Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-05-04


change whatever had ever been made
either in the location of the semaphore
or the angle at which the lantern was
originally fixed upon the mast or ~
show any defect whatever in any OF the
appliances or mechanism of the seila-
phore. He failed to produce any direct
evidence that when the paw "dS
kicked off and the counter weight re-
leased, the lantern was not lhVarlhoiy
turned onc-uuarter of the distance
around automatically, and thrown cN-
,.lv into place-so as to display reu
light For aught that appeared III uiie'
evidence on the night of the accident
the semaphore was permanently oe' {"
the same angle as when erecteu anu
was accurately performing ITS olilcc %
| \ true sign bearer, as it had zone u"i
/ ing all of the "a years or It's eNlStchN'
prior to that time. All the WITNESSES
| Who might be expected to nave Soiiie
| cognizance of the matter "lie.'i0'
| called by the plaintiff or defendant -
| tit;a1 that never to their knowledge had
any complaint ever been IIlduc cI'i.'i
TO or by any officer or empioyc ol '"e
aomnany that this semaphore "ds ~
| nroperlv located, having regard 10 ~
| ,f,ci,ncy or that it was not placeu d.
| suitable angle with reference 70 thc
| track. or that there was any uelcct "
want Of reliability in the action OF the
lantern. if properly operated, win r.
| spoct to the direction i'll which the SIG
nal lights were thrown down the track
Put the plaintiff sought to prove by
the eff ct Of its action in transmitting
| the signals down the track, that the
| ;enaph0rc was neither in Il suitable
location nor set at proper angle.
An aprarently irrcconciiable conflict
| is disclosed in the VolumlnouS leSu-
| nony unon this point But whatever va
| riatipns there may appear TO be IN thn
| testimony of witnesses who saw the
| same light set at the same angie ana
| shedding its light under til" same con
| IitirnS. there are immutablc laws ol
| physical science that cannot be dis
| turhed by human testimony. Light from
| whatever source cmanating must al
WAYS traverse Unobstructcd space in
| direct lire.
| And according 10 familiar principles
| IN optic: rays of light falling upon a
convex lens are convergcd into mar
| row ana intense beam. In this case the
|
of light emitted through the double
| convex lens Of the ScmaphOre were 50
| converGcd that the angle of rcfrartion
| was less than i degrees from par
| lllcl lire. whereas without this lens the
RAYS would have been dispersed at an
| lngle Of about 80 degrees. Hence it
| would have been impossible that the
| same light. adjusted at the same angle
I..l,a l,il ,.ln rn1 IA nh
| er clear green to another and mix
| ture IF rcd and green to third, under
| precisely the same conditions. TeSti-
| mony given in direct cortravcntiOn of
| physical laws Is necessarily deemed in
| credible.
| With respect To the occurrences on
| the evening of the accident. Horeyseck.
| the engineer of the plaintiffs train. No.
IL. who was charged with the RESPONSE
| bic duty Of carefully observing the sig
| mails, tcstifles cmphatically as a wit
ness for the plaintiff that he was not
| deceived i'll the color of the signals He
| insists that he saw it green and that it
| was green when it was first visible a
| quarter of a mile distant and that it
continued green until after they were
| up around tho curve. ct was green
| then after they shouted and called out
| that there was something on the
| track He also testified to the signifi-
| cant fact that the next moment after
| the accident he asked Mr.. Nelson. who
as substitute was acting as sema-
phOre tender that night, "why he didn't
| have his board set" "board" being a
/ railroad term for Semaphorc. Nelson
| admits this in his deposition. He says
| HorcySeck claimed that the Semaphore
| showed green. l claimed that it showed
| red. He claimed that the board was
| tipped off after he ran into Mr.. Mar
| quis. He claimed that the lights were
| changed after the collision with the
| Marquis engine
| This suggestion of a sudden change
Of color appears to have been adopted
| by Tho plaintiff himself in the testi-
| m0ny which he gave before the stenog-
| rapher Hegarty Immediately after the
accident. According to Hegarty's report
| tho plaintiff then said: after We
| stopped it showed red. but when we
| came up the hill | could have sworn by
all that is good and holy that it was
green."
| Head Brakeman StinsOn, who was in
the cab with the plaintiff. and the en-
| gincer also states that the light was
enthusiastically green down below, but
| just before the collision he looked and
saw that the scmaphore light was then
| rcd"
| On the other hand, Nelson testified
| positively in his deposition that immc-
| diatcly after the Marquis engine went
| onto the main line east of the crossing
he tipped the semaphorc to the red. that
| it remained rcd until the plaintiffs
| train arrived and was red at the time
Of the collision. In answer to an inquiry
| as to his first knowledge of the acct
| dent he says: "The drug clerk said
| there was a headlight going around the
curve. l jumped up out through the
| door; when l got onto the platform
| they met
|; is undoubtedly true that this and
much other evidence for the Dlaintiff