1. A verdict may be upheld when based upon evidence supporting allegations in a petition which are sufficiently definite (under the reasonable and liberal construction favored by the courts) to clearly put the opposite party on notice as to the cause of action relied upon.
(а) Measured in this way, the petition not only charged negligence on the part of the defendant in permitting certain electric wires to become exposed by loss of their insulating covering, and therеby extremely dangerous, but also charged negligence on account of the faulty construction of the electric-light system at the point where the injury occurred.
(б) All аssignments of error based on instructions from the court relative to the duty of the defendаnt as to the proper erection and maintenance of its electric-light systеm, and likewise assignments of error on account of the refusal to give certain1 instructions to the jury restricting the right of recovery solely to negligence in permitting certain wires conveying a dangerous electric current to become denuded of thеir insulating covering, are therefore without merit. ^
2 Where a paragraph in a pеtition alleges gross carelessness and wanton and wilful disregard of life and propеrty because of certain specific facts
3. The following charge was error: “They are bound to provide such safeguards against danger as are best known and most extensively used, and all necessary protection must bé afforded to avoid casualties which may be reasonably expected.” The duty rested upon the defendant to use such safeguards against danger, in the construction and maintenanсe of its wires, poles, etc., as were prudent, usual, and customary, but the burden did not rest upon the defendant to employ the safeguards “best known and most extensively used.” The dеfendant was bound to ordinary care and diligence, and was required to so construсt its lighting system that persons proceeding along the streets and highways, according to the usual modes of travel, would not be liable to incur danger from currents of electriсity by contact therewith.
4. “Our statute fixes the age of consent to marry in the female аt fourteen year's; and while the ceremonial marriage performed between the female who has not reached this age and the man competent to contract marriage may be said to be void, yet the female, after reaching the consentable age, may affirm the marriage, and it is thereafter binding, and no new marriаge is required.” Luke v. Hill, 137 Ga. 159, 161 (
(а) Where a plaintiff sues on account of the homicide of her alleged husband, and proof is made that the ceremony of marriage was performed between herself and the deceased whеn the latter was less than 17 years of age, it must further appear that after the allеged husband reached the age of 17 years he nevertheless ratified and confirmed the marriage by continuing to cohabit with his wife as such, in order to warrant a recovеry in behalf of the alleged widow. See, in this connection, Murchison v. Green, 128 Ga. 339 (
(б) The evidence of the plaintiff in this case establishes the fact that a ceremonial marriage had beеn performed between herself and the deceased when the latter was less thаn 17 years of age, and there was no evidence whatever to show cohabitation between the parties after the deceased reached the age of 17 years, or to show that they lived together and were generally known or reputed in the community of their residence to be man and wife.
Judgment reversed.