The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-03-27

SOUTt Heard before Hon. Henry F. Reese. Special Judge.
 Affirmed. Opinion by Haralson. j..
 Tyson. c. J., and Dowdeli and Mc- Ciellan. J. j.. c<icur.
 HENDERSON V. MAyFIELD wooLEN MILLS.
 Garnishment-tD tDecided Dec. 1s. 1901. -45 South 2l1) Corporations: stockholders un- paid subscriptions liability to credit ore on--The bona ide trasnfer of stock to solvent purchaser with the assent of the corporation when solvent. re- lieves a stockholder from liability to creditors of the corporation on the un- paid balance of his subscription ?. Same: liability of assignee--The transferee of unpaid corporate stock: If bona fide, assumes the stockholdef.s when the transfer Is made with the assent of the corporation when sol vent.
 3. Same; transfer on books-section 1262 is for the protection of creditors and purchasers from the stockholders. and not for the protection of creditors of the corporation, and . Sfaifure to register a bona fde transfer upon the books will not render such transfer fOto 0o stO CI tulhQiS VA tie WI FSh athohs entitlfng such to sue the transferor to recover on an unpaid stock subscrip- ton.
 { Same: proceedings; garnishment An unpaid stock subscription may be reached by garnishment and subjected to the payment of corporate debts un- der the express provisions of section 2ls2. Code 1896.
 Appeal from Coffee Circuit Court.
 
 Reversed and rendered. Opinion by Anderson, T.
 Tyson. c. J., and Dowdell and Mo Cleflen. !. J.. concur.
 MURPH V. THE STATE. Selling Liquor Without License--(De-
 cided Dec. 1s, 1907.--45 South, 20S)
 I. Trial; appeal; continuance; dis erection of trial court-It Is within the or not 1t will grant a continuance in a cause and not reviewabie on appeal unless clearly abused. tF,
 2. Witnesses: impeaching testi- mony.-Ini the predicate laid the wit ness was asked if he did not state In the presence of M. that he had been convicted of murder, which he denied. M testifed that the witness had stat eS that he had been convicted of
 
 with the predicate and properly disal- lowed.
 3. Intoxicating liquors; evidence; ad- 1issibility-Evidence was admissible to show that the person who testified that he bought liquor from the defen- dant, had given liquor to another per son on the same day and a short while after the alleged purchase.
 Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court.
 aawsA T~AN Ynn TAl.s a-trA la ~ h Affirmed. Opinion by Haralson, J.
 Tyson, C.. j.. and Denson and Mo- Clellan, J. l., concur.
 BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY LIGHT &
 POWER co. LANDRUM. Action for Personal Injury. (Decided
 Dec. 1s. 1soT--45 So. Rep. l9s.)
 l. Negligence; infant: contributory negligence; presumption of capacity Prinla facie a child between seven and fourteen years of age is presufed in- fourteen years of age is presumed in- discretion sufficient, to render 1t guil- ty of contributory negligence;4 this presumption is rebuttable. however.
 ?. Appeal; assignment of error waiver-Errors not insisted upon In argument or brief will be considered as being waived.
 8 Trials; objections to evidence hr(CobANy TUT SldItuR BrOuHQS--WHGT no grounds of objections are stated to question such objection Is properly overruled.
 f.. Trial: instructions.--A charge asserting that if a person has sufficient age, judgment and discretion to know the danger of going on the track with out stopping and looking for approach ing cars. such person could not recov- CT, pretermits the question of his act y1rsr tal, 4%~fh L and for this reason is defective.
 5. Street railways contributory negligence; infants; failure to stop. look end listen.--It is not the ability to appreciate danger which might rem der a child between seven and fourteen years of age responsible for acts of contributory negligence; such respon- sibility is based upon maturity and discretion beyond it's years. It cam not. therefore. be based upon the sole fact that such child was of sufficient age and discretion to know the danger of going upon a railroad track with out stopping, looking and listening for approaching cars.
 ~ G.. Trial; instructions uninteIliRible It is not error to refuse a charge containing words rendering 1t unin- telligibie.
 '. Same: Ignoring evidence.-where
 
 that plaintiff listened for approaching cars before going upon the track. a charge fin effect asserting that he fall ed to do so. not only ignores evil dence. but is invasive of the province of the jury.
 8. Carriers; station. tracks: pas- sengers duties-while the duty is on the passenger to exercise ordinary care for safety. in making his egress or ingress to and from the station over the tracks. he may assume that the tracks between the place where he aiights and the station will be kept safe while he Is crossing this duty rests upon the carrier, and the mere failure to look and listen for appro- aching cars before attempting to cross will not. as matter of law. constit- ute contributory negligence on pas senger's part if struck while cross- ing.
 g. Same: evidenoe-The fact that the car was rupning from six to eight miles an hour when it struck plaintiff and that it ran two or three car lengths after striking him Is admiss- ible in evidence as bearing upon the company's negligence.
 10. Same; contributory negligence; jury question-Under the facts in this case it was a question for the jury as to whether or not the alighting pas senger was guilty of contributory neg ligence in crossing the tracks in the manner employed by him.
 II. Trial: misleading instructions Where the evidence showed that plain tiff was injured at a station where the car from which he had ali1hted had