p. 467Plaintiff, after finding the colt dead, examined the barbed wire-fence along the field where the colt had been running, and he followed the colt’s tracks down the fence to where the wires were down. The staples were gone from two posts. The posts were fifteen or sixteen feet apart; in one post, the second and third, or third and fourth, staples were missing, and in the next post the staple holding the third wire was missing. At this point where the wire sagged there were tracks of an unshod colt, leading from the field through the fence on to defendant’s right of way. The plaintiff could see where the colt had stepped through the fence and eaten the grass, and there was also hair of the same color as the colt that was killed on the barbs of the wire fence.
The colt that was killed had never been shod. There is ne evidence that the fence was down or out of repair in that field anywhere else than at the point where the wires sagged, and the colt’s tracks led in on to defendant’s right of way. And there was ne evidence that there was any other place where the colt could get through and on to tracks of defendant. The fence at that place had been out of repair for sometime.
Ho direct evidence was given to show that a train or locomotive had passed over the road between six at night and six in the morning.
George K Greene, for app’lt; T. F. Hamilton, for resp’t
I am not entirely satisfied with the disposition made of this case. It is possible that the plaintiff did not go far enough in his proof in the justice’s court to sustain a recovery, although it seems to me he made out a pretty fair case; but I do not think he should be shut out by a mere reversal. I think he should have an opportunity to get out any thing there is in his case, and that, therefore, the judgment of the county court should be so modified as to grant a new trial in the justice’s court, costs to abide the event. Section 1319, Code of Civil Procedure.
Mayham, P. J., and Putnam, J., concur.