Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1869-10-20


exhaustion was through being fright
ened. The hotel was nearer the river.
When got to the fire thought three
pals of water would put it out. At
that time the fire had not reached any
car. The passengers were out looking
at wreck, but did not offer to help. /
did not see anybody try TO extrieate
any person from the cars. put forth
my efforts to take out baggage. If
strong men had gone there with axes
they could have extricated the passen-
gers, but they had only ono axe. The
reason ] did not see engine of freight
train until about forty feet of, was on
account of the curve, and strong light
thrown out by my headlight. Did
not know there were passengers fast
in smoking car when took baggage
ont. could not have done tie least
thing towards stopping my train,
between the time | saw the freight
engine and the collision.
The arguments OF counsel having
been closed, his Honor, Judge Barrett,
proceeded to charge the jury follows:
Gentlemen of tlic Jury: We shall
endenvor to give this case in as few
words as possible, in the discharge Of
a simple duty. regret exceedingly
that many things have surrounded
this trial that have no relative bearing
upon it. regret that your attention
should have been called to the cordi.
tion Of the defendant, or that the Eric
Railway Company were brought for
ward as the prosecutors, and / would
have you divost your minds Of the
Company, or defendant, save what
You derive from the evidence alone.
The evidence don't say that the Com
pany is the prosecutor in this case
The act of the Assembly Of the State
Of Pennsylvania, makes it an impcra-
tive duty on the District Attorney TO
prosecute all such cases, and had he
failed to do 80, he would not have dis
charged his duty. The simple inquiry
for you TO mako is whether the law
has been violated, and if SO, that the
responsibility be placed on the proper
person 80 offending. We have plain
statute for our direction in this case
which ! will read, and which will give
you the proper instruction for your
guidance.
The Judge here read tho law, which
provides that if any person or persons
in the employ Of o railroad or trans
portation company shall refuse or
neglect any rule or regulation of the
company, and by reason of neglect or
wilful misconduct to obey said rules,
injury or death shall result thereby,
each person shall be guilty of INSIDE.
mcanor, and on conviction shall pay q
fluv uvt-osssss.ii-s 6.v t,oas~na dol.
lars, aud be imprisoned in the county
Jail or penitentiary not TO exceed five
years.
This act wns passed 1865. Before
this we only had the common law in
such cases, but the growing import
ance given to railway travel, and
service, and the increased number oI
accidents rendered q more stringent
law necessary. In 1875 The times
may make it necessary to take a steT
still further, and so on. This law
commends itself for what IL is worth
1t is our duty to administer it as We
find it. You should enquire what wa,
the intention Of the Legislature il
making this law. The language n
the law is in plain and concise terms
"trom and after the passage of thi,
act, &c" The first branch of this
statute, "refusal or neglect to obey
the rules" is mado a misdcmeanor
or II "by negligence shall fail to obcy,'
each is demcanor. But you say
the law is not confined TO the rules o
the Railway Company, because il say
! IN distinct terms "lf by reason o
negligence or wilful misconduct, &c,
!, ainjury, or death TO any person shal
thereby result two things here ar,
misdomeanors Before the prisonel
can be convicted, il is necessary &,
show that he was an employee of th'
road, and that he disobeycd the rules
and death resulted thereby We re
gard the act Of the Assembly as plain
not ambiguous, 80 there is no difficult,
to arrive at a proper verdict tits a
much a duty for us to administer thi
statute as any other. Thesimple qucs
tion is, wero the provisions Of thi
J statute violated You have no righ
= to 90 outside OF it for inquiry Ilay
Z ing given you the only construction
5 of the law, we will 60 little further
The importance Of the case renders j
! necessary that We brush away som
{ portions Of the evidence that only en-
, barrass you. We are now brought &
the llth of July, the night OF th
e accident When Griffin ran his trail
D on the switch, al Mast Hope, il is no
;, in dispute that he violated any rules
= it was his duty TO do more--to awai
). tho orders of the conductor Of his owl
C train before starting, which was Pre-
o ven he did not. 1t WAS rule absC
{ lutte with the Company. The soone
] employees Of the Company are taugh
r. not to disobcy its rules, the soone
@ will accidents cease To start was a
s absolute disobcdiencc Of orders, an
!, that he has done so bcforois no eycus,
n His duty after arriving on the switc
i was to throw off the steam, and {
s lay there AZ minutes under any Gil
4 cumstances, until trains Z and 3 ha
d passed. No. arrived behind tim
I. and No. was % minutes lat,
e During the last 20 minutes he lay o
| the track he was liable for orders O
l. any time from his conductor to move
II II was his duty to lay there and awai
9 the arrival of No. he could not e
IL ont before that time. We now com
Z. to the FIRST count in the Indictment
! filling TO await the orders Of the COZ
y ductor for starting his train. Th
}, rule was binding he accepted TO obel
D, understand and comprehend thos
b. rulos 1t is urged by the defence ths
!. disobcdience is OF frequent occurrence
K but this is matter between himsc
d and the Company, but when deaf