Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/63

was no negligence, the presumption cannot be considered for the purpose of making an issue for the jury. It has fully served its purpose, and can have, no other effect. We therefore establish it as the rule in this state that the court must, in the first instance, determine the question whether the inference of negligence arising from the mere setting out of a single fire has been fully overthrown. We cite the following cases, out of a large number, as sustaining our view: Spaulding v. Railroad Co., 30 Wis. 110, 33 Wis. 582; Volkman v. Railroad Co., 5 Dak. 69, 37 N. W. Rep. 731; Huber v. Railroad Co.,6 Dak. 392; 43 N. W. Rep. 819; Koontz v. Railroad Co., (Or.) 23 Pac. Rep. 820; Kelsey v. Railroad Co., (S. D.) 45 N. W. Rep. 204; Railroad Co. v. Talbot, 78 Ky. 621; Railroad Co. v. Packwood, 7 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 584; Railroad Co. v. Reese, 85 Ala. 497; 5 South Rep. 283. It remains to be seen whether defendant overthrew the presumption of negligence, and, if so, whether there were facts in addition to the mere starting of the fire tending to show negligence on the part of the defend- ant. After a careful review of the evidence we are convinced that defendant, by its evidence, did all that was incumbent on it,-i. e., disproved that it was negligent in respect to the condition of the engine and the manner of operating it. We will not-incumber this opinion with a statement of the evidence. Cases of this kind are of little value as precedents, for the facts differ so in different cases. The language of the court in Hoffman v Railroad Co., (Minn.) 45 N. W. Rep. 608; that a jury is not bound to accept as conclusive the statements of a witness that an engine was in good order and carefully operated, although there is no direct evidence to the contrary, must be read in the light of the facts of that case. There the testimony as to inspection was not satisfactory to the court, not because the connection of the witness with the defendant was regarded as affecting their credibility, but because the evidence as to inspection left a ‘suspicion that proof of an inspection made at a time nearer to the time of the setting out of the fire would have disclosed some defect. It is apparent that if the testimony of the railroad employes is to be