The Detroit times., 1915-04-30
ARGUE over
BLAME FOR
CAR WRECK
ID. ": r. and D., T. & /.
Men in Squabble
at Inquest
FORMER SOUGHT
DERAILER REPA
Material on the Ground
When Accident
Occurred

Argument between the d. u. r.
and D., T. & I. representatives as
to which railroad is responsible for
the lack OF an interlocker at the D.,
T. & I. crossing OF West Jefferson-
ave-, where freight train wrecked
a Fort-st. car. April IL. killing Is
passengers, was the feature Of Cor
oner Burgess inquest. Thursday.
It was brought out that for three
years the d. u. r. had tried to Sc
cure repairs to the interlocker at
the crossing. and had succeeded, on
April IA, to this point-that material
for the repairs was on the ground.
1t was also brought out that during
part of this period, the D.. T. q L
was In the hands of the federal
court receivership--until March.
1914; and that during this time, the
d. u. r. could secure no action from
the railroad.
Four witnesses OF the accident
testified as to what they saw.
Stanley J. Evans, road tester, saw
the accident from point 100 feet
away. He thought that the train
was running eight miles an hour.
Norman Lichtfeldt. No. 426 Gen.
tral-ave.. switchman, was near the
crossing. He is positive that Meth
er motorman looked to see II train
was approaching.
Mrs. Chrzanowski. No. "a White
ST.. said she saw the train coming.
noticed that the conductor was In a
hurry and Jumped or the car after
him.
II was afraid" she said. Some
body tried to hold me back. but
got on. The car was moving slow
ly. fell down. The conductor was
across the track. Il picked myself
up, and before I got to the side
walk, was lift by pieces Of wood
and glass"
Edward e. Russell. No. 234S West
JeffersonAve.. 10 years old. brake.
man for the D.. T. & l., was In the
candy store near the crossing. He
saw little OF the accident,
John c. Bird. No. IA Poss-st.. was
walking east on West JeffeHon-ave.
at the time Of the accident. He
said that the train was going at
least Is miles an hour. He testified
that Flagman Sutton did not dis
play any flag, but stood at the curb
with his flag rolled up.
Wilfred Cam. assistant to the
general manager of the d. U. R.,
testified that the d., T. & I. had
been notified several times that the
interlocker was out of order. Threats
were made by the ID. U. r. that II
would report the matter to the Mich
igan railroad commission. These
notifications were sent at several
dates during 1912. Sept. ~. 1912.
the d.. T. & I. replied that new
drawbridge was being Installed. and
that this was the reason that re-
pairs on the interlocker had been
held up.
Sept. 1, 1914. a contract was
drawn by which the D.. T. & I.
agreed to repair the interlocker and
stand the expense. The contract
was executed by the d. u. r.. Jan.
rs, 1915, and the D.. T. & /. prom
ised to begin work In the near fu-
ture.
Leo M. Butzel. attorney for the
D., T. & l.. brought out the fact that
before March, 1914, the railroad was
In the hands OF a receiver, and that
after the sale OF the road, President
Kurn preached the question of a
settlement OF accounts between the
D., T. & I. and the ID. U. r.
Mr.. Butzel secured an admission
from Mr.. Cam that the d.. T. & I.
made several attempts to secure an
agreement with the ID. u. r., but
that a question as to the accounts
between the roads prevented an ex-
peditious understanding. Mr.. Cam
admitted that the material for the
new derailer was on the. ground
when the accident happened.