ANIMALS RUNNING AT LARGE, ETC. 629 



Missouri; ^^^ but a plaintiff there may recover though guilty 

 of some negligence, if the defendant by the use of ordinary 

 care could have avoided the injury: it is only where the plain- 

 tiff's negligence contributes directly to the injury that he 

 is precluded.^-'*^ The doctrine has now been abolished in 

 IlHnois.^^^ 



As a rule, the burden of showing contributory negligence 

 is on the defendant : its absence need not be averred or proved 

 by the plaintiff.^^* But where a complaint alleged that the 

 plaintiff was without fault, the defendant was held entitled 

 to the benefit of evidence of contributory negligence though 

 he had not pleaded it.^^^ And there are cases holding that 

 due care or the absence of contributory negligence on the 

 part of the plaintiff must be alleged and shown. ^^® But where 

 an injury is alleged to be wilfully done, it is not necessary to 

 allege that the plaintiff's carelessness did not contribute 

 thereto. ^^'^ 



135. Notice; Action; Parties; Pleading. — In order to main- 

 tain an action the statutory provisions as to notice of the 

 claim, if there are any, must have been complied with.*^* 

 It has been held that the notice need contain nothing but 

 a statement of the claim and of the fact of the injury;^** that 



"' Brooks V. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 35 Mo. App. S7i- 



"■"^ Moore v. Kan. City & I. R. T. R. Co., 126 Mo. 265. 



'^' See Cicero & P. St. R. Co. v. Meixner, 160 111. 320. 



==* Joyner v. So. Car. R. Co., 26 S. C. 49; Whittier v. Chic, M. & St. P. 

 R. Co., 24 Minn. 394; Cairo & St. L. R. Co. v. Woosley, 85 111. 370. 



"" Long V. Southern R. Co., 50 S. C. 49- 



''° Jeffersonville, M. & I. R. Co. v. Lyon, 72 Ind. 107: Stearns v. Old 

 Colony & F. R. R. Co., i Allen (Mass.) 493- 



°" Indianapolis, P. & C. R. Co. v. Petty, 30 Ind. 261. 



'^ Kan. Pac. R. Co. v. Ball, 19 Kan. 535; South & North Ala R. Co. 

 V. Reid, 66 Ala. 250; Cole v. Chic. & N. R. Co., 38 la. 311; Ryan v. Same 



(Wis.), ^^ N. w. Rep. 894. 



'"'' Mackie v. Cent. R. of la., 54 la- 540. 



The misnomer of the defendant was held not to invalidate the notice m 

 Martin v. Cent. la. R. Co., 59 la. 411. 



