218 Trans. Acad. Sci. of St. Louis. 



proach was flush with the tops of the rails, and sloped gently 

 towards the track. An approaching train giving no warning 

 signals was hidden from view by cars on a switch track. 

 Under the ordinances, the speed of the train was limited to 

 six miles per hour, and it was admitted by the trainmen, none 

 of whom knew anything of the accident when it occurred, 

 that the speed of the train exceeded this limit. Other evi- 

 dence of those who saw the accident, showed that the speed 

 was very great. It was shown that the boy was not hit by 

 the train. The fact that the upper part of his body was 

 without injury, was corroborative of this evidence He fell 

 over after part of the train had passed, falling in the general 

 direction of the train, and rolled under the wheels. In the 

 first trial the writer gave it as his opinion that the blow from 

 the air current would be sufficient to topple him over, and 

 give him a sufficient tendency in rotation to roll him towards 

 and under the wheels; and further, that this action would not 

 have been appreciable if the train had been running at a 

 speed of six miles per hour. The jury and the Supreme 

 Court accepted this explanation,* but the case was sent back 

 for retrial on account of other evidence. 



A report of the evidence obtaiued wide circulation, and as 

 a result, the writer received a marked copy of a Paris paper, 

 giving an account of the evidence, and stating that a French 

 soldier had recently been killed in a precisely similar way. 

 With several companions he had been surprised by a high- 

 speed train while in a cut having masonry walls. All but one 

 made their escape from the cut. He backed against the wall 

 and out of reach of the train. He was, however, swept along 

 and under the wheels. 



Jn the second trial Professor Woodward testified in corrob- 

 oration of my testimony. No contesting evidence upon the 

 points covered in our testimony was offered by the railroad 

 company in either trial, but the Supreme Court on the second 

 appeal, t reversed the action which it had taken on the first 

 appeal. 



* Graney v. St. L., I. M. & S. R R., 140 Mo 89. 



t No 9820. Graney et ah, Resps. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., Applts., 67 

 S. W. Reporter, 276. 



