Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-11-12
CoU.fT DECISIONS.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest 10
Our People.
DlGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
tExciusively for -Pllot>
CRAWFORD v. SOUTHERN RY. &C


Supreme Court OF South Carolina.
October i. 1899.
IN AN ACTION TO RECOVER FOR
THE KILLING OF CATTLE WHILE
IN TRANSIT ON y RAILROAD, a
STATEN ENT OF THE ENGINEER
OF THE TRAIN. MADE WHILE
THEY WE'RE BEING LOADED,
THAT HE WOULD KILL THEM
BEFORE HE REACHED y GER
TAIN POINT. Is ADMISSIBLE TO
SHOW HOW lie INTENDED TO
RUN THE TRAIN.
This was an action founded on the
loss of certain cattle killed while in
railroad company. There was Il juds-
melt Tor plaintiff and defendant ap-
peaicd.
The court says:
The first exception imputes error in
The admission of the testimony OF the
witness Owens and the plaintiff as to
certain remarks made by The engineer
at Rdgcway when The pinlnt,rr was NM
ting the cattle on the train. IT appears
from an examination of the case" ut
,hepclnt where Tho ruling objected to
was made. that while The plaintiff was
engaged in loading the car with cat
tie the engineer. who had charge of
the locomotive by which the train to
which the car was attached was run.
came back to the platform where the
iohdinS was going on, ana said che
would XIII those damn cattle beforo
he got to Charlotte" The ruling of the
court in admitting the testimony was
based upon the ground that, being the
aseht oil the cofftTrfr5- to run the en-
glhe. any declaration that he may have
made us TO the manner i'm which he
intended to perform that duty was
copetcnt. In that view of the matter.
we think there was no error in ruling:
lnr ~ ia we'll settled that the declara-
lions OF an agent. within the scoDe OF
MS agency, are the declarations of his
prihcinnl, and are therefore Competent
III So ihen the testimony was not hear
say. ana the objection upon the ground
cannot be sustained. II the objection
Is based uron the ground that the
PRINCIPAL is not liable for the willful
or malicious conduct of the agent
enough that point IS. not distinctly
Drought out in the eXception) the case
OF Hart V. Railroad Co. and the cases
cited ut page 43G, 80 S. c., and page 10,
II = t., show that such point is UNI
tcnabie. where. as in this case, the
conduct referred to Is within the scope
OF the agency. The case Of Piedmont
Mfg. Co. V. Columbia &c G.. r. Co., cited
ana relied upon by counsel for appel
ianl. is not in point; for the declara-
tions there were made after the event,
ana not within Telescope of the agency.
IN That case the rule as we have laid
It down was distinctly approved: for
me late Chief Justice Simpson, In de-
iiVe!inE the opinion of the court. saws
(spcaking of the rules of evidence in
relation To the admissibiiity of the dec
laration OF an agent to bind the prin-
cipaD: These rules would allow such
declarations when constituting part
or the res gcstae, or when made within
The scope of the agency, should not be
allowed. But here the declarations in
question were a part OF the res gestae,
made by the person intrusted with the
duty of running the train which carried
the cattle. while the train was being
loaded with the cattle The first cy-
ception must, therefore. be overruled
Affirmed.