Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-02-18

"Are you familiar with the order
T.iich requires operators to hear all
the trains reported over the wire?"
asked Mr.. Williamson
Operator Roy replied that he was.
You have heard trains reported out
OF Bangor"
Eyes, SIR
Did You hear train So reported out
of Bangor that night?'
"No, sir"
Attorney Williamson questioned the
operator closely as to what he was
doing at the time he heard the train
20 by at 9.1S. He wanted to know the
identity of the man to whom Roy said
he was giving information and what
the information was.
What was the first message to Ly-
ons that night in regard to So"
II told him she was coming or in
sight. He told me to take an order"
"Dia you hang ont your red light as
soon as he told you to take the or
DER"
The witness hestitated and seemed
unable to remember. Il am not sure
bat repeated the order before put
ting out the signal"
a portion of his testimony before
the railroad commissioners was read
in which he stated that he put the
red signal up and then took the or
der. He said that the testimony was
correct.
On being questioned by the counsel
for tie defence the witness said that
ha .nt Il laft no
Office at any time prior to the acci
don't that evening. He said that near
the station there is an eating house,
bit he did not remember going there.
Yen say that it was at 9.lS YOU
heard the train go by?'
Yes. sir
Roy said that he looked at his
watch, and did not see the train go
tE, but he thought it was the snifter.
what time should the shifter be
Off the main track to clear the way
for 36?"
at o.15."
Although he knew the track should
be clear for 81 at G.1J. the witness
sad .hat rs thought that it might
have been the shifter taking 4 string
of cars to one Of the switches at eith-
CT side Of the station.
What direction was the train go
ir.g?"
Tir witness was unable to answer
this question. Il couldn't tell which
way it vas going for l couldn't see it."
The defence rested the eXaminati
here.
Attorney Williamson addressed the
court and said that the defence had a
motion to make and requested that the
jury be excused while he made it. The
jury filed out and he moved for the ac-
ouittal Of the respondent on the ground
that. first. no evidence OF negligence had
been presented by the State, and second.
that the crime, if any We're committed,
was committed outside the jurisdiction of
the county of Penobscot
Chief Justice Emery denied the motion,
stating that the question OF negligence
rested with the jury and that the fact
that the accident which was the direct
cause OF Harry Simmons death occurred
in Carmel in Penobscot county gave the
court jurisdiction.
Operator Roy's testimony occupied
nearly all of the morning session up to
1tou stiii iiiillittisil'iS dltti tiIt AioNioi
for acquittal was denied Mr. Williamson
opened the case for the defence. He
spoke of the respondents good name, and
the fact that he had worked himself up
to a responsible position through his own
efforts. He took up the different phases
of negligence, explaining that wherein
carelessness Of one kind might he GRIM
inal there were other cases where it
could not be called criminal. He care
fully reviewed the case.
Continued on Page Tenn