Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1889-03-23
STOCK
h Supreme Court Ruling introduced in
Bar of an Action to Recover Damages
for q Horse Killed by a Railroad.

The Supreme Court Ruling Introduced in
Bar of an Action to Recover Damages
for q Horse Killed by a Railroad.
What promises to be the first fruits Of
the recent decision Of the Supreme Court in
the Bielenberg case, in which the court con-
demned the section OF the Compiled Stat
utes under which stock.owners have been
hitherto recoveriugdamages from railroads
in the Territory for stock killed by them,
was introduced yesterday in a case that
came before Judge Lippincott sitting as a
Justice OF the Peace. The case was that OF
I. c. Jackson vs.. The Utah & Northern
Railroad for 800, the value OF q horse
killed by the railroad on the 9Th OF June
last at Divide. Mr.. Haldoru OF Mcbride &
Haldorn appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr..
Pemberton for the defendant road.
Mr.. Jackson was sworn and testified to
the fact that OF that Date he had a horse
OF the value OF one hundred dollars killed
apparently by a locomotive Of the defend.
ant company. 1t was lying about twenty
feet from the rails and it's appearance pre-.
sented all the signs of having been thrown
where it lay by an engine, and when he saw
it the section hands OF the road were in the
act OF burying it. He had notified Mr..
Fleming. the claim agent OF the road, and
he had offered to compromise his loss for
$65. As he valued the animal at more
than this he bad not replied to Mr.. Flem-
ing's offer.
Mr.. Pemberton only asked Mr.. Fleming
~ he ho1 ooon %ha o~;.roI l:IlaL O. -L.L
he replied he had not. Mr.. Penberton
then asked for a nonsuit under the ruling
OF the Supreme Court in the B~ielenberg case.
from a copy OF the report OF which he read
the views OF the court. The court held
that section 713 OF the compiled statutes
which defines the liability OF railroad COM
panies for running over or against any OF
the domestic animals mentioned uncoa.
in that it throws upon the de-.
fendant the duty Of showing that it was
not negligent. instead OF requiring the
plaintiff to show negligence as in ali cases
where damage is sought to be recovered. |
The Supreme Court holds negligence to be |
the gist OF the action, which must be |
and proved before the plaintiff can !
|
Mr.. Haldorn in reply said he was unpre.
pared for a motion OF this nature. Mr.. |
VOLui 0sOCAuCy AOE OHc EUhO, uAu given 0lm l
10 understand that the present proceedings |
would be allowed to take the usual course |
to an appeal by the road. He
urther argued hat the action OF the claim |
agent OF the road, in offering to settle the
:ase by compromise, and OF the section
hands. in undertaking to dispose OF the
lorse killed by the engine of the defendant,
waived the question Of negligence as they
bowed acceptance OF responsibility for
be killing.
Mr.. Pemberton admitted both facts
Urged but claimed they were not evidence
the defendant. A defendant might
,ffer to compromise a case whether he is
Of the act alleged or not. The act
II the section hands in burying the animal
lid not show responsibility either as that
vas the only thing left to be done under the
|
Judge Lippincott took the matter under !
until this morning. |