Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-05-30


! an oath or the opportunity Of cross
| examination. 1t is az natural to con
( clude that railroad company will pay
interest on it's bonds and meet it's
! fixed charges, if not also that 1t win
| lay hetterlnents. as it is to believe that
! it will meet it's operating expenses
| If i. were the rule &C ev;dence that a
! binding or other presumption would
attach in favor Of railroad company
! for any item it NAV classify or charge
! in its own behalf to operating ex
T. penses. the same self interest which.
/ in the absence of any contrary show
! ing, may be presumed to result
| in an economical management
! might prompt the charging OF
! doubtful and uncertain items to the
! expense account if suit for taxes
I were anticipated. Unless admitted
| without objection the nature Of the
! items should be shown Or q. LEASE
! Jumped into different classifications
| in order that the court NAV deter,
| mine whether they are properly
! chargeable as expense O. operation
! Home ms. Co. V Baltimore Ware
house Co IS U. S. 527 Abbots Trial
| Brief. Civil. 32. This need not re-
| suit in much delay Or difficulty.
| Prior to the trial the accountant
testifying may take the total II
| MONEYS received from fares, freight
Or ether sources and classify and as
certain the amounts Of the differelt.
kinds of expense such as that shown
b. the pay roll for the usual employ
Of z road. for fuel. ties. and other
| material and supplies which are az
mittedly Or clearly, necessary and
doubtful items can be separately ilsta-i
or classified and their amounts a
Itotals brought 10 the attention o. lj:a
court and allowed to so to the jury
Or not as the court. land not 40 the,
witness may determine, unless -
question OF fact arise regarding the
necessity for particular expenditures.
I The error in allowing the answer Of
Mr. Naestratti giving his result re-
garding the net earnings to stand after
he stated that he included such items
| Is he CeemeI prOpeI aud rejected
others which he thought improper is
we'll illustrated by his failure to include
the taxes as part Of tho operating
| expenses st YVES equivalent to per-
| hitting the witness to tell the jurr
IL that the taxes Ought not to be allowed
as a part Of the charges of operation
for the year, a matter OF iaH for the
trial judge and one previously deter.
mined by this court contrary to the
; opinion OF the witness. The objectinn
on The ground that is was a mattar
! @: law was promptly and properiy
. sustained 70 the question put to Mr..
tiiskav as to whether the company
. was liable for the taxes that the jury
II .Al aaacss .soFS tteJ-ear 1901. This
witness was not permitted to testify
, for the defendant, ); that the Company
) vas liable for its taxes ana, INHERENT
/, ally that theyawere unnecessary par.
OF its expenses. but the witness for the
}, State vas nermirted to give result
, which in effect said to the jury that
:. the taxes could not be allowed as par;
: ! of the charges .of operation. He in
Guided a. part OF the receipts which
;. the Company ought tDs-ha~e earned
r the amount in fares that would cove,
e the distances travelled on passes. N
{, though these' amour IS SHOULD be in
n Guided in determining >ehat the cain
z in Is. o. the Company ought TO be un
i lesshtha 1fisfendant; showed Mat III
: passes we're used by Its employees o,
), in e'.npection With Inc business of n.
rca,tt and if, the Company wishes L
4 ia generous ana carry passengers i"
I freight; 7Dr less than schedule rates
q the ordinary value Of ehessefaice rem
n dered would be- allowed In the est
( mate of whar the road ought to earn
! whether they should be so considered
v was question OF law. The witness a
# an accountant could estimate and Civ
@ the amounts or totals of those or Oth2
@ items specified or classified and thel
=. it would be for the court TO determin
|, which OF these should re considers
e 1 by the jury.
d. rs to what other items the witnes
Il Included or rejected in arriving at ri
d result We are. no. informed nor wer
K the district court or the jury furth2
& enlightened. No doubt maDv of tt
s. transactions shown blythe books wer
n properly placed limits Jestimste' b,l
IS whether others were -imDYopefly sc
" | whether he allowed items for expense
It. that ought to have been rejected G
:e rejected others that ought to hav
-. been allowed. as he did the payme1
~ hy the Company of the taxes ON il
AZ personal property. and whether h
lie cassed as receipts ANYTHING that ca!
- not be legally cOf1sitfereh $uch.l ca
e- not be ascert ained from hts .testimon
50 OF the record because the items q
he which his tres,iIt. is bastsla are NJ
M specified. t.i' ~ - -, 80 Z
=" In this regard the testimony Of NJ
Risky fer the Company is hardly moi
=. satisfactory. II is evident that hi
l" answer that the loss. from Operatio
- that year wis, 1894 80. WIS base
a1 either upon HIS. Judgment as to tt
- items allowable yr:upon the way the
had heen classiae,i in the banks, nett
er Of which. as we have said. shou
As' control the PROVINCE Of the court
* determining which are for; the co
ne sideration Of thei Jury. when IoOjectit
'at is. made. Notwtth stAassing, 1.-THE wit
70 discrepancy in their respective result