"1.
Was the plaintiff, George Walz, the owner of a steam engine
tank-wagon, separator, and stacker on the 2d day of August,
1886? Ans.: Yes.
"2.
Were the different parts of said threshing outfit attached
together, and were they going southwest from the city of
Atchison on said day in charge of the plaintiff and his
employes? A. Yes.
"3.
Were there four separate parts of said threshing outfit
attached together, consisting of a steam engine, a
tank-wagon, a separator, and a straw stacker? A. Yes.
"4.
Was said threshing outfit propelled over the public road
partly or wholly by the steam engine attached thereto, and
was said steam engine in use for such purpose at the time and
place above mentioned? A. Yes.
"5.
Was said outfit passing along the public highway, attached
together, being moved by said engine in the care of the
plaintiff and his employes on the 2d day of August, 1886, and
did it approach the tracks of the Missouri Pacific railway,
the Central Branch railroad, and the defendants, in the order
in which they are here named, at a point where all of said
tracks are laid near each other crossing said public highway,
about a mile from the city of Atchison? A. Yes.
"6.
Was the track of said defendant the farthest one from said
threshing machine before the attempt was made to cross the
tracks? A. Yes.
"7.
Was the flagman at said crossing employed by the defendant?
A. No.
"8.
Did said flagman have any authority to act for or represent
the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company? A. No
evidence that he was.
"9.
Did he have any duties to perform for the defendant? A. No
evidence that he had.
"10.
If your answer to either or both of these last two questions
is yes, state in what way he represented the defendant, and
what duties he had to perform for the defendant? A. .
"11.
Was said flagman paid by the Missouri Pacific Railway Co.,
and was he entirely under the control of that company? A. No
evidence to the contrary.
"12.
Did the person having charge of said threshing machinery
attempt to cross said tracks with it, going southwest, about
6 o'clock P. M. of said day? A. Yes.
"13.
How many men had control of and were engaged in running said
machinery? A. Four.
"14.
Did they stop on the north side just before reaching said
tracks? A. Yes.
"15.
Did any of them go ahead and look up and down the tracks to
see if a train was approaching? A. No.
"16.
Was the machinery they were moving cumbersome and necessarily
slow in moving over such a place as said tracks? A. Yes.
"17.
Would it have been exercising more than ordinary prudence and
care for some one having charge of said machinery to have
gone ahead and looked to see if said tracks were clear? A. It
would have been more than ordinary care.
"18.
If some one had taken a position on defendant's track and
watched and given warning, could said accident have been
avoided? A. No.
"19.
How far could defendant's train be seen approaching from
the west from said crossing? A. Seven hundred or eight
hundred yards.
"20.
Was the threshing machinery in four different pieces or
sections coupled together -- the engine first, the tank-wagon
next, the separator next, and the straw-stacker last? A. It
was.
"21.
While crossing the defendant's tracks, did the persons
having control of said threshing machinery first discover the
defendant's passenger train approaching? A. No; but while
on the C. B. track.
"22.
Did the person having control of said threshing-machine
engine apply all the steam he could to get said machinery
over the track in time, and did that cause a sudden jerk,
breaking the coupling between the tank-wagon and the
separator, leaving the separator on the defendant's
track, and did the engine and tank-wagon move off to the
south? A. The person controlling said machine engine did put
on all steam he could to get over in time. The sudden jerk
did not cause the coupling to break. As the separator was
moving from the M. P. track to and half-way across the
defendant's tracks, the engine and tank moved south.
"23.
How far did the engine and tank-wagon get from the track
before the collision? A. About twenty feet.
"24.
How far was the passenger train away at the time said
coupling broke? A. About two hundred yards.
"25.
At what rate of speed was said train going at the time the
coupling broke? A. About twenty miles per hour.
"26.
If said coupling had not broken, would said threshing machine
have passed over the tracks safely? A. It probably would.
"27.
Was the railroad engineer looking ahead, watching the
threshing outfit cross the tracks, before the coupling broke?
A. He was.
"28.
How far from the crossing was the train when the railroad
engineer first discovered that the couplings had broken,
leaving the threshing machine on the track? A. About two
hundred yards.
"29.
Did the railroad engineer apply the brakes and reverse his
engine at once, to control the train? A. Yes, but too late.
"30.
What else could he have done to prevent the injury? A. He
could do nothing else at that time.
"31.
What act or acts of negligence on the part of the defendant
or its employes, caused the injury? A. In not keeping his
engine under control when he had it so, by raising his
air-brake before the separator was fully over the track.
"32.
Did the railroad engineer sound the whistle three times, at
least eighty rods from said crossing? A. By preponderance of
evidence he did not.
"33.
Did said railroad train come to a full stop just after
passing said crossing? A. Yes.
"34.
Was it stopped as soon as the engineer could stop it with the
means at hand? A. Yes.
"35.
Was said engineer a competent and skillful engineer? A. He
is.
"36.
Was George Walz, the plaintiff, operating said threshing
machine engine? A. He was.
"37.
When he reached the Missouri Pacific track, was there
anything to obstruct his vision to the west, the direction
the defendant's train was coming from? A. There was.
"38.
Did he look to the west from that point? A. Yes.
"39.
Was the defendant's train in sight at that time? A. Was
not.
"40.
Did he then move his threshing machine, engine and outfit
along across the Missouri Pacific track, on the Central
Branch track, so the heads of his horses were near the
defendant's track before he looked again to see whether a
train was coming? A. He did.
"41.
Were there three different passenger trains due to pass that
point between five and six o'clock, and did the plaintiff
know it? A. Yes.
"42.
If the plaintiff had looked carefully to the west could he
have seen said train before he did? A. He might.
"43.
Could said train be seen from said Missouri Pacific track for
about one-fourth of a mile? A. He could, if no obstruction.
"44.
How far was it away when George Walz first saw it? A. About
seven hundred yards.
"45.
At what rate of speed was it going? A. About 35 miles per
hour.
"46.
At what rate of speed was said threshing machine going? A.
About 4 miles per hour.
"47.
How far from defendant's track did the tank-wagon get at
the time the railroad engine struck the separator? A. About
20 feet.
"48.
Did the threshing-machine engine stop after crossing the
defendant's track, before the engine struck the
separator? A. No evidence to that effect.
"49.
What is the distance from the Missouri Pacific track to the
Central Branch track? A. About 12 feet.
"50.
What is the distance from the Central Branch track to the
defendant's track? A. 10 feet.
"51.
What is the distance from the outside rail of the Missouri
Pacific track to the outside rail of the defendant's
track? A. About 37 feet.
"52.
Had the plaintiff been acquainted with the tracks and
crossings for years? A. Yes.
"53.
Had he been operating said threshing-machine outfit during
the season before, and did he understand how to move it? A.
Yes.
"54.
What was the length of said threshing-machine outfit when it
was all coupled together? A. About 58 feet.
"55.
Could the different parts or sections be moved separately
over hilly or dangerous places? A. Yes.
"56.
Did said George Walz try to stop said threshing outfit when
he saw said railroad train? A. He did not.
"57.
Did...
