95 Md. 749 | Md. | 1902
Opinion by
The defendant asked the Court to rule that there was no evidence legally sufficient to show that the injury to the cows was caused by the negligence of the defendant. This request was refused, but should have been granted. There was not a particle of evidence showing what caused the injury to the cows, or how it had been caused, or indicating where it had been inflicted. The breaking of án axle under a car behind the cars in which the cattle were,' was not shown to have jarred or thrown them down. The only evidence as to their condition when they left the road of the defendant at Hagerstown proved that they had not been injured up to that time; and after leaving the road of the defendant the cattle were transported over two other roads, on either of which the injury discovered, upon their reaching their destination, might have happened. No evidence was offered to exclude the possibility
The judgment will therefore be reversed and as the record discloses no ground of action against the appellant a new trial will not be awarded.
Judgment reversed with costs above and below without awarding a new trial.