Case ID: ill-app_186/html/0512-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McBride", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Martin Hollo, Appellee, v. Wasson Coal Company, Appellant.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the City Court of Harrisburg; the Hon. A. E: Somers, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed May 1, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Martin Hollo against Wasson Coal Company to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while engaged as a helper in operating a ma-' chine for undercutting coal in defendant’s mine. The. injury resulted from the fall of the roof of the mine.. Plaintiff claimed that the roof had been loose and, drumming for several days, that defendant had failed to furnish props and that the mine examiner of defendant had failed to observe the condition of the roof and mark it as required by statute. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $2000, defendant appeals.
    M. S. Whitley, for appellant; Mastin & Sherlock, of counsel.
    George E. Dodd and Clark & Hutton, for appellee.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Mines and minerals, § 176
      
      —when recovery for injury to miner sustained liy the evidence. In an action to recover for personal injuries sustained by a miner where it was alleged that the injury was caused by failure of defendant to furnish props and to have the roof examined and marked as required by statute, held that a verdict for plaintiff was sustained by the evidence.
    2. Mines and minerals, § 188
      
      —when instructions not misleading. In an action to recover for injuries sustained by a miner alleging a wilful violation of the statute, criticism of instructions given for plaintiff that they were misleading for the reason that they in effect told the jury that the defendant had been guilty of a wilful violation of the statute, held not well founded.
    3. Appeal and error, § 450
      
      —when admission of testimony cannot 6e complained of. Error in the admission of hearsay testimony cannot be complained of for the first time on appeal.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice McBride

delivered the opinion of the court.