The Portland daily press., 1891-06-25
DR.. DEPEW is OUT OF THE TOLLS.
So Are All the Rest Of the New Have n
Directors.
Judge Van Brunt Paved the Way for
All Hut One,
And the Jury Declined to Make a
Martyr Of Him.

NEW YORK, June 23.-The trial Of the d.
rectors of the New York. Hew Haven &
Hartford Railroad for misdemeanor In using
stoves for heating cars contrary to the laws
of this state, was resumed today. After
some unimportant testimony. District Attor-
ney Neoll rested the case fo- the people.
Lawyer Thacher spoke for the defence. His
whole argument was based upon the propo-
sition that none Of the directors could be
held for violation Of the statute relating to
the heating of the cars unless he heated the
cars himself or had actually and affirmative
ly aided and abbetted in the heating of the
cars in manner contrary to the provisions
of the statute. Counsel for the defence
moved that the case be dismissed as regards
each and every one of the defendant dlrec-
tors on the ground that no evidence was ad-
duced by the people showing that the de-
PENDANTS had committed any act in violation
of the statute. District Attorney NIcoll
argued in opposition to the motion.
Judge Van Brunt then said: "Notwith-
standing the ingenious argument OF the Dis
trict Attorney, am still of the same opinion
demurrer-n0 man can vicari0usly commit
crime" He explained the nature and ex-
tent of the responsibility incurred by
principals for the acts of their agents and
asserted that such responsibility could not
possibly be made out Of the present case. AS
to the direct responsibility for the violation
OF the statute governing the heating OF rail-
road cars, none of the directors OF the New
Haven road had been proven to have any
such responsibility except President Clark,
although some little testimony seemed to
have been introduced tending to incriminate
Vice President Read. "In accordance with
the law, therefore," said the Judge, II shall
advise the jury to acquit all the de-
PENDANTS with the exception President
Clark"
The jury so announced their verdict, and
all the defendants, except Mr.. Clark, were
discharged.
After a recess, the case of Charles p.
Clark, president Of the road. was called and
the defendant took the stand. He said the
Baker heater was the standard system Of
heating on the New Haven road when he be-
came connected with it. That system had
continued In vogue until the day OF the Har-
lem tunnel accident. No better plan of car
heating had been suggested to the directors
during his term Of office. Mr.. Clark said he
had tried to find 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 up
for the defence. He laid great stress on the
question Of criminal intent, and contended
that the Baker system was the best known.
In concluding his address, he worked upon
Lu6 Sympdtnl6S Oh the JuTOI5 as 10 plCtuTeu
Clark's home going and his family's humilia-
tion. District Attorney Nicoll character
lied Clark as the autocrat of the road. In
his charge to the jury, Judge Van Brunt de-
clared the company came under the provis-
ion of the statute Of 1888, known as the car
heating statute, and that the use Of such
system of car heating as the Baker system
was in violation of such statute. Ii the jury
considered that the evidence showed that
Mr.. Clark had authorized the despatching Of
trains heated with the Baker system, he was
guilty under the Indictment A general au-
thorization was sufficient to warrant such a
verdict.
The jury went out to deliberate at 420.
Al $50 they came into court for instructions.
They wanted to know what constituted
guilty knowledge" Judge Van Brunt re-
piled that there was DO such thing IL Mr..
Clark had any knowledge that was all that
was necessary. 1t was not question Of
whether the defendant were an officer; Ii
was question of individual responsibility.
The jury then retired once more, and re-
turned to court at ten minutes Of nine with
verdict of not guilty.