Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-02-03

against them by reason of the charge OF
manslaughter against tncm and the
charge Of responsibility for the death Of
a human being. the jury should be care
full not to permit their minds to be I'M
duly swayed by sympathy or at all inft'i-
enced by the fact of the charge in the
found by the grand jury. The
only thing which should influence your
verdict is the evidence here adduced--
and that evidence must convince YOU be-
yon6 reasonable doubht of the guilt of
the defendants before you find them gull
ty of the offence charged against them.
On the second day OF October last one
Franz; T.. EeleDger. Il brakeman on a
freight train of the Maine Central Rail-
road, was killed near Waterville, in this
county, in a collision Of the engine Of
the train on which he was riding with
the engine of the train on which the de-
PENDANTS were riding--Dunbar. one of the
defendants, being the conductor, and
Thayer the other defendant, the engine
man. in charge of the last named train
and engine. The facts about which there
is no controversy are that the train upon
which Pelenger was riding was regu-
lar freight train on its way from Fan
cor to Waterville: that it was little
more than two hours late In arriving at
West Benton, near the place of the COL
lision: that the train had the right OF way
over the road to Waterville: that the
train of which the defendants were con-
ductor and engineInan was special con-
struction train that they had received
an order to run their train extra from
Waterville to Newport junction over the
same track upon which the train, of
which Pelenger was n brakeman, was
approaching Waterville; that Il few min
utes after defendants train left Water
willie the engines of the two trains COL
lided and by reason of the collision BE
LANCER was thrown under car and
killed.
This indictment charges these two de-
PENDANTS with responsibility for the col
lision and Eelerger's consequent death.
anu tic grave duty devolves upon you
to determine whether or not they or
either Of them is guilty Of that respoEsl-
bility.
The State does not contend that they
caused the death of Belenger with airy
intention or guilty motive The indict-
ment does. indeed, charge n wiiIul mo-
tive, nut the county attorney has fully
and eEiphatically disclaimed any purpose
or intention to hold the defendants re-
sponsitle for any possible improper de-
sign, or the least intention to do any
injury in what they did or omitted to do;
but lie does contend that by reason or
their negligence Of their legal duty that
they caused the collision ard consequent
death of Belenger and that they are,
therefore. guilty Of rnanslauEhter.
The tern. granddaughter implies per-
hape to the popular mind the Killing OF Il
human being instigated by moral turpi-
tude-a design to do an injury OF some
kind but the sense in which the term Is
used in this prosecution has no such sig
nifcance Manslaughter may be commit
ted BY r plain neglect of ones lawful
duty-a reckless carelessness-a disregard
of reril, and it is upon this ground that
the State contends that these defendants
are responsible for the death of Belenger.
Now the burden is upon the State to
convince You beyond reasonable doubt
that these defendants are guilty Of such
neglect o: their plain and legal duty I'M
der all the circumstances involved on this
collision that they are responsible for 1t
and the consequent death of EelanGer.
The Jury should weigh well all the cir
cuust.nces proved and not hastily jump
at conclusions The State must furnish
substantial proof of the facts upon which
it relies to show culpaple-that is. GRIM
inaI-regliSence on the part of the de-
PENDANTS before you can convict them.
So long as you have 4 reasonable doubL
are sufficient to show them culpably neg
lir.nt YOUR verdict must be not guilty.
What is a reasonable doubt need hardly
to be explained. 1t is such Il doubt as
sensible mer can sensiol,' discuss. If
upon consideration of all the facts ana
circumstances proven you do not Zee,
convinced to a moral certainty that the
defendants are guilty it will be your duty
to return Il verdict of not guilty.
I shall not attempt to rehearse the evil
dence, but shall only endeavor to state
the issues which you must decide The
State says that these defendants being
in control of that extra train No. S01 At
Natcryille on the I'd oE October. and hav-
ing received an order from the train dis
patcher to run it to Newport Junction
did at about o'clock and 40 minutes in
the afternoon proceeded with II, Iotwlth-
standing they knew or that it was their
duty to know that train No. % had not
arrived and had the right Of way and
might at any moment arrive. and that
there was peril in stating their train be-
fore being satisfied that they might with
safety proceed. 1t is contended in de-
fence that the defendants used all the
care that the law requires that they
should have exercised under the circum-
stances. If they did they are not guilty.
If they did not use such care-and you
are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
that they knew or were bound to know
the peril of starting out with their train
as they did-then they are chargeable
with culpable negligence and guilty un-
der this Indictment. This brings US to
consideration of what the law regards