The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-08-29

Q-What DO you mean by managing his train
Al suppose he isthe principal conductor o. me
train, and IT is under his charge ! suppose ne IS
Captain General Of the train; mean by reckless
ness that man is reckless when he tells the engi-
neer to drive through place like hi
Mr.. Hapley-Cap,. Hubben, waa,do You mean SIR,
by an expression OF this kind when You have signed
verdict, under oath, that no sacn expression was
used.
By the Court-The witness can testify that express
Sens Of that kind were made by The defendant. ),
By the Wtness-I only supposed that IL be had
said so he would be reckless.
Mr.. HabltyI If you had supposed that Comssock COM
United murder, he might then be arraigned uOon
your superstition. have had this matter called TO
my direct attention for the first time since the acct
dent this morning.
Direct resumed--Mr. Burial testified that he had
but little TO do with the management Of the road,
bat that rested with Mr.. Whistler.
Thomas G. Hanford--l reside ia South Norwalk
have been in the train once or twice with Com
stock; Comstocks reputation As conductor Is that
he Is rather reckless.
Q.-win you state whether the morning express
train had before that time passed around the curve
at Norwak at q hazardous rate Of speed?
Objected 10 by defendants counsel because it was
new matter and had no relevancy &C the issue in the
ease.
Mr. Tery-we charge duty upor the conductor
which he performed reglgently upon this occasion.
We prove this duty by Mr.. Whistler. The defend
ant then introduces witnesses 70 prove that II was
the conductors duty to report TO the superintendent
II
rate of speed. The superintendent testfes that
report Of this description has been made, and
Tow offer TO chow that the rate around that curve
was dangerous. AL tie witnesses called by the de-
fendant are railroad officials, and offer 70 prove
facts by some one else than railroad officers, engi
neers, or brakemeD. II is time that the community
sbonld know il the opinion OF railroad officials should
govern IN preference to that or others. admit tina
il is question whether this is new matter
bat We have shown that no report was ever made TO
the superintendent and the defendant claims that
thirty miles an hour was safe rate of speed; cam
We show now that II was not TO contradict Their tes
tmOnyi
Mr.. Foster-This whole question was gone into by
the prosecution before they rested their case; we
have no objection TO the inquiry, What was safe
rate Of speed" but We are not here to try the issue
involved In the question; we are not charged with
running the train neghgently at former times but
only upon the day upon which the calamity oc-
cured.
BY the Court-It would seem to me that the evil
aenCe which the prosecution Row offer should be
confined to rebuttng the evidence Of the defendant,
and should therefore think the question improper.
ross.examined-Co mstock's character as a con-
ductor is reckless with reference 10 his manage
ment OF the train, and treatment 0! passengers;
his character was more frequently subject Of dis
cussion about the time OF the accident than before
or since.
Henry Fitch reside in Norwalk; am Deputy
Sheriff; don't think that Comstocks character as
conductor was as good as some others; be had the
reputation Of being reckless.
Cross examined-He was considered reckless in
running his train; can't tell who have heard but
think have heard the Rev. Or. Mead sneak OF il;
cant tell whether heard his character spoken Of
before The accident, but think heard it both before
and after.
William H. Holly reside in NorTalk, Q.-state
what was the character of C0mstock, as careful OF
reckless conductor. Ale had the reputation Of
being reckless.
Cross .xamined.-He was considered reckless in
running too fast
A. e. Byngton-- Reside in Norwalk as far as
know the general remark, C1xnstock was rather
fast CONDUCTOR have heard that mentioned fire.
quently, as rather complimentary to him should
think bis character was not that of careful man.
CrossexaMined.-I have heard the expression
used, that he was rather fast conductor the COM
mon report was that he was SO fast as to hazard
safety have beard Darius Davenport, Of New Ha-
ven, speak Of il, and Vim. &. Street, Of Norwaik,
spoke Of him as independent
Thomas Warner, Jr-l vas clerk Of the inquest, and
anS t2ck the minutes ] recollect distinctly tn 1t
George Elmer testified Eefore the jury that he was
in the tender, throwing wood forward for the fire, at
the time the train passed through the cut below Nor
walk.
Cross examined The minutes were delivered by
me to Mr.. Hyatt, and have not seen them sine,
till now never heard Comstock's character as a
conductor questioned.
c. j. GruInan = am merchant in Norwalk the
most that have heard against Comstock is on ac-
count Of his conduct towards passengers; besides
that heard nothing Of t.
The evidence on the part Of the prosecution was
here concluded.
Alfred Chichester called by defendant-I never
heard Comstock's character as conductor spoken
Of mean in the management OF his train.
A. Z. Besrs-I reside at South Aorwalk have
never heard Comstock characterized as reckless
conductor.
The examination Of the witnesses in the case was
concluded this FIiday) noon. There was quite
number of witnesses in attendance the part OF the
State, who were not Examined but as their evidence
would consist Of repetition Of the main facts in the
case as testified to by other witnesses for the prose
cuticn they were not called: At the conclusion Of
the testimony the Court adjourned till 2 r. NJ, at
which time the argument of the to the Jury was
commenced by VIM. F. Taylor, Esq, the prosecuting
attorney for the county. He alluded to the circum
stances under which this prosecution had originated
and the great anxiety in the public mind that the
which led to the accident at Norwalk should
be fully investigated. This prosecution not in
stutcd for the purpose of expressing Mr. Comstock,
but for the purpose OF ascertain ing where and upon
whom the blame lay. lie dwelt at some length upon
the evidence and insisted that he had been guilty Of
culpable negligence, and that by the laws Of the
land he should be held liable for mansaughter. He
was followed by Hon L. X. Foster, OF New Haven,
for the defence, in an able and eloquent argument
He alluded TO the intense excitement which prevail
ed throughout the entire country, in consequence OF
the calamity at Norwalk and exhorted the jury to
disabuse their minds Of any bias which might exist
in consequence OF reports which they might have
heal or read. He insisted that the prosecution had
utterly failed in showing any negligence the part
OF the defendant and claimed as matter OF law that
the prosecution must show some act done by the de-
PENDANT, evinclng carelessness and reckessness 10
the management OF his train-thst the mere omis-
sion to do act from which omission death should
ensue, would not constitute granddaughter. He con
Guided by affecting appeal TO the jury TO weigh
well the evidence and the law, and not convict his
client and subject him to incarceration within the
walls OF State prison for the commission OF Of
fence, ii offence it be, which he had intention to
commit and from which those whose lives were des
troyed would unhesitatiD2ly acqrat him, could this
case be left 10 then.
Ouis s. Ferry, Esq, closed the argument Of the
case for the prosecution. He commenced by abiding
in touching and appropriate manner to the cause,
which had led TO the trial OF this al the present
time. II would be impossible 10 follow Mr.. Ferry
through the whole OF bis argument. Suffice il TO
say that it was masterpiece Of eloquence and logic
and attentivey listened TO and fully appreciated
by the numerous auditory in the court house, quite
portion of which consisted Of the fair sex Of Danbury
and adjoining towns.
At The conclusion OF Mr.. Feny's argument, the