Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1904-12-28
Supreme Court Decision.
Continued Column l, Page 81

of any proof bearing on the subject"
In Golden " c. R. & Pac. Ry Co.
"a Mo. App SO, defendant after re
pairing it's bridge left pile of boards
on the side of the highway. 1t fright
ened plaintiffs horses. They ran
away and injured her.
Evidence was admitted that gentle
horses had been frightened by the
same pile Of boards at the same place
The court said: The evidence was Of
fered to show the character of the
object of complaint, and was not to
try collateral matter If leaving an
object in the highway which is calcu-
lated to frighten horses is wrong
and the question is made whether
such object is so calculated. what bet
ter evidence can be had of that than
actual experiment? The great weight
of authority favors the ruling Of the
trial court
Evidence Of this nature is not new
in this State. In Longabaugh V. V.
&. T. R r Co. New Ell in suit
against railroad company for damages
occassioned by setting fire to corI-
wood by one Of its locomotives, it was
held that the previous fires in the
same place caused by Goals dropped
from defendants locomotive and also
of the emmision at the same place Of
sparks Of sufficient size to set fire 10
cordwood was admissible
Exception was taken to the exclu-
sion of the answer to the question ad-
dressed to Mr.. Meyers the master me-
Charlie of appellant as to whether it
vas necessary and convenient for the
appellant CORPORATION to sound the
whistle at stated hours for the puTpos ;
Of notifying the employees in the
shops to commence and quit WORK.
The question was inadmissahle.
The subject vas Of common know
ledge and experience and it was for
the jury and not for the witness 10
determine whether the whistle was
convenient and necessary.
Appellant is incorporated under the
general laws providing for the incor-
Doration of railroad companies Sec.
97t ct seq. Cutting Compilation
Among It's powers are: H'tenth-to
erect and maintain al necessary and
convenient buildings. stations, depots,
and futures and machinery for the ac-
commoGation and use of their passen-
gers. freight and business and to OBJ
tain and hold the lands and other
property and necessary therefore, See
9SS.
1t is claimed that this provision
protects appellants in the use Of the
whistle. similar defense was made
f,rT,t Cr111-o.sr 80
The court said: Their rignt to use
whistle 7 7st he conceded. but like
all other rights it must he exercised
as not to endanger and injure others
It is no answer to say that they did
not erect or blow the whistle for any
such purpose, or that they hod no
knowledge that it frightened horses
or that they did not suppose it was
calculated - frighten thems These
facts, if the existed they were. bound
to know or anticipate. When q man
exercises a particular light in a particu
lar manner calculated to produce in
jury TO another. he must he held tC
the knowledge Of the possible or prob
able consequences Ct his act. and con
not be excused because he did not
intend or expect these consequences
It is an elementary rule that every
man must be presumed to intend tn
natural and necesss y consequences ot
his acts, and there is nothing found in
This case which will exempt the de
PENDANTS from the operation Of that
rule
We have examined the remaining
exceptions and find no error in them
The judgment and order denying q
motion for a new trial should be If
frmed. It is so ordered.
RelEnap c. ].
We concur: