644 LIABILITY IRRESPECTIVE OF FENCING LAWS. 



Evidence of the liability of a horse to be frightened by 

 moving trains is admissible on the question of contrib- 

 utory negligence.*''^ Where a horse was frightened by an 

 electric shock, the words spoken by the driver in endeavor- 

 ing to control it were held admissible in evidence; also, testi- 

 mony of his previous experience in a similar case, to account 

 for his words and conduct. *^^ Evidence of the general repu- 

 tation of a mare among horsemen and turfmen, with reference 

 to her being rattle-headed or disposed to break when racing, 

 was held not admissible.*^' Evidence of the conduct of 

 horses in general is admissible to show how a particular horse 

 would be likely to act.*^* 



Witnesses who are familiar with the. kind of animals sued 

 for are competent to testify as to their value, without having 

 ever seen them,*'^'' and without being experts.*^® But state- 

 ments made as to the pedigree of a heifer killed, as that she 

 was a thoroughbred, are not competent evidence where it 

 does not appear that the party making the statements was 

 dead or beyond the process of the court, and, on the same 

 principle, a paper purporting to give such pedigree is not 

 admissible.*^' 



In order to recover, the plaintiff must give some evidence 



that the motorman had been careful in meeting other horses under similar 

 circumstances is inadmissible: Sunderland v. Pioneer Fireproof Constr. 

 Co., 78 111. App. 102. 



"' Folsom V. Concord & M. R. Co. (N. H.), 38 Atl. Rep. 209. 



"' Trenton Pass. R, Co. v. Cooper, 60 N. J. L. 219. 



*" Cincinnati, H. & I. R. Co. v. Jones, iii Ind. 259. 



"* Folsom V. Concord & M. R. Co., supra. 



•"Smith V. Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co., 80 Ind. 233; Atchison, T. & 

 S. F. R. Co. V. Gabbert, 34 Kan. 132. 



Information obtained by the plaintifT from persons in another State 

 acquainted with the class of the animal killed, is admissible: Gulf, C. & 

 S. F. R. Co. V. Wedel (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. Rep. 1030. 



"° Ala. G. S. R. Co. v. Moody, 92 Ala. 279. 



As to the opinions of witnesses and experts, in general, see i Rap. & 

 Mack Dig. Ry. Law 283, etc. 



*" Hamilton i'. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 21 Mo. App. 152. 



