New Britain herald., 1914-04-14
MELLEN CASE NOLLED BY JUDGE FUTILE
Former Head of New Haven Road fxoncTatcd Of MansIaughtcT Charge.
ACTION RECOMMENDED BYCOUNsa.

AUilUN hLUUMHLNUlU bI UUUN0[l Claimed That the Evidence Is Nod
 Sufficient to Bring the Accused tnI
 Trial for Alleged Crime .on october
 3, 1912.
 Bridgeport, Conn, Aprtl 14.-| Charles $. Mellen, former president of
 tho New York, New Haven and Hart-I ford Railroad company, who in May Of last year was arrested on a bencf,I warrant charging him with man-| slaughter because of the death of one
 Janc Doe" in the wreck of the
 Springfield Express in Westport on| October 3, 1912, was ordered dis- charged from custody today, following2 nolle prosse of the charge by JudgeI Joseph P. Futile.
 Action by the court was taken after' it had received from the special, Att torney General John H. Light and State Attorney Alcorn of Hartford county. recommendation as to whatI course should be taken.
 The information before the courtI charges the accused with manslaugh-
 ter, and the state is bound to provey beyond a reasona ble doubt that deathI resulted from the neglect of a plainI duty imposed by law or contract uponI the accused personally, and that the| omission of that duty was due toI gross or culpable negligence.
 Essential Allegations.
 Te essential allegations contained in| the information are as follows:
 The accused, as president of the| railroad company, having exclusivaI control and management of its tracksI and appurtenances through the townI Of Westport, and of the equipment and operation of the engines anal trains running upon the same, it was| his duty to keep said tracks in properI condition and repair for safe travel, | and to furnish and provide suffi-| cient number of brakemen and im-| plements, and to employ competentI and careful engineers to run andI operate said engines for the protectionI of the lives of passengers riding uponI said trains, and to provide and main tain crossovers of sufficient length t0I permit said engines and trains to pass. to and from the tracks of said rail- road In safety. and to provide prop-| or and adequate system of automatiuJ train control, whereby in passing al signal without needing the same, aI train would be brought to a stop: andI well knowing the premises and hisI said duty, the accused feloniously. wilfully, and with culpable negligence.I did omit and neglect to perform theI same, and from which neglect theI death of Jane Doe resulted.
 Not Sufficient Evidence.
 We have been over the evidence with State Attorney Judson, and those who have aided him in thcI preparation of the case for trial Wei have talked with the coroner, and carefully read all of the evidence talk en by him in very thorough and ex haustive examination of the accident in question, and its causes, and his of ficial report We have read the ex- pert report of the investigation of the accident made to the public utilities commission by c. c. Elwell, its chief engineer and inspector, and also the report made by the interstate com merce commission. We have exam ined the records of the board of diA rectors and the executive committee of the railroad company; and, after thorough and exhaustive examina- tion of the law and the facts in the case we are forced to the conclusion that there is not sufficient evidence to justify a trial.
 The evidence clearly shows that the roadbed, tracks, signals, cars, engine and other train equipment were in good condition and did not contribute to the accident. The signals were correctly set for the crossover move ment of the train, and the required number of brakemen were provided in compliance with an order of the railroad commissioners, The engin- | ger was competent, if not one of the best. We are assured by experts that there is no successful automatic de- vice for stopping trains in use on the surface railroads of the country ana have not been able to procure any evidence of the contrary.
 No Specific Duty
 State Attorney Judson, and those who have assisted him in the prepar- ation of the case for trial, agree with us that the only allegation in the in- formation upon which a conviction may be looked for, if at all, is that the accused was exclusively charged with the duty to provide and main tain at the place of the accident a crossover of sufficient length to per init the engine and train to pass from track one to track three at high speed in safety, and that he neglected this duty and death of Jane Doe was caused thereby. Hence, we have ex- amined this allegation and the evi- dence which we have been able to obtain to support it, with much care, and we are satisfied
 CD That the accused was not charged with any such specific duty as to crossovers; CD that the acci- dent was not caused by the type of