514 CARRIERS OF ANIMALS. 



all the means of explanation and excuse at hand. Here the 

 shippers, better than the carrier, can explain many things, and 

 these things they do not undertake to explain, nor do they 

 undertake to show that the loss was not attributable to a 

 failure to perform acts they themselves agreed to per- 

 form." 316 



But the majority of decisions go further than this and hold 

 that the burden of proving the carrier's negUgence in these 

 cases falls on the shipper whether he accompanied the stock 

 or not. 3^'^ 



Expert evidence is admissible as to the market value of 

 animals; ^^* a fortiori, as to their value where there is no 

 market value. ^^^ Thus, witnesses experienced in handling 

 and shipping cattle may express an opinion as to the extent 

 such cattle would shrink in weight in a given time, though 

 they had never seen the plaintiff's cattle.^*" And the plaintifif 

 may testify as to the condition and weight of cattle when he 

 purchased them, as tending to show their value.^^^ And 

 proof of the good condition of the cattle when shipped is 



"° Terre Haute & L. R. Co. v. Sherwood, 132 Ind. 129. And see the 

 note in 17 L. R. A. 339. See also Clark v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., 

 64 Mo. 440; St. Louis, L M. & S. R. Co. v. Weakly, 50 Ark. 397; Tex. 

 & Pac. R. Co. V. Arnold (Tex. Civ. App.), 40 S. W. Rep. 829; St. Louis 

 S. W. R. Co. V. Vaughan (Tex. Civ. App.), 41 id. 415; Grieve v. III. Cent. 

 R. Co., 104 la. 659. 



'" Hutchinson Carriers § 767, — where it is said that this rule "seems to 

 be supported by a preponderance of authority" and prevails in England, 

 Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Penn- 

 sylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and the United States courts, and 

 probably in Iowa and Maine. 



And see Smith v. Midland R. Co., 57 L. T. N. S. 813; Harris v. Midland 

 R. Co., 25 W. R. 63; Bankard v. Bait. & O. R. Co., 34 Md. 197; The J. C. 

 .Stevenson, 17 Fed. Rep. 540. 



'" Cantling v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 54 Mo. 385; Mo., K. & T. R. 

 -Co. V. Woods (Tex. Civ. App.), 31 S. W. Kep 237. 



"" Lachner Bros. v. Adams Exp. Co., 72 Mo. App. 13. 



"'» Mo. Pac. R. Co. V. Hall, 66 Fed. Rep. 868. 



'''St. Louis S. W. R. Co. V. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.), 32 S. W. 

 Rep. 225. 



