Perth Amboy evening news. [volume] (Perth Amboy, N.J.) 1903-1959, 1918-12-16
Justice Bergen Delivers Charge
Regarding Explosion at Nor
gan Shell Plant
MAY FIND INDICTMENTS
Should Ascertain Whether or
Not Corporation Was Re-
sponSible for Catastrophe
BIZ Special CorresUondent.

Sp0nSlDle IOT CdtdSllUpiie
BIZ Special CorreSUoudent.
BU Special Correspondent.
NEW BRUNSWICK, Dec. 16-Jus-
tice James J. Bergen, of the supreme
court, this morning charged the De-
cember grand jury that ir they can
find any evidence of gross negligence
on the part of any one in connection
with the explosion at the L. A. Gll-
lespie Loading Company's plant at
Morgan on October 4 and 3, they
should return an Indictment against
the party or parties.
In part he said that mere tact tha'
there was an explosion did not mean
that an indictment should be 1ound
and he warned the jurymen not TO ps
swayed in their deliberations by pup.
lie sentiment or by popular demand
1 for a trial. He also warned them
not to be Influenced by the wealth
or social standing of anyone who
might be connected with or cohcerheo
| in the investigation.
| The Justices charge in full toiloWs'
| "On October fourth of this year an
explosion happened at the plant OF
the T. A. Gillespie Loading Company
at Morgan, in this county which
caused the destruction of many pullo-
ings and the loss of life of over t9rty
human beings. a disaster for whlcn
any person who may be criminallS
liable should be indicted. and you are
| instructed that II EVIDENCE Is SUB
mitted to you which justifies an in
dictment under the rules or laN
which shall presently state, it woult
be your duty to present an ndlct
ment for at least manslaughter.
But this appalling disaster doe
/ not OF itself, without other PROOF
Justify an indictment, and you shoul'
carefully guard yourselves agalns
making any presentment which th'
evidence does not justify simply be
cause there may be. a public clamoi
not sustained by the facts, for II yo'
give way to public demand that be
cause of the accident someone shoul'
= be indicted, without prima facie proc
of guilt, then you would not be falth
fully observing your oath of office
for you are without fear or taVor U
duly present all things which ma,
come before you of criminal nature
at does not follow that Decahs'
of the explosion somebody must b'
Indicted to appease public sentiment
but there must be proof which make
out a prima facie case OF quit, ant
lyou must be able to put your hnge
Ion those who are criminally hapl
according to the testimony. Other
wise your finding might be contrar
to law and be nothing more than tn
Judgment of a mob without reason
justification.
what / have said is intended onl
by way of caution and to instruct yo'
to keep within the bounds of you
sworn duty on the other hand, yo'
are not to be influepced to protec
any person because OF his wealth o
social standing. for the law does no
recognize any such elements as al
excuse for a criminal act. and Il
courts of justice the high ana IN
low, the rich and the poor, stand ol
the same basis and each are entitle
to no more than the protection whicl
the law affords.
81 wish also to distinctly call you
lattention to the fact that whatever
may say relating to the circumstance
or facts are merely those which hav
been submitted to me and in no wa
govern the extent of your inVestga
ton of the findings which may resul
from the evidence, from whateve
source laid before you; that is you
function, but you are also instructe
that you should apply the rules O
law, which / shall give you, to tn
, facts proven.
'sThe crime, If any, is what in lay
Is called involuntary manslaughter
which is the death of a human bein
: caused by omitting the performanc
of a plain duty imposed by law. Bea
in mind that the neglect must b
i, gross, and il must be proven by evi
dence, and no one should be indicte
upon the assumption of conditio
not shown by the testimony to exis
. That is, the state must present
prima facie case which shows tn
nom performance of a plain duty re
, sulting in the death of human be
ing before you should indict anyon
! for manslaughter. 1t must be show
a by evidence that the person indicte
omitted the performance Of a dut
resting upon him alone, and he is NJ
. chargeable with the non-perforn
ance of the duty of another II h
himself has used reasonable and du
care to prevent the happening of tn
accident.
The bringing together OF a lare
quantity of explosive material. whic
, is not liable to explode spontaneous,
is not of itself a crime unless 1t h
done IN violation OF law, but when
is done the law imposes a duty o
; the person by whose act the colleC
ton is made, or who assumes tn
care, to guard 1t with reasonable car
, and prudence to prevent its explosio
. through any means likely to produC
! that result; and If he omlts that res
sonable and prudent care. withor
. which the lives of persons will be er
dangered. and as a result an explc
sion occurs and human life is takel
such an omission is a criminal act o
, his part But. If he has employe
competent men to guard and handl
the explosive. has particularly iI
structed them, or provided rules fo
their government in dealing with III
dangerous material which, II OF
served. will prevent an explosion, c
Justify a reasonably prudent man
that belief, and the explosion result
Continued on page %