, 1873-11-14
q LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.
Railroads Answcrnblo for Damages
Sustained by Rcrsons Riding on Free


Sustained by Pcrsons Riding On Free
PnsAog.
INDlANApo11B, Nov. 13.-Tho caso Of Henry
Horst ya. Tho indianapolis Il ST.. Louis Railway,
for damages sustained by boing thrown from a
box car while riding On shat road, which inyolv-
cd the question whether railway companies arc
liable for damages sustained by petsons travel
Ing on passes, has been on trial hsro for two
dsya past in tho United 8tatsi' Circuit Court,
judge Gresham presiding. Tho jury this morn
Ing rendered 4 verdict in favor OF the plaintiff
tor 1900. The following Is tho Judges oharge
CARRIAGES used tho Of cattle other live
atook, and persons owning or having Charge Of
tht Rn Ipp Cd 81 s1 sas ..
ward to detendant and to have proper oversight and
ssa ssa ..o % .usn
achsa 1aas e rsn 1t st. fes On xhieh psita wss
planr ] was iafoImaa BY BY tho confusion tSst hs wss
sotl sd xss Comm Commanded to roanove from tho eaboose
aud act top Of one Of The cattlecars. and defend-
sas & 81 s posoa 70 poas nils s'as it,
tant whore anohcr cabooae was to be attached to tho
y d "a md I'D
the part Of tho pland said train waa run or backed
with great vioonce against said car other obstruo
tion and in consequence Of the concusson and from
tho Insecure position plaintiff occupied By having bson
compelled to be carr5ad on ton OF The car he aud
't TSe ] second @ count W of III ha decsrson dfors from
tho arst only b emitting tAe obigason tlst plaintiff
SEssssa e u r. % @ e 81 SR ga q I'll
oa o. ,5 o9F susS m
compelled to ride top Of freight-car Defendant
sss%s {s!sss
Of y sn as IL @ss = 9ss
hrh In n41r9 nv tha -
those operating defondant's traiu Of caas, then
plalntiH has made out Lis case, and ia entitled to
direedy eonrI5Sted e he accident; bat !es burden
Of proving eontEibaery noglige9oS ef plaintiff rssta
Las Sssa esasea By ~ prepondsraneo ss d ss.
deles. II you'd nat 10 enough 70 defeat recovery
somewhat remotay to tho injury il IL negligence ii
aofends9t Or biz aoryana was tha 1mRediato ca,ae,
s ap %sps
dangerous agent Of etosr, public policy and safety
ss;ass s5S
Tho Of % i" yas Han ra1ss
Is entitled to recover, uness desenaant by want Of
u s y
tho Injury Yas received the plaintiff was travelling
Company from any injury TINT might hpfall him by
Of the n%Sgse9ss ot hs IT, detonaap, u'p,
70 roqs!Fe ffoH tas Rla!atir .. n s;ny sass
would he contrary to public policy. L you boliove
Ing their cattlo requires that caboosa car ho as
algned to them. and hat 1t would not b. properly
providing for their duty compel ena 10 rds upon
The dock Of tho cattle or freight comprising tht
train, then you will heSe he right TO consider auct
haze hss proved seothss or pot
! part q defendants, Or Of their aeryant. or
midnight tho caboose an which he was riding from h
remainder Of tho train for tho purpose of attaching t.
Of milo distant, and 2 rsquiro defendant e CLINT
upon the dock Of one Of tho cars and 70 remain ther
until thb train should {un yher0 dc 1sw esboos
) facts proved, and this waa not proper provision
: Nhio 10 was exercEsnF reasonable care 10 ayols
danger, then you should ind for platutiF. II 30,
shoSld nnd for pl.tnaa, ysq h.Ve I!eht, IN gu
ju1ed Ntnb, tho bodily pain and suffering, II any
. ! 9lr9ady borne, and which the evidence has ahoW1
ho Is likely 10 aufer in future. the direct result
tho injury received, also tha effect Of any which III
has had aud IL Likely to have in the future on hi
abilstios to attend Ia s ordinary Affairs and genera
. II what will compensate plaintiff fas "a peculiar
provision can be 1naie for tho actual injury rseeiye
i through tho Negligent conduct Of defendant,