The Hillsdale standard. [volume] (Hillsdale, Mich.) 1851-1909, 1852-11-09
Railroads and Cattle.


kill, or tho owners of the cattle pay for throw
ing trains off the track, has at last been deci-
/ ded by the Supreme Court, in the recent case
OF Skinner os the New York and Eric Railroad
Company, an action for trcspass for killing
COW. in which Judge GIBSON decided compa-
/ nv was answerable for gratuitons damage, re-
sulting from gross negligence, II appears, in
lJHis case that the train was going at the usual
speed; that it was within three hundred feet of
the spot where the cow jumped suddenly from
the ditch to the track; that tho engine was in
stantly reversed, and the signal given to break;
and that alacrity could do no more. The re-
tropusive power at the disposal of the engi-
necr was applied in vain. Had ho been able
to stop the train in time to save the COW, he
could not have done it without periling the
passengers Granting that the cow might
bave been seen at the distance of fifty rods by
tho way side. and that tho train might have
been stopped within it, vet tho engineer was
not hound to stop il. He had no reason to APP
'tpfchend that she would leap into the jaws of
death, or that ii was necessary to anticipate her.
But high above this stand tho impregnabe
| position, that a railroad company is n purcha-
ser in consideration of public Accommodation
and convenience Of the exclusive possession of
the ground paid for the proprietors of it, and
of license to use tho greatest allowable rate
of speed with which tho person nor property
of another may interfere, The company on
the one hand, and the people of the vicinage,
on the other, attend respectively to their par
| ticnlar concerns with this restriction of their
acts. that no needless damage be done. But
the chnductor ola train is not bound TO attend
to the uncertain movements Of any assemblagc
Of those lettering or rowing cattle, by which
our railways are infested ANY other rule
would put stop TO the advantages Of railway
travelling altogether. And, for what deprive
the country of one of the best improvements
Of this most wonderful age? For no more
than to enable few unpastured cows to pick
up scanty substance in waste fields and lanes.
Ifthe bullocks. cows, horses, sheep, or swirc
of the neighborhood, were allowed TO block the
way, the prohibition Of intrusion b. drovcrs or
travellers, using their own means of conveyance
would be of little use For the sake Of the
company and the passengers. tho conductor
and subordinates will be vigiant to remove
distractions; but the protection ofthe property
is merely incidental If the owner of it does
not attend toit the company's servants. hav-
ing their own business to mind, are not bound
to do so: and he who trusts his property TO the
chance Of accident. is bound to stand the haz-
ard Of the die Knight rs. Albert. Barr, 472
is TO the point. In that case the intrusion was
on woodland: in this it was on the exclusive
possession of ground paid for an incorporal
hcredtament.
So far we have treated tho case as If the
plaintiffs skirts werc clear: but they arc not,
By the Common Law of England, an owner Of
cattle is bound to keep them in an enclosure,
or in custody at his peril: for every entry by
them on anotacr's possessicn is trespass; by
i tho Common Law of Pennsylvania, he may let
them 90 at large without incurring liability for
an entry BY them on woodland or a waste field.
To entertain an action bran inappreriabie In
Jury, would encourage vexations and unpfoht
able litigation and he contrary TO the maxim
de ,ninimis, which is peculiarly appropriate to
the circumstances Of the people hero. But if
such an intrusion would occasion substantial
damage, the English rule would be applicable to
il, on the principle that tho owner of a bull
which gored another's OK must pay for it, Is
not the intrusion Of an animal on tho railway.
which has a direct tendency to throw train off
tho track and cndanger life and member. an in.
jury to the persons involved in the rsk:, 1t is
conceded that an American company is not
bound to fence its railway. as an American
farmer is bound to fenco his fields, and this
shows that persons who suffer their cattle 10 go
upon it. do so on their own responsibility. Ev-
erv English railway is fenced-not to protect
It from cattle, for none Mt large: bnt to prevent
detriment or detention from other causes. In
a country so new and so sparse rs ours. of
which the trunks of tho principal railways are
more extensive than tho Island of Great Brit
ain, the cost of fencing them would be greater
than could be borne. The rights and rcspon.
sibities Of people are shaped by the circum-
stances of their condition. If thew will have
RAILWAYS they must be content to have them in
the only way they are practicable; and the
English rule must be applicable to them. If
an owner suffer his catflo 10 be at large. il must
be at the risk of losing them or paving for
their transgrcssions. The very act ofturninS
them loose is negligence rs regards any one
but an owner Of forest or waste fields; and
tho owner of them il consequently responsible
TO every one else That he is not answerable
for them to a railway company criminally, like
a caitiff who has laid log or u bar across the
track, is because mischief was not intended by
him But no prudent man in his prcdicamcnt
would be the first to mako stir about it.
The responsibility of railway company for
oil but negligence or walion injury, is a nc.
ccssity for its creation. A train must mako
| the time necessary to fulfil its arrangements
with the Post Office and the passengers and
1t must be allowed to fulfil them, at The sacri
| flee of secondary interests put in its way: olse
II could not fulfil them at all. The maxim OF
Sotus Popvi would be inverted. and tho para
mount affairs Of the public would be postponed
TO the petty concerns of individuals Every
obstruction of railway is unlawful, mischievous
and abateable a. the cost of the owner or the
author Of it, without regard TO his ignorance
or intention. 1t may seem cruel to mako n
dumb brute suffer for tho fault of its owner:
but it must bo remembered that tho lives of
human beings are not 10 be weighed in tho
same scales with tho lives of farmers or n
! grazier's stock; and that their preservation is
not TO be left to the care which man takos
of his uacared for cattle. Allowing them to
prowl for, their food, he may not wash his hands
noxious to tho charge of Indifference to human
safety, it is a, high and holy charge of tho
Courts to hold to their duty, not only those to
whom it is Immediately committed but also
those BY whose defaults II may be remotely en-