New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-09-03
PROSECUTION ENDS CASE.
Continued from flrst page.

precautions.
According to the book Of rules. the general
superintendent responsible for the main
tenauce of the lines to their proper standard
and was to have several division superintend-
ents and roadmasters responsible to him. Inc
insnectors and starters were to receive their IN
structions from their superintenden;s. keep
tab" on the timetables. at all times endeavor
to improve the service" and to report defects
I'm the tracks while in case of a snowstorm or
other distractions they were TO give due notice
When the road was slippery the inspectors were
to give the necessary instructions for sand
The motormen were cautioned in the use or
the brakes. told to apply them gradually ana
TO do everything in their power to AVOID acct
dents Sufficient sand in the boxes should al
waysAbe ready for use, and the motormen were
directed to see that their boxes were 1ulI "neh-
ever they left their sheds.
From the minutes of the company II was
shown that the indicted members of the execu-
tive committee had attended meetings regu-
larry and had conducted the companys ousl-
ness. The minute books were put in evidence. as
the Prosecutor said he wished to read various
extracts later.
Robert Z. Van Ness who, driving wagon
was some forty or fifty feet behind the wrecked
trolley car at the time OF the accident. de-
scribed the tourney of the car from Orange-st-
4
ne said. that one young man had to hang to
the side OF the rear platform. At one time the
car almost stopped. he said then "drifted on
crashing through the gates. There was some
snov, ON the tracks but not much as on
the sides.
William X McFarlin, formerly chief engineer
for the I.ackawanna Railroad. gave exhaustive
testimony as TO derailing switches He de-
scribed them in operation. and told OF the varl-
Gus conditions which rendered them necessary
and others which nulliied their usefulness
There was one at trolley crossing In MONT
clair when he first took service with the rail-
road: zone simple OF general usefulness, readliy
obtainable and useful to prevent accidents
he said. answering the Prosecutors questions
"'Is it such a device as adds materially 10 the
security of passengers riding on trolley cars
crossing a steam railroad at grade? asked the
Prosecutor
yes" answered the witness. but Mr.. Linda
bury made strong objections to that and otner
similar questions as being OF a nature for the
court or jury to decide.
As chief engineer of the Delaware. Lacka-
| wanna and Western" asked the prosecutor did
| you have before you contract between the
| railroad and the trolley company with regard 10
i a derailing SWITCH
ct had" said the witness and he identified the
contract. dated June so 1898. with supple
| nent dated July % 1899 the original papers
| The contracts were signed by David Young on
| behalf of the street railway, company. ana ny
officials Of the Lackawanna. The witness tnen
identified a number OF letters that had passed
| between officials Of the Lackawanna and those
| of the trolley company in 1899 and lSco. he
had a conversation with David Young in Janu-
| ary. 1900 in which the trolley man asked him
| 10 reconsider his decision on the North Jersey
i proposition.
Mr.. Young and Mr.. Pratt he went on
| wanted 70 lock UT their derail with the Lacka-
| wanna signal system. that when the derail
| was closed for a car to pass the railway signals
| would block approaching trains, that is a regu-
| lar railway interlocking arrangement.
| DO YOU know whether that has been used
| for trolley crossings elsewhere" asked the pros
| ecutor.
At that time knew Of its use in only one
| instance" eaid the witness That was ~here
a trolley road crossed the interlocking sections
| Of two railroads"
| In cross-examination. Mr.. Lindabury asked the
| witness about the derang switches al Mont
| clair and on the Erie Railroad at Bloomfield
| Mr. NcFarlin said both these were connected
| with signals which set against the trains
| when the switch was closed. and that az Mont
| clair there was derail on the steam railroad
| tracks as we'll as on the trolley tracks. These
| were the only two places in the East he knew
/ Of which were fitted Up in such fashion AS to
| the workings of derailing switches, the witness
| admitted that the deraiI without the signal
would not be absolutely efficient to prevent &C
cident. as the motorman might always start the
| car after the conductor had gone ahead. and yet
| he too late to get over the tracks before train
| approached IT was a good thing. however. he
| said in guarding against carelessness on the
/ part Of the motorman.
| He had refused 10 have the deratl connected
with the railroad signals. he said because, with
| two hundred trains a day crossing Clifton-ave-
such an arrangement would entirely disrupt the
| railroad schedule and hopelessly complcate the
| elaborate signal system
! Then your objection to this arrangement was
| so that you might run your trains regardless OF
the trolleys?" was Mr. Lindabury's parting shot
| Yes" the witness answered. rather reluct-
| anty.
| At the afternoon session Arthur a. Reiner. a
| civil engineer formerly with the North Jersey
| Street Railway Company. told more about OF
| derails and interlocking systems. He described
| one on the Erie Railroad and gave figures as 70
their general use. After his testimony the Prose
| cutor rested the States case
| Up Jumped Mr.. Lindabury.
| II move that the court direct the Jury TO find
| a verdict for the defendants" said he. where
| upon there began a wrangle as to whether the
| case should be submitted to the jury. Taking W
| each detail Of the bill Of particulars. Mr. Linda
| hurry held that. instead of the motorman's being
| hau,pered by the children the front plat
form. the witness had shown that he was able
., use his brake II had not been shown that
| the defendants we're responsible for the over
| crov-ding AS to the track. the duty Of attend
| ing 70 lust such conditions fell on specific en-
| Moves -" and he read again the rules previously