The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-05-31

 battery Justification must be specially l pleaded
 3. same.--A plea of ssif-aefsnss h l justification of assault and battery, to be good. must aver every element or fact necessary to constitute seif-de- criminal prosecution.
 s. Same.--When one standing fp 1 relation that authorizes him to strike l in protection of another, undertakes to l set up Justification. consisting Of do- ! fense of such other, 1t must net only ne l shown that the person he sought to protect was free from fault in bringing on the dificulty but that he himself wac l free from fault; and the necessity to commit the battery must be shown. (. sane.-%Vhera slf-defense is set i up in justification of an assault and 1 battery the burden of showing freedom from taiiIt in hfihging on the didicnlky on the part of the defendant is not on l the defendant.
 l g. Trial. iastruckions.--It ia not CT aor to refuse rsaueated lnBtructions fully or substantially covered by In structions given.
 e Same: 1nstruetions; affect of eEl- dence.--Where defendant relied for jas l tIficatinn on the defense of his son. charge asserting that on the undisput- ed evidence plaintiff used more fofco than is necessary in repelling amp Hs nanlt that might have been mads upon him by defendants son. was invasive of the province of the jury. q Same; argumentativa instruesions, ---sA charge asserting that f plaintfn i. was entitled. to any damages the jury should consider the fact that aeten4- ants son was being beaten over the head by plaintiff and mat such son vas bloody, if they 60 And the fact to ne. was properly refused as argumentatiyo.
 g. Evidence: res Ksntae.--Whnre the Aefandant justified on the grounds that he was defending his son from attack by plaintiff everything that occurred.ak the time of the dificulty between ds- fendant's son and plaintiff ana con nected herewith. was adnAiaeibie 3a part Of the res gestae.
 3. Same,--lIha fact that the son went to the house Of a certain person some time after the di1aculty, anG what he said and dld while thars. form DO part of the res gestaa of the difaenlkN ana was inaduiasibie.
 10. witnesssu. privilege of; answers tending to criminate.~--loe1ena had right to refuse to answer integruKato~ l fleb propounded to hirn under Section i 1850. Code lspe, on tne GEeunds tnak his answers4 thereto would eon9tttmke 1 evidence which might subject him to q I ersnhinAl proeecution.
 1T. Trial: comment on failure of 0e- 1 tendAnt to testieys-~FIa4ntin was per-. | dEltted over deEendans's 0bsection to l read Co the jury those lnteFreK tqEses i which defandant declined 70 Anawefs ana defendant's ground ot refusal e answer and to comment on the same I ln argument. Held. noE erEox. (ISsons c J dissents)
 f2 Pleading; anaen0Fnents.---gFh ore defendant filed 2 plea setting out facts 1 seeking to justify cn the Etound thae 1 he committed the alleged 4za@uit tn de- fense of his son. who had been attack l ed by plaintiff the court VIII not ha l put In error for refusing to permit an 1 ameuament to the plea by tho addition Of the words, "eoncarulng piainfiHn l conduct "thus using unnecesssry fierce l in repetiing any assault mao9 upon hlu l by the son og aefenaant, 1 Appeal from Linestone Circuit cnurk Neara before Hon. D. ". ApaaEAs Reversed and Femarded. 0ptaion by powdell. 2
 Haralson. Simpson. Anderson &nd I nenson, IJ.. concur
 Tyaon. c. j.. eoncurs in the reverbai but dlaaents aa to the right of plniptiM I fo read the interroGeteri1a not an- l swared by dafondanf, his reasons there | for. and hie comment thereon in afMH- ment.
 EMPIRE cUANo co. v. JEFFERSON
 FERTILIzER co. | injunction to Restrain 1mltafiop cf
 Brand.~-( (pecided Fsbruary (, 1ens.
 As So. es7.)
 I L Injunction: preliminary ir5unc-
 ton; dissoluflcn.-1rhe sfidavlt to the
 answer to a bill for Injunction waa
 made by, the president ef deFenaanf
 corporation. and stated thae the aa1ss
 gations of the answer, when made ca
 personai knowledge. were trua. and
 when made on Information. aflant be-
 lisved them to be trus but the anewer | aid not show that afnant wa1 fAmile
 lar win the material facts alleged im Inc answer. Held, the afilaayit te the
 anawer aid not comply with rule 32 of
 cnancery practice, and the afidswit was
 defectiye. and. the preiirainary inianc-
 ton improperly dissolved, notwith- standing the biii and af1davit theretc
 may have been defective
 2. Same; bill; verincation; defect; how taken advantage of---.A defect in he bill and aildavlt eanot he relied on
 10 cure a defective werihcetion of the
 answer; such defect must be pointed , out at the proper time and in the prop
 CT way.
 Appeal from Jefferson cAanesry
 Court,
 Reversed ana rendered Opinion by E Tyson. c. J., and Dowdsli ana AEcclei-
 Ian, JJ., concur.
 BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY. LIGHT AND
 POWER COMPANY v. CHALLENGES
 Damages for Ejecting Passenger from
 Car. .--( Decided Feb. 6. 1e0Ss-ss
 South. 660).
 Carriers; rule as to fare: reas0De
 ableness IA rule made by a stretkj
 car company that passengers getting on a train consisting of several cars
 each one of which has a aeparats con-
 ductor. must remain on the car On
 which he pays his fare until his trip la
 completed and if he leaves the car for another car. must again pay his fare. is a reasonable rule. a. Same; knowledge of rule 1.-The f fact that q passenger ts informed Of the rule that he mnst remain on the car on which he pays hte f8re. or pay This fare again on the other car and @ offered an opportunity Co return to the q car on which he paid his fare before being elected, is sufficient knowledge to him of the existence of the rule.
 Appeal from Eirxainghnrn City Court
 Heard before Hon. c. c. Neswllth
 Reversed and remahded. Opinion hg II Anderson, J.
 tyson. c. J.. DowdslI and Moclellan