Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1855-07-13

Vt the recent term Of the County Court in
this County, Judge l.. =. Poland presiding.
the following case was tried and decided
Connecticut * Passumpoc Rivers Rail-
road Company vs.. Thomas Nelson. This
was an action Of the case The declaration
alleged that the defendant rurcics,lv and
ncEligently permitted his cattle :, he il the
hi -hway, and that they therefore went uuun
the plaintiffs Railroad where the highway
crosses the track OF tnn Euilroal, 10y reason
Of which the plaintiffs ears were thrown
from the track and nearly demolished, and
dat the track Was thereby much injured and
claimed To- recover the damage which the
Company sustained IN consequence thereof
The deinndtut plead the general issue. lri-
al by Jury IT," puin;iIi INTRODUCED te-tumo-
ny tending t. show that upon the evening Of
the 2Nth of July, iNjI the Eiai'ttl, IN their
servants We're running their cynuin. }a,scn-
get train over their road at thoir usual time
and at their usual and ordinary sp"ri. and
with proper care, and t',It at u highway
crossing near d" Clay Island" in Ryrg4tc. thc
train came i'll contact with the defendants
cattle, some Il which were ON the Railroad
at the crossing, and others very rcar the
track-tlat the cu-iu" threw one Of the ami
mails with great force considerable distanc.
from the track, killing it instantly: and
another became entangl,d under the year ear
Of the train and was killed and this ear was
threby thrown from the track a great distance
and badly damaged, aud that the track was
much injured. he plaintiff further gave tes-
timOny To show that the Defendant had lrc-
qucntly before permitted hi, cttt!, to run ar
large in the highway, and that IL, fences be-
tween 'He ''l'nH"h' l"S'ur' ana TIE high
way were li''uiu'i'rl 70 restrain cattle. Tie
defendant introduced testimony tending to
show that the time the ear went Oft the track
the tram was passing over curve in the
road at great an1 improper speed, and
had been thrown nom the track before It
reached III" cattle, 50 that the car va, not
that the cattle guards at this crossing were
not properly located ana that the defendant
Lad placed these cattle IN BIZ pasture on this
evening before the accident.
The Court tJudSe iolAnd) charged the Ju-
ry In substance that It they found the cattle
were not the caus" oil throwing the ear off
from the track nat mat It got III by some
othcr means thrF should return verdict
Tor the deiehitnt II they found that the
cattle guards "er" improperly located, and
that mat was inc cause "i the car being
thrown on the ""iruaaut "puli hr entitled
to II Nerdlct. bui u they iout, h.1u Il lair
balance OF me testimony, th't ~" "ir wa,
ur'"n on ~ '"' c'tlI an! "l-1 i'uni chat
tir deirhl'nt was guilty o. n'g'lE"nr" in re
'lu"h I" thh ''tti' h'lng there at In" time,
th"n the FlnlntihS would ''e entitled 10 to
,"ruicl l"r an inc 'dmi@'' th'' iad sustained,
Ihht tn" DEFENDANT had uo right t. Iiv' his
cattle N thr HIGHWAY Wttt"uicd, aud If the
jury found that ta"y wore 50 thatui it~'!lwn,
Pr"'0 fGce cN'den'" of negligence on III"
rTt OF the defendant and IN that c"-n the
buFd'h Wpuiu h' cast upon Ia" d"lcngaIt ~.