ferred to the Joint Western Classification Committee, and on December 11th, notice was received that an amendment had been made reducing the estimated weight to 1,000 pounds at first class rates, between all points within this State, on bulls, stallions and jacks, instead of 4'000 pounds as before. This reduction being satisfactory to complainants, the case was closed. J. BUSSARD & CO., IMOGENE, IOWA, VS. WABASH, ST. LOUIS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. Filed, December 10, 1883, Discrimination and Messrs. J. Bussard & Co., of Imogene, Iowa, made complaint to the Commissioners that the Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company were discriminating against them in the matter of coal shipments from Centerville, Iowa. They allege that the rate on coal from the latter point to Imogene is $2.07 per ton, while to Shenandoah, eight miles from Imogene the rate is only $1.60; also, that the rate to Council Bluffs, fifty miles further on, is only $1.50 per ton, this being a discrimination against complainants of fiftyseven cents per ton. They ask that the company be compelled to refund to them the sum of $75, the amount they claim to have been overcharged on eleven cars of coal, and to give them the same rates in proportion as to the points designated. The matter being referred to the officers of the railway company, they replied that the parties were doubtless mistaken in their statements, as the rate on coal from Centerville to Shenandoah, 154 miles, was $1.98 per ton; to Imogene, 163 miles, $2.07 per ton; that there was a special rate in force from Centerville to Shenandoah of $1.71 per ton, and they were willing to make a corresponding reduction to Imogene, making rate to that place $1.80 per ton. Respondent further said that the parties were in error in stating that the rate to Shenandoah was $1.60, as $1.71 was the lowest rate ever given to that point, and that only to meet the competition of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, which did not exist at Imogene. This reply was communicated to complainants and they were asked if this rate to Imogene of $1.80 per ton would be satisfactory. They replied that they were still discriminated against as the company were making a rate to Council Bluffs of $1.60 per ton, being twenty cents less than to Imogene. On receipt of this reply complainants were notified by the Commissioners to furnish proof of their statements by affidavit or deposition to substantiate their claims. No reply was ever received from them and the case was therefore closed. Mr. Starlin, of Missouri Valley, complains that he received a rate from the agent of the Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway at Miami Station, Missouri, of twenty four cents per hundred on rough stone, in less than car-load lots; the rate per car given him was $30. He ordered thirty-three pieces of rough stone, weighing 6,300 pounds, on which the charge of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway from Council Bluffs to Missouri Valley was eleven cents per hundred, or $6.93; the advanced charges were $28.35, or forty-five cents per hundred instead of twenty four. Mr. George Olds, Freight Traffic Manager for the company, sends their classification, which places stone in less than car-load lots as fourth-class, and their tariff which for the distance, 234 miles, gives the rate as forty cents per hundred, car-load lots are twenty-two cents per hundred. The five cents per hundred is the amount paid for the transfer at Council Bluffs, which the Commissioners infer was made by wagon between the two stations. Mr. Olds says that no lower rate was given than the tariff existing at that time. The Commissioners are of the opinion that the rate of this tariff is very high, but as it the same to all parties there is no discrimination. The transfer of five cents per hundred is a large charge on stone, but is probably the rate generally paid. Of the eleven cents per hundred charged by the C. & N. W. R'y Co. there is no complaint. The rate being uniform to all parties and the haulage inter-State commerce, the Board are unable to interfere in the case. They recognize the fact that the Miami agent was culpable in giving an incorrect rate. Des Moines, February 21, 1884. ED. A. CONRAD, FOREST CITY, IOWA, VS. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY, Filed December 18, 1883. Loss and damage of household goods. Mr. E. A. Conrad, of Forest City, Iowa, filed in office, December 18, 1883, a complaint against the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company, asking payment for loss of a box of household goods shipped by him via Chicago & Northwestern Railway from Webster City to Luverne, thence on the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway to destination, Forest City. The goods were shipped on September 1, 1883, and at the date of filing his complaint had not been delivered to him. Complainant also asked for damages for non-delivery of goods, the sum of $150. The complaint being referred to the officers of the M. & St. L. R'y, it was found on investigation that this box had never been delivered to the latter road at Luverne, but had been carried by the receiving company to Kasota Junction, Minn., where it was subsequently found and forwarded to destination. Action against the M. & St. L. R'y having been dismissed, an amended complaint was filed with the Commissioners on January 19, 1884, claiming from the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. the sum of $94.25, as damages for delay in forwarding the goods, which respondent paid and the case was dismissed. G. H. BROWN, PILOT MOUND, IOWA, VS. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY. Filed December 22, 1883. Damages for failure to fence and put in cattle guards. Mr. Brown complains that the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company has neglected to put in suitable cattle-guards where their track crosses his farm near Pilot Mound, Boone county,; also, that their trains have killed a great deal of his stock in consequence of the failure to fence their track on the part of the company. The road has been built over two years, and the company had repeatedly assured him that the track would be fenced within two years from the time of its completion; but nothing has as yet been done in that direction. In regard to the building of cattle-guards, the Commissioners notified the officers of the company of this complaint, and advised them that under sections 1268 and 1288 of the Code, Mr. Brown was entitled to the relief asked for. They replied that the company held a warrantee deed for their right of way through complainant's land, and they were inclined to believe that the statutes referred to would not be held by the courts to require them to construct the cattle-guards in question. They were willing, however, to adjust the matter satisfactorily, for the convenience of Mr. Brown and his neighbors, but desired to wait until spring before commencing the work, as it was deemed unsafe to disturb the road-bed in the winter, to the extent necessary for the building of a serviceable cattle-guard. Regarding the erection of a fence along the track through complainant's. farm, Mr. Truesdale, Vice-President of the company, stated that in the fall of 1883, they made an agreement with him that he should build the fence if the company furnished material, which they did, but Mr. Brown neither built the fence nor returned the lumber. The company had, in many cases where fences were greatly needed, made this arrangement with parties living and owning land adjoining their track, and the latter were usually willing to help in constructing fences for the mutual benefit. Mr. Brown was advised by the Commissioners that under section 1289 of the Code, if a corporation fails to fence its railway at all points where it has a right to fence, it becomes liable to the owner of the adjoining land for the value of all stock killed or injured by reason of the want of such fence, unless the killing or injury was the result of some wilful act on the part of the owner. This law gives to the railroad the option to build the fence and thereby escape increased liability, or leave it unbuilt and incur the extraordinary risk provided for in the law. As this latter seemed in the present case to be the policy of the company, complainant was informed that he would be obliged to bring suit in court to recover damages for any injury to his stock, and that his attorney could fully advise him as to his rights and the proper method to pursue. Dow & MERCER, MCVEIGH, IOWA, VS. FORT MADISON & NORTHWESTERN R'Y CO. Filed December 26, 1883. Wrongfully withholding freight. The complainants by their attorneys, Messrs. Sloan, Work & Brown, of Keosauqua, filed with the Commissioners an affidavit making the following allegations, to-wit: The firm of Dow & Mercer are dealers in general, merchandise at McVeigh, a station on the Ft. Madison & Northwestern Railway; and are obliged to ship their goods over that road, it being the only one accessible to them; "that said railway company is largely indebted to them, which indebtedness is not disputed by defendants, but they refuse to pay it; that complainants have offered repeatedly to allow defendants credit upon said indebtedness for freight on their shipments as aforesaid, but this defendants refuse to accept in payment of freight. Complainants allege that at this time, December 19, 1883, they have an invoice of goods lying in defendant's depot, at McVeigh aforesaid, amounting to several hundred dollars, and these goods defendants refuse to deliver to them unless the freight, amounting to the sum of fifteen dollars is paid to them in cash, notwithstanding complainants have tendered them credit upon the indebtedness held by them as aforesaid, which defendants refuse to accept in payment of said freight. Complainants say that they have no remedy except by replevin, or an action for the possession of the property, and this kind of a proceeding they would have to institute every time a shipment was received, which would be an exceedingly expensive and troublesome way of obtaining their property. “Wherefore they pray that this Board take cognizance of this matter and order the defendants aforesaid to deliver the goods now in their possession to complainants, upon the freight being credited as tendered by complainants upon the indebtedness which they hold against said defendants, and for such action and further orders in the premises as may be just and equitable." After hearing the statement of facts as above set forth, the Board advised complainants that this case was not within their jurisdiction, but that their remedy must come from the courts. A. H. MCNALL. MAXWELL, Iowa, VS. Lost goods.· CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY. Filed December 26, 1883. DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONERS. On the 22d day of December, 1883, A. II. McNall, of Maxwell, Iowa, complained to the Board that a caddy of tobacco shipped to him at Maxwell, Iowa, from the firm of Sperry, Watt & Garver, Des Moines, failed to reach its destination. This caddy was shipped May 28, 1883, on the St. Louis, Des Moines & Northern Railway via Madrid, care Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway. It weighed twenty-one pounds, and was billed at forty cents per pound; value, $8.40. After much delay, occasioned, as we thought and still think, by an undue inclination on the part of the respondent to |