Bridgeton pioneer., 1891-01-15
2230

but whether it was for the Park av-
enue crossing or the Oak road cros-
sing, he could not say.
Daniel Roden, of Cape May CITY. was
a passenger on train that morning.
He remembered distinctly the whistle
being sounded for the Oak road cross
ing. He saw the body of Linniken ly-
Ing in the road after the accident.
The witness got out of the train and
was the first person to reach him.
Linniken breathed once after he
reached him. The head of the boy
was completely wrapped up, and his
ears muftied with cap and coat collar.
With this testimony Mr.. Bacon
rested the defendants case.
In rebuttal, Mr.. Nelson was recalled
by the state, and swore positively the
next morning after the killing of Lin
niken he had paid particular attention
and heard no whistle from the locomo-
tive.
Isaac Garrison was called to relate
what Hand had said regarding his not
seeing the team until the collision.
he testified that Hand told him di-
rectly after the accident, that he, the
engineer, saw the team and they were
running away, but he thought the
horses would go up Oak road instead
OF turning on the track.
10 sur.rebuttal, Hand denied such a
conversation. He said he told Garri.
son the horses must have been running
away or unmanageable, or the boy
would never have driven on the track
Young Hand said in answer to the
rebuttal testimony of Nelson, that the
next morning neither his father or him
self were on the engine.
Tne testimony was now all In and
being nearly time for the adjournment
OF court, it was decided not to COM
mence argument until this morning,
and recess was taken until half.past
nine o'clock this morning.
WEDNESDAY MORNING.
1t was expected that Court would
re-convene this morning at half past
nine o'clock, but last night, judge
Hendee was called away. owing to the
illness of his father, and he did not re-
turn until ten o'clock, when the Court
was opened by Crier Young. Shortly
afterward. Judge Stratton appeared.
making a full bench.
After the usual formal;ties attending
the opening OF the Court, Prosecutor
Logue made his opening in the Hand
case. 1t was concise and to the point.
He frequently referred to authorities
in the cases similar to this one.
1t was the claim of the state, that
Hand, in discharging his duties as en-
gineer, was guilty of criminal negli,
gence in not giving the proper pre-
cautlonary. signals for this partic-
ular crossing. The attempt made
by the defense that Linniken was
himself negligent. cuts no figure in
this case, claimed the Prosecutor.
Mr.. Bacon then held the attention
OF the gentlemen of the jury for some
time. The plea made by the young
Counsel was we'll placed, and his ar
gument strong. He took up the case
as he had learned it from the evidence,
and sifted 1t from the beginning. He
quoted from authorities concerning
cases quite similar to the present one.
He had happy manner of disposing
of much of the testimony given by the
States witnesses. and when he sat
down it would seem that the defense
bad made it's case so perfectly clear,
that conviction was out of the ques-
ton.
But the learned Prosecutor was not
yet through He had his opportunity
and ne improved it. The manner OF
the Prosecutor is well known. He is
cool, calculating and convincing.
Never vindictive, he has vast influence
with jurymen 1t was difficult for a
Prosecutor to follow such brilliant and
oratorical osing, as that made by the
defendants counsel, but Mr.. Logue
was equal to the occasion, and from
the very beginning held the closest at
tention OF the men on the jury and ev-
cry one in the Court room.
The Judges charge followed Prose-
cutor l. ogua's argument. 1T is only
the duty of the State" the Judge said
Ito prove the engineer omitted his
duty in such manner as to make him
crlmlpally liable. An engineer is bound
by law to give whistle or bell signal
eighty rods from q crossing. If he did
that he is not liable. The State claims
he did not do this. and for this om's-
sion, caused the death of young Linni-
ken. The Importance of much of the
States testimony is tia. the witness
were in q position TO hear a signal. vet.
while they swear they did not hear the,
signal, it is not proof that it was not
given. This evidence must be weighed
by the jury. and its value determined
by them. The testimony of Camp is
very Important in one or two aspects.
There are two questions in this casa
Did he give the proper precautionary
signals as required by law. aud also did
he give sucn othef Signals as he is
bound to do if he perceived an acct
dent was proDable. On the Other