Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-03-21
THE FIRE CHUTE SIN,
By Which Two Newsboys Went
HeadlOng to Their Death, is
RECALLED BY A MOTION TO OUASH.
Colonel GriscOm is Held to be Guiltless of
the Fatal Error.
PATCOMPARISeN AND MERCYINJ JUSTICE

Judge Magee, in the Criminal Court,
listened yesterday afternoon to arguments
10 ouash the indictment for manslaughter
against Colonel Griscom, of the Mononga-
hela House. 1t will be remembered that
last October, while a man named Wilson
was testing new fire escape at the Monon.,
the rope broke and two boys were dashed to
death on the pavement.
On the motion to quash the indictment,
Messrs. R. H. Johnston, Clarence Burleigh
and S. A. McClelland appeared for Mr.. Girls
com, and District Attorney Porter opposed the
motion. The arguments made were dry
legal facts, and, though they bore upon an in
teresting point not one solitary visitor sat the
arguments out.
THOUGHT IT WAS A MISTAKE
Mr.. Burleigh said that Mr.. Griscom should
never have been indicted, as he was not present
at the fatal exhibition nor did he give his
authority for it When Wilson was arrested
for the affair, Mr. Griscom was not, and he is
not now, and never has been, practically in
court on the charge, and the only knowledge
he has of the indictment against him was
gained through the public press. He read the
finding of the Coroner's jury, which was to the
.
negligence, ETC., and also that Griscom was
negligent in allowing the use of the fire escape
without first having been shown a permit
signed by the Board of Fire Escapes. While
the Jury said that Wilson was guilty of gross
criminal negligence they find Griscom was
only negligent Wilson was committed for
murder by the Coroner, while Griscom was not,
which, he held, shows that they intended TO
exculpate him from criminal responsibility.
The grand Jury, he said, could indict only by
its own knowledge or direct evidence, and in
no other cases without a previous examination
before magistrate. This, he claimed, was not
done, inaSmuch as the bill was sent them by
the District Attorney. and the evidence in the
Coroner's jury finding was not sufficient.
ON THE OTHER HAND.
Mr. Johnston said he had nothing to add to
what Mr.. Burleigh had said.
District Attorney Porter, in opposing. said
the fact that the Coroner failed to perform his
duty does not bind the Commonwealth, and it
mattered not if commitment was not lodged
against Griscom. If the CoroRer's Jury found
him not responsible. the Coroner would have
to discharge him. and if he lodged so commit
ments against him, the grand jury could not
in1ict him on commitment
He said that the Coroners jury alleged he
was negligent and through this negligence
death resulted, and it was case for trial. He
supposed that the charge against Mr.. Griscom
would not amount to much, but he should be
tried
Mr.. Johnston said that 1t amounted to con-
siderable to Mr.. Griscom to be put on trial for
murder.
A discussion then ensued, in which Messrs
Johnston, Porter and McClelland took part, on
the definition of negligence and what District
Attorneys bill consisted of, such a bill they
claiming this one to be. At the conclusion
judge Magee took the papers and reserved his
decision.
In the discussion the Judge and lawyers made
frequent comments upon the fact that the
Coroner's finding had charged criminal negli-
genee against several people in the Wiley dis
aster, but no prosecutions had followed.