The state chronicle. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1883-1893, 1886-07-15

ktlil- Ha- proved II aCq 1T himself ..
n..!! -s.aoe - >ilo tn- a.firnattvely that
There vi II, r.Lii,ruce. Tie term prm2
faeir evidence had Obtained II North Gar
pinl 4 Ild ciul defintio", dis Iact alt!
,taeei l.vIe.d. an II hen tile !. gi.latI . l~,,
tits lertn II ill., cnae meHt, il does So ~lfh
i.l: i.t, lit ttlat i shall htve The ldcl 4
construct .3l i rea III given.
Thd mr.,liln1 has been iaeydly state
hy Judge Pearson on the Patton trit., ZIP
Ills statement vas adopted on the a2p !
If that case ~ the Supreme Court stat
is. Patton lred $50.
on i like case c. j. Nash repeated with
great clearness this definition, as follows:
.Prina f3tcie evidence IS such evidence ao
in judgment Of law, is sufficient 70 estab
lSh the fact in controversy, and IN the
absence Of controlling testimony becomes
conclusive and the jury by the law are
bound 50 to consider it, and preSumptive
evidence properly, 50 called, is that which
does not Of itself directly prove the fact,
but leaves the jury at liberty to find in
accordance with It or not, as Their MINDS
shall direct, Floyd's case 13 Ircd. 3e5.
Following this definition, and applying
it to the case of killing cattle under this
statute, the Supreme Court Battle, Pear
son and Manly Battle speaking for the
court, held:
| The mere fact Of killing being proved
the law declares the comptnys agents
guilty Of negligence.
2. They cannot ac4ult themselves except
by showing that there WAS no neglect
whatever.
3 i is not sufficient for them TO prove
there WAS probably no negligence. They
are put by ne law underline heavy burden
Of proving af1irmatively q negative Clar (
vs. the + r. | Winst 109
This ruling was closely followe by the
subsequent court in Pippen vs. the K 4.
- n c. "a; Battle vs.. the K. K. 6j y {.
344 and until the case of DOggett vs. the
K r. 81 n c., when the present Z. J.
Smith and Ashe, j., constituting the sit
ting court, wholly unsettled the above
definition III the interest Of the railroad
corporations and have practically nullified
the statute, and deprived the people Of
the protection it afforded against railroad
aggressions.
In Doggetts case those two Judges hold:
L. That the statute creates only pre-
sumptiye evidence Of negligence, and the
force Of the presumption only applies
when the facts are not known or when
from the testimony they are uncertain.
81 n G. 467
3 That the effect Of the statute simply
shifts the burden Of proof by requiring
defendant to show the circumstances and
repel the legal presumption p. 46a.
And following this new rule to its de
duction, they held:
a. That r. R. Co is not bound to sup
ply itself with appliances which will ena-
Bile it to stop {. train III a half mile. p 462.
b. That it was the duty Of the plaintiff
to show the train was moving at unusual
speed and not that Of defendant to show
It WAS not.
c. As the court could not see what was
the number and weight Of cars or lis mo
nentum there WAS no apparent negll-
gence 463
Il The occasional injury done to stock
is greatly outweighed by the benefits OF
railroad transportation. f6:5.
In later case of Winston vS. the r K
the present court atIrms Doggett's case
and restates the rule as above and held
further;
a. 1aat 4 railroad having a headlight
which SloSs a large object . yards in
advance is not required TO have appllan-
ces to stop the train within the distance
that tie headlight shows the object or %
olacken speed 50 it could come to Il halt IN
that distance 80 n G. 81.
That il would be q hardship on r. r.
Cos to thus require them, bid.
And AGAIN in Wilson vs. r. r. the same
court repeating this new definition Of pri-
ma facie evidence holds
1t IS for the jury to pass upon the
weight of the evidence and find verdict
on the issues submitted.' 80 n. G. .6.
Thus whereas prima facie evidence as
6. ]. Nash said has a plain and manifest
difference from that which IS called pre-
sumptive, this court holds they mean the
same thing. Sec. l3 lred. 3S5.
Thus whereas the predecessors of this
court held, that proof of the killing IN all
cases declares the guilt Of negligence. this
coutt holds that the presumption only
arises when the facts are not known or are
uncertain.
/ And thus the present court hunts
through each case to see if the plaintiff
has shown apparent negligence; whereas
/ the law requires the defendant to prove
/ that there was no negligence whatever.
And 50 Railroad Companies are eXoner-
ated and the people will be put to new
/ methods to save their cattle and live stock
/ from destruction, unless they consent to
! acquiesce in the idea that their loss is a fit
and patriotic sacrifice for the great bentits
| of rapid railroad transit. LEN.