Year: 1879

because he neglected to send Il danger signal,
as directed by rules of the company, In con-
sequence of which his train was wrecked ana
passengers were killed. The disaster occurred
at WollastOn last October. His counsel re-
monstrate against the ruling, and the case
goes up to the State Supreme Court for ilnal
decision. A rule that q conductors or an
engineers negligence in running a train eX-
poses him, personally, to punishment for man
slaughter if any one is killed, would afford
comfort and encouragement to passengers,
since the stereotyped remedy of suing the
corporation for damages has only an indirect
and feeble influence upon the managers OF
the train, the persons whom 1t Is important
to reach. The stockholders, not the servants
of the company, suffer from verdict Tor
damages. Except az such verdict may
strengthen the probability of the cupritS
being reproved or dismissed, he has little rea-
son to care for it. The threat of prosecu-
ton for manslaughter would come home to
the real offender much more directly.


There is certainly some reason and some
law in support of such prosecutions, though
they have not been common i'll this country.
An Act of Congress has been In force Tor
forty years exposing captains, engineers anu
others employed on steamboats, to the pun
ishment of manslaughter for any neglect OF
duty which causes q death, and under this
act there have been several prosecutions. In
one the negligence of the lookout and
the man at the wheel led the steamboat into
destructive collision with a schooner, and
some of the passengers were drowned i'll try
ing TO reach the shore by RATS. In two others,
4 tho hoiIa hur
engineer, and persons were killed by the ex-
pIOsi0n. There is no such Act OF Congress re-
specting railway locomotives. According to
modern decisions extending the power of Con-
gress over commerce among the States to
railway travel, il is probable that such an act
might be passed; but as yet the protection OF
passengers by rail depends on State statutes
or the general principles OF the law OF hOml-
eide as administered by State courts; but
these very generally embrace a rule that kill
ing human being by culpable negligence is
manslaughter. And the English courts have,
in a number of trials, extended this general
idea of mansaughter to negligence in the
management of railway trains and other kinds
of powerful or dangerous machinery. Several
railway decisions have discussed and applied
the principle that the conductor, driver, fire
man, pontsman, or whoever actually neglects
his own duty in the management OF train, is
crimnally liable.


Mining superintendents and engineers have
had several cautiOnary cases. such rs one
where the person in charge OF a mine had IN
structons to put up air-headings, as needed
to secure ventilation, but he neglected to do
so, and workmen were suffocated by fire.
yyhp


toned at the top of shaft to lower bricks
to bricklayer below. neglected to keep up
a guard around the mouth of the shaft, the
result of which was that parcel OF bricks
fell in and killed the bricklayer. There are
also couple of careess-shootng cases which
are interesting as showing what is of great
importance to the efficiency of the rule in pre-
venting negligence, viz, that the courts will
carry the liability home TO the very indiyd
ual who is actually in fault. In one of these
the accused was an irOn-fOunder, and was
employed to cast some cannon to be used In
celebrating the passage of the Reform bill.
One of his cannon proved defective on trial,
and was sent back to him, TO be melted up
instead of which he improved it, as he sup
posed, and returned it. 1t was then fired it
burst and killed one of the gunners. For his
personal fault in furnishing the defective gun
the founder was convicted of manslaughter.


I'm the other case the prosecution was against
Maior-General Hutchinson, commandant of
Her Majesty's forces at Plymouth. The
artillerymen attached to his command


were accustomed, under general orders
from him, to practice firing at tar
get moored in the Sound. One day a ball
missed the target, and struck the waves be-
yond these turned it aside, and an unfOrtu-
nate bOatman, who was rowing IN waters
which he supposed were ut q safe distance to
one side, was killed. The judge advised the
grand jury that as the ma jOr-general in com
mand took no actual part in the firing he could
not be charged with mansaughter, unless for
neglect of his proper duty in giving prudent
orders to govern the practice, or in enforcing
general obedience to them by proper dsci-
plne. Carelessness in firing the particular
shot could not be carried back and imputed to
the officer in general command. The same
distinction will have an important influence IN
applying the doctrine TO railway management.
Each officer or employe is liable only for his
own neglect of his proper duties. If the cas-
ualty is attributable to the neglect to prescribe
proper regulations for giving signals and run
ming trains, the superintendent, traffic manager
or other general officer charged with framing
the rules, Is the man 10 be arraigned If the
rules were wise and prudent, but the conductor
engineer, brakeman or switchtender ne elected
to obey them, the subordinate thus actually in
fanIt is the one to bear the penalty.