The sun., 1891-05-20
DR.DEPEwMUSTSTANDTRIAL
AND WITH HIM THE OTHER NEW
r. ~ HAVEN ROAD DrRECroRa

ssaee vsa Brunt Says the rasiet-e.t DOE .
q nee Forth Crime. but that Personal
faYtiespstion IN Car Stove Heati.s. ne
Aiasrs sna Asettors, Mast be shown 20
[, Warrant Conviction Upoa the Trial.
Judge Van Brunt handed down In tho Court
OF OYER and Terminer yesterday long opin-
ion overrulinR the demurrer to the Indictment
for misdemeanor found asainst the officers
and directors OF tho New Haven Railroad. He
says In, part:
1T ID urged that because OF the language Of
tho statute. which provides that IL shall not be
lawful for any steam railroad doing business
In this State 10 heat is cars with stoves. and
because a steam railroad Is an inanimate OBJ
ject. destitute OF WILL 10 not a person. and cam
not perform any not whatever. tho attempt to
ilnposs duty upon such innnimate object or
tcimputo to II any net with q view to making
such act unlawful Is insensible and conse-
.quontly not efrsctual for any purpose. think
thatan examination OF the statute raises NO
such difficulty. Tho legislative intcnt seems
to 10 plan and to the effect thnt no railroad
IN this state shall be operated with cars heated
In violation OF tho net In question. By whom
said railroad Is operated Is entirely imma-
torinl. the offence being committed whom the
net is committed. no matter by whom.
"This view OF tho legislative intention is
peculiarly emphasized By the provisions Of
sec. 8 Of the net. which provides money pen
atty for its violation. From this 1t appears
that tthe operator OF tho railroad. whether q
person or q corporation. Is nlono linblo for tho
nennlty. This is manifestly the intention OF
the act. But when the Legislature came to
provide that tho violation OF tho provisions Of
tho nce should be misdemeauor they limited
1t to no persons or corporaticns: they simply
sey. The yiElntion s 20 81 any OF the provisions OF
In inisdemeanors there nre no acceseorfes
Accents acting Ior principals are liable for Of.
they personally com NIT nm offence. or aid and
This principle they are Clearly indictab!e as as
Il Is only when tho Affirmative act of heat-
Tone that tho crime is committed. and the
provision max ing it n crime to do this thing /,
foalrmts nrc by The indictment charged with
actually SoinE this thing in violation Of the
Il IN se BY cuss persons. and axe s"nny any
violation OF that act q mlsden eanor. all active
par,tctpants an & IN 'usa, such violation are equally
servnnts Of the corporation; the directors. not
because they are directors. but personally: no
I-rsonaiiy participate either in the doing OF
1hs aes G or In the h hadSG Ing. and ahetting in the
OF tS
Slass 9ron which the duty, & Imposed.
The defendants cannot be held liable. ma al
ready stated. merely because they nre dilec-
ally participated In the commission OF the
offence ior which ths indictment has been
p2t reach this dignity. hen It is clear that no
oEepce is made out. Such is the principle OF
all tho cases cired. And 1t must be So because
aperson cannot be yic.riously guilty Of a
demurrer 10 this Indictment lecause the in
dlctment charaes these defendants with nc.
tlyely participating in tho commission OF the
offence either directly or as nide,s or abett:r..
1T 10. however. suggested that n foreign
corporation cannot be Indicted, and. therefore.
ifthere IL no principal there can be no ac-
ressoriss. but, even " this were so. whei o. hy
the law. one who aids and abets another in
guilty Ola misdemennor. and is u principal. the
inability to punish some one else can In no
way affect the ability to punish the alder mud
nte.tor: There is NO such thinx as secondary sec;
and aiders and abettors are guilty Of one nd
the same crime. and oil are principals. and.
consequently. may be separately punished.
The demurrer Is overruled: with liberty
to tue defendanta to Withdraw the same and
plead anew to the Indictment"