The Caledonian-record. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1920-current, 1922-11-22
New 100000 PrOuty
Trial Is Sought
(Continled from Pame u


with John W. Redmond for the de-
PENDANT.
The suit of the chauffeur, James
Blay, tried at Windsor in Sept
enber 1919 was won by him with
a verdict of S14,687, but is sell
pending.
With this new phase Of the case,
David Porter of St Johnsbury has
been identified with A. w. Far
mar who first brought the suit and
have produced new evidence which
they think viii convince Judge
Howe that they are entitled 20 .
new trial.
The states attorney went over
every phase of the case and argued
for three hours introducing the
sworn testimony Of new witnesses.
A new situation developed when ne
produced the affidaVits OF four Of
the principal witnesses. in which
they affirm that their testimony at
the trial was false and Wa CON
Stiued to meet the requirements OF
the railroad company.
In support OF then contention
that new trial should be granted
on new evidence, Messrs. Falman
and Porter have the affidavit~ o.
fifteen persons. Three have chang
ed their testimony, saying the
were misled by cross eXaminatin.
-Four have sworn that they gave
false testimony.
Of these four men, Albert Pet
erson, James Aikens, Norman
Bush and Elson Dyson, supervisor
o. signals for the G. T. L. that Of
Dyson is most important, as it was
mainly upon his testimony thai
the defense built uD framework
OF other testimony to prove that
the signals were in working order
on the morning of the accident.
Dyson says, in substance, in his
affidavit 81 arrived at the place Of
the accident about one o'clock on
the day of the accident, August 10,
1915. The first thing | did, went
to the relay box and found both
armatures up. / pressed down en-
the armature, which would cause
the bell to ring, if the bell batter
les were in working order. It
did not ring. As soon as ! did
that | was under the impression
that the bell batteries had PLAYED
out. There We're quite a rev
around watching to see what I
was doing. / walked over to The
track circuit, and finally broke of
one of the wires without any one
seeing me do it. Still the bell did
not ring.
"The reason had for breaking
the wire leading from the track
to the bell was to have an excuse
for the bell not to be in operation
after the accident, because the bell
circuit batteries weren't strong
enough to operate the bell and if
| were questioned why the bell was
noC in operation, | could say that q
wire was broken in the track cir
cult and l had to disconnect the
battery of the bell circuit or the
bell would ring continuously. !
made a statement to the claim
agent Mr.. McRae soon after the
accident, in which l undertook to
pa the matter in the best way 10
excuse myself and the Company
from responsibility for the acct
dent, Later | told Mr. McRae the
facts as | now state them, but he
said | must go through with the
matter as | had first stated it, His
testimony was technical, explain
ing the mechanism of the signal.
Charles killett, acting signal en-
gineer Of the Grand Trunk Rail
way admitted on cross examination
a. the trial that the bell at the
crossing where the accident occur
red was not installed according 20
standard specifications. Issue was
madc as to whether the batteries
were properly charged at The time
OF the accident.
Affidavit of +. Z. Nottingham,
empolyed TO maintain and repair
this automatic signal bell, testified
that at 900 p. IN. Of the day of
the accident, the battery was com
pletely exhausted, that he and an