St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Chambliss

• Decision Date: 14 February 1891
• Citation: 15 S.W. 469
• Parties: ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. CHAMBLISS.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

15 S.W. 469

ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. CHAMBLISS.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

February 14, 1891.

Appeal from circuit court, Nevada county; C. E. MITCHELL, Judge.

Dodge & Johnson, for appellant. C. C. Hamby, for appellee.

HEMINGWAY, J.

The plaintiff proved that her horse was killed by the operation of defendant's cars. She thereby cast upon it the burden of excusing the killing. If the jury had believed the testimony of the defendant's engineer, its duty would have been plain to find a verdict for the defendant. Was it warranted in disbelieving his testimony? As we understand the law, it warrants a jury in disregarding the statements of a witness which it does not believe to be true, whenever such disbelief fairly arises, — whether because the statements involve impossibilities, or what, according to common observation and experience in reference to such matters, seems highly improbable, or because they are incoherent and inconsistent in themselves, or because they are inconsistent with the accepted testimony in the cause. Sellar v. Clelland, 2 Colo. 539; French v. Millard, 2 Ohio St. 52; Evans v. Lipscomb, 31 Ga. 71. It is an established fact in this case that the horse had one fore leg and one hind leg broken. The engineer testified that it was struck in the back by the mail-coach of the moving train. He further says that "after he began to slow up" for a water-tank, and while the train was moving about five miles an hour, he saw the horse run out of the woods onto the right of way, apparently...