The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1903-09-03

more narratives of the catastrophe will
be heard. The suggestion was offered
after the State had called several eye
witnesses who failed to place any new
light on the case.
Frank Helner, an employe of the com
pany''s car house, testified as to the con-
struction of the company's cars and the
brakes. Robert E. Van Ness testified
that the conductor did not leave the car
while it was approaching the crossing
The car, said the witness, was so crowd
ed that many school children at Clifton
avenue and Orange street were unable
to board it.
William X. Mcfarland, surveyor, of
East Orange, qualified as an expert,
and his testimony is considered a severe
blow for the defence The witness de-
scribed the interlocking and derailing
in many parts of the country. He identi-
fed two contracts for derailing switches
for the Clifton avenue crossing which
were entered into between David Young,
general manager of the traction COM
pany, and one of the defendants, and the
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western
Railroad, The contracts We're dated
June 3, 1898, and July 25, 1899. which
was prior to the accident.
Several questions asked the witness by
the State in regard to the necessity of
such switches We're objected to by the
defence as leading and We're not per-
mitted. The witness testified to the
existence of derailing switch at Bloom
field avenue, in Montclair, N. J.
The State rested its case yesterday
afternoon.
The interest was increased in the
afternoon when it became known that
Chief Justice Gummere had reserved de-
cision on the application of counsel for
the defense to take the case from the
jury by ordering the acquittal of the
defendants.
1t was after the State had rested its
case that r. V. Liadabury made the
motion on behalf of the defendants. He
stated that the prosecution had charged
that one and all of the defendants were
negligent in these particulars.
First-That they had permitted the
front platforms of the cars to be so
crowded that the motorman was prevent
ed from working his brakes.
Second-That the rails were not in
safe condition. on the morning of the col
lision. owing to negligence on the part
Of the defendants.
Third-That the crossing was known
by the defendants to be dangerous and
that they had failed to safeguard it with
a derailing switch and therefore were
therefore were negligent in that respect.
Mr.. Lindabury argued that no proof
had been offered to show that the motor;
man was hampered or that the rails
were not clear that morning of all but a,
light mealy tnat had been tracked onto
them after they had BEEN swept. The
duty of keeping the tracks clear of snow
desolved upon others than those indicted.
He admitted that it was evident that
there was no sand on the rails, but blam-
ed the motorman for not sanding it.
Those who should have seen that they
were sanded were responsible, not the
directors, he said.
AS to the derailing switch, he claimed
these switches were not in general uses
and they are inefficient unless con-
nected with the steam railway signal sys-
tenn, which the Lackawanna railroad Deo-
pie would not permit at the Clifton ave-
nue. crossing
Prosecutor Riker argued strongly
against the motion and decision was
roeo,xoI ,,r+;l +l,;e n, orp;pr