Bridgeton pioneer. (Bridgeton, N.J.) 1884-1919, 1894-10-04

He said there was sign board at
the crossing on which was the word
danger"
Before the trolley road was built
there was no difficulty in coming out
OF the woods rosd and getting upon
the pike.
On the day of the accident he had
first went to the sale at Dicks farm
aud then went out for his load of
wood; he had on 5-S of cord of wood,
and he drove pair of mules. When
he got about rod and a half from the
pike he stopped his team and listened
for the cars, hearing nothing he drove
on and when he got on the track he
SAW the car coming; his mules were
then on the track; he threw up his
b snde, halloood and struck his mules
aad at that Instant almost, thes car
ruck him.
He valued his mules at $3.50, his har-
ness was nearly new and he gave $12
for 1t; his wagon was worth $50. 1t is
not now worth $40; he said his legs
were broken in five places.
On cross examination he said he had
been carting wood out of that road
right along. He knew the railroad
was on the turnpike.
He said when he approached the
railroad he was sitting ON the
''hounds" of the wagon, with his back
toward the approaching car. He stop
ped rod and half from the track
and listened for the car, and heard
nothing. He supposed the car had
gone past; he did not get off the
wagon because of eu injury which he
was suffering from, and for which he
was receiving medical attention.
This evidence concluded the case of
the prosecution.
The defence asked for a non.suit,
which Judge Reed refused.
The defence opened with stating
what 1t intended to show, that was
that the car No. which caused the
accident, left Millville on schedule
time, $40 p. m Dec. 18th; that 1t took
on DR.. Appelgate at 5.25 at the point
he designated; that it arrived at the
woods road at 535 which was Its
schedule time; that the current was
shut off at the top of the second hill,
and that the gong was sounded at this
point as usual. That the first notice
of an impending accident was when
the heads of the mules were seen in
the light of the headlight, upon the
track, and that there was no negligence
on the part of the defendant company,
and that the company should not be
held responsible for any damage.
Motorman Frank Barracliff was the
first witness called. He said he was
motorman on car No. 1; left Millville
at $40 night of Dec. 18th, and arrived
at place of accident at 5.35 or 5.38.
His car was we'll lighted; headlight
was bright and lights in the car were
bright; was running at usual speed.
First saw the obstruction when about
200 feet away from 1t; had one hand
on the controller handle and the
other on the brake handle; put the
brake on at once, and the car respond
ed Immediately.
Belford E. Stathem was called. He
lives In Cedarville, and was on the car
on the night of the accident; was In
the centre of the car, right behind the
stove, and was talking with Auc tioneer
Matlack. The headlight of the car
was lighted; heard the gong ring that
night before the accident; heard the
signal ring and then a rapid ringing
of the gong, and a collision followed.
The motorman was In front at the
time of the accident. He did not re-
member feeling the brakes put on the
car.
L. II. Robinson, of Dividing Greek,
the electrician of the company, was
one of the witnesses for the defense.
He said car would be stopped, at Its
average rate of speed on good grade,
in the distance of 200 feet.
WEDNESDAY MORNING.
Court opened this morning with the
case of Gould VS.. the South Jersey
Traction Company still on. When
Court adjourned last night the defense
stated that they had four or five more
witnesses to call.
Frank Barracliff was recalled and
with gong placed on a board and
two chairs, explained the signals given
at the time of the accident, and also
where the mules were when he first
saw them, and how they were struck;
he said the mules had their front feet
In the middle of the track, and when
the car struck them 1t struck them and
their hinder narts and the force of