Paterson & Passaic Gas & Elect. Co. v. State Board of Assessors. gross receipts from the business of the company. For the purpose of enlarging and swelling the volume of its business, it furnishes not only electric light, but electric power to manufacturers, and sells electric supplies. Having so extended its business beyond the mere furnishing of light by electricity, the company has largely increased its revenues, and it would be a strained construction of the words of the statute if the gross receipts from its business should be interpreted as meaning only its gross receipts from electric lighting, simply because it is called an electric light company. It is taxed on what it does. The statute imposes the tax not upon a portion of its receipts,—those derived from a particular commodity it supplies to the public,—but upon all of its receipts from its general business conducted under its franchises. Haying, under what it regards as its franchises, not questioned by the commonwealth, enlarged its business by extending the same beyond the mere furnishing of light, and having realized largely increased revenue from so doing, its plea for abatment of the tax claimed by the State is ungracious, and cannot avail it in the face of the statute declaring what it shall pay." PART V. INJURIES TO PERSONS AND PROPERTY BY DE (407) WIRES IN STREETS. POSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE Co. v. JONES. Alabama; Supreme Court. 1. INJURY CAUSED BY FALLEN WIRE WHICH FRIGHTENED PLAINTIFF'S TEAM.The plaintiff's team came in contact with a wire of the defendant, which had fallen from a defective cross-arm of the pole from which it was suspended, and from the shock the team became unmanageable and the plaintiff was thrown from his wagon and injured. The complaint alleged that the defendant negligently allowed its wire to remain a short distance above the road, so as to permit of contact with the plaintiff's team. It was held sufficient. 2. EVIDENCE AS TO NEGLIGENCE IN PERMITTING DETACHED WIRES.-Evidence as to rottenness of cross-arm, from which wire was suspended, and also as to the wires being down for a period of two days, held sufficient to infer negligence. 3. INSTRUCTIONS.-Instructions as to liability of defendant considered. Appeal by defendant from judgment for plaintiff. Decided April 9, 1902; reported 133 Ala. 217, 32 So. 500. This was an action brought by the appellee, C. A. Jones, against the Postal Telegraph Cable Company, to recover damages for personal injuries received by him while traveling along a public highway, by the side of which the defendant had its wires strung. The complaint, as amended, contained but one count. In this count the plaintiff alleged that on November 5, 1898, the defendant owned and operated a line of telegraph wire which was attached to poles along or near the public highway in Jefferson county; that said line of telegraph wire was heavily charged with electricity, "and it became and was the duty of defendant to use due care to have and keep said wire high up from the said road, yet, notwithstanding said duty, defendant negligently caused or allowed said wire to be or remain on or such a short distance above said public highway that the public traveling said highway were liable to be injured thereby." It was then averred that on the day above named the plaintiff was traveling along said highway in a wagon to which a team was attached, and that said team came in contact with the said wire, and, as a proximate consequence thereof, the team became unmanageable, plaintiff was thrown from the wagon, and came in contact with the wire, charged with electricity, and sustained the damages complained of. The plaintiff claimed $500 as damages. To this complaint the defendant demurred upon the following grounds: (1) It Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Jones. fails to aver any duty that the defendant owed to the plaintiff in the matter of the manner of maintaining its wires. (2) That the complaint fails to show that the defendant did not discharge its duty to the plaintiff. (3) The compaint fails to show with reasonable certainty in what the alleged negligence of the defendant consisted. (4) It fails to aver what, if any, negligence on the part of the defendant contributed proximately to plaintiff's alleged injuries. This demurrer was overruled. Thereupon the plaintiff filed the pleas of the general issue and the following special pleas: "(4) For further answer to the complaint, the defendant says and avers that the plaintiff ought not to have and recover any sum of this defendant in this cause, because, as it avers, neither the defendant, nor the employees of defendant whose duty it was to see that its wires at the point named in the complaint were properly attached to the poles, knew that said wires were detached from said poles in the manner stated in the complaint until after the alleged injury to plaintiff, when, as defendant avers, the defendant within a reasonable time thereafter caused said wires to be properly attached to said poles. (5) For answer to the complaint the defendant says and avers that the plaintiff ought not to have and recover any sum of this defendant in this cause, because, as it avers, neither the defendant, nor the employees of the defendant, whose duty it was to see that its wires at the point named in this complaint were properly attached to the poles, knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care would have known, that said wires were detached from said poles in the manner stated in the complaint until after the alleged injury to plaintiff, when, as defendant avers, the defendant within a reasonable time thereafter caused said wires to be properly attached to said poles. (6) For further plea in this behalf the defendant says and avers that plaintiff ought not to have and recover of this defendant any sum, because it says and avers that the plaintiff contributed to his own injury, in this, that, knowing the wire referred to in the complaint was alongside of the alleged road, he, without due care, drove, or allowed to be driven, the alleged team against said wire, thereby co...tributing to his alleged injuries. (7) For further answer to the complaint the defendant says and avers that the plaintiff ought not to have and recover any sum of this defendant in this cause, because, as it avers, that the defendant exercised reasonable care to prevent its said wires from becoming detached from its said poles, and that neither the defendant, nor the employees of the defendant whose duty it was to see that its wires at the point named in this complaint were properly attached to the poles, knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care would have known, that said wires were detached from said poles in the manner stated in the complaint until after the alleged injury to plaintiff, when, as defendant avers, the defendant within a reasonable time thereafter caused said wires to be properly attached to said poles." To pleas 4 and 5 the plaintiff demurred upon the following grounds: (1) Said pleas do not interpose any defense which could not be set up under the plea of the general issue, and the facts averred in said pleas can be given in evidence under the general issue. (2) Said pleas fail to negative the negligence of the defendant in allowing the wire to be along or near the public road. The demurrer to each of these pleas was sustained. The judgment entry recites that there was a motion made to strike |