Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000283 178

Image

File
Download upr000283-178.tif (image/tiff; 26.51 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000283-178
    Details

    Rights

    This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

    Digital Provenance

    Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

    Publisher

    University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

    sical conditions and serve communities lar pursuits and living under similar coenndgiatgieodn si?n sNiam­i­turally, if shippers of live stock to and from St. John wgoaurldidn gh avteh e cefrotrawianr didnigf foirc urletcieesi vionrg inofc oncvaernlioeandc elso tsr eo­f • schoenecpe,i vei t twhoatu lds hnioptp ertsa keo f a svheereyp gpraetarto niizmianggi naa tisotna ttioon * 1c2o.nd$i mtiiolness wwoeustl d sihtauvaet etdh eu ndseamre esdisfefnitciualltliye st.h e Bsuatm ecan the commission consider such a fact without specific evidence introduced in this case? If the two hearings had been consolidated, there would have been no question. But there were separate applications to the commission, ssteiptaurtaet e sheepaarraitneg s cawseerse. hadT,h e seo vicdoennsceeq ueadndtulcye dt hieny tchoen­Setr. e d Joash n evSitdaetnicoen aCadsdeu ceidn tinh itsh irse gacrasde .c anWnhoitl eb e thceo nssaimde­counsel for the railroad may have appeared in both cases, and the same witnesses testified for the railroad in bgooitnhg caosuetss,i dea foaf ctt hiwsh icrhe cwoer d woanudl d choanvseu lttoi ngc otnhfei rSmt .b y John Station Case record, yet the cross-examination which the railroad counsel might direct in the Faust case to the , pweitanreesds eisn wthheo Faapupseta recda sei,n tmhieg htS t.v arJyoh mna tCeasrei,a lliyf btehceayu saep­< Tohfe thceo mmniesws iwoint,n eslsikees wa hoj urayp,p eacrane d coinn sithdee r Fasuuscth fCaacste.s in relation to evidence adduced which constitute the common facts of life and which form the common knowledge of mankind and can take judicial knowledge of such facts maist at hceo urfta ctm ayf itnadkeer tjou diincitaelr prneott iceev idoef.n ce Suacnhd faarctitcsu lpaetre­it to the general facts of life. The Commission may also, perhaps, take judicial notice of such facts and practices as are generally known throughout the whole field of railroad transportation; that is, such facts which are practically universal among operatives in the field to which the jurisdiction of the commission extends, although they may not be known to the world generally, but it cannot take its special knowledge which it may have gained from experience or from other hearings and base any findings or conclusions upon- such knowledge. That is fundamental. In-Atchison, T.-& S. F. Ry. Co; v. Commerce Commission, 335 111. , m6i2s4,s io1n6e7r sN .Ec.a nn3o3t1, apcatg•eo n £3t7h,e iri t owwna s inheflodr:m ati’oTnh.e com- Their findings must be based on evidences presented kinn owth eo f ctashee, ewviitdhen caen toop pboer t- usnuibtmyi tttoe d alolr pcaorntsiiedesr etdo', to cross-examine witnesses, to inspect documents an d to offer evidence in explanation or rebuttal, and -24-