614 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OF FENCING LAWS. 



minish his right to compensation from those injuring the 

 animals. ^^^ 



In Missouri, it is not necessarily contributory negligence in 

 the owner of animals to permit them to roam at large near a 

 railway.^^** And where the plaintiff turned his horse into com- 

 mons near a track on which he knew there was salt, this was 

 held not to be negligence on his part which would prevent re- 

 covery.22'^ This rule is especially applicable where the com- 

 pany has neglected to fence.^^® Where no fence is necessary 

 and the stock was unlawfully at large, the company is liable 

 for the gross or wilful negligence of its employees but not for 

 the mere violation of a city ordinance regulating the rate of 

 speed.^^* In another case it was held that where the train 

 was running at an illegal rate of speed, the company was 

 liable for injuring an animal unlawfully at large, if it escaped 

 without the owner's knowledge and the train might have 

 been stopped.^** In a recent case it was held that permitting 

 an animal to run at large in violation of the stock law is not 

 the proximate cause of the killing of the animal on a public 

 crossing, where the company failed to give the statutory 

 signals. The court said: "Permitting domestic animals to 

 run at large in violation of the stock law is no doubt evidence 

 of negligence when considered only as an abstract question, 

 but the negligence of the plaintiff available to defendant in a 



'^ Chic, St. L. & N. O. R. Co. v. Jones, 59 Miss. 465. 



^ Schwarz v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 58 Mo. 207 ; Tarwater v. 



Same, 42 id. 193; Turner v. Kan. City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co., 78 id. 578; 



Hill V. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 121 id. 477; Nolon v. Chic. & A. R. Co., 23 Mo. 



App. ass- 

 See Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Kenney, 41 Mo. 271, 

 ^ Brown v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 27 Mo. App. 394. 

 '"Donovan v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 89 Mo. 147; Stanley v. Mo. 



Pac. R. Co., 84 id. 625; Boyle v. Same, 21 Mo. App. 416. 

 See Patton v. West End N. G. R. Co., 14 Mo. App. 589. 

 '" Windsor v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 45 Mo. App. 123. 

 And, generally, the company is liable for a wanton injury, even though 



the owner was negligent: Clem v. Wabash R. Co., 72 id. 433. 

 ™ Bowman v. Chic. & A. R. Co., 85 Mo. 533. 



