Mitchell v. Charleston Light & Power Co.

Citations

• 45 S.C. 146
• 31 L.R.A. 577
• 22 S.E. 767
• 1895 S.C. LEXIS 19

Syllabus

<p>1. Requests to Charge — Charge—Exceptions.—Appellant’s first objection to the Judge’s charge is not applicable to the whole charge taken together; and as that is the way this Court must consider a charge, it cannot be sustained.</p> <p>2. Ibid. — Ibid.—Nor is such charge open to the construction that defendant would be liable, though not negligent, if the falling of the wire was caused by a class of storm other than a “cyclone,” the word “cyclone” having been used, because the witnesses had testified that the day was “cyclonic.”</p> <p>8. Ibid.- — -Circuit Judge. — It is not the duty of the Circuit Judge to</p> <p>' strike out that part of a request which rendered it defective, and then charge so much as embodied a sound proposition of law.</p> <p>4. NEGEiGENCE.- — An electric company is bound to use due diligence to receive information as to the condition of its wires, and failure to use due diligence in this respect would constitute negligence.</p> <p>5. Request to Charge — Circuit Judge. — A Circuit Judge is not bound to charge a request, because it is good law, if he has already covered the same point in another portion of his charge.</p> <p>0. Ibid. — -The words complained of by the defendant in his fifth exception, are to be construed and taken in connection with the seventh request, and so taken are not erroneous.</p>