The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1874-01-13

and that the general Office of the defendant
was at the time at Toledo, Ohio. The con-
clusion of law stated upon this point was
that the defendant was entitled to q reason
able time in which to repair the fence, and
until after the lapse thereof IL would not be
liable; but that as the burning OF the fence
took place on Thursday, a delay to repair
until the Sunday following was an unrea-
sonable delay. and therefore the defendant
was liable under the statute for the animal
killed. Exception was taken to the con-
illusions OF law. The plaintiff had judgment
Held, the concluslOnso of law upon the facts
found were correct. The Court could not
sanction as applicable TO the case the rule
suggested by counsel. that Thursday and
Sunday were to be excluded in the computa-
ton OF what was reasonable time to repair
the fence. In the light of the evidence with
regard to the trips and the duties of the Sec
ton boss, 1t was foreign 10 the question to
talk about the location of the principal Office
OF the defendant and the necessity OF COM
munlcating with il with reference to the res
toration of the fence. There was ample time,
under the circumstances, to repair the fence
from Thursday until Sunday. Affirmed.
THE SUPERIOR COURT.
Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Lafayette Rail-
road Company VS.. Hamilton. Decatur c.
g. Worden, J..
There is no statute in this State that the
Supreme Court is aware of that requires
railroad companies TO blow their whistle or
ring their bell before reaching the crossing
of highway, but that duty may devolve
upon them without any statute. Ordinary
care may require it.
When the jury found by their verdict that
the omission of railroad company to blow
the whistle at the crossiL g ola highway was,
under the circumstances, negligent, the
Supreme Court was not disposed to distrust
their verdict.
Where the train of cars which caused the
injury, the killing of two mules of the plain
tiff which were in drove that the plaintiff
and his servants were driving across the
railroad on a highway, was running at a
high rate of speed, the grade being down
grade, and the train was not so held i'm check
that it could have been stopped after the
mules were discovered by those having the
train in charge and before reaching the cross
ing, held, it was perhaps not necessary that
it should have been thus held in check
Complaint for negligently killing stock.
II was alleged that the defendants locomo-
tive and train of cars while being run as
aforesaid through the county of Dearborn.
and through the fault, misconduct and neg
ligence of the servants and employees of the
defendant in running the locomotive and
train out of their regular time and at a high
rate OF speed, tO-wit, at the rate of forty miles
per hour, and without giving any of the
proper signals of their approach, struck and
Killed two mules of the plaintiff and injured
a third, then and there upon the railroad
track, without the fault OF the plaintiff, at a
point where public highway crossed the
railroad. A demurrer was Overruled. Held,
(see form ii, and 2 G.. III. p. 1913, 377), the
complaint was sufficient. 1t sets forth with
sufficient particularly and certainty the
gegligence imputed to the defendant.
of the evidence, which was lengthy.) Az
frmed.