wacxnsnn v. nur. urn ms. co. 25.
connected with the death of the particular person there, and whether
the facts substantiate his identity—not in name only, but in person-
as the husband of the plaintiff here. If my memory serves me cor-
rectly with regard to this testimony, there was something in the na-
ture of an epidemic at that time at Shreveport, whereby a great many
persons dying were buried in the Potter’s field, and among them per-
sons killed on the railroad. Now, what was the nature of that acci-
dent? If it be, as some witness suggested who was familiar with the
accident, that his leg was crushed just above the knee, you will have
then an indicia or mark to guide you in the further progress of the
case; and also this broken tooth, on the other hand. It appears from
the testimony of plaintiff that this tooth, about which there seems to
be no special difficulty, seems to have been lost and disappeared from l
the husband of this plaintiff prior to that period of time.
It seems this body was exhumed twice,-the first time with ref-
erence to the suit then pending, and long after the death. The body
could be recognized only by such marks as would not be likely to dis-
appear after interment for a long period of time. The broken tooth
and fragment of a garment seemed to be the main reliances on the
the one hand for identification; and on the other hand, on the second
exhumation, an unbroken leg and no bones crushed at all. Hence,
as to the purposes of identity there, and as to what occurred when the
bodies were exhumed, the question arises, was this the man killed by
the railroad? You will have to determine with regard to these mat-
ters, bearing in mind this doctor’s statement-Dr. Moore, I think, is
the man—that in exhuming the body he found the leg bones entire.
Hence, you will encounter at the very outset that difficulty. If, how-
ever, you think that the weight of testimony with regard to that mat-
ter is with the plaintiff,-for it is for the plaintiff always to prove her
case, the burden being on the plaintiff in all cases,-if you reach
the conclusion that the person killed was the person exhumed, the
next step in the inquiry is, was the person killed and exhumed the
husband of this lady? Now you will look very carefully into all the
incidents connected with the affairs down there to ascertain that
matter, in connection, of course, with what other testimony has been
offered. The lady herself testifies that the person produced here
upon the stand, claiming to be her husband, is not, while he, on the
other hand, testifies that he is, her husband.
Now, there is a vast deal of testimony presented here from various ·
portions of the country. Some witnesses here say that they know
William Wackerle, who was the husband in the old country; that