The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-03-09
SOME LEGAL OPINIONS.

The wisdom displayed by King Solomon in setting the ownership of a disputed baby ha scome down through many cen t,ries as an evidence of wonderful knowl- edge of human nature, which 1t really was, but some of the problems which come before modern courts would make the wise King scratch his head. On the other hand the ingenious methods used by complainants to get verdicts would hardly have occurred to the primitive people of Solomon's day.
 For example, woman in the State of New York. while driving in the dark lad to cross a temporary driveway crossing the tracks of railroad. Her horse be- came frightened and threw her vehicle off the crossway and injured her, for which she sued the company. She got a verdict in the lower court, but when the case went to the appellate court it was reversed. the judges holding that the railroad company wss not bound to build a bridge broad enough to prevent wild horse from getting off it. And. they
  how wide must the bridge be to ensure safety? In other words, if bridge is wide enough for safety when a gentle horse is driven over 1t how wide must 1t be to prevent a shying horse from getting of it? The judges wisely decided not to go into particulars and contented themselves with deciding for the com pany.
 Another suit against railroad was recently decided in Tennessee. and 1t was than the New York suit. A farmer liv- ing near the railroad owned some geese and they. after the manner of their kind, strayed where they had no business. A passing train came along and killed three of them and the farmer sued the road for damages. Here. also. the lower court decided against the railroad, but the Supreme Court reversed the verdict. The Tennessee statutes require railroad engineers and brakemen to sound the whistle and put on the brakes when there is ''an animal or obstruction on the tracks, and there was the conundrum presented for the wisdom of the court to wrestle with. Is goose an animal. or an obstruction in the eye of the law, such as would require the whistle to be footed and the brakes put on? Admit ting that he Is both an animal and an obstruction, did the railroad employees comply with the law governing such emergencies? As the farmer had no evidence to offer except the geese. and as the live ones were not competent wit nesses in a court of justice, he had noth- ing in his favor except the dead bodies of the slain fowls. The court was bothered. but the judge who delivered the opinion stated on behalf of himself and associates. that the statute does not require the stopping of trains to pre- vent Ahnning over birds such as geese chickens. ducks, pigeons, canaries and other birds that may be kept for pleasure or profit. Birds have wings to move them quickly from places of danger, and it Is presumed they will use them, violent presumption. perhaps. in case of a goose an animal which appears to be 10th tt | stoop from his dignity to escape a pass ing train. But the line must be drawr | somewhere, and we are of the opinior that the goose is the proper bird to draw | it att
 While there may be some approach tt | frivolity in the opinion we imagine tha it was about the best they could do under l the circumstances. but whether 1t will be considered precedent for future courts is a question.