EVIDENCE. 64? 



What evidence is sufficient to show that the animal was 

 killed by a train depends altogether upon the circumstances 

 in each case, and no general rules, can be laid down. The 

 presence of the dead animal on or near the track, marks of 

 blood, hairs, signs of dragging, etc., are all matters to be 

 considered in deciding the question, it being one that may 

 be settled by purely circumstantial evidence.^^* A statute 

 is constitutional which prohibits the burning, mutilating, 

 hauling ofif, or burying by a railroad company of stock killed 

 by trains.*^® 



Where the evidence of negligence or contributory negli- 

 gence is doubtful, it should be left in the hands of the jury.*^* 

 Evidence is admissible as to the manner in which the engine 



V. Southwestern R. Co., 75 Ga. 444. But see Jones v. Bond, 40 Fed. Rep. 

 281, where the presumption under the Mississippi statute was applied tO' 

 the case of a dog. 



™ As illustrations of this, see St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Parks, 6» 

 Ark. 187; Little Rock & F. S. R. Co. v. Wilson (Ark.), 50 S. W. Rep. 

 995; Van Slyke v. Chic, St. P. & K. C. R. Co., 80 la. 620; Daugherty v. 

 Chic, M. & St. P. R. Co., 87 id. 276; King v. Chic, R. L & P. R. Co., 

 88 id. 704; Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. Co. v. Garrison, 30 Fla. 557; Louis- 

 ville & N. R. Co. V. Lancaster (Ala.), 25 South. Rep. 733; Union Pac. R. 

 Co. V. Bullis, 6 Colo. App. 64; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Wrape, 4 Ind. App. 

 108; Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Hixon, loi Ind. 337; Mayfield v. 

 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 91 Mo. 296; Blewett v. Wyandotte, K. C. & N. R, 

 Co., 72 id. 583; Perkins v. St. Louis, L M. & S. R. Co., 103 id. 52; Gilbert 

 V. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 23 Mo. App. 65; Vaughan v. Kansas City, S. & M. R- 

 Co., 34 id. 141; Jackson v. St. Louis, L M. & S. R. Co., 36 id. 170; Inter- 

 nal. & G. N. R. Co. V. Hughes, 81 Tex. 184; San Antonio & A. P. R. Co., 

 V Leal, 4 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. 213; Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Earle (Tex. App.), 

 14 S. W. Rep. 1068; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Washington, 49 Fed. Rep_ 

 347. 



See, also, i Rap. & Mack Dig. Ry. Law 294. 



*™ Bannon v. State, 49 Ark. 167. 



«° Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. v. Watson, 91 Ala. 483; Same j.. Dog- 

 gett, 67 Miss. 250; Kent v. Louisville, N. O. & T. R. Co., Ibid 608; Ch,c 

 & A. R. Co. V. Hill, 24 111. App. 619; Mo. Pac R. Co.j. Vandeventer, 

 28 Neb. 112; Sleeper v. Worcester & N. R. Co., 58 N. H. 520; Atlantic 

 Coast Elec R. Co. v. Rennard (N. J.), 42 Atl. Rep. 1041; Sheldon :-_ 

 Chic. M. & St. P. R. Co. (S. D.), 62 N. W. Rep. 955- 



And see i Rap. & Mack Dig. Ry. Law 321-327- 

 4] 



