The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-07-23
M CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
 AGAINST DOHERTY
cconttn,,ea from Page 1.)

port and left at 4-ZI r. M-s oOueAl NorwalIx at 4:36 P. M; and passed CzIenbrook station and into Stamford block at 4:49 P. M. at Q, speed of about so miles per hour. It passed the dis Lant signal, set at danger, 1,SOOs feet east of the home signal, at. reduc- ing speed of 40 miles per hour; pass sS the home signal, set at danger, at q still reducing speed of Is miles per hour, and thereafter collfded with the coach s'SbyIarIx'' of 1st 53, at or about the same speed, causing the disaster in question
 On the question of the competency of Doherty, as passenger enginenan, the officials of the road and others gave approving testiTl ony. His prac- tical experience, however, was only vouched for as sufficient in a specula- tive rather than in a practical way; the same conforming. however, to the specifications laid down in a rule con tained in a written agreement entered into by the Company with a commit tee of it's engineers, on April loth' 1918. The rule referred to is amen s7atory of Rule 1 of Article Of for rner agreement between the same par ties as to SPARE AND EMERGEN- CY FNGINEERS''; the former agree nneT1t providing, amongst other things, that whenever spare engineers are assigned to temporary vacancies, they shall remain on same until the regular engineer returns %** provided they are competent the latter agree rnent of April 18th providing by rule that mo engineer who has less than one year, experience shall be allowed to run through passenger trains In this regard 1t was claimed, by. evidence of representatives of the Engineers Association. that, in view of the con s8deraIbly greater service given by men as hremen on passenger trains on the New Haven system over fremen on O 4 FERENCE rule, as above, together with the lack of train accidents or in- jury on the part of young engineers. of the New Haven Road, in the past was sufficient to secure safety in. travel.
 claim of engineman Doherty that the failure of the a4r-brakes on his engine to operate with reasonable promptness was the cause of the accident In proof of this he stated that shortly after passing G1eenbrook station, heI shut off the power Of his engine; that after drifting without steam to a point I,20o feet east of the distant signal, he applied pounds of air to the brakes of his train line; and that when he reached point 800 feet east of the distant signal, he again applied to the train line a further air reduction of 10 pounds; and, further, that, as neither application was satisfactorily reducing uhe sEpeedgof fhdssfrain, and as he was dangerously approaching the home signal and the safety zone in which 1st 5S was standing, he applied the emergency brake when about 1, 200 feet therefrom, but without avail however; and further asserted that, while the speed was being momentar- iIy reduced, his engine dashed and ploughed it's gruesome way into the car "Skylark" at a speed rate of about 2 to B miles per hour, thus causing the death of the deceAsed and others.
 The testimony of Sengi neman Doher ty as speed and aig5rake app1fcaR lions Is fairly 7corroborated by brake man Palmer, fireman Smith, conduc- tor Dunn and baggagenan Wilson Of the End 53; except that their state- ments of where air pressures were ap- piled on the train line varied sone- what from one another. but each sap-s sparentIy located such airbralxe ap- pIicafioy.s much closer. to the point of accident than Doherty claimed.
 The testimony of engineman John Harmon, air-brake9 experts Langan, Burton and Martini Offered by the proper condition of the air-brake and other equipment of engine 1888 and cars Of 2nd 5S, immediately before and after the date of accident, was of inn Portance in tending to prove the merit and efficiency, of the brakes on that date, and to show that the Company was and is in no way crininally negligent or responsible for the disaster.
 In this connection it is also impor- tant in view of evidence given by Do- herty in favor of himself and in sup port of his claim that the air brake equipment of engine 1888 and of the ears of End 53, was defective and was the real cause of the Stamford diSas- ter, and that his management of the 1.Tr and in view of the contrary evidence offered by the New Haven Company, showing the reasonable perfection of it's appliances and Quipment and in its laying of blame the engineman alone for causing the accident, to de- terr1ine who is right in the respective contentious. and whether either or both are blameabIe or otherwise.
 There can be little doubt that the public is entitled, for the enjoyment of It's comfort and safety, to insist on and to secure from the New Haven Company the best and most approved type of railway equipment and service that can be obtained; and that for every negligent default in so providing resulting in death or injury, the Com pany is liable cr1mfnaIly.
 It is also the duty of the New Ha- wen Company to provide amply for the safety of it's patrons by the em- pIoyment of agents and servants of known ability and experience, and to supply every approved appliance to such agents and servants for public convenience and protection in proper ty or person In this regard, how ever. it must not be overlooked that the law does not demand or claim from such Company, in behalf of it's patronss unreaspnab tea things or i'm bose us,tn t unreasafia Hl6 responsibil- fties in the way of service, manage ment. or train equipment. Whenever the Company has secured to its pa irons and the public the full measure of it's lawful rights. it has done it's du- H
 It is proper therefore to ascertain, In fhe rresent ease what are the Ie-