Alabama Clay Products Co. v. Mathews, 6 Div. 333.

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Citation126 So. 869,220 Ala. 549
Decision Date13 March 1930
PartiesALABAMA CLAY PRODUCTS CO. v. MATHEWS.
Docket Number6 Div. 333.

126 So. 869

220 Ala. 549

ALABAMA CLAY PRODUCTS CO.
v.
MATHEWS.

6 Div. 333.

Supreme Court of Alabama

March 13, 1930


Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. C. B. Gwin, Judge.

Action for damages for wrongful death by Fannie May Mathews, as administratrix of the estate of Percy B. Mathews, deceased, against the Alabama Clay Products Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

The bill of exceptions recites: "Thereupon counsel for the defendant moved the court to qualify the jurors further as to whether or not they are clients or ex-clients, or have ever been clients of Mr. Green or Mr. Perry, or the firm of Perry, Mims & Green, or whether or not they are friends of those attorneys. And further to qualify the jurors as to whether or not they are clients or ex-clients of any of the attorneys in the case."

The substance of the complaint is that defendant's officers, agents, servants, or employees, acting in the line and scope of authority, etc., negligently permitted a large artificial excavation or pit, of dangerous depth, containing a great amount of hot, scalding, and steaming water, and dangerous to children, to be and remain upon its premises, unguarded, uncovered, and in such condition as to be dangerous to children under six years of age; that intestate's stepfather and mother lived in a house on defendant's premises in close proximity to the plant and to this pit; that children of employees were accustomed to play around the defendant's plant and premises, which fact was known to defendant's agents; that the said pit, containing scalding water, was dangerous to children, which fact was known to such agents, etc.; and that plaintiff's intestate, a child under six years of age, fell into said pit and received injuries from which he died.

On cross-examination, the witness Clay Mathews, stepfather of intestate, testified that his wife did not tell him about the accident, among other things, that she was near the pit at the time, and that he did not make a statement to any one that his wife had so stated to witness; that he was talking to a man, and the man asked him something to that effect, but that he did not tell the man [126 So. 870] that his wife had told him she was present at the pit, etc., when the child fell in.

On redirect examination, the witness was asked, as to this man, "Who did he say he was?" Over defendant's objection, the witness answered: "He said he was the insurance man."

On defendant's motion, the court excluded the answer, instructing the jury not to consider it, but overruled defendant's motion for a mistrial.

ANDERSON, C.J., and SAYRE and BROWN, JJ., dissenting in part.

London, Yancey & Brower and Whit Windham, all of Birmingham, for appellant.

Perry, Mims & Green, of Bessemer, for appellee.

ANDERSON, C.J.

Section 8662, new to the Code of 1923, says: "In civil and criminal cases, either party shall have the right to examine jurors as to their qualifications, interest, or bias that would affect the trial of the case, and shall have the right, under the direction of the court, to examine said jurors as to any matter that might tend to affect their verdict."

This section was not intended as affording a ground of challenge for cause, but to enable counsel to obtain information in order to intelligently strike the jurors. It is evident, however, that the nature and character of questions to be asked were under the province of the trial court, and as to which there is considerable discretion. Rose v. Magro (Ala. Sup.) 124 So. 296. The questions here not only related to whether or not the jurors were clients at present of plaintiff's counsel, but had been at a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Burns v. State, 6 Div. 965.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 6, 1932
    ...purpose of an individual inquiry. Section 8662, Code; Rose v. Magro, 220 Ala. 120, 123, 124 So. 296; Alabama Clay Products Co. v. Mathews, 220 Ala. 549, 551, 126 So. 869. The excusing of jurors was within the sound discretion of the trial court [section 8622, Code], and objections made to t......
  • Roan v. Smith, 1 Div. 770
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 21, 1961
    ...Lines, Inc. v. Stewart, 258 Ala. 524, 63 So.2d 895; Sims v. Struthers, 267 Ala. 80, 100 So.2d 23; Alabama Clay Products Co. v. Mathews, 220 Ala. 549, 126 So. 869; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Page 227 Davis, 236 Ala. 191, 181 So. 695; Ballard v. State, 28 Ala.App. 346, 184 So. 259; 236 Ala......
  • Brown v. State, 3 Div. 18
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 27, 1970
    ...pursued. Burns v. State, 226 Ala. 117, 145 So. 436. See Rose v. Magro, 220 Ala. 120, 124 So. 296; Alabama Clay Products Co. v. Mathews, 220 Ala. 549, 126 So. Brown pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. Along with other proof, the defense put Dr. D. E. Owensby on the stand to......
  • Ingalls Steel Products Co. v. Foster & Creighton Co., 6 Div. 96.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 26, 1932
    ...plead non est factum, in short by consent. See Moore et al. v. Williamson, 210 Ala. 427, 98 So. 201; Alabama Clay Products Co. v. Mathews, 220 Ala. 549, 126 So. 869. [145 So. 468] The other ground upon which the appellee invokes the application of the doctrine of error without injury is tha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Burns v. State, 6 Div. 965.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 6, 1932
    ...purpose of an individual inquiry. Section 8662, Code; Rose v. Magro, 220 Ala. 120, 123, 124 So. 296; Alabama Clay Products Co. v. Mathews, 220 Ala. 549, 551, 126 So. 869. The excusing of jurors was within the sound discretion of the trial court [section 8622, Code], and objections made to t......
  • Roan v. Smith, 1 Div. 770
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 21, 1961
    ...Lines, Inc. v. Stewart, 258 Ala. 524, 63 So.2d 895; Sims v. Struthers, 267 Ala. 80, 100 So.2d 23; Alabama Clay Products Co. v. Mathews, 220 Ala. 549, 126 So. 869; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Page 227 Davis, 236 Ala. 191, 181 So. 695; Ballard v. State, 28 Ala.App. 346, 184 So. 259; 236 Ala......
  • Brown v. State, 3 Div. 18
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 27, 1970
    ...pursued. Burns v. State, 226 Ala. 117, 145 So. 436. See Rose v. Magro, 220 Ala. 120, 124 So. 296; Alabama Clay Products Co. v. Mathews, 220 Ala. 549, 126 So. Brown pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. Along with other proof, the defense put Dr. D. E. Owensby on the stand to......
  • Ingalls Steel Products Co. v. Foster & Creighton Co., 6 Div. 96.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 26, 1932
    ...plead non est factum, in short by consent. See Moore et al. v. Williamson, 210 Ala. 427, 98 So. 201; Alabama Clay Products Co. v. Mathews, 220 Ala. 549, 126 So. 869. [145 So. 468] The other ground upon which the appellee invokes the application of the doctrine of error without injury is tha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT