The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-03-24
,s Appeal and .rror: a,s,rnment of

1s Appeal and error; assignment of error; specific assignment Assign ments of error based upon oral charge of the court need not be considered on appeal if they do not point out ex- plicitly the parts of the oral charge alleged to be erroneous.
 IT. Same: joint assignment: effect~ Where errors are assigned to rulings on evidence. and embrace two rulings. to sustain the assignments both rul- tngs must be reversible error.
 IS. Same: harmless error: pleading Ut is not reversible error to sustain demurrers to special pleas where the matters set up in such special pleas was provable under the general issue, which was pleaded. 10. Same--It Is harmless error to oyerrule objections to questions which are shown not to have been answered
 90. Somewhere testimony was subsequently, excluded by the trial court the error In admitting such evi- dence was cured.
 21. Same; proceedings below: object ions Where no objection was made to a question and no ground was stated in the motion to ex- trial court will not be reviewed on ap- peal.
 22. Same-Where no exception Is TO- served to the ruling of the trial court. an assignment of error based thereon will not be considered on appeal. ' B. Same--Where a question Is, got objected to and the answer is rcspon- sive. a motion to exclude the answer IS properly overruled.
 a4. Trial; reception of evidence: mo- ton to strike-Where the answer Is not responsive to the question the proper way to reach 1t Is by motion to exclude,
 2B. Same: necessity of stating Where no ground of objection Is as- signed to a question the court Is not bound to look for grounds of object ion.
 2s. Same: necessity for objection Where a question Is not objected to when asked, the trial court may or may not exclude the answer:
 -27. Same: instructions: in bulk Where charges are requested in buiK all are properly refused if any of them are bad.
 es. witnesses; examination; lead ing ouestlon-An objection to lead ing question is properly sustained.
 2s. New trial: grounds-A motion for a new trial because of the refusai Of instructions Is properly denieo where the instructions were requesteo in bulk. and some of them were bad.
 Appeal from Jefferson Circuit cours'
 Heard before Hon. A. o. Lane.
 Affirmed. Opinion by Denson. J.
 Tyson. c. J.. simpson and Anderson J. J., concur.
 AMERICAN BOLT co. W. FENNELiA Action for Damages for Injuries Re-
 ceived from Team. .--(Deoided De-
 cember r. 1908. 4s South, sf.)
 i. Municipal corporation; use or street: sidewalk; complaint.-A com plaint which alleges that while plain tin was walking on the sidewalk or a public street, where he had the rieht to he. he was struck from behind by a team driven by defendants servant ana run over. and that his injuries were due to the negligence of defendants servant. Is good against demurrer as for failure to show a violation In re- gard to 1t, or for not alleging that the sidewalk was for the exclusive use or nedestrians that fact being implied and nIaintiff being entitled to the un- Interrupted use of the sidewalk.
 2. Same; complaint; negligence.- The allegation that while plaintiH was walking along the public highway ne was injured by the negligence of de- fendant's servant in driving mules, was A sufficient allegation of negligence.
 s Same: use of streets; relative rights of pedestrians and yehieies.-- Pedestrians and vehicles have equal rights in the street, and eacn shouid recognize the rights of the other, ana 1t Is the duty of drivers Of vehicles 10 keep their teams under such control as not to injure pedestrians "ho ars properly on the street.
 4. Same; negligent use; proxlmate cause.-An allegation that defendants servant so negligently drove the mules that by reason ofthe negligence one or them struck plaintiff. and that the neg ligence proximately caused his injury. is a sufficient statement of the casual connection between the negligence and the injury.
 5. Negligence: contributory nesli- renee Is a matter of defense and need not be negatived by the complaint
 6. Master and servant: dnjurS to third person; pleadings; construction. A complaint alleging that the ser want, while acting within the scope of his duty so careiessly drove and man. aged the mule that by reason of his negligence one of them struck plain tiff, knocking him down. etc., does not mean that it was within the scope or the servants duties to run over plain tiff, but means that while acting with in the scope of his duty in driving the team, he did his duty so negltgently as tO Cdu5o
 [. Evidence; opinion Evidence as to whether 1t was negligence to strike the mules under the circumstances or this case was not admissible, since the issue of negligence was for the Jury to determine. and expert testimony was not nece seary to determine whether 1t was negligence to strike a mule since the nature Of the animal and, the effect of striking 1t Is common knowledge
 Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
 Heard before Hon. A. O. Lane.
 Affirmed. Opinion by Simpson. J.
 Tyson, c. J, Dowdell and Denson, JJ., concur.
 BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY, LIGHT AND
 POWER co. V. WILLIAMS. Action for Damages to Employe.-(De-
 cided Dec. IT, 190S.-4S South. 2S)
 l. Railroads; injury to persons on track; trespassers.-The employe of railroad walking beside the track in going to his place of work in the usual way is not a trespasser.
 2. Street railways; use of streets; duty of railroads.-The duty of street railways to recognize the right of per sons in the lawful use of the street Is imperative. and 1t is bound to ex- ercise proper degree of care and reasonable prudence and precaution as attending circumstances may re- uuire to avoid injury to such persons, although it has the right of way in case of meeting or overtaking per- sons on the track.
 8. Same; contributory negligence.-