Waterbury evening Democrat., 1907-12-14
FOR SUPERIOR COURT
Conducler Dillon and Gaieman
 FIayin Held Under Bonds.

John Flavin, the gateman at the West Main street crossing, and John Dillon, the trolley conductor who fig ured in the railroad disaster few weeks ago, will have to answer in the superior court. Judge Burpee gave his decision on those cases in the city court to-day and great was the interest manifested It was De- lieved by some lawyers that there was just a possibility of Judge BHr- pee finding the railroad company responsible, and Attorney Kennedy. counsel for Flavjn, did not hesitate to say that he would not be surprised if the court ordered the prosecutor to issue writ for the general man. ager of the company, as has peer done in similar case in New York state. Everybody was on the Qul vive for the courts decision. After Attorney Abner P. Hayes had got through with motion in few liquor cases, Judge Burpee delivered himself as follows in the two cases against the railroad men:
 sIn Dillon's case I can hardly see any reasonable explanation of his neglect to see that train. It hartiy seems possible to me that if he had obeyed the rules of the company he would not have seen the freight train in time to have stopped his car, oi in time to prevent it's coming upon the track. He is bound over to the superior court, $2,O60."
 Attorney Lynch asked if the bond could not be reduced, as Dillon is poor man with large family. The court replied:
 q am very sorry for MT Dillcn's family. While I may be wrong in my impression, l cannot understand the carelessness that prevented him : from seeing that train approaching. With my own experience, as we'll as | the testimony given, anybody by 1d- vancing to a place between those two ! tracks must have seen that train, and : Dillon ought not to have signalled ] for that car to go ahead until he had . advanced to that place. If the train was as close upon him as he says 1t was when he first saw it, he ought not to have signalled at all. I shaE! have to leave his bond as it is.
 "In Flavin's case there is perhaps little more difficulty. I find from the testimony that if the train was standing where the trainmen say it was, it would have been from 12O to 13O feet below the point wherc Flavin stood. That would give him view of the track of not less than 200 and possibly 400 feet, or from the crossing from 400 to 450 feet. He ought to have seen that train. if the trainmen's account is true, ill ample time to have lowered the gates before the trolley car got on the track. The interval of time was amply sufficient for him to have done that. It cannot be disputed it was his duty to operate the gates when trains approached.
 'Now take his own statement. He says the train was about car length, as I understand him, below him, al- though his testimony to the coroner was somewhat different. That would be about forty-Iive to forty-eight feet. That would give him a view down the east track of 110 or l2O feet, and at that time the train would have been something like 40 Or 150 feet from the crossing. It seems to me he should have seen Sh3 train, even then, if his own state ment is true, in season to prevent the trolley car from going on the track. While his case isn't as clear to my mind as the case of the other man, l still think it is sufficient to warrant his being held for the superior court.
 bind him over also and continue
 he same bond, s1,000."