
    MARTIN REED, Respondent, v. THE ROME, WATERTOWN AND OGDENSBURG RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
    
      Action against a common earner for am, injury to a trotting ma/re — the opinions of witnesses as to her value before and after the injury, an-e admissible — also topi-ove her speed, and her value if she possessed the speed proved.
    
    Upon the trial oí this action, brought against the defendant, a common carrier, to recover damages for an injury to a trotting mare, which occurred while it was being transported by the defendant from Rome to Mansvillc, the plaintiff was permitted, against the objection and exception of the defendant, to prove, by the opinion of witnesses, the value of the mare, both before and after the injury, and, also, to prove her speed, and her value assuming that she possessed the speed proved.
    
      Held, that the evidence was admissible.
    Appeal from a judgment entered in Jefferson county, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, made upon the minutes of the justice before whom the action was tried.
    The judgment was entered on the verdict of a jury, and was for $2,347.54 damages and costs.
    
      Edmwnd B. Wmn for the appellant.
    
      W. F. Porter, for the respondent.
   Mastín, J.:

This action was for an injury to a trotting mare owned by the plaintiff. The defendant was a common carrier, and the injury occurred while it was transporting the mare from Rome to Mans-ville. The evidence was clearly sufficient to justify a recovery by the plaintiff. (Clarke v. R. & S. R. R. Co., 14 N. Y., 570; Merritt v. Earle, 29 id., 115; Mynard v. S. B. & N. Y. R. R. Co., 71 id., 180.) On the trial the plaintiff was permitted to prove by the opinion of witnesses the value of the mare both before and after her injury. The court also permitted him to prove her speed, and her value assuming that she possessed the speed proved. To1 the admissions of this evidence the defendant excepted. The ease of Miller v. Smith (112 Mass., 470), was very similar to the case at bar, and it was there held that such evidence was admissible. (See also Clark v. Baird, 9 N. Y., 183; Joy v. Hopkins, 5 Den., 84; Jackson v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 2 Thomp. & Cook, 653; S. C., 58 N. Y., 623; Whiton v. Snyder, 88 id., 300, 308.) We think the authorities cited fully justify the rulings of the learned trial judge, •and that the defendant’s exceptions were not well taken.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Hardin, P. J., aud Follett, J., concurred.

Judgment and order affirme'1 with costs.  