Each paragraph in an application to condemn lands is a separate suit. Code 1923, §§ 3861, 3866; Ala. Power Co. v. Adams, 191 Ala. 54, 67 So. 838. An appeal from an order of condemnation cannot be legally taken after the expiration of 30 days from the date of the order. Code 1923, § 7492; State v. Williams, 125 Ala. 116, 28 So. 401. Where a witness has testified as to his opinion of the value of land, great latitude in cross-examination should be allowed. Tanner v. L. N., 60 Ala. 621; Phœnix Ins. Co. v. Copeland, 86 Ala. 551, 6 So. 143, 4 L.R.A. 848; Snell v. Roach, 150 Ala. 469, 43 So. 189; Pritchard v. Fowler, 171 Ala. 662, 55 So. 147.
". . . acts or statements which, although subsequent in point of time to a personal injury, follow at once thereafter and serve to characterize the occurrence, or which are done or made under such circumstances as to exclude the possibility of premeditation or design and which are so close to the injury as to be fairly a part of the occurrence, are admissible as part of the res gestae. . . ." [Citing Alabama Power Company v. Adams, 31 Ala. App. 438, 18 So.2d 145 (1944)] In Alabama Power Company v. Adams, supra, the Court of Appeals had the following to say about the rule:
The judgment is penal, and defendant should have a review of the facts, and not be confined to the findings of the trial court. See Board of Revenue v. Merrill, 193 Ala. 542, 68 So. 971; Ala. Power Co. v. Adams, 191 Ala. 54, 67 So. 838; Anniston Loan Co. v. Stickney, 132 Ala. 587, 31 So. 465; Max J. Winkler Brokerage Co. v. Courson, 160 Ala. 374, 49 So. 341; Independent Pub. Co. v. Press Ass'n, 102 Ala. 475, 15 So. 947. T. B. Russell, of Haleyville, and R. A. Cooner, of Jasper, for appellee.
A spontaneous exclamation by a bystander as to the way an accident happened is admissible as a part of the res gestae of the accident. Harrison v. Baker, 260 Ala. 488, 71 So.2d 284; Ala. Power Co. v. Adams, 31 Ala. App. 438, 18 So.2d 145; Kelly v. Hanwick, 228 Ala. 336, 153 So. 269; East Ala. Express Co, v. Dupes, 271 Ala. 504, 124 So. 809. In a "slip and fall" case, the jury can infer negligence from the condition of the offending instrumentality and the length of time since the floor had been swept or inspected. Delchamps, Inc. v. Stewart, 47 Ala. App. 406, 255 So.2d 586; Food Town Stores, Inc. v. Patterson, 282 Ala. 477, 213 So.2d 211; Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. v. Popkins, 260 Ala. 97, 69 So.2d 274; Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. v. Weems, 266 Ala. 415, 96 So.2d 741; Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. v. Bennett, 267 Ala. 538, 103 So.2d 177. A trial court's oral charge must be taken as an entirety and if in its entirety it correctly states the applicable law, there is no reversible error even if a portion of the charge, if considered alone, would be erroneous. Fuller v. Darden, 274 Ala. 447, 149 So.2d 805; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 273 Ala. 656, 144 So.2d 25.
When trial judge refuses to grant a new trial the presumption in favor of the verdict is thereby strengthened. Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738; Tidmore v. Mills, 33 Ala. App. 243, 32 So.2d 769. The measure of damages or compensation for physical suffering is left to the sound discretion and good judgment of the jury trying the case, and it is within the province of the jury to award such amount as it believes is reasonable in the light and under guidance of all the facts and circumstances in connection with the injury. Alabama Power Co. v. Adams, 31 Ala. App. 438, 18 So.2d 145; Montgomery City Lines v. Hawes, supra. HARWOOD, Judge.
As recently as May 23, 1944, in an opinion written by Judge Rice, this court upheld the judgment of the lower court in awarding damages to a plaintiff in very much the same manner and under somewhat similar circumstances as claimed in this case. Alabama Power Co. v. Adams, ante, p. 438, 18 So.2d 145. Our courts conform to the rule that a boarding passenger on a street car or bus (as in this case) is presumed to have reached a place of security and safety when he or she has entered the portals of the conveyance, and there is no duty imposed on the driver to keep the car stationary until the passenger is seated.
Easton v. State, 39 Ala. 551, 87 Am.Dec. 49." (Par. Added) Alabama Power Co. v. Adams, 191 Ala. 54, 55, 67 So. 838, 839. The words in parentheses appear in the original opinion in Record of Opinions, Vol. 59. These words were omitted in 191 Ala. at 55.
* * *" We believe the following definition from Alabama Power Co. v. Adams, 31 Ala. App. 438, 18 So.2d 145, 146, fits the facts in the instant case: "Such acts or declarations as are thus received (as part of the res gestae) must have been done or made at the time of the occurrence of the main fact, must have a tendency to elucidate it, and must so harmonize with it as obviously to constitute one transaction.
The remedy is by certiorari. Easton v. State, 39 Ala. 551, 87 Am.Dec. 49; Ex parte Dickens, 162 Ala. 272, 50 So. 218; Alabama Power Co. v. Adams, 191 Ala. 54, 67 So. 838, Ann.Cas. 1917C, 878; Board of Revenue of Covington County v. Merrill, 193 Ala. 521, 542, 68 So. 971; Preskitt v. Chandler, 214 Ala. 278, 107 So. 750; Bankston v. Lakeman, 219 Ala. 508, 122 So. 819; Pope v. State, 229 Ala. 643, 159 So. 51. The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy grantable only when petitioner shows a clear, specific legal right for the enforcement of which there is no other adequate remedy.
This observation and truism must be applied also in the instant case. By analogy the following additional authorities lend support to our view: Alabama Power Co. v. Adams, 31 Ala. App. 438, 18 So.2d 145; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Weathers, 163 Ala. 48, 50 So. 268; Birmingham Electric Co. v. Walden, 33 Ala. App. 211, 31 So.2d 762; Mobile Light R. Co. v. Gallasch, 210 Ala. 219, 97 So. 733. In rebuttal appellee was asked: "Was it a worm or mother of vinegar?