The Portland daily press., 1867-08-30
Muaieiprl Gsvrs.

N
THuRsDAy.--Alfred Touhcet and James Clary,
quite small lads, brought up for malicious mis-
chief In entering the garden of Alexander Bowie
They were fined 50 and half the costs each, which
their parents paid
In the ease OF State Charles s. Noreross charged
with homicide In causing the death of Mrs Augusta
s. Fcss' by runaing over her with railroad train,
Judge kingsbury delivered his opinion disch .rging
the respondent. The opinion is as follows: 81
STATE VS.. CHARLES $. NoRcRoss.
This is complaint under the provisions of Revised
Statutes, Chap. 81. Sec. Al, as follows: t.aE
Any person employed in conducting trains, who
injury, Is to be punished by imprisonment in the
IAN not exceeding one year. By fine not ex
ceeding one thousand dollars
oh th' sth of August instant, Mrs. Augusta S.
poss was killed by an engine of the Grand Trunk
hailro d. while 1t was passing through New Glouces-
'ei' inc engine oeing then in charge Of the respond
ent as engineer; and this most calamity
Is attributed to bis negligence or carelessness.
The law requires that Whenever NJ, o,.,,,e an
proaches crossing of any railroad the steam whistle
snail be sounded at the distance of one hundred rods
from the place of crossing Or. s. CHI g. Sec 49, as
amended by Act 1854, Sec ~ a" ad'@ ss
also requires that the bell on the engine shall be
rupg atthe distance Of eighty reds or more from the
place OF crossing Of any way on the same level and
kept ringing untilthe engine has crossed such way
| R. s., Oh. 81, Sec. 49, ifiaaa n
Besides these provisions, it has been decided that
even the proper signals are observed the driving
an engine with unusual and dangerous rapidity over
crossing would constitute negligence and careless
ness. ni3
There are three questions to be determined IN or
der to ascertain whether not the respondent should
be held to answer further to this complaint:
1 Woo h. l...Irzr
titles that he remembers distinctly Of sounding the
whistle at the usual place between the culvert and
switcha continuous whistleo perhaps four seconds
the prescribed signal for a crossing. He did not
distinctly remember of hearing the bell The whistle
was sounded about 100 rods from the crossing. The
whistle should be heard at least two miles, Whistles
can generally be heard from three to four miles
This evidence is substantially corroborated by that
OF Benz, Merrill, who stood the platform of the
depot; Joseph Pollister, who some distance off,
rding down the hill; George H Weeks, fireman ON
the engine; Justus Richards and Charles Keith.
track rcairers who stepped to the side of the track
10 allow the engine to pass and by Frederick LARA
pee, VINO was at work in field considerable dis
lance south OF the crossing 1t is true that neither
the unfortunate lady who was killed, or the two
ladies with her in the wagon and some two or three
others, heard this signal but the evidence neyerthe
less, leaves shade Of doubt on my mind. lam en-
trely satisfied that the whistle was SOUNDED as test-
fed to by the respondent. q
2 Was the bell rung as the statute requires? This
duty was devolved upon the fireman; but the re-
spohdent, having charge of the engine would in my
Judgment, be answerable for any neglect in this re-
spect OF ms subordinate. 1t is for him to see that
the fireman performs this duty equally with all other
duties Mir. Geo. H. Weeks, the fireman OF the train
testified that he was not Of the accident until
he was told next morning, when he remembered that
while approaching New Gloucester he was engaged
in making steam for the grade, and while doing SO
Noreross blew the whistle the usual time-about a
| quarter of mnute-one straight sound Kept on
firing until they reached the woodshed when be took
hold Of the rope and rung ne beA and oontinaed to
ring ssnt1 they passed the crossing. On passing the
crossing he looked back to see if the train was all
right aud saw the wagon and two women pass the
crossing in rear Of the train. EsE t.es< a
This evidence stands alone and uncorroborated.
No other person heard tho bell rung, but several of
the witnesses testified that as their att enton was not
turned in that direction, it might have been rung
without their noticing it.. The COUNSEL for the re-
spondent argued with much force and periinence
that the noise of train OF twenty-one cars rushing
along the road at the rate OF fifteen miles an hour
might well drown the lighter sound of a bell. The
positive evidence of the fl eman is not impeaehed
except BY this negative testimony. He testified with
P @ ruthtalness, and though is singular that
bound, taking all the circumstances into consiJera-
ton, to accept il as true r., t 1870
.. 1t was in evidence that the engine was not driv-
en- at unusual speed over the crossing but made ony
Its ordinary time. This believe, was not cues
toned by the counsel for the Government r "
Considering all the facts presented, can come to
no other conclusion than that the respondent per-
formed his entire duty OH the OCCASION carefully and
without negligence. .ss- -
~ may not be improper to add that the lady, who
was the unhappy yicum of this lamentable accident
would not have been harmed had she remained with
her companions in the wagon which SAFELY crossed
the road in front of the engine. But, unfortunately,
panic stricken, she jumped from the wagon ON the
| track, and was killed. Is. -- .. 900