The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1883-05-23
Tiic Railroads and the { ,ck Law.

There has been no Supreme Court dc
ci>inn with REFERENCE" u tao liability oi
railroads.&c. ID killing stock sine the present
Stock Law waS al Dptal. aud 4 good dral
Of uncertainty prevails us to what thai
liability is. Before the Stock Law wa
adopted the law VA, in this Stt1o, that
when stock was killed Ivy Il IA lro:ul neg
iigtnco Oh the part NJ the road WIS pre-
stunned ali | need not 10 proved. on the
ground that PERSONS hal Alright 10 pasture
their stock on uuinrinScl lands. Bn:
since the law requires Stuck To he fenced
it may 10 different. There are tw:
cases ~ hciHr" the Supreme Court in
rni\iny this question. On" i the case nl
>!nikin>; r%. the &. < g.. Il. H., appealed
from this County. IN that ease, however.
the l,lai,:iiir produced testimony before
the jury to rrovr negligence on the part
of the road ; anl for this reason the
Court may decline to consider the effect
of The AZ r.k Law. The o:h"r ease i
.J,9reS ~. the G. & G.. Il. r., appealed
rom Ahlcvillt County AMI iii it there
is no other question eXrrp: that of the
Stock Law. In that case twn h'-S bo-
longing to jones were found dead by the
r~a!:rna, tack. tho marks Oh them show
that tiicr hli been killed by IL railroad
train -; but how nobody knew, and there
WY l' LNStlIll'blN VII llbl ~.
r:,@c was iilSt tried in II Trial JuSti""
Cont. ,rhn simple i:,ct of killing was
prnvel-nnlhin- else; aul I'll" Trial jus
lirc gave Judgment against the riai for
81. The road appealed to the Circuit
Court, wi,irh arIi:uinl the judgment: b.
!cw. The road then appealed to the
Snprr,na Court, and tho case was argued
last wee: The sole question involsr Il is
whether when stock is killed by 4 rail
road It dcvoivcS upon the party seeking
damages to PROBE negligence "n the part
of the employees of the road. The case
WAS carried up for the purpose OF testing
this question. The decision will be Looked
for with interest.
The above i from the Ncwdcr i
Observer. OF course VIC know not what
the decision Of the Supreme Court will
l,,, but we knrw perfectly well what we
think it ought to be, and whut IL 'YN be q:
no d;Sfuut dty. We have held for years
tina. the law, an the decisions of Il
Courts in reference to the o~bstructing of
the railroads. by live stock has been radi-
cally wrong. AS VIC understand it, the
railroads are chartered corporations, and
are by law protected in the right Of way
over their tracks ut any time. This right
of way il granted to the CORPORATE N III
solemn form, either ny the owner of the
land, or in ease of his refusal to grant it
the corporation is, by the laws Of the State,
authorized to condemn the property, to
pay for it, AMI to take it. If this is true,
.l.,, ,I., ,;,sIt ~ .,,, J., 1n,ro1lu o,.i, roll
t" the corporation, and it is trcspass for
either man or beast to 90 upon the ro"i
he'd, and We hold that there is the merest
shade of difference to the company
whether the citizen Ivy willful act places a
log across the road, or by wi!lful negligence
allows his OK to o5Strurt the train, to break
the c%omrany's engines and ears, and to
kill their employers rs well rs to en-
danger the lives OF passengers.
In our humble Judgment. stock law or
no stock law-as VIC cannot sec what that
law has to Il, with the Iicstion-wr con-
tend that the railroads should be protected
in their lcs.lly acquired right of way.
Aill llSlt"lu vi DclHS lilsVlc w Ply wa
tho stock which throws their cars from
the track, the ownars of slch live stock
should he indicted on the criminal side OF
tho court for o~bstructiDg the road, and
should he further subject to civil suit for
whatever damage may result to lifo or
property 10y such act. And if any citizen
should enclose any part of tho road bed
in his pasturs, such act should be deemed
Il crime, and he should he indicted for a
and willfUl effort to enGangcr the
live, Of the travelling public. Shonld
the Railroad. Company consent or connirc
ut Sl,c. an act, either by neglect to forbid
the same, or by the erection of cattle
guards, thea the company should he it,
lictcd as aidcrs and dcbeiters of what
might he properly termed a malicious
effort to cbstruct their own right Of way
whereby the lives OF their passengers are
endangered. The travelling public are
entitled to protection, and any man who
Dn.s his OK on the track should suffer as
though he had put = cross-tio on the iron.
II matters little to the passenger whether
he is killed by an OK or by 4 cross-,ie.