
    Toledo, Peoria & Warsaw Railway Company v. George Pineo.
    
      Evidence—of its sufficiency to prow stock was killed on a railroad. In an action against a railroad company, to recover the value of a cow alleged to have been killed on the defendants’ road, it was proven by the plaintiff that he found the animal the day after she was injured, in a field, about twenty or thirty feet from the track, and there were marks on the track indicating such an accident. Another witness saw the cow in the same situation soon after a train had passed, and an employee of the company, while riding on the engine, saw a cow thrown from the track at about the same place, during the, month the cow was found dead. It was held, the evidence was sufficient to connect the company with the injury.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Iroquois county; the Hon. Charles H. Wood, Judge, presiding.
    This was an action brought by Pineo against the railroad company, to recover the value of a cow belonging to the plaintiff, alleged to have been killed on the defendants’ road. A trial by jury, at the June term, I860, of said court, resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants appeal, and assign for error, that the evidence fails to connect them with the injury.
    
      The plaintiff testified, that in October, 1868, he had a cow killed on the railroad, about two miles west of Sheldon, in Iroquois county, Illinois. The cow was worth $30; did not see the cow when she received the injury; the cow was running out at the time upon the commons; the cow appeared to have been struck by a train going west, just east of where a fence crossed the track north and south; there was a culvert across the road there; there were some marks on the track, some hair on the culvert, which looked like she had been hit on the outside and knocked inside; there was no public road crossing where the cow was killed; there was one one-half or three-quarters of a mile east oí where she was killed ; there were no cattle guards at the crossing on the sides of the public road; the railroad was not fenced between the place where the cow was killed and the road crossing east; there was nothing to prevent cattle, horses, sheep and hogs from getting on the track; it was necessary to fence it; there was no town, city or village where she was killed; Sheldon was the nearest; there was a settlement close all around on both sides of the track; he saw the cow the next day after she was injured; she lay twenty or thirty feet inside of the field, by the side of the track, on the south side.
    
      Michael Netterville testified, that he saw a lot of cattle feeding around on both sides of the track, outside of the field, before he went to dinner; a train went west; when he came back, he saw a cow lying on the inside of the field, on the south side; she appeared to have been knocked off from the outside into the field; was section boss for the railroad company ; could’nt tell exactly when the cow was killed; it was some time last fall; might have been October; recollects the circumstances; did not know whose cow she was; the road was not fenced east of the field; a fence was necessary; there was no road crossing there.
    
      Geo. Enslen testified: I was last summer and fall in the employ of the Toledo, Peoria and Warsaw Railway Company; some time in October last was on a train going west, on the company’s railroad; I was riding with the engineer, on the engine; it was on engine twenty-two; about two miles west of Sheldon, we struck a cow, and knocked her inside of a field; she was just coming up on the track to cross over when the engine struck her; I just got sight of her as the engine struck her; I remember the engineer laughed at the time, and said to me, “ I knocked her clean inside of the field; ” we were running pretty fast at the time; east of that field there is no fence for over two miles; cattle can get on the road anywhere along there; no city, town or village there, and no road crossing; I know plaintiff; he is a farmer, and lives a little way east and north of the railroad; the railroad has been in operation for eight or nine years.
    • The above was all the evidence offered in the case.
    Messrs. Bryan & Coohran, for the appellants.
    Messrs. Blades & Kay, for the appellee.
   Mr. Justice Thornton

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The only error assigned in this case is, that the evidence does not connect appellants with the injury.

The railway company was sued for killing the cow of appellee.

From the evidence in the record, there can not be even a reasonable doubt that the cow was killed by the train of appellants. Such is the fair, if not necessary, inference.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  