
    (February 3, 1913.;
    DELBERT F. LOTT, Respondent, v. OREGON SHORT LINE R. R. CO., Appellant.
    [130 Pac. 88.]
    Sufficiency of Evidence — Instructions.
    1. Evidence examined, and held sufficient to justify the jury in finding for the plaintiff.
    2. Instructions examined, and held applicable to the evidence introduced and not erroneous.
    APPEAL from the District Court of the Ninth Judicial District for Fremont County. Hon. James G. Gwinn, Judge.
    Action by the plaintiff for damages for the killing of livestock. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    P. L. Williams and D. Worth Clark, for Appellant, cite no authorities.
    C. W. Poole, for Respondent.
    Instructions Nos. 2, 3 and 5 are the law as laid down by this court. (Patrie v. Oregon Short Line By., 6' Ida. 448, 56 Pac. 82; Johnson v. Oregon Short Line By. Go., 7 Ida. 355, 63 Pac. 112, 53 L. R. A. 744.)
    The complaint is sufficient to bring the case within the provisions of the statute; the evidence justifies and supports the verdict. (Kirn v. Gape Girardeau <& G. By. Go., 149 Mo. App. 708, 129 S. W. 475.')
   AILSHIE, C. J.

— This is an appeal from a judgment awarding $250 and costs to the respondent as damages for the killing of two horses, which were run down by appellant’s train.

It is contended that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict and judgment. There is some evidence in the record which would lead to the conclusion reached by the jury, and for that reason we ymul-d not feel justified in reversing the judgment. It má,y reasonably be concluded that the railroad company was negligent in not maintaining a cattle-guard at the ends of its fences near the northern boundary of the city of Rexburg where the accident occurred. (Kirn v. Cape Girardeau & C. Ry. Co., 149 Mo. App. 708, 129 S. W. 475.)

The objection to the instructions is based upon the theory that there is no evidence to support a verdict and that the instructions are not applicable to any evidence given in the case. Having determined that there was some evidence which would justify the verdict of the jury, we conclude that the objections to the instructions are not w.ell taken. The judgment is affirmed. Costs awarded in favor of respondent.

Sullivan and Stewart, JJ., concur. '  