KVIDENCK. 645 



of the valiie of the animal. *°^ Evidence of the excellence 

 of its sires is admissible.*^'-* And the defendant may show 

 its cost to the plaintiff when he purchased it a short time 

 before.***" So, where the plaintiff testified that the animal 

 was worth seventy-five dollars, it was held error to refuse to 

 permit the defendant to introduce in evidence to contradict 

 him an assessment list of his property, signed and verified 

 by him, in which he returned the animal for taxation as 

 worth five dollars.**^ The appraisement secured by the 

 owner is evidence of the true value; but this may be explained 

 or rebutted.*®^ And in an action by an administratrix 

 against the company it was held that her appraisement was 

 not evidence of the value of the horses killed, as against the 

 estate.*^^ Proof of actual sales of similar animals is admis- 

 sible to show the value of those killed.*"* 



137. Damages. — Where an animal has been killed, its mar- 

 ket value is recoverable by the plaintiff, deducting the value 

 of the carcass, if that has been used by him.**^ Where there 

 •was no evidence of the value of the carcass, it was held that 

 the price received for the hide should be deducted.*"^ The 

 owner is entitled to a reasonable time in which to dispose 

 of the dead body to the best advantage : what is such reason- 

 able time is a question for the jury to decide.*" Where, 



'"Southern R. Co. v. Varn, 102 Ga. 764: St. Louis, A. & T. R. Co. v. 

 Pickens, 4 Tex. App. (Civ. Cas.) 54. 



"«Ohio & M. R. Co. V. Stribling, 38 III. App. 17; Richmond & D. R. 

 Co. V. Chandler (Miss.), 13 South. Rep. 267. 



"" Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. Co. v. Jones, 34 Fla. 286. 



'" Fordyce v. Hardin, 54 Ark. 554. 



"°- E. Tenn., V. & G. R. Go. v. Bayliss, 74 Ala. 150. 



■"^ Morrison v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co., 84 la. 663. 



'•' Sinclair v. Mo., K. & T. R. Co., 70 Mo. App. 588. 



*" Ga. Pac. R. Co. v. Fullerton, n Ala. 298; Boing v. Raleigh & G. 

 R. Co., 91 N. C. 199; Roberts v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 88 id, s6o; 

 Case V. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 7S Mo. 668. 



** Godwin v. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 104 N. C. 146. 



""Toledo, P. & W. R. Co. v. Parker, 49 111. 38s; H'- Cent. R. Co. v. 



