Birmingham Electric Co. v. Hereford, 6 Div. 313.
| Citation | 149 So. 862,25 Ala.App. 465 |
| Decision Date | 18 April 1933 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 313. |
| Parties | BIRMINGHAM ELECTRIC CO. v. HEREFORD. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 6, 1933.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; C. B. Smith, Judge.
Action for damages by R. L. Hereford against the Birmingham Electric Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Birmingham Electric Co. v Hereford (6 Div. 411) 149 So. 863.
Lange Simpson & Brantley, W. H. Brantley, Jr., and M. L. Robinson all of Birmingham, for appellant.
H. M Abercrombie and Jarrett Abercrombie, both of Birmingham, for appellee.
Appellee claimed, and introduced testimony tending to show, that two cows and a bull, belonging to him, were either killed or injured by the negligence of appellant's agents or servants in charge of one of its street cars-in negligently causing said street car to run over, upon, or against, said animals, etc. The animals were alleged to have been so injured, etc., upon one of the streets of the city of Birmingham at about 4 o'clock a. m. on or about December 20, 1927, which we know, and which is conceded, to be "before daylight."
Appellant, through its witnesses, stoutly denied the charge; it claimed that its said street car, upon the said occasion, neither struck nor injured appellee's said cattle; but that, if any of same were injured, as alleged, the injury was caused by a party or parties operating an automobile, entirely independent of, and disconnected from, appellant, etc.
It will be seen the testimony supporting appellee's theory and that supporting appellant's was in violent conflict. At the hour of the day upon which the occurrence took place, as might be expected, there were but few witnesses, other than those interested either in appellant's business, at the time and place, and those interested in appellee's. In this situation, after suit had been brought by appellee against appellant, claiming damages for the said injury, etc., to his said property, appellant, under the statutes, propounded interrogatories to appellee, one of which sought the names of those in charge of, etc., appellee's cattle, upon the occasion in question.
In answer to this interrogatory appellee gave the names of four people, with the added statement that three of same "live with me," and the third was "now in South Carolina."
Upon the trial of the case, it developed that there were two other people, employees, at the time of the claimed injury by appellant, etc. of said cattle, of appellee, also in charge of same, for appellee.
One of these other people-one Tom Knowles-resided in Shelby county Ala. And immediately after...
To continue reading
Request your trial