The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-09-03

Lnprudence on the part OF thoel
oriVihs the cars caused the death al
Mr. r. NJ. Deputy, OF Philadelphia. and
the ln1uring of Mr.. J. G. Hollinsworth
OF Fayetteville. \. c.. and DR.. n. III
Ialbott. of West Virginia. in the autoS
mobile collision near the Soldiers
Home Thursday night, according TX
the findings of the coroner's 1urv
which conducted a searching investfA
cation into the causes of the accident
Saturday morning
Inc two drivers IN question ara
Edmund S. Burwell. of Charlotte. N.
&. who was operating his own car.
ana q. H. Jordan, a chauffeur conS
nected with the Virginia Auto Com.
pany. OF this city. Both are held ID
SoVe bond TO appear before Magistrate
Puryear, OF HenFieo county. Septem-
Der y. when preliminary hearing win
be granted.
Three Hour inquiry.
me investigation lasted about three
hours, after which the jury retired.
and In fifteen minutes agreed upon III
verdict and made 1t public Anaona
the witnesses examined were Messrs.
J. T. Mckissick, j.. g. Ross. II. 8. BUR-
Wen and II Fl. Jordan. while the attor.
hess present were permitted to suk-
gesf lines of inquiry 10 the coronaf
and to bring out certain facts from
the police officers who reported tha
accident and made the subsequent ar
rests.
Practically all the facts published
In The Richmond vtrEinian Friday 49,
ternoon weree brought out by corone.
Iayior. The first witnesses examined
gave the complete story. The others.
some half dozen in number--wers
mersiy called upon to eorroborafs
their testimony.
Two important facts were clearly
established almost immediately: thas
both cars We're running well oyer
twenty-five miles an hour and AZ
times at nearly twice that speed, ana
tnat nearly every member OF the PAP
ty had been drinking rather too heay-
lily to insure safe and careful run.
ming.
Drinking, But Not Drunk.
inc nrst two witnesses examined
were Messrs. j. R. McKissick and /.
G. Ross. Their testimony was prac-
tically the same. They declared that
no one In the first car--the one which
skidded into the ditch-was what
might be termed drunk, though IL
was admitted that practically all az
them had been drinking.
Ineir testimony was practically tna
same They declared that no one n
the nrst car-the one which skidded
into the ditch-was what might ba
termed drunk. though 1t was admitted
that practically ali of them had been
drinking. M
1t was also brought out that. beina
unaccustomed to roads near the cftv-
and Dy reason Of the intense darkness. "
Mr n. 3. Burwell. of Charlotte. who
owned and was driving the first car.
experienced some difficulty in keepinr
In the middle of the road, and Wa.
one of the witnesses thought, lfttr.
uncertain in taking the turns.
1T was admitted. however thar tha
two cars. running at lively clip. con-
siderably exceeding the speed Laws
We're remarkably close together, "a
close. In fact. that had one Of the carr
suddenly stopped the other would
have run over IL. as, indeed, did bar~
TALLY occur when the front machfna
slipped on the muddy roadside and
went into the ditch M
Mr.. Mckissick's Version. n
Mr.. McKissick. as soon as caIIsd
before the coroner Saturday morning.
asked permission to make complete
statement of the case. This M
granted, and the witness, being swoxnxsS
gave the following outline OF TIL
events leading up to the accident and
then of the accident itself:
I wish to emphaticaliy deny atN
the outset that had anything to a.
with any wine supper on Thurvdas
night. or that I had any knowicdeu@
OF 1t until read the paper on III
following morning
About fifteen minutes of IL o'eIocka
on Thursday night / left work. In
tending to go home directly. 4 NEE
on Main street, between Ninth NJ
yr..s-