OCR Text |
Show RAILROAD'S ANSWER IN SUJT In the case of Peter Anderson of Clinton against the Denver & Rio Grande company, the railroad has answered an-swered that the damages complained of wero caused by' tho contributory negligence of the defendant and that tho railroad company should not be required to pay for tho dead horse, repair re-pair the broken wagon or stand any of the loss occasioned by injuries to the other team horse The company says that at the crossing cross-ing In Clinton where the accident occurred oc-curred the track Is clear and unobstructed unob-structed to view for a distance of moro than a quarter of a, mile and that even though the plaintiff did not see tho approaching train ho could and should have seen It The defendant company thinks Mr Anderson deliberately drove on the track at the crossing without paying any attention as to whether a train waa approaching In his complaint Mr. Anderson says that no signal of tho approaching train was givon, either by blowing a whlstlo or sounding a bell The train, he claims, rushed upon him as he was crossing the track with his team and wagon, killing one of the- horseB, crippling crip-pling the other and demolishing the wagon. Mr. Anderson quite miraculously miracu-lously escaped Injury. |