New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-01-03

roint 10 which your attention. has been chiefly directed
How FAR ii at all and 10 what extent II any, is the de-
fcndant responsible for that accident Irresponsible for
the mischief which produced the disaster. Was the
collision consequence of any unlawful net Of def nd
ant For, as we have scen, If man doing an unlag
fpl not not amounting TO felony BY accident involuna
rilv kills another il IL manslaughter. Was this col
hIun H conreQu,rc e Of gross negligence, careless
nc,s or he part dctrnia; driving back the
train NJ unlawful unusual and dangerous speed by which
either In itself or IN connection with ALLURE 70 give proper
required by law this carriage was caught on the track
scrce IN driving with any popelng motive
death mansuster The law exact. caution and careful
ness him who the Of human life This
sronby In such depends upon the inquiry whether he
acting in violation OF law and was guilty OF sro.
of the casually and the degree OF care aud caution
requisite bring he within the limits OF nssdyenture
must he ooronac 10 the probability OF Danger attending the
the act INN, dAely conducive 70 death
There questions In the and you viii bear in
mind that the State estsbs. two propositions to warrant
F, That the act done was unlawful Of tse that there
Seond That the unlawful act the eggent way in which
the act done the Of the collision and consequent
fioniouor The was so grossyet the death
by the uaw ul the NEGLIGENCE was
moi criminal engineer be punished criuinaly
Tor crossing public highway without blowing whistle ring
bell for any degree Of negligence If thereby no one
The State makes points That the defendant backed
bell required by the rules and regulations OF the COMPANY
Reads BY the Statutes Of the State Reads And that IN
b.epns tram can never give in schess the notice required
Statute which conempates only train in forward motion
waning when the rear car within three hundred yard, the
crossing. There Is n such useful purpose answered o
rt E thu, the driven back at unsafe and dan:
speed and tina, in this there wa; so'; Pig % L
evidence Both Points involve hinged rouG s%sy e,
the defendant being engineer of the train who's
SSrS. from place where the railroad on which he is runnn
crossed hshwsy-snd kept the bell ringing or the Whist
doing whereby the accident occurred Let us SEQ how the ac
are Dr. Heineken drove the carriage that came in col
sion with the train estfes that he did not hear any whistle
bell His wife who with him in the carriage teies to
the thing though she she listening at the tim
thoy were approaching the crossing and Thos f. Antrim VIII
the carriage and sitting the front seat with tins
working in his field about 40 yards from where the
broke up and at distance % aoO, 10 gu When tb car
crossed the he he always noticed when they d so
when bac the cars Charles AcOtt aud Henry HIM
moving in the threeconered LOT ~ the
be noticed the Doctors carriage os ne came opposite 70
where they workns that the cars were tnen oacAs
that he heard no whistle bell from that time to the time
collision though he had heard whistle about
carriage which when had up the road to
within about hundred and y yards Of The crossing ana
opposite to whore they were he saw the oacAns
train and heard neither whistle nor ee 6@
the engine eses that he did not hear either bell or whistle as
the train came near the crossing George Fort who was on his
down and heard no bell or whistle. Hugh CASTLE who at
sbOut mile from the river crossing along side OF the
crossing heard the whistle blown BY backing train
about the Gargoods crossing but aterward Then we
hsy the testimony Of Daniel B. Zley, Isaac r. Drake John
and Joseph A%e Al ss not blow his Whistle and
conductor Mr. Nosirand tehes that he heard nm is
20 doSb that he did make these declarations These
EXPLANATIONS of the defendant are OF course to
bis mental excitement at the time; whether that
nv ctofd
de S S% on e ana tho rs
the collision mind would soon aerWard have been
by belief that he had not done so Here is the con
testimony of nine witnesses in the IA the cars
and and along the road all within distance reaoly 70
the fact that the requisites Of the law e on ,s
sion Is shaken OvercomeF Inc Conductor OF te
eses that he was on the e of the COLLISION
and he saws he heard the whistle blow at the crossing
before the collision He cannot ho'v long it blew
TO satisfy statutory acquisitions ought TO have commencea
have continued blowing until the reached and passed
the crossing Mr. Lloyd Vsnderveer says ne ne the WHISTLE
bo they met Newly Ork train and for some distance
after il commenced backing: but he has no rec0etcon OF s
blowing the train reached the crossing ne was
not the legal warning Eben F. Harvey was the ex
in the neca He as they were backing ne
side and saw doctors carriage coming up the nver
approaching the track intending 70 cross before me
train was and passed TO the opposite
door to got but the his seeing aud
he % Ho P SiO was in field on the river road about
400 yards the crossing Says be saw the Tram baekg and
hoard the whistle blow when the train must have been very
the cruising bu saws it three puts and not
continuous whistle and that it was but very lew ae
the crash occurred Peter Shreeve passenger III the man
saws that the whistle commenced blowing when they got
within yards the crossing and blew continuously Tor lo
200 yards until the train near or little over Inc
bstle had stopped says. very short time when he
felt the first jar The whistle according to this some
go wards too late meet the requirements OF the statute
Mr. Striker was also passenger but his testimony only that
be remembers hearing the whistle between the periods oil he
long it bod before the collision His testimony amounts
nothing Mr. ouigey stood in position on the Noun! hSi
could not until they reached the CROSSING lie says
heard the up and ow al sine but 10 Sos
not tell in which train the whistle was blown MI oopeL
ing train down he heard their whistle bow long
blow-as they approached the crossns lie says ne ap,
preached with his train within 800 yards OF them and
bs whistle blew as he supposed for the river crossing also
Scott fireman. who the engine says adams oeW
% for the river crossing when forty fifty yards from it, but
don't know whether II blowing whent he COLLISION
I'm h sboUt ten seconds before the crash and Mr. Allen
thomson he ard lust before the crash ne
these witnesses all but Price and Qugey on one or
trains Price heard no continuous whistle ent
two or three pus signals probably Tor the
brakes They not the warning for crossing 3ossy,
Of mile on heard over Ss cIOsns but
this may been the whistle OF the New OK ts ~nc
he in the train il quite possible the whistle
OF the NewYork they heard that without controversy
O Mr. HoopeT the Conductor Of the EewOk train however
explicitly that the backing train did give the usual
alarm for the crossing and Scott the fireman. who was on the
engine with the defendant quite explicitly TO the same
thing. y.
But was there any notice given at all for this crosns Is
ALWAYS your duty gentlemen reconcile apparently comp
Gated testimony YOU When that cannot be done you
and IN xeichpg testimony the general rule that
positive testimony is likely be true than negative
tben man swesrs potiyely he heard thing IL
Ia better evidence OF the than the testimony OF an equally
crhe witness that he did hear the same thing
REGARD too Ia ALWAYS to be had 10 the opportunity the
Witnesses immediately he'd of seeing hearing well as
whether the witnesses interested and unbiased or Other
wise. You may gather light too, to guide you oy con