, 1876-05-27
Instructions to the Jury In
the Decatur Rail-
road Case.
The Ignoring Of Schedule Rates
a Prima Fucie Case for
Plaintiff;
But Defendant May Show that Seized.
ule Rates Arc Not Reason.
ablo nnd Just.
No Rebate to BE Allowed in Vest
Bountt Frcights.

Special iHtrafch to The Tribune
DECATUR ILL.,, May W.-The great ratlroad
case Ut tho people on relation Of the Railroad
and Warehouse Commissioners against she To
lc,lo, Wabasl, 4 Western Railway Company,
which Inns been OH trial III tho Circuit Court here
for tic lust two weeks, for cxtortfon under the
railroad law, closed this evening. It lias bccn
one OF the most exciting and interesting legal
battles ever fought or tried In this Sate. The
people have bcun represented BY c1-Gor. John
n. Palmer and tllo Hon. 4. u. Bum; tho
defendants by Hdy & Green, Of Spring
1toby, Of this city. At the close OF the argu-
mcnts Judge Smith instructed the jury uInn
thu law Of the case, Of which tho following Is
substantial synopsis:
qulros the Railroad and Warehouse Cortlla-
sloncrs to TX schedule Of reasonable, maxi
mtlln rates Of, faro fur passengers arl freight
for eaci, railrohd company In the State, aud TO
S ss s as xed ' e! e conssonss ss Isl as
aro fa!r, just, md reasonable rates
for tho service thcrrl', named, And that such
rond, for which It + prepared; thnt the Intro
duetun of the schedule to tho jury, With proof
that tho defendant performed tho service, al
lcgcd, and has charged tho persons named In
tlE uCClHfALl0A llilC Abl Luz nNifASG thGto
named than tho rates specified In tho schedulet
makes pritnn faric clsc for tho plaintiff, anil
tint In tic first instance tho plaintiff ts bound
to prove nothing more to enable It RECOVER; but
the cnse mado Is only prfma iacio and not
conclusive IN the defendant Tic defendant
under tho stntuto has tlIu right In its defence to
contradict the schedule prepared by the Com
mssDners for Its government, and may show
III its defence thnt thu rltus stntcl III the sche<-
uc arc not reasonable and just rates Of cotn-
prnsntiDn for tho service performed, un1 the dr-
ientMnt may show tt,at the charges ,nade by It
for carrying passengers and freight for the per-
eos,s named In the declaration WIS no muEc
than In Justice and right 1t ought to receive for
snch services; that thu defendant is cr-
titled to have and receive, Just
antl fur compensation for It's trouble, cost, and
c3pe,,sr OF transporting the freight and passcn-
gers named In tl,r declaration; that the defend
ant ID not bound to carsy freight for Its CUSTOM
crs for less tinn It costs for s,ch transportation
nor for less than just compensation; that the
burden Of proof Is on the plantiI TO establish
the charge In tho tlcclnrat!on; thnt the original
cost ami equipment Of nefen.nnt's rond arc not
proper elements to be considered In determining
| what tue rates ot fnre for carrying passengers
| mud freight should DO nor ls the de
| lt,tlant entitled to fix what It's rates
Of fare and freight should be, MFR Is defendant
entitled tn Tx its rates Ut fare and freight upon
tho basis OF realizing from Its business rcason-
nbe return On Tie capitat invested In thu build
luz and e4upng Icfcnd1nt'a railroad.
After tic CURT Instructed tic jury they r3-
tired, and have not af,rccu upon vcrdlCt.