918 ANNUAL REPORTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



Chicago, Burlington & Quincy K. R. Co. v. United States, 

 (194 Fed., 342; Circular No. 63, OfTice of Solicitor.) 



This case involved a shipment of 17 carloads of sheep. The train 

 was delayed about two liours by the breaking of a drawbar and chain 

 of a train whicli met and passed it, by the slipping of a knuckle in the 

 coupler which separated it into two parts, and by the pulling out of 

 two drawbars in its cars, v/hich made it necessary to draw the two 

 ])arts of the train upon a side track and recouple them. Upon its 

 arrival at the stockyards the company dragged the sheep out of two 

 of the cars in the dark within the 36 hours, but left the unloading of 15 

 of the cars until the next morning, after the expiration of the 36 hours. 

 The carrier maintained that it did not knowingly and willfully violate 

 the law and that it was prevented from complying with it by acci- 

 dental or unavoidable causes which could not be anticipated or 

 avoided by the exercise of due diligence and foresight. The court 

 below instructed the jury to return a verdict for the Government, and 

 the railroad company appealed. The court of appeals in reversing the 

 decision of the lower court held that there was no substantial evidence 

 that the company willfully violated the law and that there was sub- 

 stantial evidence that it was prevented from unloading the sheep 

 within the 36 hours by accidental or unavoidable causes which could 

 not be anticipated or avoided by the exercise of due diligence and 

 foresight. 



Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. United States. 

 (195 Fed., 241; Circular No. 64, Office of Solicitor.) 



This is the case which was won by the Government in the lower 

 court (see Circular No. 42, Office of Solicitor) and referred to in the 

 preceding annual report. The lower court held that it is not enough 

 to show that animals "can" have food and water, but that it must 

 be shown that the animals "do" have proper food, water, space, and 

 opportunity to rest in the cars, boats, or other vessels where carried. 

 The railroad appealed from this decision on the ground that it is 

 essential to the recovery of the penalty that proof be made that the 

 defendant knew that the animals did not have proper food, water, 

 or space to rest in the cars which carried them, in affirming the 

 decision of the lower court it was held that this is not essential and 

 that the offense consists in knowingly and willfully confining animals 

 that lack proper food, water, space, and opportunity to rest in the 

 cars which transported them. 



United States v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. 



(185 Fed. Rep., 105.) 



The only question presented in this case is the proper construction 

 of the last proviso of section 1 of the act, relative to the limitation of 

 36 hours in the case of sheep. The lower court gave judgment for 

 the railroad, hold' g that wiiere the 36-hour period expires in the 

 nighttime the sheoj) need not be unloaded until daylight. The court 

 of appeals reversed this decision, and held that the period of time 

 referred to in section 1 as expiring in the nighttime has reference only 



