Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1891-06-24
THE NEW HAVEN DInEoroRs.

Their Trial in the New York Court OF
oyer and Terminer-Beginnin of
the Testimony for the People,
The trial of the directors Of the New
York, New Haven and Hartford railroad,
indicted for misdeameanor in connection
with the fatal Forth avenue tunnel collision
in February, was resumed in oyer and ter
miner court at New York yesterday morn
ing. Nothing had been accomplished Mon
day but the securing Of a jury. Nearly all
the defendants were prompt in their atten-
dance. The curious could see Judge Van
Brunt's gray beard flowing over very
white waistcoat, and such distinguished
lawyers as Jorn M. Bowers, James NJ.
Townsend and Henry w. Taft, who ap-
peared for the New Haven's directors.
District-Attorney Nicon was assisted by
Mckenzie Semple.-
Chauncey-M. Depew was the first to put
in an appearances. He took a seat beside
counsel, while the other directors sat to-
opened by District Attorney Nicoll, who
began by stating the charge upon which
the defendants had been indicted-the VIC
lation of the statutes relating to the heat
ing of railroad cars, a misdemeanor pun
ishab1e on conviction by fine of $500 or
imprisonment for one year, or both. He
referred to the defendants as men of great
influence and vast wealth, whereupon Law
yer Bowers objected to such characterize
ton of hissc clients.
The court, however, permitted the Ian
guage to pass and Mr. Bowers excepted
The district attorney explained at length to
%t,osr Tho law 1ao,
and recited the facts. He spoke for thirty
minutes.
Lucius Tuttle, the general manager of
the New Haven road was the first witness.
He had no personal knowledge, he said, as
to how the cars were heated on the day of
the accident.
Gordon J. Peet, conductor on the train
that was wrecked on February 20, testified
that it was heated by the Baker system.
Clarence d. Simmons, foreman of ia
spectors and cleaners on the road said that
the Baker heaters and the Martin Spear
and Wilder systems were used on the
trains.
Mr. Tuttle recalled, stated that he was
not vested with the power of changing the
heater system.
District Attorney Nicon read the by
laws of the company and recess was
taken.
After recess Secretary William E. Bishop
| was recalled to the stand. He gave the
names of directors who attended meetings
prior to February 20, 1891, and length of
| time each had held Office. District Attor-
| ney Nicon attempted to show by the
witness that at meeting held on
February 20 the directors took such
| action in relation to the accident as
| would clearly show that they were CONVEX
SAINT with the condition of the steam heat
| ing apparatus on the day of the accident
Mr.. Bowers objected, but was overruled
by Judge Van Brunt. Mr.. Nico1l then
read from the minutes of meetings held
prior to February 10, and showed from
| them how exclusive was the power of the
directors, and how often they had attend
ed meeting. William L. Squires, attorney
of the New York, New Haven and Hart.
| ford railroad, identified certain reports
| concerning the company's compliance with
| the laws which he had sent to the railroad
| commissioners. The reports were placed
| in evidence.
Mr.. William O. Seymour, railroad com.
/ missioner of Connecticut, related a con.
| versation he had with Mr.. Clark regarding
| steam heating. The directors at that time
seemed anxious to get at the best possible
method of car heating. Colonel NJ g.
Hudson, secretary of the New York rail
| road commissioners, followed. He read 6
| correspondence had with President CLARK
| on the same subject. Mr.. Clark's letters
showed that he thought the system Of
| heating cars with steam from the engine
was more dangerous than the stove sys
| tenn, and he intended to continue the use
| of the latter. Mr.. G. Baker, the
| inventor of the Baker heater
used by the defendant company, was
| instructed to bring copies of correspond
ence had with Mr.. Clark into court to.
| morrow morning. Mr. Bowers objected
to his relating conversations with Vice
| President Reed on the subject of car heat
| ing prior to the act of 1887.
| Edward E. Gold and Arthur w. Soper
representing other car heating companies
testified to having interviewed Mr.. Clarl
on the subject of car heating. He praised
the Baker heater, but seemed to listen t.
other schemes. The case will go on a
| 1890 tomorrow.