EVIDENCE. 639 



Ai-kansas,*«8 California,*»8 Colorado,"^ Florida,*ii Geor- 

 gia,"2 Indiana,"^ Iowa,"* Kentucky,"" Maryland,"^ Mis- 

 sissippi,"' Missouri,"^ New Hampshire,"^ North Caro- 



"" Little Rock & Ft. S. R. Co. v. Finley, 37 Ark. 562; Same v. Hanson, 

 39 id. 413; Same v. Jones, 41 id. 157; St. Louis, L M. & S. R. Co. v. 

 Taylor, $7 id. 136; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Thomason, 59 id. 140. 



The statute makes the fact of "kilHng" prima facie evidence that it was 

 done by the train, and this does not extend to other forms of injury. But 

 when it is proved that the injury was done by the train, then the same 

 presumption of negligence arises against the company as in cases of kill- 

 ing: St. Louis, L M. & S. R. Co. v. Hagan, 42 id. 122. 



In St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Sageley, 56 id. 549, it was held that, where 

 a dead animal is found near a railroad track, there is no legal presump- 

 tion that it was killed at all or, if killed, that it was killed on the track 

 or by a train. 



'"McCoy V. Cal. Pac. R. Co., 40 Cal. 532; Orcutt v. Pac. Coast R. Co., 

 5s id. 291. 



""Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Cahill, 11 Colo. App. 245; Denver & 

 R. G. R. Co. V. Henderson, 10 Colo. i. 



But the burden is on the plaintifif where it is shown that the road was 

 properly fenced or that no fence was required: Ibid. 



'"Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. Co. v. Wellman, 26 Fla. 344; Same v. 

 Garrison, 30 id. 567. 



Otherwise where the road is properly fenced: Savannah, F. & W. R. Co. 

 V. Rice, 23 id. 575. 



""Ga. R. & Bkg. Co. v. Monroe, 49 Ga. 373; Same v. Bird, 76 id. 13; 

 Same v. Wilhoit, 78 id. 714. 



'"Where the road is not fenced: Indianapolis & C. R. Co. v. Means, 

 14 Ind. 30. 



'" Brentner v. Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 68 la. 530. 



''' Ky. Cent. R. Co. v. Lebus, 14 Bush (Ky.) 518; Louisville & N. R.Co. 

 V. Simmons, 85 Ky. 151; Grundy v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.), 2 S. W. 

 Rep. 899. 



""Keech v. Baltimore & W. R. Co., 17 Md. 32; Northern Central 

 R. Co. V. Ward, 63 id. 362. 



'" Vicksburg & M. R. Co. v. Hamilton, 62 Miss. 503; New Orleans & 

 N. R. Co. V. Bourgeois, 66 id. 3; Louisville, N. O. & T. R. Co. v. Smith, 

 67 id. is; Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. v. Doggett, Ibid. 250; Roberds 

 V. Mobile & O. R. Co., 74 id. 334. 



"'Where the company failed to fence: Wymore v. Hannibal & St. J. 

 R. Co., 79 Mo. 247; Turner v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 76 id. 261. 



"'Where the owner is not at fault: Smith v. Eastern R. Co., 35 N. H. 

 357; White v. Concord R. Co., 30 id. 188. 



