Bridgeton pioneer. (Bridgeton, N.J.) 1884-1919, 1907-07-18
DEFENSE MAY
FINISH THIS WEEK
Monday Morning.

ENTonas Glass 10. agalDS6 bne west Jer-
1ov Ss Seashore r. R. 90. this morn
Ing. Judge Endioott presiding.
George Kelley, the former Court
.tenoprapher, now stenograrher in the
F;ftb Judicial District, was the first
,itness called. Mr. Bourgeois desired
Il get by this witness the statements
IA John Faunce at the two former
r;aIs in contradiction to his testimony
oiyen in this trial, in which Faunoe
tosti6ed relating to the fire. Mr..
Kelly had his original notes.
j Thos Mccullough. motorman on
Nv T. & S. r. r., was called. He
uas formerly an engineer, and run
sroine No. 6O45 on the afternoon OF
sruly 4. 1905. Had run many engines
bofore this one. The, condition of
engine 6045 was good. so far as he
could see on July 4, 1905.
Harry Wilson, John O. S~eeten
we're called to testify to the efficiency
|of engineer Mccullough.
# Daniel Cassidy, retired engineer,
$testited that sparks could not be seen
leaving the smoke stack in the day
|Ttime. An engineer would not know
when his engine screen had a hole in
d.
# Ohas. Clendenning, an old engineer,
said an engineer wopld not know il
sparks left his engine in the daytime.
Enooh +. Hewitt, assistant foreman
8of the Camden roundhouse. testified
that he inspected engine 6045 July 5,
19O5, and found the screen in perfect
condition.
N Rufus Hill. master mechanic, re-
tired, gave testimony on device to
prevent escape OF sparks from loco
motives,ss and had model of engine
&6O45 which he explained as he had
%dones in the former two trials. This
screen spark arrester was of his own
device.
Court continued in session Tues
day afternoon until half-past five
10 clock, and many witnesses were
scaksdse The railroad company called
very many eye witnesses Of the fire in
fts attempt TO show that ghe, fire origi-
mated upon the inside of the building
Father than upon the roof as contested
Sby the glass company.
AS the detailed evidences in the
3Court reports shows, the examination
Hin chief was all directed 10 show that
.the witnesses actually did see the fire
inside of she building, and almost
without exception she evidence OF
those called was that 'they- dio see fire
inside and NOT upon the roof, The
cross ss-examinatlon of the witnesses,
however, greatly weakened the force
|of this testimony. There was scarce
la witness who said they saw the fire
inside the building; who was willing
to say there was no file upon the roof.
They oontenteds themselves by saying
that they did not notice it. The
CROSS ss-examination showed that tire
few witnesses who were near the fire
were almost Invariably upon the west
side of the plant, and therefore had
no view of the east side Of She build
Ing, where the glass company con-
tends the fire started Many other
witnesses upon oss-examinaGion ad-
mitted that when the alarm was
sounded they were a long distance
away and were fifteen or twenty min
utes reaching the burning plant, and
hence could not say that the fire did
not actually Start from the roof.
When they arrived. however they
testified, there was much fire upon
the inside. The details of the de-
Ienoe's evidence follows.
Washington MoAllister, Camden,
retired. was master mechanic on
locomotive work The cross-exani-
nation Of this witness was very
thorough.
Martin B. Mulford was recalled by
the defense to tell what bottles in
vowed in this fire were manufactured
prior to 1902 VIM. Montgomery,
master mechanic and shop foreman Of
the central railroad, was called as an
eApert on the spark arrester used on
she locomotives OF their fire screens.
on cross-examination he said hole
an lnch or an inch and half in
uiameter in a fire screen, he should
think would permit, a spark TO pass
shrough of sufficient size to SET fire 10
she roof of a building.
William Jarvis, of Baldw ms loco
motive works, Philadelphia, was
sworn to testify as to the making and
AnSG