Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1865-1872, 1868-05-08


ing il to be a principle Of honor not to
trample upon a fallen adversary, especial-
" ,chen he faiis By his oson hand.
He sets out in his first paragraph by
saying that your correspondent shows his
ignorance or dishonesty by saying that
the law requires Railroad Companies to
fence their roads. He says there is no
such law in the State of Indiana. "The
only law 10 relation to the fencing Of rail-
roads is found in the acts Of 1863, page
~, Sec. Tan act to give compensation
to the owners Of animals killed. &C., and
provides that this act does not apply TO
any railroad securely fenced and properly
maintained"
Now let us see where the ignorance or
dishonesty is. will refer him to the acts
of 1853, ten years prior to his law. He
will find decision Of the Supreme Court
which read as follows: "The Legislature
did not transcend its powers or violate
private rights in enacting that railroad
com panies shall fence their roads or pay
for the cattle they kill or injure." See
Madison &c. Railroad Co. Us. Whiteneck,
8 Ind, I'll; see also Gavin * Hord's Re-
vised Statutes, 1st vol, page 522.
BY his assertion that there is no law
requiri ng Railroad Companies to fence
their roads, except what is found in the
acts Of 1863, he exhibits either ignorance
OF dishonesty; and as he does il under an
assumed name, and Judging from the drift
Of his communication be intends to do no
harm, will raise the charitable presump-
ton that he is verdant young disciple of
Blackstone (yet an has s,ooddiing clothes,)
whose knowledge Of law extends no far
Their back than 1863, aud thinks that no
person can get law and justice unless he
employs a regular member of the bar, no
odds how plain a case he has, or how we'll
il is made out in evidence.
His second paragraph is unworthy Of
notice. His third says: "The plaintiff
commenced his suit before Justice on
an insufficient complaint. g. 9. Binkley
Esq, attorney for the w. w. V. X. r.,
demurred to complaint. Correspondent
by his special pleading (petiifogging) sue
ceeded in misleading the Justice, who ov-
erruled the demurrer"
Now let us look at the character of the
demurrer, which was, for fifth statutory
cause, that the complaint did not set forth
facts sufficient to constitute cause OF
action, without specifying what lie de-
INJURED to. This kind Of demurrer is
always overruled in Court when any par
agraph in complaint is good. See Bick-
nefs q. Practice, p. l03. Which is best
authority-Jugde Bicknell or your cor
respondent "lnjus,ice"?
Here again we find ignorance or dishon-
esty. Again We are disposed to cast the
mantle Of charity over him on account Of
his infancy and Ignorance. So far as mis-
leading the jury is concerned they were
composed Of as good men as you can find
in the County, and were not susceptible
OF being misled, and are amply able TO
defend themselves against any Liliputian
attacks from your correspondent. While
We are willing TO excuse him on account
of his ignorance Of the law, we cannot ex-
tend to him so much charity when he un-
deriskes TO misrepresent facts. Even chill.
dren should tell the truth; and he who, in
attempting to give history Of any trans
action, withholds or attempts to conceal
the facts, is as guilty as he who states
falsehoods in reference to the matter.
Now let us sum up his article that he
has given to the public in defense of an
act which be knows, and every person who
heard the evidence knows is unjust and
contrary to law and evidence. We find il
in a nutshell. We will give him the ad-
vantage Of his own version of the finding
of the Court, which he says was as fol-
lows:
1.-The plaintiff had proved the hog to be
his property; had proved the killing by
the engine of defendant running on their
road in the County, and that the road was
not fenced. But he had also proven that
it was done on the Canal at point where
the Railroad crossed the tow path of the
Canal; that plaintiff had not offered any
evidence to contradict or captain the man
ner in s0hich The Railroad Company icas
using The Canal"
that's the point. To meet this, the
plaintiff proved that the Railroad Com
pany had laid its tracks on the old banks
of the Canal, running all along; and one
witness, to more fully explain that, took
slip Of paper and pencil and drew q
sketch of the railroad track, showing q
single track from the bridge to a point
about rs or so yards South of Franklin
Mill; then showing how the road 70 rked
at that point, marking frog or switch. and
stating that he found the dead hog about
10 feet above where it forked between main
track and side track of railroad; that the
main track of railroad was built on West
bank Of old Canal; that the side track was
built on East bank Of Canal, showing
where the mill was and where the depot
and street were. and the only public cross
ing was about $50 yards from where the
hog was injured. After showing both
railroad tracks running all the way along
both banks Of Canal, the Judge, pointing
with his pencil to the space between rail-
road tracks, asked. "what is in there?'
Witness answered, "water, old Canal, now
a n,iii-race." Is that not fully explaining
how the railroad was using the Canal
banks? This does NOT appear in the notes,
but it appeared in the evidence, and your
correspondent and every person knows it.
The same witness who stated that the road
crossed the tow.path at that point, also
stated that there was no public crossing
at that point. This your correspondent
has not honesty enough to give.
So far as his idea about Desdemona not
deceiving her father or any person else is
concerned, it has nothing to do with the
matter. The old map said she did, and he
has the best right to know. have do doubt
-. - =. - .,d .haota ne onom aa