Jasper County Democrat, Volume 21, Number 104, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 29 March 1919 — COURT DISCHARGES HARTNETT [ARTICLE]

COURT DISCHARGES HARTNETT

Evidence Insufficient to Connect Him With I»eath of Earl Hughes. Dan Hartnett of Lafayette, who was arrested at Frankfort March 20 on a charge of murder in the first degree, preferred by Mrs. Edith Hughes of Monon, whose husband’s mangled body was found on the' Monon tracks near Pleasant Ridge on the morning of October 25, 1918, was discharged at a proceedings to bind him over to the Jasper county circuit court held here Tuesday before Justice of the Peace S. C. Irwin, the court holding that there was no evidence connecting Hartnett with Brakemian Hughes’ death. Edith Hughes, widow of Earl C. Hughes of Monon, who was found dead and who it was claimed came to his end by foul play, testified concerning the body of her late husband being brought home. John Weinhart, who was a Monon detective policing the railroad yards at Monon last October, stated that he met Hartnett about 8 o’clock on the night of October 24 and that Hartnett said he had had some trouble with "Curley” Hughes and that Conductor Fred Ball had knocked Hughes off the rear end of the caboose. Weinhart also testified that Hartnett said: "Keep it under your hat for he .might have croaked that fellow.” Harry Mason and Luther Lutes testified that they found the body of Hughes at 7:15 o’clock on the morning of October 25 last, about one mile east of Pleasant Ridge in the center of the track, with the head toward the east. Also that the ground in the center of the track had been freshly raked up

for about two rail lengths and that the body was still warm. By questioning it was brought out that the body could not have been warm nor lying in the position in which it was found had Hughes been killed 12 hours previous. They testified that 11 trains had passed over the track where the body of Hughes was found, six of them being fast passenger trains and that there was no evidence that the body had been .mrtved back and forth by these trains. Mason and Lutes also testified that they found one-half of the timecard carried by Hughes at the Awitchstand near Pleasant Ridge, one mile west of where the body was found.

Samuel Vawter, a Monon section hand, testified that he found Hughes’ blood-soaked pocketbook 3% miles east of where the body was found and that he located a piece of bloody shirt near the same ■place. J. Hughes, a section foreman, testified that he assisted in caring for the dead brakeman s body. F. E. Lewis, trainmaster of the northern division es the Monon, testified that he was on the milk train on the morning of October 25 and saw Hughes’ body soon after it was found. He also testified that the body was warm and that 11 trains passed over the scene from the time Hughes was last seen until the finding of the body. He gave the arrival of each train at the point where the body was found and said that it would have been impossible for the trains to have run over the body without tearing it to shreds. He also stated that a switch near the scene had been unlocked during the night and turned just enough so that it would Interfere with the block. Two trains —one at 11:17 p. m. and the other at 11:27 p. m. —passed over the point, the crew of the last train closing the switch. It is inferred that Brakeman Hughes might have attempted to open the switch in order to stop a train and ride to his home in Monon, ere he was finally struck and killed.

Joseph Nelson, who is in the accessory business at Monon, claimed that lhe found a bar with blood stains on it on the caboose in which it was alleged the trouble occurred. The first witness for the defense was Bert Abbott, engineer of the Babcock grain elevator at Rensselaer, who testified that he talked with Hughes on the evening of October 24 concerning the switching of cars, and that Hughes was intoxicated and could not read the numbers on his switch list. Joseph Ennis, also of Rensselaer, testified that he talked with Hughes on the same night; that Hughes’ breath smelled of liquor and that his lantern was out; W. H. Beam, Monon station agent at Rensselaer, testified that Hughes was in the station and that he was intoxicated. Fred Ball, the conductor of the train on which Hughes was employed, testified that Dan Hartnett boarded the train at Shelby with a union card and at Roselawn went to sleep, and slept all the way to Pleasant Ridge. Ball stated that he got off the caboose and went to the front of the train and that when he returned to met Hartnett and Hughes about fifteen car lengths from the rear. According to Ball’s testimony Hughes thought the train had arrived at Monon and told Ball that he had no business permitting Hartnett to ride as he was a member of the Switchman s

union and that "no O. R. C. man should carry a switchman." Ball ordered both men back to the caboose, which be unlocked, Hugtea having locked the door when he and Hartnett got off the car. Hartnett again reclined cm • bunk in the caboose and, according to Ball’s testimony, Hughes advanced to Hartnett, called him a ' snake"— switchman in railroad -parlance—and took hold of Hartnett who attempted to raise 'himself from the bunk. Ball testified that (he separated the pair and pushed Hughes to one side telling him to behave himself. Ball then testified that Hughes struck at him with a chair and that he slapped Hughes, "as a father would his son." Hughes then threw a lantern at Ball, according to the testimony, and went to the roar platform of the caboose saying: "I’m going to quit you.” Ball stated that he supposed Hughos had gone over the top of the train to the front end. Ball made a rather poor witness, in that he admitted that certain parts of his story told in verbal and signed statements previously and at the coroner’s Inquest were not correct. He also testified here that he did not know Hartnett and had never seen him until he got on his train October 2 4 at Shelby. Hartnett, who is rather hard of hearing and probably heard but little of Ball’s testimony, as the latter spoke rather low, said, when he was called to the stand later, that he had "known Fred Ball for 20 to 25 years.” Ball is said to be a fine fellow, however, and bears a splendid reputation, and it was inferred that he had first attempted to conceal the fact that Hartnett had ridden on his train, as it was really against the rules to let anyone ride without a pass, and Hartnett only had his switchman’s union card. However, there is an unwritten law or rule that one railroad man will not refuse to carry another railroader who is in good standing, regardless of all the rules of the railroad officials. Hartnett was placed on the stand in his own defense and told a pretty straight story. He was 37 years old, his home was in Lafayette and he had been working at railroading almost all his life, never very long in one place; he was a wanderer, working on different roads all over the country, and admitted under the severe cross-examination of Lawyer Sills that he had been arrested many times and had served a 60-day sentence at the Indiana penal farm for liitoxlcatlon, but said that he never was before arrested in his life on any other charge He denied that he had told Welnhart that Ball had knocked Hughes from the train, but said that he did tell him of the trouble on the caboose, which story of the trouble was practically the same as told by Ball in his testimony. Ball had testified that there was no other trouble whatever between ■Hartnett and Hughes, except as heretofore stated, and that Hartnett did not strike Hughes at all. Hartnett said the same, and It was the general opinion of everyone who heard the evidence that nothing had been brought out to justifyMthe court in binding the defendant over. Hartnett went to Lafayette on the milk train Tuesday evening.

W. H. Parkison represented the defendant in the hearing and Kit Sill, Jr., of Monticello and J. A. Dunlap of this city represented the widow or the state. Whether this will end the matter remains to be seen. Rumor has dt that the idea really was to connect Conductor Ball with the case in such a way that a damage suit would lie against the railroad company. If Ball had permitted Hartnett to ride and the latter had knocked Hughes from the train, thereby indirectly causing the latter’s death, the groundwork for a damage suit would be constructed. The theory of the railroad company is understood to be that Hughes was intoxicated; that he left the train in a fit of anger and in wandering about in an intoxl-

cated condition, was struck by some passing train and killed. There was ne evidence brought out that Hartnett was drunk or that he had any liquor on his person or had given Hughes any liquor.