The Wenatchee daily world. [volume] (Wenatchee, Wash.) 1905-1971, 1910-07-07

death of John Doe, true name un-
known, were thoroughly investigat-
ed. If those six men constituting the
coroner's jury, with the facts fully
brought and placed before them,
fixed criminal liability upon the man
William Dorm, he should be neli to
trial in the superior court on the
charge of manslaughter. On the
other hand, if that jury decided that
while negligent or careless, the care
lessness in law did not amount to
gross or criminal negligence, then,
however morally blameworthy the
said William Dorm may be, it is my
opinion that you would not be JUS
titled in committing him on the
charge of manslaughter.
I'm this particular case, this said
coroner's jury was advised or in
structed as to the character of neg
ligence they would have to find
against William Dorm or any one
else in order to justify a prosecution
for manslaughter. This jury knew
that ordinary negligence or careless
ness on the part Of said Dorm, or
any other railroad employee, would
not make him chargeable with crime
under their finding. They knew
that the collision causing the death
of John Doe, unknown, must be
found to be caused by the gross or
criminal negligence of said Dorm, in
order to justify prosecution by the
state for crime. The jury knew,
too, that there was no middle ground
to take as to the question of GRIM
inal liability If they found that
the death of John Doe, unknown, was
caused by the gross or criminal care
lessness of William Dorm, their YER
dict meant a prosecution of said
Dorm on a charge of manslaughter;
that if the collision causing the
death of Doe was caused by only or
binary negligence on the part of
Dorm, the matter would drop so far
as any criminal proceeding was con-
cerned.
mo, in view of the law applica-
BILE and with all the. testimony be-
fore them. after their very thorough
investigation, we find that this YER
dict of the coroner's jury, so far as
William Dorm is concerned, was as
follows.
That said John Doe came to his
death on the 18th day of June, A.
D. 1910, by reason of railroad COL
lision caused by the negligence of
one William Dorm
Our supreme court has approved
the statement that nothing follows
in our practice (frOm a coroner's YER
dict) unless it be found that crime
has been committed Applying Or
binary as well as legal rules of con-
struction, we must conclude, that
this said coroner's jury found Will
liam Dorm not chargeable with gross
or criminal negligence, but only with
ordinary negligence. Had they be-
lievei from all the facts and circum-
stances adduced by the testimony
that said Dorm was criminally liable,
their verdict would have found that
the death in question was caused by
his gross or criminal negligence.
Understanding as this jury did that
in order to render William Dorm
chargeable with the crime of man.
slaughter, there must be finding
that any negligence on his part
must have been so culpable, so gross
as to satisfy them that he was indif-
his conduct, we find their verdict
charging him with ordinary negli-
gence, and there is in their verdict
no expression of that degree of neg
| ligence which in law would make
him answerable for the crime Of
manslaughter. The verdict appar-
emily gives him the benefit of
doubt, and is to that extent in his
| favor.
Whatever our own Independent
opinion may be about this, in view
of the coroner's verdice and the tes-
timony before you and for the rea-
sons l have just stated, it is my
opinion that you would not be JUS
titled in committing said William
Dorm to the superior court for trial
| on the charge of manslaughter."