Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago And St. Louis Railway Co. v. The State
Decision Date | 09 April 1909 |
Docket Number | 21,217 |
Citation | 87 N.E. 1034,172 Ind. 147 |
Parties | Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company v. The State of Indiana |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Criminal Court of Marion County (36,256); William Irvin Special Judge.
Prosecution by The State of Indiana against the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company. From a judgment of conviction, defendant appeals. Affirmed. (Appealed to United States Supreme Court, see U.S. .)
Affirmed.
Samuel O. Pickens and Owen Pickens, for appellant.
James Bingham, Attorney-General, Martin Hugg, William H. Thompson Edward M. White and Alexander G. Cavins, for the State.
The State of Indiana instituted this prosecution by affidavit against appellant for a violation of the provisions of an act of the General Assembly approved February 13, 1907 (Acts 1907, p. 18, §§ 5295-5298 Burns 1908), known as the "full crew act." The title of the act is: "An act entitled an act concerning railroads and to better protect the lives of railway employes and the traveling public, and providing penalties for the violation thereof." Omitting the enacting clause, the statute in question is as follows:
The affidavit upon which the prosecution rests is in two counts. The first charges that appellant railway company "is, and was at the times hereinafter stated, a railway company duly incorporated under and pursuant to the laws of the State of Indiana, and was then and there engaged in doing business as such in the State of Indiana, and was then and there operating its road in and from the city of Indianapolis, Marion county, Indiana, eastward through said county, and thence through the counties of Hancock, Henry and Wayne, in said State, to the eastern boundary of said State, and from thence to the city of Columbus, in the state of Ohio; that it was then and there running over its said road, from said city of Columbus to and in said city of Indianapolis, a mail-train, consisting of five and more cars, known as train No. 11, carrying the mails of the United States of America for hire; that on or about April 24, 1907, defendant did then and there operate and run over its said railway its said mail-train No. 11, consisting of five and more mail-cars, to wit, seven mail-cars, carrying thereon for hire the mails of the United States of America, and did then and there carry for hire the mails of the United States on said train from Columbus, Ohio, to the eastern boundary line of Indiana, and thence westward over its said railway through the counties of Wayne, Henry and Hancock, in the State of Indiana, to the eastern boundary line of said Marion county to and in said city of Indianapolis, and did then and there run and operate its said mail-train from said city of Columbus on, over and along its said railroad to the eastern boundary line of the State of Indiana, and from thence unlawfully ran and operated its said mail-train westward through said counties of Wayne, Henry and Hancock to the eastern boundary line of said Marion county, and from thence unlawfully ran and operated its said mail-train to and in said city of Indianapolis with less than a full passenger crew in charge of, caring for, and operating its said mail-train, and the defendant did then and there unlawfully run and operate its said mail-train on, over and along its said railway from said eastern boundary line of the State of Indiana to the eastern boundary line of said Marion county, and did then and there unlawfully send out, run and operate its said train on, over and along its said railway from said eastern boundary line of said Marion county to and in said city of Indianapolis, in said Marion county, with only the following crew in charge of, caring for, and operating its said mail-train, to wit: One engineer, one fireman, one conductor and one brakeman, and that the defendant did then and there unlawfully send out, run and operate its said mail-train on, over and along its said railway in said Marion county without having as part of its said crew a flagman, contrary to the form of the statutes," etc.
The second count is virtually the same as the first, except that therein it is alleged that the crew of the train in question was composed of one engineer, one fireman, one conductor and one flagman, there being no brakeman in said crew. Defendant filed a written motion to quash each of the counts, for the following reasons:
The motion to quash the second count of the affidavit is predicated upon the same grounds as is that to quash the first. This motion to quash was overruled, and appellant excepted. It waived arraignment, and pleaded not guilty, and also filed a special plea to each count. This plea, omitting the formal parts, is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Southern Ry. Co. v. R.R. Comm'n of Indiana
-
Southern Railway Company v. Railroad Commission of Indiana
... ... vehicle used in moving of state traffic not provided with ... secure grabirons or ... Voelker v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (1902), ... 116 F. 867; The Daniel Ball ... interference. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v ... State (1909), 172 Ind. 147, 87 ... 722, 106 C. C ... A. 160; United States v. St. Louis, etc., R ... Co. (1906), 154 F. 516; United States v ... ...
- Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. State