The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-07-23


 prudence would use under similar
 circumstances. It is an unlawful
 act, carelessly or negligently done,
 or a lawful act done without due
 caution or circumsp ection.' Wharton on Homicide, Sd Ed,
 Sec. 4 45.
 ''As used in a statute, criminal
 negligence means gross negligence,
 such a conscious breach of duty
 gard, of ones own safety, and a will
 ful indifference to the consequen- ces liable to follow,
 294 Cyc: 4424, and notes Criminal negligence, may, In general, be defined as a 7dereliction of duty under circumstances show ing an actual intent to 1nJure, or =z-sh a concession breach of duty as to warrant an implication that the Injuries were intended. "21 Amer. & Eng. Ency. of Law,
 2d Ed, 459.
 In view of the definitions of crim- inaI negligence quoted. it would ap- pear, that in this case gross or, cuIpa- b1e failure on the part of the Company or it's officers or servants to do any act which should make for the safe ty of the passengers on it's trains on the day of accident, or knowingly per init any to be done which would jeop- ard1ze their safety in the employment of an indifferent, unskilful, ineXper- lenc6d or reckless GnS1nGeTa IOA man age and conduct End 55. properly and safely to it's destination, or to fail in providing an engine and cars suit ably equipped with approved modern air-brakes, or culpably fail to use such approved automatic stops as should stop and prevent End 53 from co1Iiding with 1st 53, would amount to such criminaIity as should be pun ished in him or them who are at fault. Governed therefore by the foregoing, the following queries. are germane:
 1st. Was the Company, it's officers or servants, blamab1e on the day of accident for allowing enginennan Do herty to take charge of engine 1888 and 2nd 53 because of his alleged in competency or inexperience, or both
 Or End. For permitting engine 1888 with alleged defective air brake equipment to be in service?
 Or Srd. For permitting the dis tant and home signals to be only 1,SoO feet apart?
 Or. 4th. For permitting End 5s to enter the Stamford block whilst 1st 53 was standing in the safety zone a few feet west of it?
 Or 5th. For failing to install an automatic train stop in the Stamford block to protect trains in that block from rear end eolIisions2
 Or 9th. For failing to equip their trains with suitable steel cars?
 To the. 1st query, 1t is to be said that Doherty's alleged 4ncompetency is disproved by his almost perfect ser vice record, the sworn statements of several engfnen1en of the Company as well as by the testim ony of travelling engineer Buckley, road foreman of engines Carroll, superintendent Wood ward and manager Bardo. As to his practical. experience, it must be said in all candor, notwithstanding the so- called str4oueo year rule of the Com pany and the Engineers Association, and the belief of that association that one years service as an engineer Is sufficient and the 1abored convictions of unconvtnced officials of the road, parties to the agreement, that the ma ture public mind is disquieted by the knowledge, operation and continuance of the one year rule as being insuffi- ciene and dangerous. Personality have no doubt that the Company, as we'll as the engineers themselves, in the interest of safety, will earn public esteem by adGpting a substitute at some near day limiting such experi- ence to at least two, but preferably three years instead of one year
 Upon the assumption that the New Haven Company And the Engineers Association, in the making of the one, year rule,. aimed for the best results from it's adoption. and that 1t was not DuC 1nIO IOTC6 Oy 04I1ACA 5E15A o of public rights or safety, no criminal infractfon of the law is to be attribute ed to either party to it
 To the End query, it may be said there was no certain evidence offered, other than that of eng1neman Doherty, that the air-braa1e equipment Of en- zine 1898 and of the cars of 2nd 53, showed any material defect in con- struction or operation imme ediately, be-. fore or after the accident but, on. the contrary. sufficient evidence was heard to reasonably convince that such equipment was in good, ordinary condition, except that greater care was necessary to commence braking ear Her than on many other engines, and with this exception the engine was be- ing and could be operated saHsfactor- fly.
 As to the srd above query, suggest ing that the Company or it's signal en- gineer, or both, were negligent in all lowing the distant and home signals in the Stamford block to be too near to each other for safety, 1t is toa be said that there was apparently an honest difference of opinion between those giving evidence, as to whether there was a necessity for any distant or home signal display in the Stamford block whatever, because the train stop at that place was predetermined one. I am of opinion, upon the evil dence, however, that, notwithstanding that that stop was predetern1ine ed, g certain reliance had been placed by enginemen on such signal, and by en- gineman Doherty in particular on the day of accident. that created a general belief that the distance from the point at which the distant signal could be sighted to the home signal gave ann pie space to bring high speed trains to a standstiH within it without a pos sibiIity of rear end collisions.
 Tn this regard, I am of opinion that the distance between such signals should, in the interest of safety, be increased to 2,5OO feet at least, con sidering the present and prospective use of heavy high speed trains, but that no criminal negligence is to be predicated on the failure of the Com