The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1858-07-26
PRICE TWO CENTS

that this case is freed from the onoro.,. =,
2 9i & VI @ ie @ ol The Acts of Assembly of 1888
carefully considered and its construcon t1ES az Us was
Court in the case of The Baltimore y! , i'
road Company rs Woodruff, Md Rep pa Ii vas ti
decided that the act simply changes the Of rj5
by releasing the plaintiff from proving negligence if t
fact of the injury is established and on1s pnn
the defendant of showing there negligence on its
part In other respects the rights of the parties and their
liabilities at the common law remained unchanged by the
act oil 1913 The act of 1916 CHI 346 while it leaves the
onS of proof where the act of 1888 had placed on the
defendant requires that the Railroad Company shall in
order to exempt itself from responsibility prove that the
damage or injury sustained the result Of unavoidable
accident"
Ths Court in constituting the act of 1888 said that it
restored the law rule in relation negligence
and imposed the company the of showing the
ercise OF reasonable and caution (sec T. Nd Rep
zoo The language of the act of 1916 is somewhat differ
ent and must pe construed imposing the company
te highest degree of and caution by its no
thng can exempt the company but to show that the dam
age complained OF was the result of unavoidable accident
But IN our opinion this applies only those where
te party complaining has contributed any manner
ny ms own negligence or violation of law, to the act
planned Of or in other words the rule of the common law
TO which we have adverted, remains unchanged by the
acts OF Assembly to which we have referred And we
concur in the views taken by the appellants council in
his argument that any other construction these acts
would subject railroad companies the greatest
and expose the lives of passengers to the most
and imminet peril In the language of Chief Justice Glib
in 10 Penn State Rem BOZ 4 railroad comnsny is
purchaser in consideration of public accommodation and
convenience if the exclusive of the ground
paid for to the propretos of it, and of license to use
person nor the property of another may interfere The
company the one hand and the people of the vGnage
on the other attend respectively to their particular con
Germs with this restriction of their acts that no needless
damage be done Butthe conductor of train bound
to attend to the uncertain those oiering
or rowing cattle by which railways are infested Any
other rule would puta stop to the advantages railway
uaVeilng altogether To the effect, ClGgk rS
syracuse tttcd Railroad Company IL Barb 112 Harsh
u.s. Ihe Nel0 York G Erie Railroad Company, IA Barb
j0+ and the other cited by the appellant in the lrgu
ment.
by the common law of cattle is bound tokeep
them IN an enclosure or in custody at his peril for every
entry by them another possession is respass and
this Is the law OF Mary iand ana applies well to the in
trusion OF cattle and horses upon the land which
railroad company is entitled to its franchise to the
property of private And the construction which
put the Acts of Assembly of 1888 and 1916 that
they give right of action only where the CATTLE horses
&c, of the plaintiff are on the railway without any fault
on his part And the question of the negligence or fault
of the plaintiff i'll the before proper subject
to be passed by the jury Thatquestion properly
presented by the several prayers of the defendants and
the Circuit Court erred in rejecting them"
JHfgn3cnt reversed dUH H0 m r3e