The evening world., 1891-06-24
Jury Ordered 10 ACquit All the New
Haven Directors Except Clark.
Directors Not Responsible for the
Car-Stove Slaughter.
President Clnrk's Trial Goes On
Under Judge Van Brunt's
Ruling.

The third day Of the trial OF Dr. Chaunccy
NJ. Dopew and his fcllow-directOrs OF the New
Haven Railroad on indictments charging
ihcm with responsibility for tho accident In
the Fourth avenue tunnel Feb. 20 last, which
caused the death OF six persons, began in
oyer and Termiaer this morning.
Dr. Depew was not present when court
was opened, but Directors Clark, Reed
Robinson and others were grouped about
thc half dozen eminent lawyers retained to
defend them.
lie was hustled cut OF the room into the
ccrIldo:, where he gave his nome as Thomas
Lynch.
william c. Ralicr, inventor Of the car
. heater, wa, recalled 10 IN" witness stand.
! The witness testified that lac had Ecveral
tHlhS with Director Reed with reference to
the use OF the Baker heater on the New
/ Haven road.
Tho first talk was in 1857. Mr.. Reed, he
said, apparently considered the question Of
| expense above chat of danger 20 hJnaa life,
for he said that the change to new and i'm
proved heaters would COST too much.
| Attachments were asked To compel the at
tendance OF Frank L. Shaw ana = Il. Mac
| Mum, two witnesses who failed to obey their
| subpwnaS.
col. William G. Rice, vice-President Of the
| Consolidated Car Heating Company, testified
that he had called ON President Clark, Of the
| New Haven road IN February, 1880, with
reference to the employment Of demonstrating
| from locomotives.
Mr. ClarE told him that he had Investigated
| the subject Cf Cur heating thoroughly, and
considered the Baker heater system the best
! and safest.
Lawyer Bowers elected nothing new in the
/ CrOss-eXamination.
/ Extracts from the testimony Of Director
| william u. Bishop before the Grand Jury
were then read to the jury by District-At-
| torney NiColl.
M.
were employed on the company cars.
Lawyer Bowers made little objection, and
was also allowed 10 read extracts from
Mr. Bishops testimony, showing that
! At least one stove IN each car, and that up to
that time the New Haven road had never lost
| q life b. fire.
Dlstric;-Attorncy Nicoll then read OK
tracts from Dr.. Chauncey NJ. Dcpows tasti-
moEy before the Grand Jury, which tended 10
show that he, too, was aware that the Baker
/ heater was used on the New Haven road cars.
/ Lawyer Bowers supplemented these cX-
| tracts by others, showing that Dr Depow sell
dom attended The meetings OF the New Haven
directors unless matters that concerned the
New York central X J0d were to come IN.
DIR. Depcw had understood, through tho
/ New Haven roads counsel, that the road did
not come under the state law, a. IL only had
/ twenty-five miles OF road in this State.
/ Frank L. Shaw, one Oi The witnesses for
whom the DiSirict-AttOrncy had desired an
| attachment. arrived in court and was called
! 70 the stand.
/ lie Is the vlcc-President OF a car steam
/ heating company and had frequently talked
with President Cldrs, OF he New Haven road,
about his system OF heating, but President
/ CLARK had declined to listen to him to any
great length, and witness had given up In
disgust.
lawyer Bowers drew from the witness the
fact thpt Mr.. CLARK objected to Mr. Shaw's
system because steam was conveyed directly
! into the cars.
Tho Dis;rlct-Attorney announced that the
I people rested.
| Lawyer Bowers then asked for the discharge
OF Director levereJr Brainard under section
40 OF the Penal Code, and Lawyer ThaChCr
| argued that under the Connecticut statute
| Bral0ard himself could not heat cars by
steam, and that he could not have committed
| any miSdrmCanCr or crime by omission unless
| II was The omission OF duty. Active par
| riCinat On was necessary.
| II Brulnard was at all guilty, It was simply
| because he was Il member OF the corporation,
| which might or might not be guilty OF the
| miSdtmeuuOr charged.
Director BrGinard was not actively parti"i-
pant in he alleged mi ldemeanOr, and should
I therefore be acquitted.
DR.. Depew came In while Mr.. Thachor was
sneaking and took scat beside Lawyer
| Taft.
Lawyer Bowers also moved for the dis
charge Of each aud all Of the other defend
| ants on III" same grounds as those argued by
| Lawyer ThaCher.
Distrct-Attorney Nlcon opposed the
motions, and argued that he had shown tnat
the defendants were the directors OF the cor
porotion, and had unusual powers In It's
management They appointed the heads
| OF all departments, formulated rules for It's
government and controlled all IT'S finances.
He also claimed that the directors knew
| that their cars were heated Feb. 90 last by
| Baker heaters, In violation OF the statute, but
under the directors approval through their
agents.
being sufficient "aCtivo participation by
each and all OF the directors.
lnactiOn, in allowing their agents, in the
Tfr. h ~f0Y.F
nal act, Mr.. Nicoll argued, was equivalent to
Affirmative action on the part Of the directors.
Lawyer Bowers argued that the prosecu-
tiun had not shown that Director Brainard
knew that the law was being violated, and
therefore he should be acquitted.
! The same argument applied to certain
| other Of the defendants, among them DR..
Judge Van Brunt decided that the principal
fl the action was the New York, New Haven
and Hartford Railroad Company, and not the
d dtf"ndantS.
lie held, however, that the directors, as
wtll as every employee OF the road, were In
dictable but that the defendants in this case
could not be held as directors but only as in
diviluals, as they were indicted.
There Is some evidence here against the
Nice-President, Mr.. Reed" continued the
Court, but not enough TO convict. Also
slight CircumS'antial evidence against the
General Manager, who, however, II has been
shown was responsible to the. President, or in
his absence to the Vice-PreSident
against the President, Mr.. Clark however,
there Is so far conclusive evidence that he was
more directly responsible for the COmpany's
using he car stoves than any OF the other de-
PENDANTS, and | shall therefore, under section
41O,advse the jury TO acquit them all with the
exception Of Mr.. Clark, and also instruct them
that they must do It,"
The jury was accordingly polled, and rem
dCred u verdict OF not guilty in the cases Of
Wilson q. Hunt, T.. II. Trowbridge, William
D. Bishop, Nathaniel Wheeler, Henry e. Rob-
inson, Edward NJ. Reed, Joseph Park, Chaun-
cey NJ. Dcpew, Henry =. Lee, William Rookie
feller and Leavitt Brainard
DR.. Depcw left the courtroom Just before
the Court rendered its decision, and did not
know OF his discharge
The defense OF President Clark was con-
tinued at 2.lO O'clock this afternoon.
DR.. Depew was present and took deep in
tcreSt IN the proceedings.
President Clark was the first and only wit
ness IN his own behalf lie swore that since
November, 1883, he had never given an order
for the equipment Of any car with any heat
lag apparatus, except the equipment OF GER
tain cars to run In the state OF New York
| These cars, he said he had ordered the
general manager to equip with steam-heating