Bennington v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.

Citations

• 113 Wash. 1
• 192 P. 1073
• 1920 Wash. LEXIS 794

Syllabus

<p>Carriebs (56) —Of Live Stock — Negligence — Evidence — Sufficiency. In an action for injury to mules while in transit, a finding of negligent handling of a stock train is sufficiently sustained by testimony of witnesses who had had some experience with stock trains that the train was roughly handled, making sudden stops and starts, that complaints were made to the trainmen, who admitted that it was a little rough, and that part of the mules were injured or killed on the trip.</p> <p>Evidence (68, 69) — Best and Secondary Evidence — Pacts Evidenced by Writings — Declaration of Agent — Hearsay. Upon an issue as to the condition of mules shipped, the company cannot show the written statement of its veterinarian as to the condition in which he found them on inspection, since it is not the best evidence, and declarations oil an agent as to past transactions of his principal are' inadmissible as hearsay.</p> <p>Same (191, 210) — Opinion Evidence — Competency of Experts— Speed of Railroad Train. Upon an issue as to the negligent handling of a stock train, witnesses testifying as to the comparative speed of the train between certain points are not incompetent because it was their first experience with stock trains, where the place in question was not a place for the indulgence of excessive or increased speed..</p> <p>Carriers (54, 57) — Of Livestock — Connecting or Original Carrier — Trial—Instructions. In an action for injuries to stock shipped over two lines, an instruction as to the presumption that damaged stock delivered to the consignee was injured while in the possession of the last carrier, is not pertinent to the issue, where the last carrier took them after inspection as an original and not as a connecting carrier.</p> <p>Appeal (463) — Review—Harmless Error — Instructions. An instruction ?to the effect that the injured stock- was presumed to be in good condition when accepted for shipment, is not prejudicial where the evidence showed that it was in good condit