The Grangeville globe. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho) 1907-1922, 1912-12-05
L. YATES BESTS
HIGH LINE CO.
Supreme Court Sustains $665
Damages for Horses
Killed by r. r.

The supreme court Saturday
ruled in favor of the farmer and
adversely to the interests of the
railway company i'll a damage suit
brought against the corporation
to collect remuneratory sum
for the killing and wounding of
five horses by Il railway loco
motive.
The decision of the court is of
special importance to farmers and
livestock men throughout the
state whose animals or herds are
permitted to Craze upon the
lands traversed by railroad lines.
Lower Court for Yates.
In this case the complaint was
brought by Lafayette r. Yates
a farmer residing near Grange
vile, in Idaho county, against
the Camas Prairie Railroad com
pany. Yates asked for judgment
in the sum of 1865 for the killing
of three horses and the injuring
of two others by locomotive on
the Camas Prairie line ON Septem
ber 6, 1911.
The case was tried in the dis
trict court in Idaho county before
Judge Edgar G. Steele and a jury.
AT the conclusion of the testi-
mony in behalf of Yates conten-
tions attorneys for the railroad
company, moved for nonsuit on
the alleged grounds that Yates
had failed to prove a sufficient
case for the jury. Judge Steele
refused to grant the motion and
when the case was given to the
Jury a verdict for Yates in the
sum of $565 was returned. At
torneys' fees of $3.50 were also
asked in the complaint but the
jury cut this amount to 800.
Sullivan Writes Decision.
The supreme courts decision
affirms the Judgment Of the lower
court. Justice Sullivan wrote the
opinion of the higher tribunal and
Chief Justice Stewart concurred.
1t is conceded that the ami
mails killed got upon the track"
says the decision in part; upon a
public highway crossing in the
night and were struck by the en-
gine. 1t is also conceded that the
track was properly fenced on
both sides of the cattle, guards.
The only question presented is
whether under these conditions
the railroad company can be held
liable for the killing of the
horses.
instruction Correct
The jury was instructed that
the mere fact that the animals
vtre struck by a train upon a
public highway crossing was not
evidence of negligence on the
part of the railway company, and
.iiat Yates, the plaintiff, must
show by preponderance of evi-
tence that the company was gull
" of negligence or he could not
recover. The instruction given
by the court was clearly the law
in this case and the question then
presented is whether the evidence
shows negligence on the part of
the company in killing and injur-
ing the horses
"The evidence shows that the
night was dark, that the track
was straight, that the engine had
a proper headlight which was
burning brightly and that the
engineer saw bunch of horses
when about $50 yards from the
crossing, pass over it.
Did Not See Horses.
"The fact alone required the
engineer, if not to slacken his
train, to keep a very careful look
cut for horses. The evidence
shows that he did not see any
horses after they crossed the track
until they were struck by the en-
gine and one of them rolled off
the pilot ON the engineers side.
This of itself shows that he was
not keeping a very careful watch,
after having seen said horses run
across the highway when only