79 Mo. App. 524 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1899
This is an action for damages alleged to. have resulted to plaintiff by reason of a failure to carry two. cars of live stock from Columbia to East St. Louis with diligence and dispatch, so that they arrived toolateforthe market.
The trial was by the court without the aid of a jury. Declarations were given for plaintiff, which should certainly not be subject to complaint by defendant. They were given of the courts own motion and perhaps could more properly be credited to defendant’s than to plaintiff’s side of the case. Practically all of the declarations asked by defendant were ■given, except a demurrer to the evidence. We say this from the fact that those refused were substantially given in the court’s own declarations which are credited to plaintiff in the record.
There are then but two questions in the case, viz.: The sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding and the admission in evidence of the conductor’s declarations.
But on the part of plaintiff there was abundant evidence tending to show that the delay was not attributable to the snow storm; on the contrary, was caused by an old and defective engine which was out of repair, and by reason of an