157 F. 893 | N.D. Ala. | 1907
(charging jury). This is an action brought by the United States to recover the sum of $200 claimed to have been incurred as penalties by the defendant for hauling two cars, which it is alleged did not comply with the requirements of the act of Congress known as the “Federal Safety Appliance Act.” This statute was enacted in 1893, and one of its provisions is that it is unlawful to use any car in moving interstate traffic not equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact, and which can be uncoupled without the necessity of a man going between the ends of the cars. This condition, “without the necessity of men going between the ends of the cars,” applies to the act of coupling, as well as to the act of uncoupling. This was the holding of the Supreme Court in the case of Johnson v. Southern Pacific Company, 196 U. S. 1, 25 Sup. Ct. 158, 49 L. Ed. 363.
“An act to promote the safety of employees and travelers upon railroads.”
The language of the statute is mandatory. The only exception contained in the act is that it shall not apply to trains composed of four-wheel cars or to trains composed of standard logging cars, where the height of such car from top of rail to center of coupling does not exceed 25 inches, or to locomotives used in hauling such trains, when such cars or locomotives are exclusively used for the transportation of logs. It is not claimed, gentlemen of the jury, that either of the two cars sued upon fall within this exception. In order, therefore, for the plaintiff to recover, it is necessary for it to show: First, that the defendant is a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad. This is admitted. Second. It has been proven in this case, and there is no conflict in the evidence, that both of the cars in question were carrying traffic consigned from a point in one state to a point in another state. This makes such traffic interstate traffic. While the evidence does not show that the defendant hauled the car across the state line, still the defendant is engaged in interstate traffic no matter how short the movement, if the traffic hauled is in course of movement from a point in one state to a point in another. The third fact necessary to bring the defendant within the provisions of'the statute is the movement of the cars in a defective condition; that is, without each car being so equipped that the employé could make the coupling or uncoupling of the cars without going between them.
Under our system of jurisprudence, it is within the province of the jury alone to determine the facts in this case. It is my right and duty to instruct you as to the law applicable to these facts. The evidence tends to show that the defendant corporation, while engaged in interstate commerce, hauled two cars, both of which are alleged not to have been equipped with the safety appliances required by the statute. The evidence for the government tends to show that one end of each of said cars was not provided with this automatic coupling device. The result of this condition is that while an employé, if standing on one side of the car which was provided with the device, could make the coupling without going between the cars, yet if he was on the opposite side therefrom the coupling could not be made without going between the cars and taking hold of the coupling pin with the hands. The contention of the defendant is without conceding the facts presented by the government, which are controverted, that, if one end of every car is provided with an automatic coupler, the requirements of the law are complied with. This question, gentlemen, is one of law, and upon which it is my duty to specially charge you. The safety appliance act requires that each coupler on a car be operative in itself, so that an employé will not have to go to another car to couple or uncouple the car in question. The provisions as to coupling and uncoupling apply to the coupler on each end of every car subject to the law. It is wholly immaterial in
By the preponderance of the evidence, you are not to understand that the government must make out its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is sufficient if you are satisfied in your own mind from all the evidence that the defendant did the act complained of.
If you should find for the plaintiff, the form of your verdict must be: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty.” If you should find for the defendant, the form of your verdict must be: “We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty.”