Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1891-06-25
THE TUNNEL DISASTER.

Nobody Responsible-SoS Says the New
York Jury Yesterday.
The trial of the directors of the New Ha-
ven railroad for misdemeanor in using
stoves for heating their cars contrary to
the laws of New York was resumed yester-
day Witnesses examined were William
G. Baker, inventor of the Baker heater in
use on the New Haven cars; William G..
Rice of the Consolidated Steam Car Heat
ing company, and Frank A. Shaw, vice
president of steam car heating company.
Their testimony was unimportant. District
Attorney Nicoll read the testimony of Will
liam D. Bishop, one of the indicted direc-
tors, given before the grand jury. Lawyer
Bowers objected to the reading, but it was
| allowed by the court. Mr.. Nicoll also read
portions of Chauncey M Depew's testimony
before the same body, and then Mr.. Bowers
proceeded to read the rest of it. Two wit
| nesses for the people named Shaw and Nc
Cune were called in succession, but did
| not respond. District Attorney Nicholl
rested the case for the people and Lawyer
Thatcher spoke for the defense. His whole
| argument was based upon the proposition
that none of the directors could be held
| for a violation of the state relating to the
| heating of cars unless he have heated the
cars himself or had actively and affirma-
lively abetted in the heating of the cars in
q manner contrary to the provisions of the
statute Counsel for the defense then
moved that the case be dismissed
as regards each and every one of the
defendant directors on the ground that nc
| evidence had been adduced by the people
I L 4, &C. h. 1~ol
any act in violation of the statute. Dis
trict Attorney Nicoll argued in opposition
to the motion. Judge Van Brunt said
Notwithstanding the ingenious argument
of the district attorney, l am still of the
same opinion as 1 was at the time of the
| argument of the demurrer, that no man
can vicariously commit crime" He then
| explained the nature and extent of the
responsibility incurred by principals fol
the acts of their agents, and asserted
| that such responsibility could not posi-
bly, be made out in the present case. AS
to directors responsibility for the viola
ton of the statute relating to the heating
of railroad cars, with one exception, none
of the directors of the New Haven had
been proven to have had any such respons
Utility. The exception in the case was
President Clark, although some little test
imony seemed to have been introduced,
tending to incriminate Vice President
| Reed. ''In accordance with the law, there
FORE" said the Judge, 81 shall advise the
Jury to acquit all the defendants, with the
exception of President Clark" The Jury
so announced their verdict, and all the
defendants except Mr.. Clark were dis
charged. After recess the case of Charles
P. Clark, president of the road, was called
and defendant took the stand. He said he
had been in the railroad business for TWEEN
| ty-one years. The Baker heater was the
standard system of heating on the New
| Haven road when he became connected
with it. The system continued until. the
day of the Harlem tunnel accident. Nc
feasible or better plan of car heating ha6
| during his term of Office.
President Clark said he had tried to fine
| a system which he could recommend to the
board of directors for heating cars.
After further legal points were brought
out Lawyer Bowers proceeded to sum uI
for the defense. He laid great stress on
the question of criminal intent. He con
tended that the Baker system was the bes
known. gin concluding his address he work
ed upon the sympathies of the jurors as he
pictured Clark's home going and his fami
ly's humiliation.
District Attorney Nicol1 then sumed up
He characterized Clark as the autocrat Of
the road.
In his charge to the jury Judge Var
Brunt declared that the company came
under the provisions of the statute Of
1888, known as car-hesting statute, that
the use of such system of car heating as
the Baker system was in violation of such
statue If the jury considered that the
evidence showed that Mr.. Clark had author
lied the dispatching of trains heated with
the Baker system, he was guilty under the
indictment. A general authorization was
sufficient to warrant such a verdict.
The jury went out to deliberate at 400
At $3.50 the jury came into court for in
structions They wanted to know what
constituted equity knowledge" Judge
Van Brunt replied there was no such thing.
If Mr.. Clark had any knowledge that was
all that was necessary. 1t was not ques-
ton of whether defendant were an Officer
or MOTT was a question of individual re.
sponsibility. The jury thereupon retired
once more. The jury returned to court al
$3.50 o'clock with q verdict of not guilty.
President Charles P. Clark, who looked
rather anxious until the Eforeman an
nounced the words, at once beamed with
smiles. He was quickly grasped by the
hand by Directors Robinson and Reed and
number of other friends. Aside from
this little group and the reporters and at
| taches there were not half dozen persons