850 ANNUAL REPORTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



United States v. Stock Yards Terminal Company. 



[178 Fed., 19; Circular No. 20, Office of the Solicitor; Circular No. 33, Office of the Solicitor.] 



This case involved a shipment of live stock from Montana to Chicago, 111., via St. 

 Paul, The initial carrier liad itself transported the live stock beyond the statutory 

 limit without water, food, or rest at the time they were delivered to the defendant, 

 which thereafter confined them for two hours and five minutes additional. Judg- 

 ment was secured against the initial carrier. The lower court held that, as the Gov- 

 ernment had recovered from the initial carrier, the defendant was not suable in this 

 case. On appeal to the circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit the decision of 

 the lower court was affirmed upon a different ground, namely, that the defendant had 

 not knowingly and willfully violated the statute, applying the doctrine in St. Louis 

 and San Francisco Railroad Company v. United States (169 Fed., 69; Circular No. 17, 

 Office of the Solicitor). 



United States v. Southern Pacific Co. 



[172 Fed., 909: Circular No. 28, Office of the Solicitor.] 



The court held in this case that an action Ijy the United States under the twenty- 

 eight-hour law is a civil action, with all the ordinary incidents thereof, including 

 the liability of the defeated party for costs. In such a case, in the district of Oregon, 

 a docket or attorney's fee of $40 is taxable against the defendant, according to sections 

 824 and 837, Revised Statutes. It was held that the prevailing party was not entitled 

 to tax, as part of the costs, the fees of the marshal for serving subpoenas on witnesses 

 without the district and more than 100 miles from the place of trial; the mileage for wit- 

 nesses of the prevailing party may be charged only from any point to which a subpoena 

 would run, namely, from any point within the district and for not exceeding 100 miles 

 from without the district. Under section 850, Revised Statutes, the United States 

 is entitled, when the prevailing party, to tax as costs the necessary expenses of a sal- 

 aried employee taken from his place of business to attend as a witness for the Govern- 

 ment regardless of the distance traveled by him. 



United States v. Northern Pacific Terminal Co. 



[Circular No. 30, Office of the Solicitor; not reported in the Federal Reporter.] 



In this case the defendant contended that being a terminal company it was not a 

 carrier within the meaning of the act, and also that the defendant could not be held 

 liable on a consignment when the Government had theretofore recovered from the 

 initial carrier for confining the same shipment. lioth these contentions were over- 

 ruled. The court als^o held that the time consumed in switching cars of live stock 

 from one track to another about the switching yards should not be deducted from the 

 time of carriage. 



Baltimore and Ohio Southwestern Railway Co. v. United States. 



[Circular No. 31, Office of the Solicitor.] 



On March 14, 1910, by an evenly divided bench, the Supreme Court of the United 

 States affirmed the decision of the circuit court of appeals for the sixth circuit, holding 

 that the shipment and not the train load is the unit of violation under the statute. 

 (See Circulars Nos. 2 and 3; 159 Fed., 33, 38.) No opinion on the merits was delivered. 

 On April 4, 1910, upon motion of the plaintiff in error, a rehearing was granted, and the 

 case has been set for reargument during the month of October, 1910. 



Wabash Railroad Co. v. United States. 



[178 Fed., 5; Circular No. 35, Office of the Solicitor.] 



This case covered a shipment of cattle from Kansas City, Kans., to Elmo, Mo. A 

 judgment was rendered against the Wabash Railroad Company for confining the cattle 

 more than twenty-eight hours. A jjrinted request for extension of the time to thirty- 

 Bix hours accompanied the shipment. The lower court ruled out this request and dis- 

 regarded it in entering the judgment. The circuit court of appeals for the eighth cir- 

 cuit reversed the decision of the trial court and held that a legal request for confinement 



