The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-01-30
no gu ASH
Indictment in Man
slaughter Cases.
STEP MAY BE TAKEN,
Document Says Kerrigan
Met Instant Death.

Il The horrible Leicester accident of
3 December 81 on the Worcester and Su-
Y burban electric railway is again the
theme Of public discussion. Saturday,
4 when the indictments against Messrs.
Thomas E. Hiney and Michael Calvin,
the motorman and conductor Of the i'll
fated car, were issued from the district
attorneys office to Sullivan & O'Con-
nell, their counsel, the fact was dis
closed that there is a wide difference
between the district attorneys office
and other counsel in the case whether
John E. Kerrigan, who was riding On
the front platform of the death envel-
oped car was killed instanter or Ian
guished for few minutes before death
came.
The determination of the truth of the
situation may also determine whether
motion will be made to quash the in
dictments or not. The question Is
fraught with good deal of concern and
responsibility to the parties to the case.
It is alleged in the Indictment that
Mr.. Kerrigan was killed instantly on
the collision of the two cars. However
IN opposition to this allegation civil
suit has been entered in the superior
court to recover for Kerrigan's death,
the claim being made that he died few
minutes after the accident.
Through her counsel William C. Mel
lish, and George H. Olney, Mrs. Ker-
rlgan Administrative of her husbands
estate, brought suit against the Wor-
cester and Suburban street railway to
recover $4,000 damages While the
amount person can recover for an in
Simultaneous death is $4,000, it has been
distinctly stated in the suit that it is
properly an action to recover for the
death Of the plaintiffs intestate, under
the acts Of 1888, and also for the con-
sclous suffering under the common
law, 1t being claimed that he died after
ne had been taken from the wreck. and
subsequently, borne to the house of Mrs
M. Pendergast, who lived across the
street from the scene of the affair.
Whether this difference of the inter
probation Of the circumstances of the
accident will interrupt the whole course
OF the proceedings in the case will be
determined later, when the indictment
is read in court, and the defendants are
called to plead.
The indictment covers fourteen close
~ written pages of legal cap, and en-
braces hVe counts the allegations of
Whlch weave a network around the de-
PENDANTS. and tend to show an utter
disregard for the rules of the road and
the infraction thereof, and the complete
exoneration of the officials of the com
pany from any blame.
In detail the first count alleges thar
u was the duty of Calvin and Hiney
TO hold the car at the church switch
after the time that the car travelling in
an opposite direction was then and
there due. After the expiration of that
period, II the other car was then 1ate
the car might proceed. The count then
states further that Messrs. Calvin and
Hlney, well knowing that another car
was ABOUT TO come along, and well
knowing that it was not five minutes
Derore they had proceeded on their wav.
cney disregarding their duties, did will
1ully neglect to drive the car on the
turnout and there to wait for the other
car hve minutes. Further that thew did
Wllfully conduct the car on the main
track, and did wilfully and feloniously
urfVe' push, force and janlfb the car on
? 70 the car coming from an opposite df-
rection, by which John E. Kerrigan.
VINO was riding on the front of the car,
was mortally wounded and inata nt1v
oled, and that by the driving. pushing.
forcing and tanning, the defendants did
tnefepy Wllfully and feloniously kill and
Stay. -N'ii anu
The second count is similar to tbe
first, and in addition and distinction al
leges that it was the duty of Calvin
and Hiney, under the rules and regu-
& lations or the railway company. when
y approaching a certain curve, known
as the church switch, to cause the car
TO be brought to the switch, and that
q IL was. the duty of the conductor ito
get OFF said car and look ahead said
car to see If another car were in
sIght In this case Messrs. Calvin
and Hiney had proceeded past the
cnurch SWITCH" yet they we'll knew
the premises, and that another car
should have met and passed them at
that switch, and well knowing that
ney had proceeded past without hav-
tns met and passed the car from the
opposite direction, and well knowing
49, tne other car was being propelled
Aiong the main track, and that they
were likely to meet the other car upon
vI beyond the curve, and disregarding
=, s..sli uuties, did wilfully and negligent
cause the car to be brought to a
sS 90 Zee Sid Galvln wilfully neglected to
9Nt oii the car and look around the
cuEVe TO see if another car was in
siSnt; ana Messrs. Calvin and Hiney
wAuily ana IN wanton, negligent and
inkroper manner, and contrary to
snsAr duties, and While the other cal
w. uue ana about to arrive. caused
drove, suffered and permitted their ca,
ana upon the other electric car, so com.
l ny ~ an opposite direction. And II
turner alleges that Messrs. GaIvir
ana Hiney by reason of the shock ~ 81
necoilision did wilfully and felonious.
and with great force and violence
Pusn, force. DASH drive and lam Tho
car Upon the other. anu JOIN liz
Lne third count is similar TO tba nre.
ceaing except that it alleges tbat 4
MS the duty of the conductor snf
mok0rman to conduct the car ~ snnt
arate Of speed, that they could br rim
tne cen to a stop upon approaching nf
seeing another car coming in tbe or
posite direction, before reaching ~,
DINER car in case any Other car va'
tnen nnd there due to arrive. F,,rtba,
fnaukthat they knowing that a certair
otneN'ear was lawfully travelling on n.
main Track, and disregarding their Az
" dld with great force and Violence
ana N wanton, negligent and i'm.
proper manner, and at such bjel
rate of speed, rendered it impossibia :,
prinK their car to a stop in the evan,
Of meeting another car, without col
iding with it; that contrary To thei,
Quty. and while the other car US,
there due, they did conduct ana dro,1,