THE SOLICITOB. 917 



into another State. The railroad company appealed on the grounds 

 that no violation of the provisions of the act on the part of the defend- 

 ant occurred while the cattle were in transportation through Canada 

 and that the twenty-eight-hour law is not applicable to a shipment 

 originating in one State and ending in another which, in the course of 

 transportation, passes through a foreign country. The court of 

 appeals afiirmed the decision of the lower court. 



United States v. New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. 

 (191 Fod., 938; Circular No. 60, Office of Solicitor.) 



The only question involved in this case was as to what constitutes 



E roper space and opportunity to rest in the cars for cattle. It was 

 ela that when the cars arc not unloaded all the animals contained 

 therein must have sufficient space for lying down at the same time. 

 The court, in rendering this decision, followed the case of United 

 States V. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co., reported 

 in 186 Fed., 541, which held that when cattle are transported in inter- 

 state commerce each animal should be allowed at least 2^ feet of space 

 in the cars in which to rest. 



United States v. Erie R. R. Co. 

 (191 Fed., 941; Circular No. 61, Office of Solicitor.) 



The same question was presented in this case as in the one last men- 

 tioned, namely, what constitutes proper space and opportunity to 

 rest in the cars for cattle, and the court held the same way as in that 

 case. 



United States v. New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. 

 (Circular No. 62, Office of Solicitor; not reported in the Federal Reporter.) 



This decision involved 11 actions. The court held that a judgment 

 recovered from a preceding carrier for violation of the twenty-eight- 

 hour law is not a bar to a subsequent action against the connecting 

 carrier, which, presumablv, had Knowledge of the length of time ani- 

 mals had been confined without rest, water, and food, and the defend- 

 ant is not relieved from complying with the statute on the ground 

 that the preceding carrier first violated its provisions and paid the 

 penalty provided by the statute, even thougn a new period equal to 

 the statutory time had not expired. The court followed United 

 States V. New York Central & Hudson River RaOroad Co. (156 Fed., 

 249), and United States v. Lehigh Vallev R. R. Co. (184 Fed., 871; 

 affirmed in 187 Fed., 1006). It was held, further, that a connecting 

 carrier is bound, as a matter of law, to make reasonable inquiry of the 

 j)receding carriers as to the time the transportation began and whether 

 the statute was complied with in transit. The court also held that 

 the words "knowingly" and "willfully" do not imply a wanton or 

 malicious purpose, but a failure to exercise diligence loy the receiving 

 carriers in unloading for rest, feed, and water after receiving the live 

 stock and having reason to know that the animals had not been rested 

 or given food and water within the time specified in the act. 



