Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1891-06-25
ALL ACQUITTED
Arc The Directors Of The n. Y,
n. 4. 4 Hartford Railroad.
President Clark Is Made 10 Stand
Separate fHial
Acd the Jury Again Rsturns q Verdict
Of Not Guilty.

| NEW IoRk, June Z&.-The trial Of the
directors Of the N. Y. N. II. and Hartford
Railroad for 9 misdsmesnor in using stove.
for hessipg cars contrary to the laws Of ,hi,
state was resumed today. After unimpor.
tant testimony, District Attorney Niccl
rested the case fer the people, and Lawyer
Thaeher spoke for the defsncs. His whole
argument was based upon the proposition
that none Of the directors could be held for 1
violation Of the statute relating to the he attn
OF cars unless be heated the cars himself
or had actively and sffi,matively aided and
abetted in heating Of the cars in mxnne,
contrary to the provisions of The statute,
The counsel for defense moved that the
case be dismissed Is regards each aud
every one Of the defendant directors on the
ground that no evidence was adduced by
the people showing that the defend
ants committed any act in vioIs.
lion Of the statute. District At
torney Nicoll argued ia opposition
to this motion. Judge Van Brunt said
"Noswiihstanding the ingenious Argumen,
Of the district attorney, am still Of ,hs
same opinion that was at the time of the
agreement on the denurref--no man can
vicarioudly commit crime" lie explained
the nature and ex.ent OF the responsibility
INQUIRE by the principals for 'he act, Of
their agents, and asserted that such re-
sponsibility could not possibly be made out
10 the present case. As to the
direct responsibility for the vicis-
ton of ,he statute relating to the heating Of
| railroad cars, none of the directors of the
New Haven road are proven to have had
| any such responsibility, except President
/ q 1.
to have been introduced tending to incrim-
mate Vice President Read. I'm accordance
with law, therefore" said the Judge, Il
shall advise the jury to scquit oil the de-
PENDANTS, with The exception Of President
Clark. The jury 80 announced the
verdict and all the defendants exoep. Mr..
Clark was discharged. After the recess the
case OF Charles L. Clark, president Of the
road was called and the defendant took the
sind. He said the Baker Heater was the
standard system Of heating on the New
Haven road when he became connected
with it. That system continued in vogue
until the day Of the Harlem Tunnel seci-
dent. No better plan Of car hea ing has
been suggested 10 the directors during his
term Of office.
President Clark said he tried TO find a
sy ste IN which he could recommend TO the
board Of directors for heating cars. After
further legal points were brought out,
lawyertBowers proceeded to sum up for the
defense. saHe laid great stress on the ques-
tion OF criminsl intent. He contended the
Baker system was the best kacwn.
Ia concluding his address he worked upon
the g mpaihies Of the jurors as he pictured
Clsrk's going and his fsmily's humi-
!iaiion. District Attorney Nicoll then
summed up. He characterized Clark a.
the sutocrst of the road Ia his charge TO
the jury Judge Van Bfurt declared the
company cane under the provisions Of the
s'.tute Of 1883, known as the car
heating statute; the use of such \
system of car heating as the
Baker system ~as in violation Of such
statute. II the Jury considered that the
evidence showed Mr.. Clark authorized the
di.pstching Of trains hested with the Baker
systt M, he was guilty under the Indictment,
A general authorization was sufficient to
warrant such verdict.
The jury went out to deliberate at 4 20.
At 30 they came into court for instruc-
lions. They wanted to know what consti-
tuted Guilty knowledge" Judge Van
Brunt replied there was no such thing. If
Mr.. CLARK had any knowledge that was ali
that was necessary. 1t was not 4 question
of whether the defendant was an officer, it
was 4 question Of individual responsibility.
The Jury retired once more. The jury re-
turned to court at ten minutes to nine with
q verdict Of not guilty.