Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-09-13

ofoN IltfI FACTS STATED BELOW
~ RAILROAD COMPANY IS NOT
LIABLE FOR THE KILLING OF a
DOG BY ONE OF IT'S TRAINS.
The case Is set forth in the opinion
of the Court.
The Court says:
The defendant railroad company
Killed a Liewellyn softer female dog
named pink" by it's fast mail and
passenger train, ON 23d March, 1898, in
the little village OF Swansea, i'll Lex
inSton county. S. c., while said dog
WIS WI. me property Of the rlainiiff. The
bl;linilif now seeks to recover 5000 rs
damages for such dog killing
At the close of PLAINTIFFS testimony
Judge Gary granted a non-sult on de-
fendnnts motion. upon the authority of
the case of Wilson V. Railroad Co, 10
Rich. Law. 80. The ground of this
motion Tor IL insult was that there
was no evidence OF negligence. There
Is no longer any room to doubt that
n DOG Is personal property in this State.
itut the serious question, under plain
tin's appeal herein, is whether the
ordinary rules governing negligence on
the part of railroads can be applied
TO domesticated fowls, dogs, etc 1t is
Il TACT that the case Of Wilson V. Rail
road Co. supra, relied upon by the
circuit judge to sustain his decision
granting non-suit, is authority
strictly. speaking. for the position that
inc rule In banners Case, 4 Rich. Law,
"-?, does not apply as against railroads
when they kill dogs. Or, in other words,
IIhae no presumption of negligence
arises upon the Killing of a dog by n
railroad train as against such railroad.
IL seems to us. however, that the rea-
son of the court in the case cited from
~ Kich. Law, %, would logically lead
to q proper further conclusion, namely.
that the owner OF Il domestic fowl or
dog cannot claim it Is the duty owed
such owner by II railroad company
when such domestic fowl or dog is upon
Tie track of such re ilroad COMPANY.
that the latter, ii it can. shall come to
dead halt. Here is the language re-
ferrcd TO: ct would, indeed be n
startling doctrine 10 hold that train
or cars. whether freightcd with produce
or WIN passengers, and charged with
the transportation of the government
mail, should b. arrested in its progress,
ana compelled, at the hazard OF re-
sponSiDility, to come 10 q dead half
whenever a domestic fowl, or perchancc
q yelping cur, should happen TO take
its stand upon the track, I'm defiance of
the loud warning which is proclaimed
b" the motion Of The train ana tho ac
t!on OF the machinery" In the case Mt
par 1t was admitted by the plaintjfr
mat The dog saw the train approach-
ing' that the signal whistle had been
n'p W u ioI 'oWallSea TAT which point this
tram ala not stop that the engineer
turned -f0usc tIovtr me gteMm COCKS.
winch enacted a noise calculated TO
lrlShien animals from it's track. and
mat The train had TO use force to climb
IN eiryation just outside Swansea. The
Csrcuit Judge felt that the declaration
OF the judge I'm the case he cited from
10 Rlch. Law o. was abundant author
ny for The holding made by him that
the plaintiif had failed to establish any
hegli&ence which could render the rail.
r9na aciendcnt liable in damages to the
pialntiiI. This being so. the non-suit
was properly granted. 1t is the iudr.
inent OF this court that the Judgment
OF the Circuit Court be affirmed.
sAULsiV. ALDERMAN & SONS CO.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
June %. 1899.
ALLOWING a COW TO ROAM AT
LARGE IS NOT THE PRONIAtATr,
CAUSE OF ITS DEATH BY BEING
NEGLiGENTLY RUN OVER BY a