Evening star., 1922-07-24


the building contractor.
able for the purpose to make such an
| Investigation. with the result that al
| though the catastrophe occurred on
| the night of January 2S of the present
year, the indictment which is the
subject of our consideration was re-
| turned by the grand jury before the
January term of the court expired: to
! pe exact, on the third day of April.
1922. the last day of the January
term, a period of two months and five
days from the date OF the tragedy.
There can be no reasonable doubt
that all engaged in the investigation
did SO with a deep and solemn sense
OF the grave responsibilities resting
opinion has approached his part in
that investigation with an abiding
sense not only of judicial duty. but OF
personal sorrow for the loss. in the
disaster, of a friend of twenty-five
| years standing. and that friends
wife.
1.-The court is Of the opinion that such
a case presents one OF great public in
| terest and concern and that the pub
lie is entitled to be informed in
ogy as practicable and as simple as
possible. what that case is. as II 10
presented to the court for judicial
| action, and the reasons for the courts
7
! ises."
No Specific Instanees-
J After proceeding with an exhaustive
| examination OF the Indictment. ths
court points out that there is not.
for instance. a single particular al
legged as to in what respect the plans
and specifications prepared by the de-
fendant Geare were negligently pre-
pared, nor a single fact or occur
renee is set forth to show the al
legged failure and neglect on the part
of Geare to exercise the general d.
rection and supervision OF the work
on the theater. and this Is true. as
of the charges of failure and neglect
made against each Of the other four
defendants. How. for instance. is
the defendant Ford given clue as
to his act or acts Of negligence IN
the designing. fabricating and fur.
nishing of the structural steel and
iron for the operation? Is it meant
by the charge against him to say
that he negligently utterly failed to
design, fabricate and furnish the
structural steel and iron and. there
fore. did not furnish any structural
! steel and iron at all. or is II in
tended to inform him that he did
supply it, but did il neglfEentIy!
/ signing of the steel and iron or In
/ its fabrication or in its delivery?
i Would he. IL compelled to go to trial
on such an Indictment. have any In
| formation communicated to him by
the indictment. beyond the conclu-
sions of the pleader that he failed to
do some one or all of the particular
| things he is said to have undertaken?
what Hint Of Failure.
And then if we consider the matter
from the standpoint of the averments
| of the indictment that each of the
defendants undertook to do and per-
| form what he and the others were TO
do and perform, what hint has any
one of the defendants in what partic-
ular he failed and neglected to carry
out that part of the alleged obliga-
ton? For instance, the defendant
| Fletcher is alleged to have undertaken
| to furnish not only the cement and
concrete and brick and stone and hol-
low tile. but he was also to see to it
! that the defendant Wallace would
supervise generally and supervise the
construction. etc. of the theater, and
| that the defendant Downman would
examine and inspect 1T in the course
\ of its construction. At what point
i and in what connection or at any point
! or in any connection did Fletcher fail
! and neglect to carry cut this portion
| Of his undertaking? For IL the court
has correctly Interpreted the language
| of the person drawing the indictment.
| Fletcher was to see to 1t that Wallace
f! did supervise generally and supervise
| the construction of the theater. And,
! of course. in doing this he. Wallace,
F.; had to see to it that Fletcher did his
part. and Fletcher was to see that
| wallace saw to it that he. Fletcher,
| did his part. And Fletcher was also
] to see to it that bowman examined
land inspected the theater In the course
of it's construction and, therefore, Of
! course, WIS to examine the work that
| Fletcher particularly undertook to
| do, and Fletcher was required to see
| to it that Downman examined and
! inspected the work that Fletcher was
I to do. And so we might go on making
| substantially the same comments with
respect to each and all Of the defend
! ants. but it does not seem necessary
or desirable.
The Governments Case.
1t is insisted on behalf Of the gov
| ernment that a general charge Of
failure and neglect to do the things
| undertaken by each and all OF the de-
fendants is all that is necessary, and
! the governments representatives
have called the courts attention to
| a number Of cases which. It h in
; sisted, sustain this contention. and
| they say that 1t Is enough IL the ul-
innate fact be charged. and In this
case that ultimate fact IL negligence.
But whether person IL negligent or
not depends upon whether he has
either wholly omitted doing some
thing that he IL required to do, or
\ in undertaking to do something he
has failed to do IT In proper man
ner. Therefore. in order to determine
whether one las. oeen negllge~' OF
..e,sinueG CT iase .. Coiu ~ ~ "a