¶1 dissenting:
¶2 .1 dissent because the charge on presumption against the Railway is virtually identical with one condemned by us in Skelton v. Loftin filed at this term. The negligence which proximately caused the injury was the defective crossing and not the running of the locomotive (Sec. 7052 C.G.L.) hence I question whether the statute might have, under any circumstances, had any application.