
    1217.
    CHARLESTON AND WESTERN CAROLINA RAILWAY COMPANY v. BOYD.
    'The court did not err in overruling tlie general demurrer. Some of tjie special demurrers were meritorious and should have been sustained.
    Action for damages, from city court of Bichmond county — ■ ■Judge Eve. May 23, 1908.
    Argued July 16,
    Decided November 10, 1908.
    The petition, omitting formal and immaterial parts, is as follows: “2. That on the 17th day of September, 1906, plaintiff was a passenger on one of the regular passenger-trains of the said ■defendant, which train was traveling over the defendant’s line of road in the State of South Carolina. 3. That plaintiff had purchased a ticket to Woodlawn, South Carolina, which is a station at which the said train upon which plaintiff was traveling was régularly scheduled to stop for the reception and discharge of passengers. 4. That as said train approached the said station, and was apparently slowing down to stop at said station, and was traveling at a slow rate of speed, not exceeding four or five miles .an hour, plaintiff went out upon the platform preparatory to alighting at the said station. '5. That when plaintiff was so situated, the agents and servants of the said defendant in charge of the movements of the train caused the said train, without warning .and with a sudden, violent, unexpected, and negligent jerk, to ■quicken its speed. 6. That plaintiff, by reason of said jerk, was thrown heavily to the ground. 7. That as a result of said fall, plaintiff’s ankle was shattered [and certain enumerated injuries ensued]. 8. That in matters and things herein related, plaintiff was in the exercise of all reasonable care and diligence and was free from fault. 9. That the said fall was due wholly to the defendant’s negligence.”
    Besides ¡a general demurrer, the following special demurrers were urged by the defendant: To paragraph 3, because plaintiff fails to aver the place where he purchased a ticket over the defendant’s road, and where and when he became a passenger on defendant’s train. To paragraph 4, because plaintiff fails to state bis position on the train before he went out upon the platform; ■also because he fails to aver any sufficient reason for riding on ■the platform; also fails to aver the character of the platform, whether it had a railing around it or not; also fails to aver his exact position on the car; also because he fails to aver how far the train was from the station when he went out on the platform. To paragraph 5, because plaintiff fails to aver whether or not the train stopped at Woodlawn station. To paragraph 6, because plaintiff fails to aver how far the train was from the station when he was thrown to the ground. Because the allegations of paragraph 7 are too uncertain for plaintiff to deny or traverse the same. To paragraph 8, because it alleges a conclusion, and not the facts upon which it is based. To paragraph 9, because plaintiff fails to allege wherein the negligence of this defendant consisted.
    The court overruled the demurrers, and the defendant excepts.
    
      William K. Miller, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Austin Branch, A. L. FranMin, contra.
   Powell, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The court did not err in overruling the general demurrer. Central Railway Co. v. Forehand, 128 Ga. 547 (58 S. E. 44), and eit. We think, however, that some of the special demurrers should have been sustained, and that the plaintiff should have been required to furnish the information demanded by them. Despite our impatience with frivolous objections to pleadings, we must recognize- that a reasonable special demurrer is very valuable to a party where his opponent has put loose and indefinite allegations in his pleadings. It is frequently helpful to the court itself, in that it is available to compel the pleader to set out his case with such fullness as to disclose whether he really has the right he has asserted in general terms. We do not think the defendant evinced inordinate curiosity when it asked the plaintiff to state where he purchased his ticket, and when and where he became a passenger. This information, if imparted, would probably enable the defendant’s trainmen, who will likely be its witnesses, to better identify the particular passenger, and perhaps even to deny that there was any such passenger. The demurrers aimed at paragraph 4 of the petition are none of them well taken, except the one that alleges a failure to aver how far the train was from the station. Under several decisions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, this is a very material point. There is no merit in the demurrer to the ,5th paragraph. The demurrer to the 6th paragraph is well taken. The critic is itself chargeable with imperfections, so far as it attempts to challenge the sufficiency of paragraph 7, and was therefore properly overruled. The demurrer to the 8th paragraph is not well taken. Most important of all, the demurrer to the 9th paragraph is well taken. This paragraph contains a mere general allegation of negligence. If the petition had charged that the jerk alleged in the-5th paragraph was unusual and unnecessary, the general allegation of the 9th paragraph, taken in connection therewith, would be held to be sufficient; but no such allegation appears anywhere in the petition. Augusta Ry. & Elec. Co. v. Lyle, 4 Ga. App. 113 (60 S E. 1075). Eor the failure to sustain such of the special demurrers as are herein stated to be meritorious, the judgment is;

Reversed.  