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

thut saw uriilln. The cause of my
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 extricate
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 one 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
out | could not have done the least
thing towards stopping my train,
between the time saw the freight
engine and the collision.
Tho arguments Of counsel having
been closed, his Honor, Judge Barrett,
proceeded to charge the jury as follows:
Gentlemen Of the jury: We shall
endcavor 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 20 the cordi.
ton Of the defendant, or that the Eric
Railway Company were brought for
ward as the prosecutors, and / would
have you divest your minds of the
Company, or defendant, save what
yon 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 impera.
tive duty on the District Attorney to
prosecute all such cases, and had he
failed to do so, he would not have dis
charged his duty. Tho simple inquiry
for you TO make is whether the law
has been violated, and if SO, that the
responsibility be placed on the proper
person so 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 the law, which
provides that il any person or persons
in the employ of a 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
meanor, and on conviction shall pay
fluv- sa~sss~s.i;..s A. si.e..aad Ial
lars, and be imprisoned in the county
Jail or pcnitentiary not to exceed five
years.
This act was 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 of
accidents rendered a more stringent
law necessary. In 1875 the times
may make it necessary to take a step
still further, and so on. This law
commends itself for what it is worth.
1t is our duty to administer it as we
find it, You should enquire what was
the intention Of the Legislature in
making this law. The language of
the law is in plain and concise terms
"From and after the passage of this
act, &C." The first branch of this
statute, "refusal or neglect to obey
the rules" is made a misdemeanor
or If "by negligence shall fail 10 obey"
each is domeanor. But you say
the law is not confined to the rules OF
the Railway Company, because il says
In distinct terms "lf by reason of
negligence or wilful misconduct, &C."
"injury, or death to any person shall
thereby result two things here are
misdemeanors, Before the prisoner
can be convicted, It is necessary TO
show that he was an employee of The
road, and that he disobeycd the rules,
and death resulted thereby. We re-
gard the act of the Assembly as plain,
not ambiguous, so there is no difficulty
to arrive at q proper verdict 1t is as
much n duty for us to administer this
statute as any other. The simple ques-
tion is, were the provisions of this
statute violatody You have no right
TO 20 outside OF il for inquiry Ilav-
ing given you the only construction
of the law, wo will go a little further.
The Importance Of the case renders it
necessary that VIC brush away some
portions of the evidence that only en-
barrass you. We are now brought to
the lith of July, the night OF the
accident When Griffin ran his train
on the switch, at Mast Hope, It is not
in dispute that he violated any rules
it was his duty to do more--to await
the orders of the conductor Of his own
train before starting, which was pro.
ven he did not. 1t was n rule abso-
lutte with the Company. The sooner
employees of the Company are taught
not to disobey its rules, the sooner
will accidents cease To start was an
absolute disohedience Of orders, and
that he has done so beforei is no excuse.
His duty after arriving on tho switch
was to throw Off the steam, and to
lay there AZ minutes under any cir
cumstances, until trains Z and had
passed. No. I arrived behind time
and No. was % minutes late,
During tho last 26 minutes he lay on
the track he was liable for orders at
any time from his conductor to move
1t was bis duty to lay there and await
the arrival Of No. 3 he could not get
out before that time. We now come
to the first count in the Indictment
fai'ing to await the orders Of the con
ducior for starting his train. The
rule was binding; he accepted TO obey.
understand aud comprehend those
rules, II is urged by the defence that
disobcdionce is OF frequent occurrence,
but this is matter between himself
and tho Comnanv Int when death