J. L. Battle v. . W. W. R. R.

Dioic, J. The railroad, track of the defendant passes through the pasture lands of the plaintiff for a half mile, with a descending grade. The mule and calf belonging to the plaintiff •were ¡killed by cars which in some way were set in motion and run down the grade. .By presumption of law (Act 1857, ch. 7) the defendant was guilty of negligence, and this presumption could only be rebutted by showing that the agents of the defendant had used all proper precaution to guard against the damage. It was sufficient to prove that there was probably no negligence. Clark v. W. N. C. R. R. Co, 1 Winston, 109. Independant of the legal presumption, the evidence in this case showed gross negligence on the part of the agents of the ■defendant. *345 The cars were left on an inclined plane where they could be easily set in motion — and they were very insecurely fastened. The calf was killed a month before the mule, by a car which had escaped from the fastening and run down the grade; and the agents of the defendant were thus apprised of the danger of such accidents, and they did not use proper precaution to prevent future injury. There was no error in the charge of His Honor and the judg-must be affirmed. Pee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.