The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-01-19

lONG OiSIANSE I41EF LtEE N.'-
 TELEGRAPH co. SCHMIDT, ct al. Condemnation Proceedings. --t Decided
 Nov. 24. 1s0S.--l7 South. 73i1
 1. Eminent ! domain; cornpsnsat ton; measure.--whsfe land is condemned for a right Of way. the measure of damages recoverable by the iand- owner fs the value of the land when taken and the injury or diminuticn ln value caused to the renAining con tiguous land.
 2. Same; damages: evidence.--In con- demnatfon procssdings svidence as to the value Of trees destroyed tn tne construction of the utility is Admis- sibie for the consideration Of the Jury in determining the Injury to or dimiaa- ton in value of the land: but the value of the trees cannot De 1 awsrnv1 snSssenss g ent injury to the 1And.
 3. Same; proeeedtngs to assess con demnation; instruotfons---A charge As- sertinr that where telephone com pany in the exercise ef its rieht unoct the law has placed poles wiynin ane margin of public road, the anu,t,ns land owners are entiusa .o ssran eous. since 1t ignored all right of the land owners to compensation Tor . right of way outside of the Eroana actually cecupied by the poles.
 q same "A charge asserting that the telephone company, ln the exercise oh i.s right undar the law tt place Its poie within the margin of the public roaa'' her within the margin of the road without liability to abutting owner. and that he Is merely entitled to the wood when felied. ia misleading, as the matter for the determination Of ! tht jury is the damages to which the land owner is entitled by reason of the construction of ths line, and the tak- ing of the right-of-way, and not its liability for cutting timber.
 $. TriaI; instructions limiting the effect of eyidence.--A party conceiving that the jury may give the testimony introduced consideration broader : than it's legitimate scope is under the duty of requesting proper instructions limiting the effect of the evidence.
 6. Evidence; competency; value or prdpeSay.--It is competent to show ] that land across which . right of way Is taken is adapted to and used TOT sfarming and other purposes. to snow It's value, etc.
 | Same; opinion evidence; hypotseti- cal question:; form and sumciency.. While a Hypothetical question snouio not contain matter that the levlaence does not support. technical accuracy is not required, and an objection thersto, based on the fact that 1t con tained matter not supported by the evidence, shouid be definite and speci- flc to avail on appeal.
 Appeal from. Cullman circnit Court.
 Heard before Hon. D. w. Speake.
 Adlrmed. opinion by Tyson. .. J.:
 Simpson, Andersen and Dsnson. J9r concur.
 COLEMAN. ct al. v. TOWN or EU-
 TAW. et al. and TOWN OF
 EUTAW V. COLEMAN, ct al
 Bill to Declare Issuance of Bonds and
 Declare an Election yoid.-(De
 ed Nov. 12, 1s0s.--l7 South 1es.D
 1. Equity; Jurisdiction; eiectios, son- test-The contest provided by Secuon 2 If General ActsS 1908, ?. 59, being inapproprIake. does not take rom the Chancery Court Jurisdiction to enter tain q btlI by taxpayers against the municipality to enjoin the issuance Of improvement bonds because or the alleged invaIidity of the election at which the bonds were authorlzea; ana ca,,itv has jurisdiction for the addi- tfionai reason that the bill was filed to prevent the misuse of corporate ,power--the illegal creation of deot I@gaInst a municipality. a.- s
 2, MunielpAl corporati0r; election; bond issue; constitutional pFoyistcns'--- Section 222, ConstituttOn 1901, declar- finE that the ballot shall contain cer- tain words, in so far as 1t prescribes the form of ballot. Is mandatory and d failure to use the form prescribed invalidates the election.
 S. same; bonds; election; ballots.- Under Ssctlon 22zs Contribution lsOl' on an election by a municipality 10 au- thorize a bond issue, the ballots used should contain the form prescribed by A ahnaliA snAntfV in fhe space between flor" and bond issue" and In the space between s'against" and bond tssue," the char acter of the bond to be voted on; and Ia ballot containing the caption an lnouncing the general purposes of the election, and on two separate nnes' with marginal extensions on each sioe, the words. Tor pond issns h1s sne against bond issue." and below this. in parenthesls, a statement describ- ing the bonds, including the amount, rate of interest. time. denominations, and purpose, was not a compliance with 4he provision. and an election hold with such ballot was invalid.
 {. Municipal corporations; bonds; several issues; election.-Where sepa- rate ballots wereprovided for each set of bonds to be Issued, 1t was no ob- lection to the validity of the election, that an election was held for each set of bonds at the same time and place.
 s. same; double purpose.-The fact that a proposed bond issue to purchase a water works and electric light plant, wns sub omitted to the electors in that shape did not inyaltdate the election, as involving the submission of double purpose, the reasonable presumption being that the same comprised but one scheme of municipal Improvement.
 Appeal from Greene Chancery Court.
 Heard before Hon. Thomas H. Smith.
 Reversed. rendered and remandsd on direct appeal; affirmed on cross appeal opinion by Mcclellan. J.
 Tyson, C. J., Dowdeil and Anderson. Jj.. concur.
 JONES v. HINES.