# Transcript of Record — Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Groeger

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386006_0138%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Transcript of Record
- **Published:** January 1, 1925
- **Citation:** 266 U.S. 521

## Text

(29,738)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1924

No. 113

BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v8.

FREDA GROEGER, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE
OF JOHN C. GROEGER, DECEASED

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

INDEX
Original Print
Record from the United States district court for northern Ohio,

SD RII ohs.s' 3 haus cant ows ee haan Laewek neces ak et 1 1
RE 46605040 R DORAN AERO AACCO (omitted in printing).. 1 1
IN Gd a4 55s AR Sh SCARE LADEN ORAL EL RAGS S COWS oad 2 1
ee Oe SN oes 6 oi cccencdintasadecebeuniacana as 4 2
SUMMONS GHA MATEDET'S THCUPD . 60 iccccccacdecscsacecss 5 3
EF TER TE CET ET ES TERE T ITEC TE OTE TET Tere ee Tr Cee 6 4
ee COURANT TUG oa ovo db cv oss vkce saddsbeandensuass 7 +
OR Ge SU kb oad 0b aRR bohm O05 La wa eRe eS Ewe 8 5
RR I Ns ce kwh k obey hha A bee hosed ee aneae oan 9 5
Order overruling motion for new trial.................... 10 6
OPdier settling Dill OF CZCOPHONS. .6 cic ccc ccc accccevescs 10 6
tl I abn bcose be Ge dRd oa ded sAabRRER Maer 10 7

Temtimoay OF Wier J) TAMMB aac coke cccccececucce 11 z
PE OeENE (i IRS ck yes eA ace aed eet 13 9
Charles Edward McGann.............. 18 13

+

Jupp & DETWEILER (INc.), PRINTERS, WASHINGTON, D. C., Avaust 5, 1924

ii INDEX
Original Print
rr nr rn 23 17
Charles E. MeGann (recalled).......... 30 22
NENG

(fol. 1] IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CapTrion—Onmitted

| fol. 2] Petition—Filed Feb, 15, 1921

Plaintiff says that she is the duly appointed, qualified and acting
administratrix of the estate of John (. Groeger, deceased, by virtue
of her appointment by the County Court of Marshall County, West
Virginia.

That defendant is now and was at all times hereinafter referred to
a railroad corporation organized and existing under the laws of some
State other than Ohio and maintaining various lines and divisions
of railroad, one of said lines extending from the State of West Vir-
ginia into the State of Ohio and into the City of Cleveland, Ohio;
that defendant also operates other lines of railroad, one of said lines
or divisions extending from Holloway, Ohio, to Brooklyn Junction,
West Virginia; that defendant at all times hereinafter referred to
Was a common carrier of freight and passengers and it and this plain-
tiff’s decedent were engaged in interstate commerce, and by reason
thereof this cause of action is governed and contrelled by the Fed-
eral Employers’ Liability Act of April 22, 1908, and its amendments.

For her cause of action against defendant, plaintiff says that on
September 3, 1920, and for some time prior thereto, her decedent,
John C. Groeger, was in the eniploy of defendant as locomotive en-
gineer; that on said date, in the performance of his duties, her de-
cedent was acting as engineer for defendant company on a freight
train running from Holloway, Ohio, to Brooklyn Junction, West
Virginia, said freight train hauling a number of empty cars from
the State of Ohio into the State of West Virginia; that on said date
her decedent had started with a train of ears from Holloway, Ohio,
and proceeded on said division to a point a short distance north of
Proctor, West Virginia, when suddenly and without any warning,
and without any knowledge on the part of her decedent of impend-
ing danger, the boiler of the engine exploded with great violence,
resulting in immediate death to plaintiff’s decedent.

Plaintiff says that the engine which her decedent was operating,
which she believes was known as No. 2541, was in a dangerous, un-
safe and insuflicient condition in that the crown sheets of said boiler
had been weakened by the previous overheating of same and that
said crown sheets leaked during the operation of said engine: that,
furthermore, the water glass indicator of said engine was in a defee-
tive and unsafe condition in that the same indicated water to the
[fol. 3] proper height in said boiler when said boiler was low and
had insufficient water.

Plaintiff says that her decedent at and prior to his death was
guilty of no negligence on his part in any way contributing thereto,
but that, on the contrary, his death was due wholly and solely to

1—113

¢
_

and was the direct and proximate result of the negligence and care-
lessness of defendant in the following particulars, to wit:

First. Defendant was guilty of negligence and carelessness in
causing, permitting and allowing a dangerous, unsafe and insuffi-
cient condition to be and remain in its Ways, works and appliances,
in that the crown sheets of said boiler were weakened end defective
and unsafe by reason of being overheated prior to the grievances
herein complained of.

Second. Defendant was guilty of negligence and carelessness in
causing, permitting and allowing a dangerous, unsafe and insufti-
cient condition to be and remain in said engine in that the water
glass indicator placed on said engine for the protection of plaintiff's
decedent indicated that the boiler of said engine had sutlicient water
at times when said boiler lacked suflicient water.

Third. Defendant was guilty of negligence ai | carelessness in
failing and neglecting to furnish plaintiff's decedent a reasonably
safe place in which to perform his labor in that said engine and its
equipment were in a defective and unsafe condition as aforesaid.

Fourth. Defendant was guilty of negligence and carelessness in
failing and neglecting to make an adequate and suflicient inspection
of said engine and its equipment to the end that its dangerous and
unsafe condition would be disclosed.

Plaintiff says that her decedent, John C. Groeger, at and prior to
his death was thirty-five years of age, robust and strong, and earning
and capable of earning about Three Hund»ed Dollars ($300.00) per
month in his oceupation as locomotive engineer for defendant; that
he left surviving him and wholly dependent upon him for support
his widow, Freda Groeger, the administratrix herein, and two minor
children, Trene, of the age of ten years, and Gertrude, of the age of
seven years; that by reason of the negligence and carelessness of de-
fendant as aforesaid, the widow and children of plaintiff's decedent
Mave been deprived of their support, all to their damage in the sum
| fol. 4] of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).

Wherefore, plaintiff on Lehalf of the widow and chiklren of deced-
ent prays judgment against defendant in the sum of Twenty-five
Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), with costs of this action.

E. C. Chapman, Attorney for Plaintitt.

Jurat showing the foregoing was duly sworn te by E. C. Chapman
omitted in printing.

In Unirep Strares Disprrer Court

PRECIPE FOR StUMMONS—Filed Feb. 15, 1921

Issue surmmons against the defendant, to the U. S. Marshal.
Northern District of Ohio, returnable according to law; endorse:

3

“Action for Money Only; amount claimed, Twenty-five Thousand
Dollars ($25,000.00) .°
Kk. C. Chapman, Attorney for Plaintiff.

[fol. 5] Ix Unitep States District Court
StUMMons anp Marsnat’s Rerurn—Filed Mar. 21, 1921

The President of the United States of America to the Marshal of the
Northern District of Ohio, Greeting:

You are hereby commanded to notify The Baltimore & Ohio Rail-
read Company that it has been sued by Freda Groeger, Administra-
trix of the estate of John ©. (rroeger, deceased, in the District Court
of the United States, within and for the Eastern Division of the
Northern District ef Ohio, and that unless it answers by the 19th
day of March, A.D. 1921, the petition of the said plaintiff against it
filed in the Clerk's office of said Court. at Cleveland, in said Division
and District, such petition will be taken as true. and judgment will
be rendered accordingly.

You will make due return of this summons on the 28th day of
February, A. D. 1921,

Witness, the Honorable John M. Killits, and the Honorable D. €.
Westenhaver, District Judges of the United States, this 15th day of
February, A.D. 1921, and in the 143th year of the Independence of
the United States of America.

B.C. Miller, Clerk, by C. A. Wilder, Deputy Clerk. (Seal.)

Returnable second Monday after issued. Answer day third Satur-
day after return day.

THE UNITED States or Au ERICA,
Northern District of Ohio. ss:

Received this writ at Cleveland. Ohio. February 16th, 1921, and
on the 17th day of February, 1921, at the same place [ served it on
the within named, The Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Company, by deliver-
ing to J. P. Leingang, Chief Clerk for the said The Baltimore &
[fol. 6] Ohio R. R. Company. Personally a true and certified copy
hereof. With all endorsements thereon. The President Chairman
of the Board of Directors or Trustees or other Chief Officers could
not be found in my District.

Chas. W. Lapp, U.S. Marshal. by D. J. Connor, Deputy.

Marshal's fees:

ns RCS Lan D Mah SOT Pe, ge lis $.12
it ah KEE LT TER CT OE Mt es 2.00

In Unitep States Disrrict Court
AnswEeR—Filed Apr. 2, 1921

Now comes the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company and for
answer herein admits its corporate organization and existence as in
the petition alleged; admits that plaintiff is the duly appointed,
qualified and acting administratrix of the estate of John C. roeger,
deceased ; admits that on or about the 3rd day of September, 1920,
plaintiff’s decedent was in its employ as an engineer and on said date.
while so employed, received certain injuries resulting in his death.

Defendant further admits that at the times referred to plaintiff's
decedent and defendant were engaged in interstate commerce and
that the respective rights and liabilities of the parties hereto are
governed and controlled by the Employers’ Liability Act of 1908
and amendments thereto.

Further answering defendant denies each and every allegation in
said petition contained other than herein expressly admitted to be
true.

[fol.7] Wherefore, having fully answered defendant asks to go
hence with its costs.
Tolles, Hogsett, Ginn & Morley, Attorneys for Defendant.

STATE OF OHIO,
Cuyahoga County, ss:

W. T. Kinder, being first duly sworn, says that the defendant, the
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, is a corporation; that he is
one of the attorneys for the said defendant, duly authorized herein,
and that the statements and allegations contained in the foregoing
answer are true as he verily believes.

W. T. Kinder.

Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence this 2nd
day of April, 1921. David C. Brown, Notary Public.
(Seal. )

In Untrep States District Court
OrpveR ContINuInc Cavuse—Filed April 24, 1922

This day came the parties by their attorneys and also came the
following named persons as jurors, to wit: Eli Adams, Ed. P. Ald-
ridge, H. H. Blakeslee Fred J. Bockley, James W. Butler, S. P.
Everhart, Phillip Fox, M. L. Hitchcock. V. C. Jeans, Arthur Lersch.
Richard Williams and E. E. Sperry, who were duly impaneled and
sworn according to law and the trial proceeded. ‘The jury having
heard the testimony in chief on behalf of plaintiff in part, but not
the conclusion thereof, and the hour of adjournment having arrived,

% ip ARS ecotey Fn a PORES GPE

ad

.3)

the further trial of this case is continued until tomorrow morning
at 9:30 o’clock.

[ fol. 8] Ty Unirep States District Court
VERDICT AND JUDGMENT—Filed April 26, 1922
(Entered April 26, 1922, by D. ¢. Westenhaver, Judge)

This day again came the parties by their attorneys and also the
jury heretofore impaneled and sworn herein according to law and
the trial proceeded. And the said jury having heard all the testi-
mony adduced on behalf of the parties, the arguments of counsel
and the charge of the court, retired to their room in custody of a
sworn officer of this court to deliberate upon their verdict. And
now comes said jury into open court with their verdict in writing,
signed by their foreman, which verdict reads and is in the words and
figures following, to wit:

“The District Court of the United States. Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division. Freda Groeger, Administratrix of the Es-
tate of John C. Groeger, deceased, plaintiff, vs. The Baltimore &
Ohio Railroad Company, defendant. Verdict. No. 10927 Law,
We, the jury, on the issue joined, find for the plaintiff and do assess
her damages in the sum of Ten Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy-
six and no/100 Dollars ($10,576.00).

—_— IE. E. Sperry, Foreman.”

which said verdict was by the Clerk of the court read in the hearing
of said jury, when to which they gave their assent,
It is, therefore, considered and adjudged by the court that said
— recover of said defendant said sum of Ten Thousand Five
undred and Seventy-six and no/100 Dollars ($10,576.00) so as
aforesaid found due her by the jury, together with her costs herein
expended, taxed at $—, and that said defendant pay its costs.

[fol. 9] In Unitep States District Covert
Motion For New Trrar—Filed Apr. 26, 1922

Now comes the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, defend-
ant herein, and after a verdict and within three days from he rendi-
tion of the same moves Tor a new trial in the above entitled eause
for any or all of the following reasons affecting materially the rights
of the defendant in this case:

1. Because the verdict of the jury is against the evidence in the
case and not supported by the evidence.

2. Because the verdict of the jury is against the weight of the
evidence.

3. Because the verdict of the jury is contrary to law.

4. Because the Court erred in overruling the motion of the de-
fendant to direct a verdict in its favor at the close of the evidence
offered by the plaintiff, to which ruling defendant excepted at the
time.

5. Because the Court erred in overrvling the motion of the defend-
ant to direct a verdict in its favor at the close of all the evidence,
to which ruling of the Court defendant excepted at the time.

6. Because the Court erred in the exclusion of evidence offered
by the defendant, to which rulings the defendant excepted at the
time.

7. Because the Court erred in admitting evidence offered by the
plaintiff, over the objection of the defendant, to which ruling de-
fendant excepted at the time.

8. Because the Court erred in its charge to the jury, to which
defendant excepted at the time.

. For other irregularities occurring and errors committed on the
trial, which prevented defendant from having a fair trial and to
which defendant excepted at the time.

Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Cmpany, by Tolles, Hogsett,
Ginn & Morley, Its Attorneys.

[fol. 10] In Unitrep States District Court
OrbER OVERRULING Motion For New Triat—Filed June 15, 1922

This day this cause came on to be heard on the motion of de-
fendant for a new trial and was submitted to the Court, on con-
sideration thereof the Court overruled said motion, to which ruling
of the Court defendant, by its attorneys, excepts.

It is further ordered by the Court that the defendant have fifty
(50) days in which to prepare, settle and file its bill of exceptions,
in accord with general rule No. 38.

Ix Unitep States District Court
OrpER ALLow1NnG Britt or Exceptions—Filed July 22, 1922

This day the bill of exceptions in this case was presented to the
Court, the same having been delivered to the Clerk by the except-

ied
‘

ing party, in accordance with Rule 38 of the General Rules of this
Court, and the adverse counsel havitig been notified of such delivery,
and no objections or suggestions thereto having been filed, the same
is allowed and signed and ordered to be filed in this case.

In Unitep States Districr Court
Britt oF Exceptions—Filed July 22, 1922

Be it Remembered that on the trial of the above éntitled cause,
in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District
of Ohio, Eastern Division, at the April, 1922, Term thereof, before
[fol. 11] Honorable D, C. Westenhaver, Judge of said Court, and
a jury duly empaneled and sworn, the following proceedings were
had:

Trial commenced April 24, 1922.

Appearances: For the plaintiff, E. C. Chapman, Esq.

For the défendant, W. T. Kinder, Esq., and James P. Wood,
Ksq., of Messrs. Tolles, Hogsett, Ginn & Morley.

Thereupon statements of the case were made to the jury by coun-
sel for the respective parties.

Thereupon the plaintiff called as a witness, Witzur J. Dixoy,
who, being first duly sworn, testified, as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. Chapman:

My name is Wilbur J. Dixon. I am thirty-five years of age.
My occupation is that of Assistant Master Mechanic at the shops of
the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company at Holloway. 1 have held
that position for two years and one month, which includes the time
the accident happened to John Groeger, near Proctor, West Vir-
ginia, with engine 2541.

In a general way I was familiar with engine 2541. It was not
equipped with a fusible plug. I did not see the boiler after the ex-
plosion. I have viewed boilers after explosions and am familiar
with stay bolts, intermediate stays, radial stays, and crown stays,
as used in a locomotive boiler.

The breaking of stay bolts in a boiler is caused by a certain
amount of vibration set up, due to the difference in expansion of
‘the fire box sheet and wrapper sheet. This has a tendency to cause
the bolts to break. Overheating of the crown sheet will not cause a
break in those bolts. The difference of expansion in heat hetween
the crown plate and outer plate causes a strain on those bolts to a
certain extent.

My deposition was taken at Flushing. As to the following ques-
tion and answer: “What happens when the crown stays are loosened,
under the circumstances when the water gets too low”

A. The crown stays cither have to fracture or pull out of the
hole.” —I don’t recall whether that question was answered, but if
it was that would have been my answer. Overheating of the crown
|fol. 12] sheet, in my experience, would not cause fracture of the
stay bolts or a breaking of the stay bolts.

I did not see the boiler after this explosion. This was a Con-
solidation type of locomotive. I couldn’t say what company it was
made by but it was a standard type of locomotive used in the freight
service.
>——— I never saw a fusible plug in a locomotive boiler.

I have worked for the Chicago, Burlington & Quincey, Erie Rail-
road and Illinois Central. I worked beween December, 1911, to
about February Ist, 1913, for the Erie Railroad at Meadville, Penn-
sylvania.

In my experience with locomotive boilers I have known of foam-
ing in the boiler of a locomotive, but not being engaged in road
service I have never witnessed the actual performance. Alkali in
the water will cause a foaming in the boiler, and will have a tend-
ency to make the water glass become dirty. If it become’ very
pronounced it might cause an excessive fluctuation of the reading
of the glass.

Cross-exumination by Mr. Kinder:

—~ A fusible plug was not used on the Baltimore & Ohio System, to
my knowledge, the Illinois Central or the Chicago, Burlington &
Quincey. During my connection with the Erie between 1911 and
1913, they were not used, according to my observation. I couldn't
say whether they are used by the New York Central Lines, or the
Pennsylvania. I am not familiar with the use of the fusible plug
on the Nickel Plate System.

This engine was a Consolidation type, No, 2541. That is a type
of the wheel arrangement of the engine as distinct from the boiler.
This was a road engine; a freight engine devoted to freight service.

I am assistant master mechanic at Holloway, one of the Balti-
more & Ohio terminals. I was acquainted with that engine in a
general way. That was an engine of standard and approved design
for freight service, genérally speaking. Tao not Prov who thie
manufacturer was.

Foaming of the water at times when the water becomes strongly
alkaline has some effect on the water level in the water glass. |
never noticed any such condition in the territory in which T am
located. When a boiler foams, the fluctuations are rather rapid,
and the water rises and falls sharply and rapidly in the glass, mo-
mentarily. Foaming does not cause a continued rise in the water
[fol. 13] glass but a momentary up and down change in level. If
a boiler should foam. the action of the water in the water glass would
be easily recognized by the engineer.

7

Redirect examination by Mr. Chapman :

In the practical operation of a boiler a deposit is formed in the
builer from the water by way of ascale. If the sight glass feed is not
given any attention, it possibly becomes clogged up. In my experi-
ence, I have observed the injectors become obstructed by the deposit
of scale in the boiler and also the gauge cocks.

Recross-examination by Mr. Kinder:

I am located at Holloway and my division runs down through
Bridgeport to Brooklyn Junction, West Virginia. The engines take
water at Holloway, and on the way to West Virginia they take water
first at Fairpoint, next at Maynard, next at Bridgeport, and, crossing
the river, they first yet water at Benwood. From there on I am not
familiar with the road. In a general way | was familiar with the
water conditions of the Baltimore & Ohio at those points prior to
September, 1920. The water at Holloway, Ohio, is what is con-
sidered a good water, free from alkali and acid. The water at Fair-
int has a tendency to be acid and also at Maynard. The water at

ridgeport is considered good water, similar to that at Holloway,
Ohio. The water at Benwood, West Virginia, is good, being a treated
water. I am not familiar with the situation from Benwood to Foster.
‘The number of times 4 man would take water between Holloway and
Foster Tower would vary under different conditions.

On and prior to the 3rd of September, 1921, we were having no
trouble from our division from alkaline water.

Cuar es R. Beruet, a witness called by plaintiff, being first duly
sworn, testified as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. Chapman:

My name is Charles R. Bethel. I live at Flushing, Ohio. My
business is that of railroadiiig for the Baltimore & Ohio.
|fol.14] I have worked for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad since
April, 1913. At the present time I am a watchman. | knew John
(. Groeger in his life time and was on the train with him at the
time of the accident. Mr. Groeger and I took that train from Hollo-
way sometime in the A. M., I don’t just remember: it was along
about daybreak, I think. I was conductor on that train and Groeger
was the engineer. I compared time with Mr. Groeger before leaving
Holloway on that morning. He and I took that train through to
Bridgeport and from Bridgeport through to MeMechen, West Vir-
ginia.

Q. From MeMechen through to Meadsville. what, if anything,
unusual did you observe eLout the operation of that engine”

Mr. Kinder: I object to the form of the question.
2—113

10

The Court: I do not see anything objectionable as to form.
Overruled.
Mr. Kinder: Exception.

A. Well, slack running up into the train from the rear,

(Narrative continued:) That indicated to me that the engineer
had shut off. The train still kept moving. The engine did not stop
before we reached Moundsville, and at no point before reaching there
was there any repair made on that engine by me or the engineer.

My deposition was taken in this matter early in this year at Flush-
ing. At that time I stated there was a link hanger broken on that
engine. I didn't know anything of it until wegor to Chestnut Hill,
which is west of Moundsville—it is the opposite direction, east by
the right direction. Chestnut Hill is bevond Moundsville, east.
After we pulled into the siding, after we Stopped, I think he said the
link hanger had been broken. He said it could not be reversed. |
do not know what the link hanger is on an engine.

From that time on we made not a very good run down the river.
We kept going all the time.

From Moundsville to Foster Tower I was on that engine by in-
structions from our train dispatcher, which were to ride the head end
to Foster Tower to sign 31°s orders, which | did. During that time,
if I remember right, one injector was working. T don't think I can
tell from the sound when an injector is working. 1 don't know if
there is any difference in the sound when the injector is not working.
{fol.15] I don’t remember if one injector was working when we
arrived at Foster Tower. One injector was working between Chest-
nut Hill and Foster.

I was asked about that at Flushing early this year. As to the
question and answer: “‘Q. At the time you were on the engine at
Foster Tower, what is the fact as to whether or not either or both the
injectors were in operation? A. The right injector was working”’—
it was working; it had been working. I do .’t reeall if 1 answered,
“The right injector was working.” I don’t recall if one injector was
working at Foster Tower. I testified at Flushing that one injector
was working somewhere between those points, but I don’t remember
right at the tower when we stopped. 1 know it was working before we
reached Foster Tower.

I don’t remember between those points as to whether or not I
saw either the engineer or any of the crew operate the gauge cocks
on that engine. I saw the gauge cock operate on that engine some
place before we reached Foster Tower, but I don’t recall. It was
after we reached Moundsville I saw the gauge cock. Chestnut Hill
is beyond Moundsville. I got on the engine at Chestnut Hill. I
wasn’t on it before that. I continued on it until we got to Foster
Tower, under instructions to sign for instructions at Foster Tower.
It is possibly five or six miles from Chestnut Hill to Foster Tower;
and between those two points I saw the gauge cocks turned by some
member of the crew. When the gauge cock was turned it had blue
steam coming out of it. I don’t remember which gauge cock was

OO

11

tried. I didn't notice whether the top one, second one, or bottom one.
The purpose of those gauge cocks on an engine is to show the man
the water in the boiler, In my duty as conductor of that train, to
a certain extent I am to assist the engineer in the operation of it over
the road. When blue steam came from the gauge cock it indicated
to me there wasn’t any water in the boiler,

Q. Did you say anything to the engineer or call his attention to
that?

Mr. Kinder: I object.

The Court: Overruled.

Mr. Kinder: Exception.

The Court: Did you or did you not call his attention to what you
observed in the gauge cock ?

The Witness: I don't recall. I don’t remember of saying anything
at all.

[fol. 16] (Narrative continued:) On my trip in that engine I ob-
served the water glass gauge, The water boiled, or something—
went up in it and then down. I don’t know how far up the water
went in the gauge. It went down out of sight. I just saw it do that
the one time between Chestnut Hill and Foster. ] don’t think T rede
the engine from Foster Tower on to Wells Pit. After T saw that sight
glass going up and down, I don't remember that I observed it again
before leaving the engine.

(Signed statement handed witness.) That is my name. [ don't
know whether I wrote that or not. It looks like my signature. |
recall being interviewed about this matter shortly after this accident
occurred. That is my initial and name; I don’t know whether |
wrote it or not. I guess it is my signature. | recognize that as a
statement I made to somebody at one time. I don’t remember when
I got off the engine whether one injector was working or not. I
don’t remember of making the statement, “I rode the engine from
Chestnut Hill to either Foster Tower or Wells Pit. All the way from
Moundsville to where it blew up he had had trouble with the engine
all the way, kind of working on one side all the way. When I got
off the engine IT am sure one injector was working.” I couldn't
say whether the injector was working or not. It was on before we
reached Foster. It was growling like it was working. It was set to
work at some time between Chestnut Hill and Foster, before I got off.
That is the only observation T made of the injector.

Nothing was done with the engine at Foster Tower. The tank was
filled with water there. I don't remember if ] rode on the engine
after Foster Tower or went back to my caboose. When the explosion
occurred T was in the caboose, The explosion occurred near Proctor,
West Virginia, possibly two miles and a half or three from Foster
Tower. [would not know how long that was after I left the engine
for I don't remember where | left the engine, whether I rode between
Foster Tower and Wells Pit or not. If 1 rede up to Wells Pit it
couldn't have been over twenty to thirty minutes. If T left it at
Foster, it would possibly be close to an hour.

12

After the explosion I went to the head end. I saw the boiler laying
down the track and a man running through the field and one laying
in the field. John Groeger was laving between the track and the
river. He was dead. Fireman Marshall was laying eight car lengths
behind the engine, along the train. He was not dead. I saw the
[ fol. 17] head brakeman, who was standing, or running, through the
field. The boiler of the engine was laying on the left hand side of
the track, about close to four hundred feet ahead of the train, upside
down and into the ground. The rest of the locomotive was still con-
nected up to the train and the boiler as I say, was some 350 or 400
feet away.

Cross-examination by Mr. Kinder:

I do not know anything about the link hanger myself. The
engineer said it is an arrangement on an engine in regard to the
reversing of the engine. I do not know enough about the engine
to know it has nothing to do with the boiler. As far as I know,
it is part of the running gear of the engine. I do not think it has
any connection with the boiler.

I saw this blue steam come out of the gauge cocks between Chestnut
Hill and Foster. I just looked at the water in the water glass and
saw it go down apparently to the bottom of the water glass. It was
between those points the gauge cock showed blue steam.

(In response to questions by the Court :)

The water glass, feed gauge and gauge cocks I saw turned were on
the engineer's side of the engine. When the water feed gauge and
gauge cock behaved as I described, the engineer was sitting in his po-
sition. Fireman Marshal was the one that turned the gauge cock.
He was over in the engineer's box at the time he did that; and that
was before we got to Foster Tower. When we got to Foster Tower,
after I made these observations, water was taken by the engine.

Redirect examination by Mr. Chapman:

I don’t remember if in my experience of railroading I had ever
seen a water glass gauge come up at the top and then go down to
the bottom as I have described that did. I don’t recall of ever see-
ing any demonstration like that in a water glass on an engine in
my experience on an engine.

(In response to questions by the Court :)

I never worked as fireman or engineer. I was always brakeman
or conductor. What I know about an engine is what I observed
in reporting to the engine in connection with my duties.

13

(fol. 18] CHaARLEs Epwarp McGann, a witness called by plainti
being first duly sworn, testified as follows: ner

Direct examination by Mr. Chapman:

My name is Charles Edward McGann. I live at Pittsburgh, Pa.
I am Master Mechanic, Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, Pittsburgh
Division, and have been such since August Ist, 1919.

I was Master Mechanic on the day of the accident to Mr. John
Groeger on engine 2541. When I got notice of the accident I was
in front of the Y. M. C. A. Building at Benwood. I went to the
scene of the accident immediately after receiving notice and made an
inspection of the boiler and engine. I was notified about twelve-ten
or twelve-fifteen p. m., and arrived at the scene of the accident, as
near as I can judge, about 2:40 p.m. I made an inspection of the
fire-box, but we are prevented from making further inspection, ac-
cording to the Interstate Commerce Rules, so we made observations
as to the fire-box and condition of the boiler.

We found six intermediate stays and one stay bolt at the forward
part of the crown sheet, broken. There were two adjacent broken
bolts on the left side, if I remember correctly. | havent my records
with me. There were three broken stays on the left side and three
on the right side, intermediate stays, and the three on the right
side were in a radius of, I would sav, sixteen inches. and the two
adjacent, on the left side, were within eight inches, The third one
was within twelve inches of the other two—one was skipped and
another bolt broken. The broken crown bolt was in the fifth row
from the flue sheet. None of those broken bolts had tell-tale holes
in them.

A tell-tale hole is drilled in a stay bolt which is shorter than eight
inches, and drilled in to the depth of one and one quarter inches,
extending from the outside wrapper sheet, inside, into the water
space, so that when a bolt breaks on the inside between the fire-box
sheet and the outside wrapper sheet, the steam or water will eseape
through this small hole and will show a man where his broken
bolts are. The law requires them to he drilled in all bolts eight
inches and under in length. These bolts that “were broken were
radials and the Upper portion of the crown sheet that does not re-
quire tell-tale holes in them,
|fol. 19] There was not a fusible plug in the crown sheet of
that locomotive. From my @xamination of that fire-box and those
broken bolts I have described, I would say those bolts were broken

rior to the explosion. I am able to tell that by the accumulation
of scale on the end of them. PPT ee eras erg iat WHS

Q. What is the fact, Mr. MeGann, as Master Mechanie of that
division, as to whether you would have allowed the operation of that
boiler over that trip that day if you had known of those broken stay
bolts in the boiler?

Mr. Kinder: I object.

GRRE ELE:

14

The Court: There may be some objection to the form; I don’t
see any objection to the substance.

Mr. Kinder: My objection is not so much to the form. Unless
there can be any connection between the bolts we are talking about
and this explosion, we are entering into a field of speculation and
not a matter which is competent.

The Court: We cannot get to all of that at once. I do not know
about that.

Mr. Kinder: I should like to have the other question precede
that one, so that we shall not be speculating about the effect of these
broken bolts.

The Court: That would require the Court, in order to make a
ruling, to determine the facts, or an inference from facts; and I do
not think the Court is the proper person to do that. Your objection
will be overruled; but I think the proper form of the question
would be whether or not those defective bolts were such as, in care-
ful railroading inspection, would require repair before further use
of the engine.

Mr. Kinder: Exception.

Q. What is vour answer to that?

A. If the condition of these bolts would have been known, they
would have been removed and new ones applied.

Q. My question was, would you have allowed this engine to make
that run from Holloway to Brooklyn Junction on that day if you
had known those bolts were broken within that boiler?

Mr. Kinder: Same objection.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Kinder: Exception.

A. No, sir.
[fol. 20] Q. Your answer is you would not?
A. Yes.

(Narrative continued:) In the operation of the boiler there is
a deposit within the boiler of scale or sediment from the water.
That obstructs, at times, both the gauge cocks and the water glass
on the boiler. I might add that they are required to remove them
monthly and clean the same. If allowed to continue they will ac-
cumulate with dirt and seale and obstruct the proper reading. In
my experience as Master Mechanic I have seen that condition arise
where those things became obstructed.
_~_ I have seen a fusible plug in locomotives. Its purpose is to warn
the engineer in case of his negligence in allowing the water to he-
come low in the boiler: it tells him he has lost his water. If the
engineer in charge of the boiler on line or road finds water getting
low, getting helow a safe point, he draws the fire. A fusible plug
is a brass plug with a square on the bottom of it and drilled out,
either five or six small holes. or one large hole, and filled with babbit
metal or pewter, or some soft substance. The crown sheet is tapped
out at the forward part, the highest part of the crown sheet, and

n

—w OM.

15

this plug screwed in, extending above the sheet about one half or
three quarters of an inch, so that when the water gets low in the
boiler, the intense heat will allow this metal to become softened and
run out in the lower part of the fire-box, and some water escapes and
drowns out his fire, and makes an awful noise in the fire-box, and
then he knows his water is low and he takes the precaution to draw
the fire to save further damage. It acts as a supplemental safety

Nalve, but they are considered unsafe, due to the fact that this ac-

cumulafion of scale gets on this metal plug and while the water is
still over this plug, or is on top of the soft metal, it allows it to come
out, run out in the fire-box, and_ oftentimes causes serious injury
and serious burns. I never knew, in my experience, the blowing
out of a fusible plug to blow up the boiler. It is not as serious when
the Tusibte-pttg nels out and allows the escape of the steam, as
when the boiler blows up. The fusible plug is placed from half to
three-quarters of an inch above the t of the crown sheet. When
the water gets gnest part of the fusible phig and before
it reaches the crown sheet, it exposes the top of the fusible plug with
[fol. 21] the soft metal in it, and the soft and fusible metal will
elt out before the bolts of the crown sheet.

In the operation of a locomotive engine of the type 2541 was, and
over this point of the division, say from Moundsville to Wells Pit
and Proctor, one injector will supply the boiler if the water regulat-
ing valve is properly adjusted. With everything working normal,
one injector will keep the water in that boiler above the crown
sheet,

Cross-examination by Mr. Kinder:

An injector can be likened to a water faucet: it depends on how
far it is turned on as to how much water is going into vour boiler,
The engineer makes that adjustment. He adjusts his water valve
to the circumstances and condition. If he uses a heavy throttle
and going along, he opens his water valve and keeps it well supplied,
He does this by looking at the gauge cocks and if he secs his water
is going down too fast, he lets it open a little further. These injectors
are made to supply 4,500 gallons per hour, and if properly applied
could fill the boiler in a short space with one injector. By being
“properly applied” I mean if the engineer understands the manipu-
lation of the engine, he can fill the boiler.

When the term “injector” is being used, it is important to know
how far it is on.

Fusible plugs are not in use on the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
System. When T was serving my apprenticeship, in 1902, they had
them on the Cincinnati & Southern Railroad, I am not familiar
with conditions obtaining on the New York Central or the Penn-
sylvania in regard to fusible plugs. I am not familiar with whether
they are in general use on standard railroads only from what T hear
from other master mechanics, that they are not used on other roads.
T don’t know personally: I never worked for very manv railroads.
I have made inquiry and investigation in the railroad work to find

uate Pies

16

out their place in the equipment and operation of engines, and the
result is I find they have not sone into general use,

The objection to fusible plugs is they accumulate scale on top of
the plug and this allows the metal to come out and causes the engine
to fail and it is necessary to give up service on line or road. It
oftentimes results in injuries to the crews; maybe the fireman is
[fol. 22] down putting in a fire, and if he should be firing there
just at the time the metal comes out of the plug, that pressure in
the boiler will blow the fire and hot cinders out of the fire-door,
and it has proven very detrimental. The water and steam, when it
comes out through the plug, comes down into the fire-box at a pres-
sure of 175 to 200 pounds per square inch, throwing the fire and
hot coals out of the fire-door. It has been determined to be unsafe,
at least on the Baltimore & Ohio, | would say back as far as 1902 or
1903. Prior to Mat time Tthink they were used; that wasbefore
my time, before 1906.

I made an examination of the crown sheet and the various parts
of the boiler after the explosion and after the boiler was available
after the Interstate Commerce people got through inspecting it. [
examined the crown sheet with reference to locating the tear made
in the crown sheet by the explosion and to determine the area
through which the tear went. In connection with that examination,
the relative position of these broken stay bolts was plain to me.

Q. State whether or not, in view of your examination, the appear-
ance of the tear and the condition of the stay bolts over which the
tear occurred and the location of the broken stay bolts, that is, five
or six broken stay bolts that you speak about——whether or not in
vour judgment as an expert on these matters these broken stay
bolts would have been a contributing factor to this boiler explosion?

A. These stay bolts had no contributing cause toward the failure
whatever. ~ a oud

~ Tn other words, it is not true, Mr. MeGann, that this boiler

explosion, irom your examination of the appearance of the crown
sheet and the location of the boiler, this boiler would have exploded
if all of those five or six broken stay bolts you found would have
heen intact and in proper condition ?

A. Yes, sir, it would have occurred.

Redirect examination by Mr. Chapman:

When you wash the boiler, you renew the fusible plug, put a
new plug in. Seale would form about the same on the fusible plug
and no deeper than it would on all the rest of the boiler. The neod
for washing that plug would be just the same as the rest of the
boiler.

I never saw those pings drawn up to a point on the inside of the
crown sheet to prevent the formation of scale from the water.
[fol. 23] Drawine that soft metal to a point would tend to prevent
the formation of the deposit on that soft plug.

17

JosErH A. Boypen, a witness called by plaintiff, being first duly
sworn, testified as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. Chapman:

My name is Joseph A. Boyden. I am Production Manager with
the Van Dorn Iron Works, Cleveland. I am 45 years of age and
have been connected with locomotive engines for 24 years.

My experienc@-with Tocomotive engines has be om apprentice
boy up toa master mechanic, including all the different foremanships,
round-house foreman, company shops foreman, general foreman, and
inspector; and one year’s experience as inspector for Baldwin Loco-
motive Works for the railroad. 1 worked seyera] years as master
mechanie on the Erie Railroad. I am familiar With the various
locomotive engines in general use,

In railroad talk, a fusible plug is known as a soft plug. It is put
into the highest point of the crown sheet, that is, the top of the
inside of the fire-box. There is a soft metal applied to this brass
plug so that if the Water gets low this metal will melt. It is used
ws an alarm or a safetv device to the engineer te know that his
water is low in his boiler. When the fusible plug operates, it re-
lieves the pressure between the fire-box sheet and the outside wrapper
sheet, so that a boiler cannot blow up.

I saw those fusible plugs in operation, directly, seven years that
I was master mechanic. I used them on 178 engines on the
Erie Railroad, during the period from 1912 to 1919. During that
time I never had a boiler blow up, due to the safety plug. We have
had plugs give o ie railroad due to poor workmanship in the
apps oP The hl meer the plugs. T have never rééalled of an
engineer or fireman being injured due to this. I have heard there was
a case, but IT have never seen it. ae

I was a year at the plant of the Baldwin Locomotive Company.

Q. Now, in your experience at that plant, and your general ex-
perience, what is the fact as to whether or not those plugs were
[fol. 24] in general use and standard equipment on locomotives”

Mr. Kinder: I object to that.

The Court: That is a part of the ultimate way of proving it; he
may answer.

Mr. Kinder: Exception.

A. Well, I couldn't specify the different railroads that were using
plugs, outside of the-Ierie. ee ee ee

(Narrative continued:) Fusible plugs were put in the locomotives
manufactured at the Baldwin plant while I was there that I inspected.
I was particularly inspecting Erie engines. T wouldn't say if other
engines Were manufactured Tor other Companies by that locomotive
company while I was there. There was some engines they were in-
stalled in by the manufacturer but I would hesitate to sav what rail-
road, or what percentage they were of the total output of the engines
made.

3—113

1S

Q. In your opinion, Mr. Boyden, what can you say as to the
efficiency of those plugs as a preventative of a boiler explosion on a
locomotive engine?

Mr. Kinder: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Kinder: Exception.

A. Well, as I have stated, I have never in my experience as a
railroader on any of the divisions I have handled, ever had anybody
injured. We have had low water cases but the only thing that
would happen, if the engine would die on the main track, we would
have to go out and pull the engine and train in with another engine.

The Court: That is, when the plug blew out?
The Witness: When the soft metal gave way due to low water.

Q. In your experience at any time, did you have the coming out
of a soft plug due to low water, from any cause, that caused any
damage to the engine?

Mr. Kinder: I object; that is not the test.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Kinder: Exception.

A. No, sir.

(Narrative continued:) The falling and rising of water in the
sight glass feed tube to practically the extent of the water glass is
[ fol. 25] due to foaming in the boiler, which may be due from alkali
or soda that would get into your boiler. A low stage of water in the
boiler would not cause it to rise and fall. It would have to be a
matter of foaming from one of the causes T mentioned or something
else.

When the water in the boiler is foaming, if the engineer happens
to be trying his gauge cocks when the water is dropping it will show
him no water; if he happens to be trying the gauge cocks when the
water is rising it will show he has got water. It affects the apparent
height as indicated in the water glass; it raises and lowers it.

I am familiar with the different ‘types of bolts—crown bolts, radial
stays, and stay bolts—as used in a locomotive boiler between the crown
sheet and the outside shell.

Assuming there were three broken intermediate bolts in an eight-
inch cirele on one side, and three on the other in an eighteen-inch
circle, two of them adjacent, and one crown bolt was broken,—it is
bound to weaken the boiler at that point. The fact two of those
broken bolts were adjacent, distributes the load over to the next bolts,
which have to carry the loads of the broken ones.

Gauge cocks can become obstructed by scale formation in the
boilers. If you wash your boiler often enough that can be prevented.
I wouldn’t say the scale forms in the gauge cock pipes the same as
the rest of the boiler, because in opening your gauge cocks the
pressure is so great you constantly blow them out. When they would
become obstructed you couldn't use the gauge cocks, nothing would
come out; it would be simply plugging it up.

19

In the practical operation of locomotives a breaking of the radial
stays, intermediate stays, or crown stays in a boiler would be caused
by the vibration of your locomotive. Tt may start from mud burns;
for instance, in washing your locomotives and the mud isn’t all
washed out, vou are liable to get what we call in railroading a “mud
burn.” In other words, if the mud gets on the sheet and will form
around the threads of your crown bolts, it will bake it on and you
will finally get that off and get cold water on the thing and they will
crystallize and break. The overheating of a crown sheet has a tend-
ency to draw or pull or strip threads of the bolts and crack them.
[fol. 25] The bolts are of a softer type of metal than the crown sheet
itself of the boiler, and the stay holis are made of soft iron especially
to take care of the expansion and contraction between hot and cold.

Broken radial and intermediate bolts in a boiler may be detected
by hammer test. When a boiler comes in for boiler wash or in-
spection, there is a man known in the plant as a boiler inspector who
takes a hammer and goes over every one of those bolts and tests them.
He tests that by his ear, the sound, whether that is a defective bolt or
whether it is a solid bolt.

On the railroad T was on, to prevent the formation of scale on the
fusible plugs used in the locomotives, we filled these plugs with a
soft metal and then made them in a erown shape, put them in a lathe
and crowned them so that eve rvthing would slide, the seale would
slid- off from them. That prevented the formation of scale within
the boiler on that plug,

Cross-examination by Mr. Kinder:

I have heen with the Van Dorn Iron Works two years and a half.
I left the Erie in the early part of 1919: I have been out a little
over three years.

Without the plug, the engineer has three gauge cocks and his
water glass to determine the height of the water. The gauge cocks
are located in different altitudes within easy reach of the engineer,
and by turning the lower gauge cock he can determine that he has
got water as high as that gauge cock, and the second and third gauge
cocks the same way. It is about eleven inches from the top of the
crown sheet to the top reading of the top gauge cock. In other words,
in railroad parlance, if a man has what is called “three gauges of
water” he has eleven inches of water over hi: erown sheet. That
would be the back part of the crown sheet, as the gauge cocks are on
the back of your fire-box. There is some slope to the ordinary crown
sheet but you take your reading from your highest point. ‘Three
gauges of water” indicates eleven inches over the highest point of
fhe crown sheet approximately. In some eases the crown sheot slopes
hack towards the fire-door; some are straight. Where the engine is
going down hill or around a curve the water would not wash off
the crown sheet. aterm

I am not familiar with the practice as to fusible plug on the New
York Central, Pennsylvania. Baltimore & Ohio, or New York,
[fol. 27] Chicago & St. Louis Railroads. My experience is limited
to the Erie Railroad engines and the Erie output of the Baldwin

20

Locomotive Company. All the engines on the Erie were e uipped
with them—a blanket order to that effect—something like two
thousand engines. During my term of service they were adopted.
I could not tell as to whether there has been any change in that
regulation with regard to the Erie since I left it. At the present time
my knowledge as to whether the Erie uses soft plugs or not is no
more than hearsay ; I haven’t seen them.

The water glass is not a round glass cylinder any more; it is flat,
more for protection and safety. The height of the water stands in
the glass. With an injector on, if your engine is standing still, you
will see the water in the water glass go up very quickly. If you are
working your locomotive and the engineer knows his engine and
knows its condition, you won't see the water rising and falling in the
water glass very much; it is bound to vary. Even when you are run-
ning it is bound to vary. If I was on a level piece of ground and the
water stood absolutely still in the water glass at a certain height, I
would think I was a pretty good engineer. If you would plug up
— water glass at the bottom you would then close off the top and

ottom of your water and the water is stationary. If you would close
off the top part of the glass you would not have any reading on the
water glass, your circulation stops. 1 would say the water would not
disappear unless you open what is known as the delivery cock under-
neath to drain it out. If the pipe leading up to the water glass was
plugged, your water would remain absolutely stationary in the water
gluss; no circulation. If you have an injector on, if your track is
rough it is bound to change your reading a little in the water glass.
If you are working the engine and shut it off, the water will go down
in the water glass. If the engine were standing still and one or two
injectors were turned on, the shifting of the water in the water glass
is more noticeabie; you are not using any steain and water in your
boiler. It is the same way as in a house water boiler; when you go
down and turn a cock it goes up and down until the water gets into
the boiler, and after it is turned off it seeks its level. I wouldn't say
the pressure coming up in the hot water system causes the water to
rise and fall in the water glass any more than your water coming in
varies it. In a serious case it races, goes up and down very. very fast.
[fol. 28] As a rule, when yeur locomotive is foaming, it is a case
where the only way you can stop it is to stop along the road and open
up, blow off, which causes a change of water in the boiler. To an
experienced engineer the foaming of water in the boiler, affecting the
water glass, is promptly evident, and he should know what is going
on.

If you had a gauge cock plugged up with seale, you would turn it
on and wouldn’t get any water. He could then go to the second
gauge cock and see if he had water, and if he got the same result he
would go to the third. Naturally he would have it there if he has
water left. If you have the gauge cocks plugged up with seale you
would not show water on the gauge cocks. The engineer that has had
years of experience on a locomotive can tell very quickly whether the
gauge cock is plugged up; if it wasn’t, he would have blue steam, if
he had low water. Blue steam does not necessarily mean low water;

21

it means it is falling down, where you have the gauge cock. As far
as your gauge cock is concerned, the idea is it is lower than it ought to
be; there is no water to that particular gauge cock.

I don’t know anything about Baltimore & Ohio freight engines of
the 2,500 type. The number of stay bolts changes with the type of
boiler. Fifteen hundred would not occur to me as being excessive for
the number of radial, stay and intermediate bolts in a freight engine.

The injectors are the means of getting water from the tender into
the boiler of the engine. The fact an engineer stopped and took
water and filled up his tank does not mean he has got water in the
boiler, unless he has got an injector working. 1 never saw this en-
gine after the accident.

If I examined a crown sheet after an explosion and found what is
known in railroad parlance as a “peacock blue” mark around a cer-
tain area of that crown sheet, from my experience that would indi-
cate low water. The only way an explosion occurs is by the entrance
of comparatively cold water onto an overheated erown sheet: and. due
to that, there is imprinted into the crown sheet at the moment of ex-
plosion this peacock blue line. That is imprinted at the height of
the water at the time the boiler blew up.

The Court: Do I understand you — say that the onty known and
accepted cause of boiler explosions is low water so that the crown
sheet could become exposed?

[fol.29] The Witness: Where it shows blue, that is an indiea-
tion of low water; and then your cause of the explosion is putting
the water up on the crown sheet, the exposed crown sheet,

The Court: When the water gets low and uncovers the top of the
crown sheet, the fire then superheats the crown sheet, the exposed
part of it?

The Witness: Yes.

The Court: And when cold water is injected into the boiler,
coming in contact with the superheated crown sheet, it immediately
gives off a volume of steam?

The Witness: There is an explosion so great something has got
to give.

(Narrative continued:) (Witness is shown model section of
boiler.) This outside sheet is known as a wrapper sheet and the
inside sheet, which is three-eighths steel, is known as firebox sheet
and might be known as the side sheet. It is the firebox sheet, crown
sheet and side sheet combined. The inner sheet is the section that
goes over the firebox, and these bolts are known as radial or inter-
mediate. The lower ones are stay bolts. The holes in the lower
bolts are in the position of tell-tale holes: supposed to be in the
center of the bolt, I think it is an ineh and a quarter deep. The
holt is drilled in to about the end of the thread. so that when the
bolts break the water can go out of the sides and indieate a broken
bolt. The tell-tale holes are put in bolts up to eight inches in length
and under; in bolts eight inches and over they are not required by
any regulations of the company. When I say fifteen hundred bolts
more or less, these are the kind of bolts 1 mean. The crown sheet

22

reaches over and down, and the other is known as the outside sheet.
These are the two sheets that are bolted together by these stay bolts,
radial and intermediate. The water circulates tween the two
sheets, and that is what is called the water space, between the two.
The wrapper sheet is the outside circumference to the extent of the
crown sheet, and runs from the door sheet to the flue sheet. The
flue sheet is a sheet in front of the crown sheet and into which the
flues run. The fire comes out from the firebox up against this
crown sheet and heats the water on the crown sheet an the sides,
within the compartment made by the wrapper sheet and the crown
sheet when bolted together. The flue sheet is from the barrel of your
boiler to your firebox sheet. There are a large number of pipes, flues,
[fol. 30] running from the flue sheet along towards the smokestack,
varying in length to the size of your engine, and around them is
water, and the water is heated by the fire that is pulled up through
the flues and out the smoke stack. The heating surfaces in the
engine are the part over the crown sheet, the part over the flues
that run up toward the front of the engine, and your side sheets.
The most efficient point for heating water is over the crown sheet.

Railroad people are governed by a law and the Interstate Com-
merce Commission as to broken stay bolts. They don’t allow two
broken bolts adjacent to each other to be used. Leaving out the
qualification “to be adjacent” they allow five broken stay bolts.

I don't believe there is much difference in the pull or pressure on
the side or radial stays, less reason for a strain on the radial side of
it. in normal conditions, than there is on the top of the crown sheet
or along the side. The curve of the crown sheet and the wrapper
sheet, gives additional strength to the sheet, as a matter of mechanics.
I would say that the breaking of two of the intermediate bolts would
not be followed by a less disastrous situation than the breaking of
other bolts. I would not think that the breaking of two bolts there
would be less weakening to the crown sheet and wra per sheet and
the boiler in general, than the breaking of the crown olts on top.

Q. Now, supposing after a tear or boiler explosion, the tear in the
crown sheet was loeated by thosewho inspected the engine after the ex-
plosion, and suppose that that tear was not adjacent, nor did it come
inward near the bolt or two bolts that were broken, but that the tear
pulled out good bolts, puiled off the good bolts, you would have some
difficulty, would you not, in coming to the conclusion that these
other broken bolts were a contributing factor to that boiler failure?

A. T would.

Cartes E. McGann, being recalled by plaintiff, further testified

as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. Chapman:

In my examination of the crown sheet of that boiler, after the ex-
plosion, there was an electric weld at a point in that firebox. (After
Withe:s reers to papers.) The weld was on the three-fourth flue

23

[fol. 31] sheet, welded to the wrapper sheet, also door collar welded
in at door sheet. As to its location with reference to the weld,—the
crown sheet pulled off entirely from the side, tearing down both in-
side sheets, diagonally to the mud ring, and blowing over the back
flue sheet at the top and pulling out fifteen bolts, and cracking the
electric weld where the crown sheet was welded to the three-fourth
sheet flue. After the ex alosion, when the sheet came down it tore
out from the electric weld. It tore the electric weld when it fell, the
force of it coming down tore open the electric weld. The crown sheet
was forced down by the pressure of the steam in the boiler on the over-
heated crown sheet. The occasion for making the electric weld was
putting in a three-quarters flue sheet, the appheation of a new three-
quarters flue.

Cross-examination by Mr. Kinder:

The falling of the crown sheet was the cause of the erack in the
electric weld. There was no evidence of any failure of the electric
weld as a contributing cause of the explosion.

The electric welding in of sheets has proven very successful and
just as strong as the ordinary sheet.

There was no evidence, from my eXamination, that the failure of
the electric weld preceded the explosion.

Deposition of Patrick H. Bursee, taken at MeMechen, West Vir-
ginia, January 4th, 1922, was thereupon read in evidence as follows:

Parrick H. Burser, a witness called by plaintiff, being first duly
sworn, testified as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. Chapman :

My name is Patrick H. Bursee. | live at S85 33rd Street. Wheeling,
I am twenty-six years old and in the garage business.

I worked for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company from about
July until the Ist of October, 1920. I knew John (ireeger in his
lifetime. While I was working for the B. & O. 1 was working on the
fourth division, as brakeman.

I recall the accident to John CGroeger. On that day I saw him at
Foster Tower. 1 was acting as brakeman on run No. 100 coming out
of Clarksburg to Benwood. The engine was taking water at Foster
Tower, and Groeger was on the engine. He got to Foster Tower
[fol. 32] before our train did and his train was taking water when
our train got there.

I pot up on Groeger's engine. At that time there was no one else
on the engine with him. th the fireman and brakeman were on
top of the tank taking water. I also saw the conductor around there.

When I got on board Groeger’s engine I had a conversation with
him about the engine. I observed the Water glass, firebox, gauge

24

cocks and noticed the steam pressure. The steam pressure was
around about 160.

Q. What, if anything, unusual did you observe about the water
vlass?

Mr. Kinder: I object.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Kinder: Exception,

A. The water glass kept working up and down all the time.

(Narrative continued:) It would go pretty near to the top and drop
down practically to the bottom. It was making that movement just
at ordinary—just like that—-not fast, not slow.

While I was there I saw the gauge cocks of that engine operated.
Groeger operated them. Tle operated all three of them. The bot-
tom one and the middle one was wet and the top one was dry. I ob-
served there was steam coming out of the firebox. There was enough
steam coming out to obstruct the view, going up the boiler.

When I was on the engine both injectors were working. I heard
them working. If they had not been working steam would not have
been coming out of the bottom, or they would kick off. Both of
these injectors were working.

While on the engine | saw the firebox door open and I noticed it
was leaking up around the front, and the side—the fire was dead.
You could hear the sizzing of the water hitting on the fire. When I
opened the door steam came out of the firebox. With the door open
there was a gush came.

[ should judge | was on the engine about three to five minutes,
sumething like that. They pulled away after | got off. Their rear
end was on the main track and the engine right on the siding taking
water and they had to pull up before we could get water. After their
train pulled away we took water. Our train was No, 100 and
{fol. 33] Greogers 2541. We had a meet order to meet them at
Foster. Our train was a freight train and | was front brakeman.
After taking water we continued on to Benwood.

We came to Benwood, I went up to ask for a track and I was
asked if I saw 2541 and [ says, yes, | met them at Foster and they
said she blew up. I went back to the scene of the accident on the
wreck train. There was a number of fellows on it—train master
MeGann, master mechanic, wrecking crew, Conductor Hard. |
wanted to go down and see it. As | was on there, Mr. Malone asked
me if I could act as brakeman. They were short of brakemen. I
said I was under the sixteen hour law, but I would work for them
if he wanted me, I would stick around. Our run from Clarksburg
to Benwood took close onto sixteen liours and when we came in we
were about outlawed. [ went back on the wreck train.

I saw the position of the boiler of engine 2541 and the point
where the explosion occurred. I should judge the boiler was about
three or four hundred feet ahead of the train, in the direction in
which the train was going. The boiler went up and turned around

25

and buried itself in the ground quite a bit; it was headed just oppo-
site from where it was going. The bottom part of the boiler was up;
the whole top part of it was embedded in th. ground. By the top
part, I mean the smokestack, which was down in the ground. The
crown sheet was up, and I noticed a sort of reddish brown, soot,
scale on it. I couldn’t say just exactly how much. I also noticed
the stay bolts looked as though they were snapped off. There were
several stay bolts; I didn’t take notice as to all of them. While I
was there I did not see any of the various parts of the engine, such
us the water glass, steam gauge and injectors. I never heard whether
those were found,

After I got there I saw engineer Groger at the undertaker’s parlors
at Crocker. He was dead.

Cross-examination by Mr. Kinder:

I left the service the last of September, 1920. I entered some-
where along about July, I think. After I left the service I went to
Texas, working for the Texas and Pacific Railroad, as a machinist’s
helper. I have been braking for the B. & O. for the last four or
five years. I also did some odd jobs. I worked at plumbing work
hut not for the railroad. JI worked as patrolman for the B. & O. for
over a year. I believe I did work over there as a grease packer at
|fol. 34] one time; a good while ago. At the time of the accident
I was employed as a brakeman. I am now in the garage
business, selling cars, and have been doing that for three or four
months. After I left the service I stayed in Texas about two months;
then came back to Wheeling; and then loafed around a couple of
months, doing practically nothing. I then went to work braking
for the Pennsylvania and worked for them a couple of months,
something like that, up to the first of February, 1921. I didn’t
keep much of a record of the time I worked. After leaving the Penn-
svlvania I loafed around and went into the garage business, which
was about three or four months ago. From February, 1921, until
three or four months ago I may have worked at odd jobs, different
things, but mostly loafing around in Wheeling.

We left Benwood on September Ist on this trip, I think about
9 o’clock in the morning. Went to Clarksburg on No. 99. Called
that night around 9 or 10 o’clock, on the 2nd, for No. 100 going to
Benwood from Clarksburg. We are supposed to leave at 10 or 10°30.
We left Clarksburg at something like 10:30—10 o’clock—we are
called between 9 and 10 o’clock at night. It was on the trip from
Clarksburg I was on first 100, and that was the trip that I passed
CGroeger at Foster Tower, We were going from Clarksburg to Ben-
wood, which is something like 98 or 100 miles. This was an east
bound freight train. I think it was just the opposite from the fourth
division. T think it is just opposite on the Ohio River. TI never
went down that way many times. I think it is going east.

We were taking water at the main track at Foster Tower. We
pulled up and stopped, we couldn’t get by. They were going in an
opposite direction from us. I don’t remember how many cars

4—113

nes a
2¢

we had; somewheres around 35 or 40. something like that. When
we got there Groeger’s engine was in on the siding; some of his
cars were sticking in on the siding. The engine was unhooked
from his train and was about two, three, maybe five ear lengths,
something like that from the head end. His train was out on the
main track. He was in the siding. I didn’t notice if he had any
part of the train on the siding. When we came up there our engine
stopped right alongside of his. Brookover was the engineer. [
don’t know the fireman. 1 was the head brakeman.

I was riding in the cab as our engine and train came up there.
That is where every brakeman is supposed to be all the time, on
[fol. 35] the head end. Groeger was taking water as we came up
there. I saw Groeger on his engine. The fireman and brakeman
was on top of the tank taking water. 1 didn’t notice any of my
crew particularly at the time. The engineer goes into the telegraph
office and the fireman goes down on the ground. I don’t remember
if they did on this occasion. None of our train crew got on Groeger’s
engine while I was on it.

I have known Groeger to see him ever since I worked on the
BR. & O. I didn’t just know him so awful well, just met him on the
railroad. I just called him Groeger, and met him on the railroad.
I got off our engine and got on his. I said hello to him. I ean’t
just recall what he was doing at that time, but he was fooling around
doing something. 1 stayed on the engine from three to five minutes,
something like that. I had no duty to perform on his engine. |

“ was on all of the three to five minutes. I got off of Groeger’s engine
because I was afraid of it. If I had not been afraid | would ave
sfayet on until he went back up to catch his train. I don’t know
how long I hung around after I got off. I got off and went over by
the telegraph office, fooled around. I don’t know just exactly what
I was doing. Went back to the train. I don’t believe they had fin-
ished taking water before I got off the engine. Neither the fireman
nor the brakeman was on there when I got off. During the five min-
utes T was on there I was looking the engine over.

As to whether I make it a practice to get on an engine stopped out
on the road to look it over,—I get off and get on and look at the water
glass, such things as that. That is not a part of my duty as head
brakeman on another train. I just do it for something to do. As iar
to going in and inspecting the caboose—I go in and sit down there, |
look around and see what I could see,—not look over the air gauge, |
not that bad.

I said the top gauge was dry. I didn’t test the gauges: Groeger
tested them. The water was going up and down in the water glass,
not fast and not slow. When she went down she would disappear,
about to the bottom. She would not disappear; just about to the bot.
tom. He had both injectors on. He did not turn them on while I
was there; he had them on before I got on the engine, and they were
on all the time I was on the engine. When I got off and went over
to the telegraph office he had both injectors on and 160 pounds of
steam. While I was there the steam pressure did not go up; stood
about the same, then it dropped a little. He had a dead fire along

i i EEE he

3 27

[fol. 36] in the front and along in the side. _J opened the firebox.
1 did not stick any coal in the engine. I did not just exactly see this
water gauge when I first stepped on the engine. I didn’t break my
neck to go up and look at it. I noticed it while I was on there.
As far as I know, they were still taking water when I got off the
engine. That engine was standing still there, she wasn’t working
when I was on the engine at any time. It was while the engine was
standing still this variation in the water glass was going on.

When I got on the engine Groeger told me he was having trouble
with it. He said he wanted to give it up at Moundsville and was
ordered by the dispatcher to go on through with it and he said he
was frat of it. TI said, “How is your water?” I don’t know just
how long after I got on the engine it was that he tried the gauge
cocks; it was during the period of time I was on there. He tried it
twice while I was on there. The first time it showed wet, the first
one. The second time the top one wet, and second and third dry.
The same thing the next time. All the time he had both his injec-
tors working. The steam pressure hung around 160, I wouldn't
imagine it would go up; they wasn’t putting any coal on it.

I did not report this conversation with Groeger and my observa-
tion made on this train to anybody at all at any time. I said noth-
ing to nobody. I went to Texas the last of September, 1920. |
talked about that to Mr. Goodwin. I never said anything to any-
hody connected with the railroad company. I don't know when’ I
first spoke to Goodwin about it; I have forgotten just now when it
was. He heard I was on that engine and came up there and asked me
for a statement. I should judge it was about a month ago: some-
thing like that. It must have been along in December of 1921 some-
where. He is the first man I ever talked to about it.

As I stated, I got on that engine and spent five minutes on it:
made these observations; had a talk with Groeger; and got off because
I was afraid of the engine. I completed my run and went back to
the scene of the accident with the railroad officials. I was an em-
ployee of the B. & O. during the rest of September, went to Texas.
came back, employed on the Pennsylvania and loafed around Wheel.
ing in odd times here since. J] never stated to anybody at any time,
anywhere, anything about it until I stated it to Mr, Goodwin during
the month of December, 1921—never said a word to nobody.

[fol. 37] I left the Pennsylvania because ] got hurt. | do not
have a law suit growing out of that. I had a claim and had an
attorney—Mr. Chapman.

When I went out on that wreck train McGann, an official of the
company, was there. also Creed Malone, train master. I didn’t stay
with them, or go around with them. I knew they were making an
investigation about the accident and that the Federal government
would make an inspection of this. T don’t know whether they did
or not: Texnect they did. They generally always do.

IT knew Groeger was married: J seen his wife and children on
the street. I knew neither one of the other men on Groeger’s engine
to speak to. ;

While I was on the engine I didn’t take notice if he had the blower

28

on or not. That is one of the thinzs 1 didn’t look at. I don’t
remember if I heard it.

My fireman and engineer didn’t get off their engine to get on his.
I don’t remember as I said a word to my fireman or engineer on
the rest of that trip about that engine.

I finished my run over here in Benwood. After I was on the
train, Creed Malone asked me if I could act as brakeman, they
went out short-handed. I said nothing to Malone about being on
Groeger’s engine, or to McGann.

When I went over the track to the tower, all there was between me
and Groeger’s engine was a single road track. I stayed at the tower
until they got ready to go. I helped get water for my engine. 1
don’t remember how long after I got off the engine Groeger left. |
paid no more attention to the engine, although I was afraid of it.
After what he told me it was about time to get seared of it. I did
not talk to the fireman or head-man on Groeger’s engine; neither
one of them was in the cab; they were on the tank.

I don’t remember as there was a passenger train due along there
about that time. We left Foster and went right into Benwood and
didn’t pass anything on the way.

A thirty-one order is a meet order. The engineer had a meet
order for Groeger’s train. He told me they had a meet order with
2541 at Foster.

The steam pressure was around about 160 and about the same
when I got off as I got on; maybe dropped a little bit. When I got
on he had both his injectors on. T don’t know how long they had
[fol. 38] been on when I got on. IT don’t recall how long after I got
on he tested these gauge cocks the first time but between three and
five minutes; tested them twice. The second time he tested them
right before I got off.

My engineer was on his own engine, I think, when I was on
Groeger’s engine. I don’t know where they were after I got off. |
didn’t look around to see where they were. I don’t remember if
our engine was 2518 or not.

I did not then stop in the telegraph oflice for a little talk; I never
talked to t he telegraph operator.

I don’t remember whether the blower was on or not. I should
judge it was on a little bit. I say that because the steam would be
jamming out of the rear end, or out of the door, if it had not been.
If it was clear on, you could hear it. It may have been on partly.
I did not examine the air pumps. I wouldn't say they was not
working.

I had been around an engine quite a bit. As to whether it is not
a physical impossibility for a steam to come out of the fire door with
the blower on and the air pumps working,—I have seen it come out.
There was a little gush of steam came out when the door was opened.
I didn’t have my face close to it. 1 grabbed hold of the chain and
opened the door. Groeger told me the engine was leaking bad and
that is why I opened the door. I opened the fire door to look at it.
I said I grabbed the chain, but it might have been the air door. 1
mentioned the chain for lots of engines have got chains on. Just

29

grab hold of the chain. I don't remember that this engine did not
have a chain on the fire door.

I didn’t notice this blue line on the crown sheet there. I just took
a look at it. I didn’t see any.

I don’t remember that I saw Groeger’s train leave. I paid no
more attention to it.

I heard about the accident at the vard office in Benwood.

I asked the yardmaster for a track. Bill Steele was the yard-
master at the time—I ain’t sure. It was a brakeman standing out-
side who told me there had been an ‘accident. When I went to
Steele to ask for a track I was told 2541 blowed up. I got my track
and lined up and opened the main track switch and let him in,
and the wreck train was called and when it was ready to pull out I
got on.

(Adjournment to following day).

[fol. 39] 9.30 a.m. Tuesday, April 25th, 1922.

CHARLES FE. McGann, recalled as a witness, further testified as
follows:

Direct examination by Mr. Chapman:

As to the broken stay bolts which IT found on my investigation
of this boiler, an inspection of that boiler prior to the explosion
would have disclosed the broken condition of those stay bolts.

If I had known that on one side of that firebox three of those
broken intermediate or radial bolts were within a circle of eight
inches, as I testified, I would not have allowed that boiler and loco-
motive in service that day. If I had known that two of those bolts
broken were adjacent, I would not have allowed that boiler in the
service to which it was put that day,

Cross-examination by Mr. Kinder:

From my examination of this boiler and crown sheet after the
accident, I was of the opinion that the broken bolts spoken about,
if broken prior to that explosion, had nothing to do with the failure

of the boiler whatever. a
t was thereupon stipulated and agreed by and between counsel

for plaintiff and defendant that John C. Groeger was thirty-five
vears of age at the time of his death: that his average earnings for
the year previous to his death were $180 per month: that he was
in good health, robust and strong: that his widow, Freda Groeger,
was thirty-one years of age, and that he left surviving him two
daughters, Trene, ten years of age, and Gertrude, seven years of
age; that the widow and two children were entirely dependent upon
him for support; that the said John Groeger’s expectaney of life
at the age of thirty-five, at his death, was 31.7 vears; that his widow
is the administratrix and plaintiff in this action.

30

It is further stipulated and agreed that the fireman and head
brakeman who were on the engine with Groeger at the time of his
death were also killed by the explosion of the boiler at the same time
as was Groeger.

Plaintiff rested.

[fol. 40] Thereupon the defendant moved the Court to arrest the
testimony from the further consideration of the jury and direct the
jury to return a verdict for defendant; which motion was overruled
by the Court; to which ruling defendant then and there duly ex-
cepted.

CuarLes A. KarNELL, a witness called by defendant, being first
duly sworn, testified as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. Kinder:

My name is Charles A. Karnell. I live in Cleveland. I am su-

pervisor of boilers for the New York Central Railroad, and have
been in the railroad business twenty-six years, practically twenty
years of which have been with the New York Central. I have charge
of the 635 locomotives in the third district, and my work brings me
in daily contact with locomotive boiler conditions and boiler equip-
ment, also the design and construction of boilers and their main-
tenance and upkeep. There are four districts on the New York
Central, and between 2,500 to 3,000 locomotives operating on that
system.
’ The fusible plug is not in use on the New York Central System
because it is not practical. Due to the water surging back and forth
over locomotive crown sheets, we find that the tin in the fusible plug
will fuse and melt, therefore permitting the water to get into the
firebox and putting out the fire. The movement of the locomotive
in ordinary operation, with plenty of water, causes a movement
of the water over the crown sheet back and forth, so that on a grade,
or for other reasons, a fusible plug is impractical because it is bared:
that is to say, the water leaves it at times due to the ordinary opera-
tion of the engine. When a plug blows out it blows out through
the firebox, permitting the water and steam in the fire chamber.
If the fireman at that time happens to be putting a fire into the fire
door. he does not necessarily get the fire and steam; but it would
tend to put the fire out. I wouldn’t say as to injuries happening
to the fireman.

Q. One other anestion, Mr. Karnell. IT have here a model—con-
cerning which, if the Court please, other evidence will he intro-
[fol. 41] dueed—it is drawn to a seale, an eighth in size, of a crown
sheet with the door sheet and the flue sheet. The hole in this end
is the fire door. On that line you will find, Mr. Karnell, that a
blue line lies Leen platted, which you may assume was the location

id

16

1e

d

st

SS Oe eC

: es x

of the blue line found on the crown sheet after the explosion.
There are also platted on this model certain points here which you
may assume indicate the location of certain stay bolts which it is
claimed were broken prior to the explosion. Will you assume that
the failure of the crown sheet, according to the examination of the
crown sheet, began at the rear top of the crown sheet about at the
junction of the door sheet with the crown sheet and extended to-
wards the engine in a downward direction but did not involve either
of those three stay bolts, but the rupture oceurred there in an area
controlled by them or near them, and that the failure of the crown
sheet as found after the explosion—the line of failure did not occur
through or in the immediate territory of these three stay bolts or
this one (indicating on model). Will you give us your opinion as
to whether or not the broken bolts as indicated in the area on this
model had anything whatever to do with the crown sheet which
failed and contained this blue mark on top of it?

A. Why, the failure of the crown sheet is due to the overheating
of the plate not being able to withstand the pressure above it. That.
of course, would cause it to release off the stay bolts, the crown
stays. Now, then, the crown stays on the top were solid, they were
not broken, but on account of the very heavy plate they slipped
off the solid stays, therefore letting out a large volume of pressure
and in doing that caused the explosion. When the explosion started
it brought down the rear; the front end was the first to vo; the three
stay-bolts as they are marked as broken there on each side, were
not a contributing factor to the explosion, due to the fact that the
solid stays had to let go first before they could come to this.

Mr. Kirder: I may say to the Court that I have called Mr. Kar-
nell out ct order so that the evidence is not in that we expect to
show.

(In response to questions by the Court: )

I don’t know how long fusible plugs have been known to those
skilled in locomotive construction and operation or how long they
have been used on such engines. I have had knowledge of them
[fol.42] for twenty-six years. They were used_off and on; they
were on test, practically. I keep myself informed of the practices
of other railroads and other departments of railroading than my
own, The only case that I know of a fusible plug being used
was on the Chesapeake & Ohio. They were used there in 1910 on

that road for about four months, and during that time I had oc-
, casion to work on engines having those plugs, and we had trouble,

we had to remove them from time to time and refill them because
of the metal fuse running out, as the tin in them would fuse at 446
degrees of heat. The temperature in the boilers at 200 pounds pres-
sure is equivalent to 388 degrees of heat; so that with 466 degrees
fusing point of tin, we only have to use 58 more degrees, T wouldn't
say as to whether they are using them on that road today or not.
As a rule, in the general railroading world, all the railroad systems,
they are not used. They have not been accepted and used by master

| 32

mechanics and locomotive engineers as standard equipment in loco-
motive service.

Cross-examination by Mr. Chapman:

\/ They are universally used in stationary boilers.

Assuming a fusible plig was ict Id go at the highest
point of the crown sheet and would project about an inch and an
eighth about the crown sheet. The metal in that fusible plug is
much more fusible and melis quicker than any part of the crown
sheet.

In actual operation, a fusible plug placed at that point on the
crown sheet, projecting above the crown sheet, as soon as the water
got down to the fusible plug and laid bare the top of that fusible
plug, the soft metal in that plug would melt and allow the escape
of all pressure from that boiler, and in that way it would prevent
any burning or overheating of that crown sheet.

's°)
Fs

Water C. Hepeman, a witness called by defendant, being first
duly sworn, testified as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. Kinder:

My name is Walter C. Hedeman. I live at Baltimore, Maryland.

1 am in the mechanical engineer's office of the Baltimore & Ohio
Railroad Company. [ have been with the road sinee March 2rd,
1903. [started in 1900 at the Maryland Steel Company, building
[fol.43] marine engines at Sparrows Point. During my service
with the B. & O. I worked in the shop on locomotive construction
for six years; I then obtained a position in the mechanical engi-
neer’s office, as draftsman, and just went right up the line finally
to boiler design and construction, and for the past five years have
had general charge of boiler design and reinforcement for boilers
when they they were required, and I pass on all questions regard-
ing the strength of locomotive boilers on the B. & O. Railroad.

Engine 2541 is the type of engine known as E-27. That just
means the model, the same as vou say a 1916 automobile, or certain
model. That was built by The American Locomotive Company,
which is considered the best in the country. This 2541 is a model
with which I am familiar.

At your request I prepared a model of a crown sheet. When I
was first asked to get into this case it was brought to my attention
by the assistant claim agent, and I had one of the draftsmen take
the blueprint and lay out these sheets from the print to seale, ap-
proximately one-eighth size, and had them put together.

Referring to the model, Defendant’s Exhibit 1, this circular sheet
on top is the crown and side sheets made in one piece secured to the
mud ring. This is known as the mud ring because that is the lowest

art of the firebox where the mud accumulates, and there is washout
oles at each end of them to wash that out. The hole represents

eae ’

the door hole in the door sheet, and this is the door hole in the back
head. There is a neck on here where this is joined to this sheet.
(Underneath the crown sheet is the firebox, and right on the bottom
is the grates, which would be supported. The whole area of grates
is there, and the coal is thrown in on those grates and the draft
comes up underneath and the flame and gas goes out through the
flues to the front end and out the stack.

Defendant’s Exhibit 2 is a very good illustration of a locomotive
firebox. You see the grates and above them the coal fire going up
over the arch brick. There are four arch tubes in there supporting
bricks. The bricks are used to throw this flame back here first rather
than let it go through the flues without getting the benefit of the
combustion and getting all the heat out of the coal, and that throws
a most intense heat up on the crown sheet. Now, above the crown
sheet you _cun see the water; this line (indicating) 1s the water.
‘This, to my mind, brings the idea of a locomotive firebox out more
clearly by way of a picture or print than anything I have ever seen.
|fol. 44] I don’t think anyone could describe it any handier than
you can see on this picture in a few minutes.

In explaining Defendant's Exhibit 1, I will begin with the gen-
eral construction of the boiler. They are made from flat sheets re-
ceived from the mills. They are absolutely flat and are rolled to
this shape (indicating) before they are put together, so that there
is no strain here in joining the sheets. It is metal to metal. This
crown side is in one pieec and rolled to this contour. That is the
inside firebox sheets. The rear sheet here of the entire firebox is
known as the door sheet; the front sheet of the firebox is known
as the rear flue sheet. There is a rear flue sheet to the front
flue sheet in the front end of the boiler, and the front flue sheet
would be drilled and bored with holes for taking the flues, and the
flues would extend from the back to the front for the gases to go

‘through. The flues in this boiler are fifteen feet ten inches long.

The front flue sheet is three-quarters of an inch thick and the back
stieet half an inch. The flues are expanded in the sheet to prevent
leaking; the front end is expanded rolled; and on the back end
there is a copper ferrule put in here and the flue is fitted over, rolled
over. In addition to that, it is electric welded all around to keep it
from leaking. I mentioned the mud ring. The outside sheets are
then rolled to shape. This is known as the wrapper sheet: the
wrapper sheet is sometimes called wagon top. It is the shape of the
old Canistoga wagon. These are the outside sheets—left and right
side, and what is known as the back head, which is similar in shape
to the door sheet; and then there is the outside throat sheet. This
(indicating) is the barrel. There is a first and second course to the
barrel. Those sheets are circular. Then there is the smoke box,
and the front flue sheet. That boiler would have 282 flues through
those sheets. When these sheets are shaped, this outer shell is put
tovether on the floor, the back head, the wrapper, and the throat,
and this is put togcther on the floor separately and is then placed
inside here (indicating). Now, there is a double row of rivets all

5—113

EEO ee aeeaaaaaeaeaeaeeeeeee_—_e_e ee __—_—_—EaEEaaIwSESeerre_,_XOXvXKw—eeeeeeeeee

34

around here, sealing the inner and outer sheets together at the mud
ring. The mud ring is made of cast steel,

The water is in the space from the mud ring to the top and gets
up in the barrel above the flues. The gases and flame go through
the flues and the water is all around them on the outside, and that

|, [fol. 45] heats the water and generates the steam. The smoke, heat
and gases eseape into the smoke box and then out through the stack.
The holes represent the holes for the stay bolts. It is necessary,
on account of these shicete being comparatively flat, to be tied together

to prevent them bulging out; and they are fastened together with

what is known as stay bolts. The full size model shows it better.

That model is full size as regards the thickness of the plate ond spac-

_, ing of the stay bolts. That model was prepared by me to show the

4 / location of the particular bolts and is an exact representation of the

‘| arrangement including the size of the crown and wrapper sheets

' | and stay bolts in engine 2541. The boiler makers laid that out from

the blueprints of that particular boiler. They had to have something
to make it by and that is what they made it by, right to seale. The
one sheet is three-eighths thick, of firebox steele and the other is
nine-sixteenths, and the stay bolts are serewed in both sheets and
riveted over on the outside to make them tight and to hold them to-
gether. When this boiler gets pressure on there is a tendency to
force these sheets apart, and these bolts must be in there to hold those
sheets together. The bolts are what we call “in tension.” There is
a constant pull on them Tike that. Tinight mention here that the
law only allows us a stress on stay bolts of seven hundred pounds
per square inch, which is the lowest stress allowed on any part of the
boiler. In other words, you have to make your stay bolts safer than
anything else. I might mention that thisboiler has a total of 1,464
stay bolts, that is, counting all these in the door sheet, side, crown and
throat. These holes represent the stay bolt location, each one would
represent one of these bolts. —— wien
Defendant’s Exhibit 3 is a photograph of the back head of a loco-
motive showing the gauges, throttle, apron and water glass; and is
correct as to engine 2541 as regards the water glass and gauge cocks.
(At request of counsel witness marks on exhibit location of first, sec-
ond and third gauges. The hole at the bottom of this picture is the
fire door. The tube on the right hand side is the steam pipe to the
right injector, and the one on the other side is the steam pipe to the
left injector. This shows the throttle Tever extending across, It is
connected up to a throttle rod which extends through the back here
into the dome, and the throttle is in the dome and when he pulls
this lever this way, that opens the throttle in the dome and lets
steam come down through the steam pipe up to the front end and
[fol. 46] down to the cylinders to move the engine. As you look
at the picture, the right hand side is the engineer’s side of the cab.

(Defendant's Exhibit 3 offered and received in evidence and at-
tached hereto and made part hereof. )

Defendant’s Exhibit 4 is a photograph taken close up to this door
hole on the back here, and you see very plainly the arch brick which

ie ee i ee

CO a TS. SS ee ee De

35

are referred to. These are the arch brick and these are the arch
tubes that support the bricks. As I explained before, the flame comes
up and strikes the brick und goes over the rear end and then through
the flue.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 4 offered and received in evidence and at-
tached hereto and made part hereof.)

I plotted on Defendant's Exhibit 1 that portion which was reported
as being peacock blue. It is just the front end, and is the area
enclosed by the heavy blue lines.

There were reported seven defective stay bolts. They are located
here on this exhibit, three on the left side and three on the right
and one at the front end in the fourth row from the front.

I have seen the Railroad Company's report indicating the point
of the rupture, where it started and where it ended. Generally, the
rupture occurred, according to the report, in the third row from the
center at the back, and tore down towards the door hole and then
tore down this side (indicating), and tore diagonally down on each
side. First, the report shows that the crown sheet pulled off the
bolts. That is called sagging, due to the metal getting red hot and
stretching. The report shows that there were four holes at the front
which were elongated ; by that we mean distorted or stretched out of
shape. They were larger than the actual heads on the stay bolts
which were in that crown sheet, showing that they did stretch.
Then this sheet pulls off those bolts and goes down and presents such
a large area unsupported that there is nothing left then except for
the sheets to tear, and the tear took place, it started up in the rear,
the third row from the center. An examination of the bolts after
the explosion and an examination of the crown sheet will indicate
right on the metal this pulling motion of the sheet off the bolts, the

_ heads of the bolts indicate that, and the bolts in the crown sheet will
_ be elongated.

[fol.47] Q. Now, Mr. Hedeman, having that in mind and having
in mind the location of those seven bolts, in your opinion as a boiler
expert, could those seven bolts be considered as even a contributing
cause to that boiler failure?

A. Absolutely not.

(Narrative continued:) Fusible plugs are not used on the Balti-
more & Ohio Railroad Company's engines. We have approximately
2,700 engines. The system extends to St. Louis, Chicago, Phila-
delphia, Baltimore, with numerous branch lines.

IT have made inquiries on the question of the use of soft plugs on
locomotives other than the Baltimore & Ohio.

Fusible plugs are regarded as an encouragement to the engineer
to not keep careful watch on his water, not keep as careful watch
on the water as he would if he didn’t have a fusible plug. In other
words, he would rely to a certain extent on that fusible plug blowing
out when the water got low, and if he wouldn't have the fusible plug
he would be very careful with his water and watch his gauge cocks

and water glass. When the fusible plug blows out the water and
steam come out at the front end of the crown sheet and it blows it
down on the fire.

Cross-examination by Mr. Chapman:

The B. & O. is the only railroad I am working for. I have not
seen a fusible plug in use on the boiler of a locomotive engine. I
know the purpose of it. Its purpose is when the plug would be ex-

and not covered with water the soft metal would melt and come
out and allow some water to escape. The plug won't prevent the
water from getting down to the top of this crown sheet; it would give
warning.

With a fusible plug in this boiler at the time of the explosion, all
pressure within that boiler would not have been released by the action
of that fusible plug before the water could get low and leave the
peacock blue mark on the top of the crown sheet. When the fusible
plug metal melted it would blow steam and water down and gi.e
warning. Theoretically, it would release the pressure in that boiler,
but it would be negligible through that small Pole. The force of the
steam going through the holes in that fusible plug would be as noth-
ing compared with the blowing up of that boiler. When the fusible

lug blows out it gives warning that the water is low. It is self evi-
Tfot 48] dent that the danger of a fusible plug blowing out is
nothing compared to the danger of the boiler blowing up.

When the fusible plug blows out that lets enough steam: and water
into the firebox to deaden the fire, and the engine can’t be operated
thereafter ; they have to take it in, draw the fire, kill it and take it in.
Whenever that happens the engirie and train itself comes to a stand-
still and they stop and call for help. That would be the consequences.

Q. Mr. Hedeman, with the fusible plug installed on this boiler
at that time would that have prevented the burning of this crown
sheet as you have described it here?”

Mr. Kinder: I object to that.

The Court: He may give his opinion, whether in his opinion it
would have prevented the burning of the crown sheet as indicated by
the peacock blue line.

Mr. Kinder: Exception.

A. That would depend on whether the plug properly functioned.

The Court: What do you mean by properly functioned?

The Witness: Answer the purpose for which it was designed. It
has been testified that these plugs become inoperative due to aceumn-
lation of scale on the plug and that they really burn out and melt
when there is no low water.

Q. Mr. Hedeman, my question is, assuming that the plug was
kept clean and no scale allowed over it, and that that plug functioned
the soft metal melting before this crown sheet was touched, would

£

/

37

that have prevented, in the proper operation, the burning of this
crown sheet and the explosion of this boiler?

Mr. Kinder: I object to that.

The Court: Objection overruled. He may give his opinion and
answer that.

Mr. Kinder: Exception.

A. Well, if the fusible plug answered its purpose the soft metal
would melt out and steam and water come through.

[fol.49] Q My question was, would that have prevented the re-
oe burning of that crown sheet and the blowing up of the
boiler?

A. Under those conditions, Mr. Chapman, we must assume that
the water only got so low as to just bare that fusible plug, and due
to the slope a that crown sheet (refers to crown sheet of model ) —
this crown sheet is three inches higher in the front than in the
back; that is, compared with a horizontal or level line. Now, the
fusible plug, if one were used, would be in the first row and naturally
that is as low as the water would g.’, just to that point (indicating
on model), and you would still have water here, and if the fusible
plug functioned and blew out that would give warning when the
water just got to that point. The rest of the sheet would be covered.

( Narrative continued:) If there was enough pressure on the boiler,
when that plug blew out it would blow steam into your fire and
practically put out the fire. Assuming there were 160 pounds
pressure on the boiler when that plug melted out, the continual flow
of the steam through there would kill the fire.

Q. And that would have prevented this boiler explosion, would
it not?

Mr. Kinder: I object to that.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Kinder: Exception.

A. I think I have stated that rather clearly, that the fusible plug
would give warning and blow down on the fire, the steam would
How down on the fire.

The Court: And would put the fire out and relieve the pressure
in the boiler, wouldn't it?

The Witness: It would kill the fire and relieve the pressure. 1
think that if understood, your Honor. ——"

(Narrative continued:) The rules and regulations of the Inter-
state Commerce Commission forbid locomotive boilers to be used if
more than six bolts are defective: and if two of them are side by
side iT is a File of inspection Mat they must he repaired before they
are used, even if there is less than six. We expected to conform
to that. There is a penalty prescribed by law.

It the bolts were broken as they are marked on this model, two

of them being adjacent, and the third one near them, theoretically

Et er eer ee + . ~~ — PU ASHI Sesto parae

38

[fol.50] those broken bolts would reduce the resistance or the
strength of that boiler. Theoretically, the broken crown bolt which
I have marked as being broken, would reduce the strength of that
boiier for internal resistance. As this particular point where these
bolts are broken is the strongest part of this fire-box, crown or stay
sheets, for this reason: that it is on what is known as the radius.
A man don’t have to be a mechanic to know that a sheet bent like
this will stand more pressure than a flat sheet. That is why I say
theoretically only it reduces the strength because it is in the strong-
est part of the firebox. I can qualify it by saying that the A. S. M. E.
code, that is, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers code,
for building boilers, allows you certain strength for a circular fur-
nace. ‘This portion of the firebox is equivalent to a circular furnace
and has strength of its own without the bolts. I may also mention
at this particular point that there is the greatest expansion up here
in this way (indicating), and bolts break here more frequently than
in other places, but they don’t affect the strength of the firebox
perceptibly, that is, that vou could notice it, because of the curva-
ture of the sheet. It is equivalent to a board placed flat with pres-
sure on it, or placed edgeways. Of course, that is going from one
extreme to the other. Or we will say a flat surface or a curved sur-
face. This is much stronger this way than if it is just flat, (in-
dicating). The same here on this firebox; that is stiffer along here
than it is here (indicating).

As to whether it is more serious with two broken bolts adjacent
than if they were scattered over a large area for the internal re-
sistance of that boiler, I will give you my personal opinion on that
as an engineer. Two adjacent broken stay bolts on the curved por-
tion of that sheet would not be as serious as one broken bolt on a flat
sheet.

A. R. Ayers, a witness called by defendant, being first duly sworn,
testified as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. Kinder:

My name is A. R. Ayers. I am a resident of Cleveland.

I am superintendent of motive power of the New York, Chicago
& St. Louis Railroad, also known as the Nickel Plate, which extends
from Buffalo to Chicago. I have been in the railroad service nearly
[fol. 51] twenty-two years, about fifteen years of which have been
devoted to the questions relating to boiler construction and main-
tenance. My duties as superintendent of motive power are design,
construction. maintenance and somewhat operation.

The fusible plug is not in use upon the locomotive boilers of the
Nickel Plate Railroad. During the course of my connection I have
made a somewhat casual investigation, not particularly searching,
into the extent of the use of fusible plugs on locomotive boilers.
Without anv definite figures to support my answer, it is my opinion
that the ure of the fusible plug in railroad work is not very general.

/

39

The American Railway Master Mechanics Association is now a
art of the American Railway Association as a mechanical section.
rior to that time it was an association of railway motive power
officials, that is, the master mechanics or similar officials of the
various railroads had an association, in which they met and dis-
cussed their problems, made reports and recommendations, and, in
addition, adopted standard practices and designs. Those standard
practices and designs were not compulsory but they represented the

, consensus of opinion as to what was the best practice. This Amer-

ican Railway Master Mechanics Association comprised representa-
tives of nearly all the railroads in the country.

According to the proceedings of the American Railway Master
Mechanics Association, they passed a resolution in 1899. Defend-
ant’s Exhibit 5 is a copy of the resolution as it appears in the 1917
and ’18 proceedings of the American’ Railway Master Mechanics As-
sociation. It was adopted in 1899, and those things are carried
forward from year to year in the proceedings. That was copied
correctly directly from a printed copy of the proceedings, and reads
as follows:

“Resolved that it is the sense of the American Railway Master

Mechanics Association that the use of fusible plugs in the crown

sheets of locomotive fire boxes _is not conducive to the prevention of
the overheating of the Grown sheet.”

Mr. Kinder: In view of the fact that the witness has read the
resolution we will not offer it. That is all a part of the record.

No cross-examination.

[fol.52] Roser Cecix, a witness called by defendant, being first
duly sworn, testified as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. Kinder:

My name is Robert Cecil. I live at Holloway, Ohio.

I have been employed by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Com-
pany and was employed by them in August of 1920 as machinist
and inspector. As inspector, it was my duty to inspect locomotives
and make reports at various times of their condition.

In connection with inspection of locomotives and in the ordinary
routine in August and September, 1920, it was the custom to in-
spect an engine monthly. The purpose of the inspection was for
Federal forms. When the inspection was made of the various parts
of a locomotive, a report was made based on that inspection, under
oath, to the Federal government. That is required once a month.

As to monthly locomotive inspection report, marked Defendant's
Exhibit 6, I took part in the inspection of the engine. report of
which is made on that form, and my name is on that form. The
report which I made on that form was made under oath. The
original was forwarded to the Federal inspectors. 1 inspected the

40 |

mechanical parts on that engine. I inspected both the injectors and
found them in good condition. That inspection was made on
August 7th and the report was sworn to by me on the 11th, 1920.
I had nothing to do with the washing of the boiler, but I tested the
gauge cocks and removed the water glass, cocks, splinters and cleaned
the cocks. 1 had nothing to do with the condition of the stay bolts
and crown stays, and so forth.

When an engine comes in from a run, in the ordinary process
of our business, the engine is inspected at the conclusion of the
day’s run. When the engine comes in to the terminal the engineer
who has charge of the engine on that run makes out a work sheet
in which he notes the things that ought to be done to the engine
before it is taken out again. In connection with that report, I,
as inspector, also make an inspection of the engine and determine
what its condition is.

I made an inspection of my particular part of this engine on the
2nd day of September, 1920. Defendant's Exhibit 7 bears my
signature at the lower left hand corner. The parts of the engine
[fol. 53] I was responsible for were the machinery and running
gear. I did not go into the question of injectors ‘or gauge cocks
on that inspection. They just see that it was suitable for service
there. There wouldn't be any test. only just to see that they were
suitable for service. They would be tried to see that they were in
— The foreman, W. O. Kennedy, was the man that o.k.’d
that.

No cross-examination.

J. W. Brewer, a witness called by defendant, being first duly
sworn, testified as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. Kinder:

My name is J. W. Brewer. I live at Holloway. I am employed
by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company and was in Septeml-er,
1920, as boiler maker. Part of my job is inspecting boilers. Once
a month the boiler inspection is made, the report is sworn to by the
inspectors, and forwarded to the government.

Defendant’s Exhibit 6 is the form of report that was made on
engine 2541 in August of 1920. I didn’t wash the boiler myself
but I know it was washed. [ere is where we start here, with “11.
Were steam leaks repaired? Yes.” “Condition of stay bolts and
crown stays. Three broken.” I renewed those; it says “Three
renewed.” The condition of the flues and fire-hox sheets was good.
Condition of the arch good. We didn’t use any fusible plugs on that
engine. My signature iz at the lower part there, and I made that
report under oath. On August 7th, the date of this report, there were
three broken stay bolts, which, to my knowledge. were fixed. Those
were the only broken stay bolts in the engine at that time.

ney I rE ET nS NEE TY SRS I Cee mae eens mee

ly

41

Cross-examination by Mr, Chapman:

I myself made an inspection to determine those broken stay bolts.
I determined it with a hammer. I did not renew those broken stays;
we have a gang that renewed them. I know they were renewed.

(Counsel for defendant offered in evidence Defendant’s Exhibits 6
und 7 which were received in evidence and are attached herto and
made part hereof.)

[fol.54] J. W. Hamitton, a witness called by defendant, being
first duly sworn, testified as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. Kinder:

My name is J. W. Hamilton. I live at New Martinsville, West
Virginia.

I am employeu by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company as
engineer and was so employed in September, 1920.

I had engine 2541 on September 2nd. I was the last engineer that .

had the engine before Mr. Groeger took it out on his run on the
3rd. At the conclusion of our run we make out a work report of
the condition of the engine. That report (Defendant’s Exhibit 8)
refers to what defects have occurred uring the time we have been
operating the engine. I made out that report at the conclusion of
that run.

The run ended at 1:30 p. m. of the 2nd day of September. I
noted on that report what defects the engine developed during the
run. The defects are, “Clean out the flues; refill all grease cellars on
the left side.” The grease cellar is the bearing at the wheel, the
axle. The next one is, “Tighten left steam chest cover,” which is
down where the piston valve goes in and out. The next is, “Clean
out oil cups on air pumps.” Those are defects I found with that
engine that developed on that run.

The condition of the injectors on that run was good. The gauge
cocks was good and working. We make a report on injectors and
gauge cocks and water glass valve and the cylinder block and all
these things that are set out here, and write in what their condition is.
I write this in when I get through with my run. This is my hand-
writing and signature down there. It says, “Condition of Injector,
right and left, good.” That was the condition of them. The con-
dition of the water glass, gauge cocks and valves was good. The
eylinder packing and rod packing doesn’t have anything to do with
the boiler. The condition of the driver wedge boxes, air sanders and
bell ringer was as indicated on my report.

When I operated that locomotive she was a good locomotive, one

of the best we had.

‘ [fol. 55] Cross-examination by Mr. Chapman:

On the day prior to the accident I made a run with this locomotive
from Brooklyn Junction to Holloway. On that trip the sight glass

6—113

Yak Paes

42

feed indicated the level of the water in the boiler at all times, and
did not fluctuate from the top down to the bottom at all that I
noticed. It was steady throughout that trip.

W. O. Kennepy, a witness called by defendant, being first duly
sworn, testified as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. Kinder:

My name is W. O. Kennedy. I live at Holloway, Ohio.

I am employed by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. Holloway is
a terminal. In September, 1920, and prior to that time, I was em-
ployed as roundhouse foreman, and as such the various reports, in-
eluding the work which was done on the machinery end of engines
came under my supervision. By the “machinery end” I mean the
running gears, injectors and the rods.

Defendant’s Exhibit 8, locomotive inspection report, engine 2541,
dated September 2nd, 1920, bears my signature.

As roundhouse foreman, so far as the machinery is concerned, and
as foreman, it was my duty to inspect and check up the work that
was ordered for a particular locomotive; and I did that in regard to
2541 on the 2nd day of September, the date of this report. The
report sets out the work that was done on the engine, and the names
on the right hand column are the names of the men that did the
work. Before signing a report like that I see that the work is done.
This report also describes the condition of the injectors, water glass,
gauge cocks and other parts of the machine, and my signature on
that shows I have checked that up.

(Counsel for defendant offered in evidence Defendant’s Exhibit 8,
which was received in evidence, and is attached hereto and made
part hereof.)

No cross examination.

[fol. 56] Atsert Hooper, a witness called by defendant, being first
duly sworn, testified as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. Kinder:

My name is Albert Hooper. I live at Holloway.

My business is that of boiler-maker for the Baltimore & Ohio Rail-
road Company, and I was employed as such in September, 1920. By
“hoiler-maker” I mean a man who is engaged in and about inspection
of boilers. When an engine comes into a terminal various parts of
the engine are inspected by various departments.

Defendant’s Exhibit 9, locomotive inspection report on 2541, dated
September 2nd, 1920, is a report in connection with the boiler of
that engine. I made that report out and it bears my signature. I
inspected the boiler on that day.

43

By “inspection” I mean we go over the whole boiler, go around it,
that is on all inspections, go right around it and look for broken stay
bolts, cracks, seams or anything that is leaking in the fire box. An
inspection is made in the fire-box. That inspection is made to
ascertain whether there are any leaks in the fire-box.

On this day I didn’t do a thing in regard to the fire-box—no leaks,

Around the mud ring and for eight rows above the mud ring
of the stay bolts they have telltale holes drilled in them. If a bolt
is broken in any of those rows those telltale holes permit the escape
of water or steam, so that when the stay bolt is broken there it is
apparent from the escape of steam on the outside of the boiler; that is
what it is for.

My inspection with reference to those bolts showed they were all
right.

Cross-examination by Mr. Chapman:

As to the bolts in that fire-box, I made an inspection of nothing
only the ones that have telltale holes in them, that had inspection.
I did that personally. The radial bolts or bolts toward the crown
stays haven't got telltale holes in them. You can’t make an in-
spection of those at that time on account of the leaking. To make
an inspection of those they have to use a hammer on them, test them
with a hammer.

[ fol. 57] Redirect examination by Mr. Kinder:

When an engine is “formed” it means the arch has: to come
down on all of them, the whole arch has to come down, the fire-box
cleaned and the flues blowed and inspected, and you have got to
go over every bolt in the boiler with a hammer. That is formed
for the purpose of report to the government every thirty days.

(Counsel for defendant offered Defendant’s Exhibit 9 in evidence,
which was received and is attached hereto and made a part hereof.)

W. J. Dixon, a witness called by defendant, having been previously
sworn, further testified as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. Kinder:

My name is W. J.. Dixon. I live at Holloway, Ohio.

I am employed by the Baltimore & Ohio as Assistant Master Me-
chanic of the Wheeling station,

In connection with the operation or maintenance of engines, each
engine is inspected after its run. The engineer makes a report of
the defects noted by him and also the inspectors make out separate
reports. The work that is reported by both the engineer and in-
spectors is copied off on to what we call work cards, they in turn
are turned over to the foreman and he distributes those to the various
workmen according to the work designated on the ecard, and when
the work is completed, that is checked off on these reports made out

44

by both the inspector and the engineer and the report is approved
by the foreman in charge. That is known as the locomotive in-
spection report. The boilers are washed out down at Holloway

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386006_0138%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.