The state chronicle. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1883-1893, 1886-07-15
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.
Some Decisions Reviewed by Il Learned
Member OF the Bar.
Especial Cor. STATE CHRoNIcL


one If he most serions evils Of the in
dIcial tendency is t. lose sympathy with
the people Judges are Of necessity
to a great degree exclusive. They
are essentially a class, and like all classes,
their atfinltIes are against the masses.
And when to this is added the fact that
their professional life has been run in the
groove of any certain speciality, the evil
tendency is enhanced. For example a
lawyer who has been habitually 4 criminal
prosecutor is apt on the bench to be .'of
counsel for the crown. Corporation law
yers when they become judges incline un-
consciously to the side of such corpora
tions as they have had for their clients.
Take our present court and while the
motives Of its members are admitted to be
as little obnoxious to criticism as the best
of humanity, it is difficult to reconcile
many Of their rulings with an entire free
dom from those sympathies and prejudlces
which very good men are liable to be
affected with, but from which it is abso-
lutely essential the judicial mind should
be free in order to be fair and square
Take for instance the matters of the de
struction Of cattle and live stock by rail
roads.
The history of legislation in this State
has eyinced popular determination on
the one hand to protect the people from the
destruction Of the stock, or to compel rail
companies to make compensation for kill
ing CT injuring them, and on the other
hand the general tendency Of decisions has
been to hinder and prevent the will Of the
Legislature from being effective.
AS far back as a half century ago, the
Legislature passed an act, that when any
stock should be thus killed injured, the
owner might have a warrant from a JUS
tice OF the Peace, who should on its re
turn summon two free-holders who should
on proof of the injury, assess the damage
and enter judgment against the railroad
company, and issue execution. Act 1888,
rev stat, chap. Il, sec. !.
It was we'll understood that the policy
Of the Legislature was to require these
companies to compensate the injured
owners of cattle in all cases, without re
gard to negligence or no negligence. Be
cause
l. The people could not keep up their
cattle and were obliged to let them roam
?. Because there was such difficulty il
proving negligence by the owner, and such
facility BY the companies in evadng re
sponsibility.
3 Because the privileges of such corpo
rations were 50 great that it was deemed
| but reasonable condition that the,
should compensate for injured stock.
| T. Because they could much better stanC
| the loss, if required to pay for the stock
and take it than the poor man could il
obliged to lose unless he could show neg
! ligence.
| 1t was most unfortunate thing thai
/ this public policy could not prevail If il
| had the people would have been for the
most part free from this great evil.
| But case came before the Supreme
| Court under that statute and the court SC
| emasculated the statute as practically t(
repeal or nullify it, and to leave the mat
| ter as it stood at common law, by declar
inc that the statute did not alter the rule:
! Of the common law in relation to such in
| iuries. Garris vs.. z. & r. r. r. Co.,
Iredell 324.
Thus leaving the owner of injured stoci
to prove negligence as before, although
| the statute limited expressly his obligation
to a proof Of the injury.
The people then through their Repre-
| sentatives tried their hand again for self
protection, and in 1867 the Legislature
passed an act:
That when cattle or live stock shall b
| killed or injured by railroad engines o
cars the proof of the killing shall be prirn;
facie evidence of negligence, II the suit i
brought in six months after the injury
and this is now the statute law OF the State
Z, Code 1896.