Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1871-12-19

section where accident happened on th
LIST of August last, and was on the hand
car at the time of accident. (Witnes
corroborates Bryant's testimony
Warren Noyes. called by deit. Co, ties
Titled Am Master Mechanic; hav
charge of repairs ut Gorham, N. H.. tn
ordinary rate of speed in July or Angus
is from Is to 50 miles, some times run A
miles.
Mr.. Hamilton. Superintendent OF Port
land & Ogdensburg Railroads. was ii
Grand Trunk Co. employ till year ag'
last July; knew Geo. c. Cobb | hiret
him on the road rs fireman. consider
cd him very likely young man capable
of running an engine Amos S. Bryant
Stephen l.. E,heridgc, David Morgan
section men, were called by State, ant
testified that they had received no writ
ten nor printed order excepting the regu
lHC pIluleN lcSuIdtiolS'
THE JUDGES CHARGE.
The issue to be tried by you is a very
simple one, it you rightly understand it
Your verdict will be simply guilty or no
guilty, declaring whether the Crane
Trunk Co. is guilty OF negligence. APP
peals to sympathy, while they may DC eN'
cusablc in counsel, are not calculated &c
enable us TO judge candidly or weigh
evidence properly. Both counsel, while
commenting ON the law, admit that the
presiding Judge will give it to you. The
substance OF The charge in the lndict
ment is Ibis, that David Robbins, ON the
lst OF August last, lost his lite by The
carelessness or negligence of the Grand
Trunk Railway Co. The first objection
raised by the defence. is, that when an
employee is injured in the discharge oI
duty, the Co. is not liable. This is true
in civil suits 1t is IN important question
OF law, and | think not settled in this
class OF eases. Il would be an end tc
this prosecution should rule n coun eI
for defence contends. For the purposes
OF this trial, over rule it,
The next point taken by counsel 70,
deit is that the burden OF proof is on
PHI. In civil case, whom ono claims 10
recover, he should satisfy the jury oil his
claim-the party asserting 4 fact, should
satisfy the inry oil the fact. | would not
lay down the rule in this case a the same
ia criminal eases OF Importance. The
true rule i, in this class OF eases, that
the government must prove that Rob.
bins was in the exercise of due care. 1t
is contendcd by the defence that the track.
men in the hand car should have been
watching the road both ways, aud should
not have had their backs to the coming
engine. II Robbins was not IN the cN-
crcise of care. the government cannot
recover.
Coming to the affirmative propositions
OF the government, the County Atty say
that the engine was driven with unrcas-
enable speed, &c. What wa, the rate OF
speed? is = ilct for YOU to find.
When yon have determined the rate
of speed, then was it an unreasonable
rate? II it was, your verdict should
he guilty 1t is also alleged by the gov
eminent that notice should have been
given by the Company OF this engine.
The Co. say no notice Is required-thal
he uactmcu should look out, their silua.
lion is such, that they should exercise
care. | instruct YOU, that for the presen,
purposes, Won must decide this question
of carcluuess Tor want OF notice The
lull Count might reverse your conclusion
Another point OF the government Is, that
should have "shunted' his Engine Al
Bryanl's Pond. The Engineer received
order, at DauyiIlc Junction 10 proceed
according To special Rules. One ct the
printed rules Is. that Engineers OF spec
il Engines should be governed 10y the
same rules rs Conductors. Another i
that trains should DE "shunted" ten min
utcS before trains arrive. BY The rule, il
seems to me that there was violation of
this rule in COb6's not "shunting" his
Engine 10 minutes before the GHG OF the
train nj Lockc's Mills. 1t he could not
have reached LOckc's Mills 10 minutes
before Freight train No. ) was due there,
he should not have left Bryants Pond, at
~ minutes paste. Ii seems that he was
violating a special rule OF the Co. Was
thi; careles>ncss II il was not the
cause OF Robbins death, then the gov.
ernment cannot prevail. II otherwise the
verdict should be guilty.
The charge occupied about three. fouths
oil an hour and was exceedingly clear and
to the point. We give only n very I'M
perfect sketch OF it. We had full report
OF the testimony, arguments Of counsel,
and the charge, but not having space ior
all, 10 save labor, we take the abstract OF
the evidence furnished by Mr. Pilman Pul.
ciier, the obliging reporter.
The jury took tho case at u past u,
and in 20 minutes rendered 4 verdict oil
guilty, which was generally regarded rs
just. Counsel for def. carries the case
up on exceptions. TO the ruling Of the
Court, which suspends action for the