THE SOLICITOR. 849 



that it was a question for the jury as to whether the pens were properly equipped, the 

 court said that the statute did not define what was a properly equipped pen, but 

 simply provided that they should be so arranged as to permit stock to be properly 

 rested, fed, and watered therein. It was held no defense to say that the person in 

 charge of the stock would not consent to their removal to such pens. The word 

 "knowingly" as used in the act wa.s held to mean "with knowledge of the facts," it 

 being the duty of the company or its agents to use reasonable dilligence to know the 

 facts; the word "willfully" was held to mean intentionally and vohmtarily. Proof 

 by a preponderance of the evidence was deemed sulhcient. The jury was permitted 

 to fix the amount of the penalty. 



United States v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. 



[173 Fed., 704; Circular No. 21, Oince of the Solidtor.) 



This case covered a shipment of calves, transported from Aulandor, N. C, to Norfolk, 

 Va. Owing to the failure of the conductor of the freight train to report the time 

 during which they had been without feed, rest, and water on his train, the stock were 

 confined in violation of the statute. It was claimed by the defendant company that 

 they had issued instructions to their employees covering such shipments, which the 

 conductor had failed to observe in this case. The circuit court of appeals for the fourth 

 circuit held this no defense, reversing the lower court. A suit under the statute was 

 held to be a civil proceeding. The words "knowingly and willfully," as u.-'ed in the 

 act, do not import an evil motive. Lack of foresight and due diligence on the part of 

 agents of a carrier of live stock are imputable to the carrier, and it was expressly held 

 that, in this case, the carrier knowingly and willfully violated the act. The assess- 

 ment of the penalty was for the court. 



Southern Pacific Company v. United States. 

 [171 Fed., 300; Circular No. 23, Office of the Solicitor.) 



It was alleged in this case that the company had transported a consignment of sheep 

 from Reno, Nov., to San Francisco, Cal., in violation of the act. Upon appeal from a 

 decision in favor of the United States, the circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit 

 held that the statute was not unconstitutional, as delegating legislative power to the 

 shipper, because he was authorized to extend the time of confinement of his stock 

 from twenty-eight to thirty-six hours. The contention that the act was void for 

 uncertainty in regard to its provisions for the confinement of sheep was overruled. 

 It was also held that the shipment, not the train load, was the unit ot violation. 



Southern Pacific Company v. United States. 

 [171 Fed., 364; Circular No. 24, Office ot the Solioifor.) 



An unlawful confinement of sheep, loaded at Corinne, Utah, consigned to South 

 San Francisco, Cal., was alleged in this case. It was contended that, while the 

 defendant company owned the road over which the shipment was transported, to bring 

 the prosecution in any other district than the one within which the violation took 

 place was contrary to the sixth amendment to the Constitution. The circuit court 

 of appeals for the ninth circuit held, however, in effect, that as a proceeding under 

 the statute was a civil, not a criminal, action, the point was not well taken. 



United States v. St. Joseph Stock Yards Company. 

 [Circular No. 2.5, Office of the Solicitor; not reported in the Federal Reporter.] 



This case involved four shipments of live stock from points in \ebniska to South St. 

 Joseph, Mo. The defendant was a terminal company. The court held, in effect, that 

 it was a railroad company within the meaning of the act; that the tmnsportation from the 

 points of origin to the slock yards at South St. Jo.^eph, Mo., was a continuous shipment; 

 that the purpose of the act is remedial and that the defendant, a connecting carrier, 

 must learn at its peril how long live stock delivered to it had been previously con- 

 fined without water, feed, and rest; that while in mitigation, it was no defense to say 

 that the defendant acted promptly and quickly in transporting the live stock to the 

 unloading pens. 



73477°— aub 1910 54 



