The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-02-17
RAILROAD WANTS A NEW TRIAL.
Long Arguments by Counsel in the Case
of Crandall VS.. N. Y, N. II. & II.

Before Chief Justice Matteson and JUS
tices stiness and T%illinghast was heard
the petition of the defendant In the case
of Frank p. Crandall against the New
York, New Haven a. Hartford Railorad
Company.
The testimony In the trial OF the case
in the common pleas division as reviewed
by Col. Frank 5. Arnold In his arguments
in support of the petition today was
that the plaintiff while in the employ Of
October l6, 1894, at Pontiac. When q
train OF the defendants reached the latter
place on the day in question orders were
received for the passenger train, which
was In charge of Crandall, to take a side
track in order to let a freight train go
by on the main track: Crandall, after his
train had taken the side track, got off o in
order, as he said, TO look outffor passen-
gers and in getting on one Tof the cars
again struck a telegraph pole.
Col. arnold said that the position of the
three poles along the car tracks had been
there for a long period Of time, and that
when Mr.. Craudall got on TO the ground,
which there was no call for him to do, he
could see two poles behind and should
nave known OF the third pole; that
when the signal was given TO the engineer
TO start up Crendall had, without tie ex-
ercise Of due care, got on to the Car step
and was struck by the third pole. The
C~i5tance between the car STEP and the
10 ?, the counsel contelded, was never
less than % inches, and the plaintiff
must have been carelessly hanging too far
over from the train to watch the freight
train nearby, and it was this carelessness
On the part of the plaintiff that caused
him TO be injured. CranCall wa, the day
after the accident, examined by DIR. Egg
a,Ioof,v. op1 f~nnH IN havg e,r, liz I..tr-
en which were set by the latter at the de-
fendant's request.
The claims We're made by Colonel Arnold
that the accident was due entirely to care
lessness on the part Of the plaintiff and
also that the load could not have been
operated without these poles, which were
used for telegraph wires over which were
sent the necessary orders from the super
intendent to the employees OF the road.
IL randall had used ordinary observation
he would have known the pole was be-
hind him and could have easily have
escaped teing struck by it. It was
further ccntended that this was one of
a general class of risks undertaken by
employees in the general course of their
employment. sit was an open and APP
parent danger,n said counsel in con-
e~lusion, "that the plaintiff assumed when
he consented to work as conductor after
he knew there were poles on the read"
JnlS is the case IN which the defendants
claimed that the weak condition of
the plaintiff at the time Of trial in the
lower division was due not to the acct
dent but 20 a certain diet that the latter
had exclusively USED. The Jury, however,
gave a verdict for Crancall for $1,000.
W. {. Baker, counsel for the plaintiff,
called the attention OF the court to the
fact that when the jury went TO view the
place where the pole was it had been re-
moved by someone. In regard to the
statement made Of the pole clearing the
car by % inches counsel said this state
ment was made by one John McGuin-
ness, who put the pole there, but a man
named Carson who saw II removed q
couple of days after the accident, said il
cleared the car by two inches and the
other witness testified in opposition to
Mr.. McGuinness. This matter was q mat
ter for the jury, Mr.. Baker claimed. as 1t
had the right to believe the witness or
witnesses it wanted 10. 'The engineer
of the Irain-ha testified that the plaintiff
was squeezed between the car and the
poles continued Nix. Baker, land as it
was admitted that two ribs were broken
the plaintiff would have had some other
part of his anatomy injured than the ribs.
The counsel for the petitioners. Mr..
Baker claimed, had laid down the very
improper conclusion that a railroad
company could make its roadway as
dangerous as 1t wished. Particular atten-
tiCn was laid to the conflicting testimony
of Mr.. McGuinness n TO the facts of the
case being matters peemineutly within
the provisions OF a jury TO decide.
The court held the matter for adisve-
ment.