Norwich bulletin., 1916-10-18

soldered by lighting: These reports he sends to his superiors and he knew nothing of their affairs.
 MT. Anderson, on redirect examina- ton, testified that the Wood River trouble occurred on the west bound track. The relay was in position there possibly two years. and was motor controlled in August of last year.
 George L. Miller, who testified pre- viousiy for the state, was the next witness and testified that he was fore system of signals of the New London division. Reportsa of signal failures were made to him, but no clear fail ure was reported within a year. Should a train pass over a signal at distant and the signal did not work properly, it would be a clear faildre. unless it acted upon the overlap, that is if one should fail the other relay would catch it. and operate the signal, if all was in perfect working order Extra long circuits are generally split. If one relay was in order it would trip the signal. It would not be a clear fail ure, unless the signal remained wrong when the train reached the first home signal He has no record of failure at Bradford, since July. reports prior to that time were made to the fore man that preceded him. He made an inspection in May, June, July, August and September. He received electrical reports up to July 1. He could recol- feet no reported failures at Wood River in August, 1915. Water bridging across the relay would cause a false clear, but no false clear at Wood River was reported to him, so far as he could remember.
 MT. Miller testified. when questioned by Mir. Phillips, that some people who did not understand the workings of the circuits would call a false clear if the distant signal failed to respond to the first relay. but where there are two circuits he would not term it a false clear until after the train passed the first home signal. Then if the distant signal failed to work, he would term it a false clear.
 He said when a signal does not go back to danger he would call a false clear after a train passed over a re- lay.
 Eugene s. Allen, of New Haven, testified he was a. locomotive engineer since 1888 on the New Haven road and at present time a passenger engineer and had been such for twenty-ffv years. He ran trains between New 26 and 7, the former west bound and the latter east bound. On July of the present year, did you see a wrong dis tant signal at Wood River asked MT. r 1IZSSTdlu. NIT. FnlIllpS ODJGCtSu dS it first must be proven that the sig
 nal was not out of order. He claimed it was shown by witnesses that the signal was out of order in July. MT Fitzgerald doubted that there was pos itive testimony on that point. MT Phillips claimed it must be shown that the signals were in proper work ing order before such testimony is ad- missable. MT. Fitzgerald proposed to show that the signals were not doing ,1,I,o 4~ I1 signals, he claimed. can work wrong at one time and proper thereafter. Wa ter can turn the trick. it can shut off the circuit, flow off and then the cir cult operate again. The court sus- tained the objection.
 On the 5th of July, 1916, in passing by the west bound distant signal at Bradford, locked it as far back as you could see. if it went back to dancer and did it 60 back? asked Mir. Fitz- gerald. Mir. Phillips objected. MT Fitzgerald called the courts attention to testimony that said the signal would return to danger, after passing the circuits. both of them. The court stated he would sustain the objection, when MT. Fitzgerald argued that ac- cording to the witness it was a clear day and there was no thunder or light ming, while the state claims that on some other occasion the delay wires were SOluSI0d pS l1SnlHllS. He SldIt fixed no time and he fixed the day and date. The witness was not card ed" or had been notified that the sig nal was out of order. Objection was made by MT. Phillips and sustained.
 The witness said he had no hold up in the section before reaching Brad ford. When GOT train was at Wood River Junction, MT. Aliens train would be at the Providence station, according to schedule. He knew of I J,r-,A 5th. 1916.
 Then witness was temporarily with | drawn.
 | Signal Maintainer Anderson was re- called and testified he repaired the relay at Wood River about o'clock 1 in the afternoon,7 or about four hours l after the defect was reported. He | knew of no thunder storm on that day. i MT. Allen was recalled and his tes- l tin1ony that he passed the Wood River distant signal at e.o4. and before the | signal was reported out of order. Ob- | jection was sustained.
 Engineer Allen was recalled to the witness stand when court resumed in the afternoon: He was familiar with | the signals at Cedar Hill. MT. Fitz l gerald asked if on February IA, of the present year, the district signal was out of order. Objection. sustained. A 1 locomotive would slide on a wet track l for a distance of a half mile and not | flatten the wheels. & s4
 | Upon cross-ex Illumination, MT. Allen | said his engine and tra-1 was different | than that which MT. Mansfield op- erated on the night of the wreck. He | had at least one experience when his engine slid a long way and did not | fatten the wheels, when on 8 down grade. He said he had been interested | in this case from the start and was summoned to Westerly over three weeks ago. Any questions asked by the defense he would be glad to an- | swer, and he has talked with other men who were interested in MT. Mans | fields welfare ] Percy $. Waite. of Springfield, To- lomotiVe engineer for twenty two years with the New Haven road, as it's di-
 rect prederersor. He has been in