Commonwealth v. Killian

Aa indictment on the Gen. Sts. § 63, § 107, for obstructing a railroad train and endangering the safety of the passengers, cannot be maintained against a pas.senger, who, from whatever motive, pulled a signal rope attached to a bell upon the engine, and thereby caused the train to be stopped and the safety of the passengers to be endangered.

Indictment on the Gen. Sts. c. 63, § 107, averring that the defendant at West Roxbury in the county of Norfolk, on September 18, 1871, with force and arms, “ feloniously, wilfully and maliciously the engine and carriages of the property of the Boston and Providence Railroad Corporation, then and there lawfully passing over and along the railroad of said corporation, there located and situate, did obstruct, by then and there pulling the signal rope attached to and connected with the bell in and upon the said engine, by reason whereof the said engine and carriages were then and there caused to be stopped, hindered and delayed, and the safety of divers persons then and there lawfully riding, passing and being conveyed on and upon said railroad, at West Roxbury aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, in and upon the engine and carriages aforesaid, then and there did endanger,” against the peace of the Commonwealth and contrary to the form of the statute. In the superior court, before the jury were empanelled the defendant moved to quash the indictment “ because it does not set forth any offence known to the laws of this Commonwealth according to the laws thereof,” and “ because it is informal and insufficient; ” and the motion was overruled. At the trial, before Scudder, J., “ evidence was introduced for the prosecution as follows.: The conductor of the train leaving Boston for Dedham at half past six o’clock in the afternoon of September 18, 1871, testified that between the Boylston and Jamaica Plain stations he noticed that the bell-rope was pulled, the whistle sounded and the train stopped ; that he went through the train to learn who pulled the rope, and found on the rear platform of the rear car the defendant, who was pointed out to him as ‘ the boy who pulled the bell-rope ; ’ that he had a conversation with the defendant as to who pulled the bell-rope; and that the defendant said he did not know who it was, but that the man who pulled it had just jumped off. The conductor further testified that an express freight train, going in the same direction and on the same rails with his train, was due to start from Boston at twenty minutes of seven o’clock; that his train was about two minutes late in starting from Boston, and was delayed, when stopped as above stated, about five, minutes; and that he sent back a man to 6 flag ’ said freight train behind him, to avoid the danger of collision. Three other witnesses testified to the pulling of the bell-rope by the defendant, and to the stopping of the train. Both the conductor and the engineer testified that the pulling of the bell-rope on the train, and the ringing of the engine bell thereby, was the only danger-signal in use, and was notice to the engineer to whistle 6 down brakes ’ and stop the train, as was done in this case. It was also in evidence that the defendant did not get off when the train stopped, and that he had paid his fare to the Forest Hill station, which was the second station beyond the point where the train was then stopped. It appeared further that the defendant was warned by a fellow passenger not to pull the bell-rope, and that he told the passenger to ‘ shut up.’ ” The defendant offered no evidence in his own behalf, but requested the judge to instruct the jury “ that no crime had been proved against him by the evidence; that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant a verdict against him ; and that no crime or offence known to the laws of this Commonwealth had been proved against him.” But the judge declined so to rule, and instructed the jury “ that, if they found that the defendant pulled the bell rope of the train as alleged in the indictment, that was an obstruction within the meaning and intent of the statute.” The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant alleged exceptions.