Westfall v. State
| Decision Date | 12 October 1908 |
| Docket Number | 1,281. |
| Citation | 62 S.E. 558,4 Ga.App. 834 |
| Parties | WESTFALL v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
An indictment which charges in one count a violation of section 420, Pen. Code 1895, in running six freight trains on a railroad in the county on Sunday, is not demurrable on the ground that it charges six distinct and separate offenses in one count.
Where a railroad company operates a railroad through several states with separate divisions of transportation and a different superintendent of transportation for each division, the superintendent of transportation having charge of the transportation for the division which embraces that part of the railroad on which a freight train is run on the Sabbath day in violation of the statute is the officer designated by the statute to be indicted for such violation.
Where a freight train which is running on a bona fide, practicable schedule, leaving the starting point before Sunday, scheduled to reach its destination before 8 o'clock Sunday morning is detained by unavoidable circumstances, so that it cannot reach its destination before 8 o'clock Sunday morning, it can nevertheless continue to run after 8 o'clock Sunday morning until it reaches its destination without violating the law.
Where a freight train has left its starting point upon a schedule giving it ample time to reach its destination within the time allowed by the statute relating to the running of trains on Sunday, the right to continue to destination when prevented by unavoidable delays from completing its trip within the time required by the regular schedule is not affected by the fact that the unavoidable delay has lasted such a length of time as, in railroad parlance, to "kill" that schedule and require that the delayed train be ordered to run to its destination on an extra schedule.
The verdict is without evidence to support it.
Error from Superior Court, Douglas County; Price Edwards, Judge.
A. H Westfall was convicted of violation of the Sunday law, and brings error. Reversed.
Where a railroad operates through several states, with separate divisions of transportation and a different superintendent of transportation for each division, the superintendent of transportation having charge of the division which embraces that part of the road on which a freight train is running on Sunday is the officer designated by the statute to be indicted for such violation.
Westfall was tried and convicted in the superior court of Douglas county for a violation of section 420, Pen. Code 1895 relating to the running of freight trains on the Sabbath day through any county in this state. The charging part of the indictment is in the following language: "He, the said A. H. Westfall, being then and there superintendent of transportation of the Southern Railway Company, and as such officer having charge of the business of the transportation department of that portion of the Southern Railway Company embracing the railroad running from Atlanta in the state of Georgia, through Douglas county, to the city of Birmingham, in the state of Alabama, did, on the 14th day of April, 1907, said day being the Sabbath day, unlawfully run and cause to be run in and through Douglas county, over said railroad, six freight trains of the Southern Railway Company, all going east, and each drawn by an engine pulling a train of freight cars, all of said freight trains arriving and departing from the city of Douglasville during the afternoon of said date." The defendant demurred to this indictment, on the grounds (1) that six different offenses are charged in one count of the indictment, to wit, the running of six freight trains; and (2) that the indictment does not charge the defendant with being the superintendent of transportation of the Southern Railway Company, but only of that portion thereof between the city of Atlanta and Birmingham. The court overruled this demurrer, and the defendant excepted pendente lite.
The material part of the evidence is as follows: The defendant was the superintendent of a division of the Southern Railway known as the "Atlanta Division," extending from Weems, Ala., to the city of Atlanta, and the movement of the trains of this division were under his supervision and management; he being the officer in charge of the transportation of trains in that division. There was a general superintendent of transportation of all the divisions of the Southern Railway Company, who had supervisory charge of all the division superintendents of transportation. The six freight trains in question ran through Douglas county after 8 o'clock a. m. on the Sunday charged in the indictment, arriving at their destination, Atlanta, at different hours in the afternoon and evening of that Sunday. The six freight trains left their initial points in the state of Alabama on Saturday, running on a schedule which would have allowed each one of them time to reach its destination before 8 o'clock Sunday morning, if not detained by unavoidable delays. These trains were all prevented from making their trips in schedule time, and were delayed at Waco by the fact that there was no water in the tank at that place to supply the engines, and the tank was not supplied with water at Waco until about noon on Sunday. The water tank at Waco was empty Saturday night because the pool from which water was pumped into the tank was pumped dry on Saturday night about 6 o'clock, and there was not sufficient water in the pool to pump into the tank until Sunday morning, when the employé of the company in charge of the pumping station began to pump, and filled the tank as rapidly as could be done, for the purpose of supplying the engines. The failure to keep water at Waco prevented the freight trains from complying with their regular schedule, and caused them to be delayed more than 12 hours; and when they left Waco on Sunday, about noon, they were ordered to make the run to Atlanta on what was known as an "extra schedule." The employé of the company at Waco whose duty it was to keep the tank supplied with water did not notify any one connected with the movements of the trains of the fact that the supply of water had failed, and those in charge of the freight trains did not know of the failure of water until they had arrived at Waco. There was another water tank between Atlanta and Waco, 41 miles west of Villa Rica, but the engineers, when they arrived at Waco, did not have sufficient water to continue the run to this water tank. The train dispatchers were directed by the superintendent of transportation not to start any freight trains on Sunday, and not to start them on a schedule unless they had schedule time to reach their destination by 8 o'clock Sunday morning, and when these trains were...
To continue reading
Request your trial