€36 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OF FENCING LAWS. 



is inadmissible.^*! The word "reckless" applied to killing 

 implies no more than a want of that degree of care re- 

 quired by law of the defendant's employees.^*^ "Wilfully 

 and willingly killed" means that the killing was inten- 

 tional.^*^ 



A declaration charging negligence in not signalling, as 

 directed by statute, and in running at a high rate of speed, 

 as prohibited by the common law, was held bad for 

 duplicity.^** So, where negligence in running the train and 

 also in failing to fence was charged.**^ But both grounds 

 are traversed by filing the general issue.^*® And in a 

 Missouri case it was held that as negligence in fact may con- 

 sist of a number of negligent acts preceding the injury and 

 leading up and contributing to it, the plaintiff, in stating 

 a cause of action therefor, is not obliged to select one of these 

 acts and rely upon it. Accordingly, a petition which alleged 

 in one count a number of negligent acts on the part of the 

 company conducing to the injury complained of was held to 

 state but a single cause of action.**'' A claim for stock killed 

 after suit commenced cannot be united with a claim for 

 stock killed before the commencement of the suit.*** 



The petition, on motion, should be required to state the 

 day, hour and place of injury and the course and character 

 of the train with as much definiteness as possible.^** 



A conflict between the values given in the sworn state- 

 ment and the petition, in an action for double damages, does 



™ Choate v. Southern R. Co. (Ala.), 24 South. Rep. 373. 

 "° Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Barker, 96 Ala. 435. 



"■^ Chic, St. L. & P. R. Co. V. Nash, i Ind. App. 298; Same v. Same 

 (Ind.), 24 N. E. Rep. 884. 

 '" Louisville, E. & St. L. R. Co. v. Hill, 29 111. App. 582. 

 '"' Harris v. Wabash R. Co., 31 Mo. App. 125. 

 """ Chic, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Magee, 60 111. 529. 



■"" Hill V. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 121 Mo. 477, affirming 49 Mo. App. 520. 

 "» Toledo, P. & W. R. Co. v. Arnold, 49 111. 178. 

 "^ Little Rock & F. S. R. Co. v. Smith (Ark.), 50 S. W. Rep. 502. 



