The Big Sandy news. [volume] (Louisa, Ky.) 1885-1929, 1910-02-18


lack of cars.
y
Charleston, W. Va, Feb, 10.-To
show cause why he should punish
William T. Meade and Harrison
Chafin for contempt OF court. a rule
OF prohibition was issued Wednes-
day morning from the Supreme
Court of Appeals against Judge n.
S, Doolittle, of the Sixth Judicial
Circuit. The writ is returnable on
February 30. The writ OF prohibit
ton issued upon the petition OF
Chafin and Meade follows rule
for contempt issued by Judge Doc
little against the petitioners to APP
pear before him on February 9Th
in the city Of Huntington to show
cause why they should not be at
tached and imprisoned for contempt
in violating an injunction which he
had issued against them, enjoining
them from holding an election at
Kermit, Mingo county.
Kermit is a small, would-be mu-
nicipality in Mingo county, and re-
ceived a certificate OF Incorporation
from the Mingo County Court, which
appointed Meade and Chain with
one other, as commissioners OF cleo
ton. On the day prior to the date
Of election, on the petition OF ], ID.
Adkins, II. NJ. Vanhoose, NJ. p. Cop
ley, Anthony Evans and Thomas
Adkins. Judge Doolittle issued a re-
straining order, enIoining the COM
mlssioners from holding the cleo
ton. Contrary 10 the injunction the
election was held aud the rule COM
planned of summoning Meade and
Chafin to appear before the Cabell
county jurist, which was issued
Meade and Chafin in their petition
for rule OF prohibition set out that
Judge Doollttle had not authority to
issue the injunction and II was a
usurpation and abuse OF power,
Fine Record For Safety.
1t is gratifying TO be able to re-
cord such remarkable safety OF rail-
road operation as that shown by
the Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
in the handling OF It's passenger
business during the last five years.
1t was said that this road had not
killed one passenger on any of its
lines for long time, but in response
to an inquiry as to whether this
was true, an official replies that
from 1905 to 1909, inclusive, a per.
iod of five years, there we're only
10 passengers killed on the road
yet it appears, upon an examination
Of data concerning each case, thai
in not even one instance could deatf
be attributed to neglect on the par
of the railroad company or its EN-
ployes. In fact, only one OF the II
deaths was the result of train &C
cident, and the man in that cas-,
would not have been killed had h
not been standing on the platform
of a car instead OF being within tn,
vehicle, as he should have been
Four of the deaths occurred in 1905
one man falling from the platform
of a moving train, another while in
toxicated falling inside a car an,
striking his head, causing injurie
which resulted in death; thir,
jumping from a moving train an
falling under the wheels, and
fourth falling from the platform o
car when a derailment occurred
There were two deaths in 1906, on
of an intoxicated man who fell fror
the platform Of a moving train, an
another of man who jumped fror
train in motion. In 1907 also tw
deaths occurred, one man eithe
jumping or falling from movin
train, and the other attempting t
leap from one train to another.
1908 and 1909, respectively, one az
cident happ Ined, each being cause
by either jumping or falling from
moving train. 1t will be observe
particularly that only one of tn
fatal accidents resulted from an
mishap to train.
During the five years under COZ
sideration the Norfolk q Wester
carried 21,331,720 passengers, q
that the deaths we're less than !
100000, and in 1908 aud 100
they were only In about 100000