Norwich bulletin., 1916-10-11
INTER- SIS OF WESTERLY
Deposition of Chicago Men Featured Trial of Engineer Mansfield TuesdayPositive All Signals Were Clear on Night of Bradford Wreck-Other Testimony as Foggy Night and Slippery RaisConversation of A. w. Davis With Engineer Ruled Out.

through the fog. but would run into fog banks and out again along the route. He had operated locomotive on other routes then between Provi- dence and Westerly. MT. Fitzgerald asked witness if he had ever observed false signals. MT. Phillips objected unless it. can be shown that all con ditionS were the same as at Bradford. The objection was sustained.
 MT. Fitzgerald then asked MT. Field if he had passed wrong signals at Fox and Olive street towers, Attleboro, and the witness said, he did It was his duty to observe signals and to report false signals. He could tell when sig naIs gave wrong indications. A semi automatic distant signal should return to normal when train passes, and the towerman returns the signal to continue when manually4controlled as the former is electrically controlled.
 MT. Fitzgerald asked if he had seen wrong indication of signals at Attle- boro. MT. Phillips objected unless it is shown first that conditions there are the same as at Bradford and. Wood River. MT. Fitzgerald recalled In the testimony of Mr. Morrison that the lock and block system with electric controlled distant signal prevailed at Attleboro and it was the same as at Bradford. The objection was sustain ed and exception noted
 
 Alfred M. Davis, of Winthrop, Mass, a salesman. with New England ter ritory, upon being questioned by At torney Dunn, testified he was pas senger on the Gilt Edge on the night of the wreck at Bradford. He had just entered the smoker from the din- ing car, when the train slowed down, and then he was thrown down and rendered unconscious and he under stood for ten or fifteen minutes. When he a1ighted from the car he noted the weather was damp and foggy. He saw the engine being backed from the wreck, and he saw the engineer get down from the engine. He pointed out MT. Mansfield as the engineer. Three or four people were talking with the engineer. but he did not know any of them. and could not tell whether he could recognize them, as his at tention was fixed on the engineer and the fireman. The witness was asked if he had a talk with Engineer Mans field, but Attorney Phillips objected, unless it could be shown that witness was present when a previous witness for the state, had related the converse ton that occurred. -st
 Witness testified that he was not summoned as witness in this case and he saw MT. Mansfield in Westerly a week ago last Friday and learned through the press that the case was on trial. The engineer did not say in response to a question that he did not see the signals. nor did the engi- neer say it was clearer. weatherwise, before the wreck than after. The con- versation in which the engineer made those statements was Immediately af- ter the engineer backed the train out of the wreck. and just after the en- gineer alighted from the engine. 'The conversation that he overheard in re- lation to the signals was-.'' Here the witness was Interrupted by an ob-5 jection of MT. Phillips, and the objec- tion was sustained.
 Mr. Davis, cross examined by MT. Phillips, said the wreck was contn- uaIIy in his mind as was the conver- sation he heard on the night of the wreck and had spoken of it many times The conversation was general and there were three or four people there and he was one of them. Cues T