Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-01-24
TO 0UASH STARR'S BILL.
An Important Attack on the Indictment of
Superintendent A. B. Starr, of the Fort
Wayne Railroad.

An Important Attack on the Indictment Of
Superintendent A. B. Starr, of the Fort
Wayne Railroad.
Readers of The DISPATCH will remember
the indictment, presented by the grand jury
at the December sessions, prolonged until
the present month, against General Super
intendent A. B. Starr, Of the Pittsburg,
Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway, as being
crlminally responsible for the Federal street
horror, in which Harriet Weyman and John
Culp lost their lives. The indictment was
for manslaughter of the involuntary degree,
and, though found under an old statute and
against expectation, it was conceded to have
brought the matter up in a most serious
form, notwithstanding the high pressure
which had been brought to bear on Super
intendent Starr to induce him to forbid the
noise incident to the usual signal safeguards
at grade crossings.
Now the bill comes up again in a very
quiet way. On Tuesday r. H. Johnston,
Esq, attorney for Superintendent Starr, ap-
peared before Judge Collier, in Criminal
Court, and moved to quash the indictment
as being defective in several particulars.
Arguments on the motion will be heard,
probably, next week.
The following is a copy from the court
records of the reasons for moving to quash:
Now comes the defendant, by his counsel, R.
H. Johnston. and moves the Court to quash the
indictment in the above case, for the following
reasons:
First--The entire four counts of said indict-
ment are had for duplicity, in that they each
charge the killing of two persons, and thus
Join two distinct offenses in each count
Second-The first three counts of said in
dictment are further bad for duplicity. in that
they each charge the commission of two classes
of offenses provided in said act upon which the
indictment purports to be found.
Third-None of the counts OF said Indictment
set forth what rules, regulations or precautions
of the railroad company, or ordinances Of the
city of Allegheny the defendant neglected or
refused to obey and observe, and only purport
to allege what he did, without alleging and
showing any rule, regulation, ordinance or
precaution requiring him to do otherwise.
Fourth-The said several counts of the in
dictment do not allege that the defendant was
in charge of the train of cars which ran over
the deceased, or that the accident which took
place was brought about through any act of
his: but, on the contrary, the averments in
said counts would cast the responsibility, if
any, upon some of the officers in charge of the
said train at the time of the accident.
Fifth-The said counts do not charge that
the defendant was the General Superintendent
of said railroad company, and the order set
forth in said indictment shows that the same
was issued by the order of the General Su-
perintendent.
Sixth-The averments in said counts charg-
ing the offense are simply conclusions of law
and insufficient.
Seventh-Not single count in said indict-
ment, prima facia, sets forth any personal
duty resting upon the defendant, or. prima
faci9, AYERS case of negligence or misconduct
against him.
Eighth-The averments in said indictment
alleging the crime are uncertain, vague and
indefinite that. even in the case of conviction,
it would be difficult to pass sentence under any
count in the Indictment.
Ninth-None of the counts of said indict-
ment sufficiently charge any crime against the
law.