Huntle v. Rutland R. Co.

Citation74 A. 1000,83 Vt. 180
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Vermont
Decision Date07 January 1910
PartiesHUNTLE v. RUTLAND R. CO.

Exceptions from Addison County Court; Zed S. Stanton, Judge.

Action by Oliver C. Huntley against the Rutland Railroad Company. Verdict and judgment for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Judgment affirmed.

Davis & Russell, for plaintiff. E. W. Lawrence, Alexander Dunnett, and P. M. Meldon, for defendant.

MUNSON, J. The buildings destroyed stood about 90 feet from defendant's track, and there was no direct evidence as to the origin of the fire. The fire was discovered about 25 minutes after the passing of the north-bound sleeper. The plaintiff did not undertake to show what engine operated this train, but the engine was afterwards identified by uncontradicted evidence of the defendant. At the opening of the case the plaintiff offered evidence which tended to show that, both before and after the occurrence complained of, the defendant's locomotives had thrown sparks in this locality which had caused fires. The evidence was received on the theory of a similarity of construction and equipment, and in admitting it the court said it would receive evidence of the conduct of defendant's engines in this vicinity within a year before and a year after the fire. The plaintiff afterwards offered to show that about 14 months previous to the fire, when an engine was going past the plaintiff's buildings, and there was no appreciable wind, cinders were seen to fall on the roof of one of the buildings, and that fire was discovered there a few minutes later; and this evidence was excluded. The evidence was offered as bearing upon the distance which a live cinder could be thrown under the conditions stated, and the plaintiff would distinguish this from the evidence regarding which the court had fixed a limit; but we think no such distinction can be made. Evidence of this character, whatever the similarity of the known conditions, and whatever the special bearing claimed for it, is received on the assumption that the engines were substantially alike, and the determination of the period for which this assumption shall be made is a matter of discretion. This was evidently the view taken in Hoskinson v. Central Vt. Ry. Co., 66 Vt. 618, 620, 30 Atl. 24, the case most relied upon by the plaintiff. See, also, Smith v. Central Vt. Ry. Co., 80 Vt. 208, 67 Atl. 535.

The plaintiff excepted to the charge that it was the duty of the jury to reconcile all the evidence in the case, if possible, upon the theory that it was all true. This instruction, standing alone, might be questionable, but its effect here is to be determined upon a consideration of several related clauses. In the sentence following the one complained of the jury were told that they should not find that one piece of evidence contradicted another until they had examined both sufficiently to warrant the conclusion that they were contradictory. It was said in the same connection that a witness was presumed to be truthful unless there was something in the case that tended to show the contrary; and, among the things to be considered in determining the matter, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • George Van Dyke v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • January 25, 1911
    ...... of negligence on the part of the defendant but merely as a. matter of reasonable and convenient procedure. Huntley v. Rutland R. Co. , 83 Vt. 180, 74. A. 1000; Ide v. Boston & Maine Railroad , 83. Vt. 66, 74 A. 401. This first exception to the report states. one of the ......
  • Van Dyke v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • January 25, 1911
    ...inference of negligence on the part of the defendant, but merely as a matter of reasonable and convenient procedure. Huntley v. Rutland R. Co., 83 Vt. 180, 74 Atl. 1000; Ide v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 83 Vt. 66, 74 Atl. 401. This first exception to the report states one of the grounds of t......
  • Cano v. Central Vermont Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • October 1, 1929
    ...... statutory duty. " In this respect the burden of proof. was shifted from plaintiffs to defendant by statute. G. L. 5256; Huntley v. Rutland R. R. Co. , 83 Vt. 180, 74 A. 1000; Ide v. Boston & Maine R. R.,. supra ; Van Dyke v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.,. supra. Defendant introduced ......
  • Cano v. Cent. Vt. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • October 1, 1929
    ...statutory duty." In this respect the burden of proof was shifted from plaintiffs to defendant by statute. G. L. 5256; Huntley v. Rutland R. Co., 83 Vt. 180, 74 A. 1000; Ide v. Boston & Maine R. R., supra; Van Dyke v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., supra. Defendant introduced evidence tending to show ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT