l,ss.e. and this Is true notwithstano- 1ne 4he fact that interrogatories nad ss1N rronounded to either side by the ~sfskr ana answered under the provis- sofx of Section 1850. ct. seq, Code loso, mo long as such interrogatories anu
 ~,ars arc not offered in evidence.
 knnea1 from Birmingham City Court.
 ard before Hon. c. W. Ferguson
 peversed and remanded. Opinion by McGleilan, J. . soT1k H.. concur.
 9T6II,woRTH V. THE STATE. Mtfgder.-(Decided April 23. 1908. 4s
 South., 51s.)
 e4sf4eal mistake.-The omission of the svffabie "ed" from the word killed" and of the word "is" from an indtct- rneaft for murder, are clerical mistakes which are self f-correcting, and such in- di0fment is not open to demurrer.
 2 Criminal law; instructions; form of request--An oral request for the gem eral affirmative charge does not pres- enk for consideration on appeal the qunstion as to whether or not such cherge should have been given.
 3s Same; structions.-Charges as- sertlng that the only foundation for the verdict of guilt Is that the jury shall believe from the evidence be- vond reasonable doubt and to a moral aensainty that defendant is guilty as charged in the indictment. and that If th& prosecution has failed to furnish such measure of proof and to so im-