The daily commonwealth. (Greenwood, Leflore Co., Miss.) 1916-1919, 1917-08-01
NEGRO KILLED
IN COLD BLOOD"
This Discovery Probably Saved Y. 4
M. v. r. r. a Tidy Sum of
Money.

lNlS discovery fTODaDly SdNeu 1. ~
M. v. r. r. a Tidy Sum of
Money.
Memphis, July 10, 1917.
Editor The Commonwealth,
Greenwood, Miss.
Dear Sir: ~4
My attention has been called to All
item appearing in your issue of May
26th, headed "Negro Killed In Cold
Blood" which item further states that
Allen Bracket had been placed in Jail
for murder of Joe Poe, whose body
with a crushed skull was found on the
Y. & M. V. Railroad track at Rising
Sun on the morning of May 25th
1t appears that upon investigation
a clue was found which lead to the
arrest of Allen Bracket and his con-
fession that he and Poe's wife COM
mitted the murder and placed the body
On the railroad track. This discovery
has probably saved the Yazoo & Mis-
sissippi Valley Railroad Company a
tidy sum of money. Some years ago
the Mississippi Legislature enacted
section 1885 reading, "In all actions
against railroad companies, for dam
age done to persons or property, proof
Of injury inflicted by the running Of
locomotives or cars of said company
shall be prima facie evidence of the
want of reasonable skill and care on
the part of the servants of the COM
pany in reference to such injury. This
section shall also apply to passengers
and EMPLOYEES of railroad companies"
Had a suit been filed for the death
of Joe Poe, all that the plaintiff would
have had to have shown was that he
was found on the railroad track and
had injuries such as would probably
have been inflicted by being struck, or
u over, by a train and this, under
the above section, would have been
"Prima facie evidence of the want of
reasonable skill and care on the part
Of the servants of the company, and
unless the railroad could have shown,
by eye witnesses, just how he met his
death, a judgment would, no doubt,
have been rendered against it, as has
been done in numerous cases. During
the past year the railroad had to pay
a $15,000.00 verdict affirmed by the
Supreme Court where a white man
was found dead on the track on my
division and it was impossible to show
how the accident occurred, but it was
shown that he was last seen the even
ing before in a very intoxicated con-
dition walking along the railroad
track. He might have been lying on
the track in such a position that the
engineer could not have seen him. Be-
sides, the law does not require that the
engineer maintain a constant lookout,
and hisduties are such that he can
not do so. He might momentarily
have been doing something else about
the engine; or this man might have
attempted to catch on to a car of a
passing train and been thrown. Still,
while these were probably the facts,
as, of course no one believes that an
engineer would wilfully run over a hu-
man being, the company had to pay
$4,000 because it could not prove
by eye witnesses just how this intox-
icated person, at a place where he had
no right to be, met his death.
1t is certainly we'll known that great
numbers of trespassers are constant
ly beating their way wei the country
on railroad trains and a great many
Of them r killed by falling off such
trains under circumstances which pre-
clude the possibility of any member
of the train crew knowing anything
about it.
-, Is it reasonable or just to give adj
vantage by law to the families of
such persons who themselves were
violating the law in stealing rides on
trains, or in trespassing on the track
at the time they met their death?
Ought not the burden at least rest up
on their representatives to show how
the accident occurred and that it was
through the want of skill and care on
the part of the employees of the rail-
road, rather than conclude that this
wal the case because the facts are not
known?
1t would be just as fair, where a me-
gro was found dead some morning on
a plantation, to hold the owner re-
sponsible because he was unable to
show just how the death occurred,
What would the people of the State
say about a statute that affected its
planters in that way? If unfair to
them, is it not unfair to the railroads?
have often heard attorneys who
specialize in damage suits against
railroads SAY that they thought this
a very unjust statute and that it
should be repealed. I do not believe
that there is any fair minded man who
would seriously undertake to defend
it. If this is true, why was it en-
acted and why is it permitted to re-
! main a law and the weapon by which
tn erailroads Of the state are compell-
ed to pay out many thousands of dol