Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-09-03
THE NEW HAVEN RAILROAD DISASTER.

II 1uE NEW HAVEN RAILROAD DISASTER
The case Of Charles IT. ConsoeE conductor on the New
Haven Railroad indicted for mansaux was submit
ted to the Jury Of the Fairfield County Court at Danbury
Comm Saturday, after trial Of four DAYS. during
which many witnesses examined both for the pro-
secuton and the defence In substance the evidence was
the same as the Coroners Inquest.
The counsel for the prosecution argued that the train
out of time that the draw at the Norwalk bridge was
lawfully open and that the prisoner negligenty per-
his duty conductor that he caused and permit
ted the train to at such reckless Of speed as
the fatal disaster They commended that il Is
mansaughter If one, in the performance Of lawful act
80 neggenty deport himself to occasion by his neg
the death Of another whether by omission Of duty
or Negligent commission and further asserted that
negligence OF employees railroads is gross
Inc counsel Tor the defence argued that there was no
wui negligence on the part Of the defendant and that
the prosecution could not be sustained unless the State
should prove act done by the defendant showing
that the negligence wful on his part They con.
tended that by fair construction Of rule three Of the
companys regulations the conductor is only responsible
for the starting and stopping at stations and for COLI
sons with opposing trains and that the engineer is the
person on whom deyoves the duty Of looking out for the
open or shut draw.
In Connecticut by statute of recent date the counsel
trary to the practice in every other part Of the world
where the English common law prevails.
Judge TAYLOR presiding, charged the jury as follows:
Gentlemen Of the Jury: The prisoner at the bar has
been indicted for the crime of manslaughter tits alleged
t ~. counts that he was the conductors
Tram on Lne New York and New Haven rarvauy and ran
1t 50 negligenty as the Of Dr. Welch You
are to divest your minds Of all bias and decide according
unlawful killing of another without malice express or
implied and may be either voluntary upon sudden heat
OF passion, or Involuntary IN the commission Of
lawful act, or neglgently in doing lawful act The
discharged his duty as to cause death
II Is admitted that the defendant the conductor Of
TINS train and that the death of Dr. WEIGH caused by
this accident which the State claims produced in con-
sequence OF the negligence of the defendant 1t claim
ed by the prosecution that the duty of the condu
tor to regulate the speed of the train in question: and
they say they have produced Witnesses who passen
gers in the train, who testify that the speed great
around the curve the draw bridge Norwak up
on any other part Of the road They claim have prov
ed by MI Whistler that the ordinary rate Of speed Of
that train was thirty five miles per hour and have intro
duced the evidence of distinguished mathematician who
has testified to calculations made by him tending to show
the speed Of this train to have been about thirty miles per
hour they further claim that the conductor having
mitted and allowed that train at hazardous rate
of speed so dangerous part of the road the accident
occurred through his negligence and he is therefore
criminalIy liable.
The defendant claims that this train was proceeding
around this its usual fspeed and his
sci say they have proved this fact by the evidence of wit
nesses whose positions and capacities for knowing this fact
far better than those of other witnesses that the steam
was shut off in the cut below Norwak station and the
speed of the train thereby, and by the application Of
the brakes sensby decreased that the conductor had
right to suppose that the draw closed and the signal
of the draw right for the passage of the train and
that part of his duty look out for signals that
being solely the duty of the engineer You judges Of
both the law and fact The law authorizes to instruct
you upon the law but you not bound to regard my
in criminal matters.
have been requested to instruct you that agent is
not responsible for the acts of another and that there
difference between civil action and criminal prosecu
ton, and such instruct you is the law The law will
hold party civiy liable when it will not hold him
crimnay responsible The defendant claims that he
in the discharge of lawful act and that the prosecu
ton that did act tending to evncc care
essness and reckessness in conducting that train Such
is the law but further instruct you that if that train
was going at dangerous rate of speed and if you be-
leye that it the duty of the conductor to cheek IT.
and that he recklessy and careessy neglected his duty
In permitting that train to around the at dam
gerous rate of speed that would be such negligent act
that IT would be mansaughter if death ensued But if
have any reasonable doubt the defendant should have
the benefit of this doubt Gentlemen the facts and the
law are now with you and you will return such verdict
as you may think proper.
1t was about 2 o'clock on Saturday afternoon when
the Judge delivered the charge At Al p NJ. the Jury
returned to the courtroom, and the foreman said it
impossible for them to agree The Judge replied that it
desirable the Jury should agree this time and
subject the county and the prisoners the expense Of
another trial. therefore, he would discharge them.
but send them back for further deliberation They u
naely returned verdict of not guilty The estimonyof
Messrs Whistler and Burral officers Of the road proved
,oncusivey that it part Of the conductors bust
to look out for signals govern the movements Of
The tran except to make stops at the proper stations