The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-04-09
MORE WARRANTS
Continued from Page 1.)

W. B. Boardman said he had been extremely careful about his affada- wits, and said there are no printed, written rules of the company impos- ing upon the defendants the duties which they are alleged to have vio- lated. "I have been charged with having records up my sleeve. I have not he concluded.
 MT. Judson said the court cannot accept statement, without proof, that duties of the officers are not defined.
 MT. Judson said if there are no such rules they are running an in sane asylum and not a railroad. The question of the record of duties was discussed. MT. Judson said in some intelligent firms the officers have learned their duties. He wants that information. If they have no such record they should be enjoined.
 Judge Greene said the practice of the state is for separate trials in a case where omission of an act by one defendant would tend to prejudice tn he rights of the others.
 MT. Judson said that MT. Horn is over all of the defendants, and if separate trial IS granted he should be Joined with them, as it is not fair to take a subordinate acting under his orders.
 Judge Greene said it was a matter of determining what the duties of the .. | that there is no duty which devolves upon more than one at the same time-'' MT. Judson asked permission to present proof to show that the statements in MT. Boardman's afffda- wit are untrue, and that it would not be accepted by the court. He asked that a time be fixed when he could present testimony as to the duties of these officers, and that Mir Horn had charge of each of the departments filled by the others.
 Judge Greene said he knew of no case in Connecticut where the ques- ton of separate trials was carried further than affidavit by counsel. He decided to allow MT. Judson to file an afdavit in rebuttaI of the one present ed by MT. Boardman, but ruled he would grant separate trials for the de- fendants, leaving open the question of whether Vice President Horn should be tried jointly with any of the other defendants.
 A recess was then taken to allow MT. Jr1dson to prepare his statement or affidavit.
 It was 12:25 when MT. Judson re- turned and presented his affidavit. He stated that part of the Boardman affidavit is incorrect, and then went on to show that Horn is over all of the others, and he describes the var ious duties of the four defendants,
 
 care of the track and road bed. The Judson affidavit asserts that the dut- ies of Horn, Pollock and Woodward are Identical except as to amount of personal authority. He further asked for a hearing to present testimony to prove this contention.
 By consent it seemed that Carmalt is excluded from the allegation of equal duty. Attorney Cummings spoke at some length to dispute the claim made by Attorney Judson, Cum nnings asserting that the state does not show the duties are identical. This question of the duties was argued at length by both sides, MT. Judson talk ing the position that all are equally responsible, and MT. Cummings dis putting this point and claiming the duties and responsibility are not the same and not equal.
 Judge Greene in passing upon the question said that it was not clear to him that the duties were equal, and while the trial of MT. Horn with a might not jeopardize the interests of that gentleman, it might jeopardize the interests of the sub ordinate. He therefore ruled that each of the defendants is entitled to a separate trial.
 The court then took recess for luncheon.