Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1886-09-27
THE COUNTY COURT.

The jury in this case, after being out
until 3 p. M. Tuesday, and after having
portions of the testimony read to them,
were unable to agree, standing eight for
defendant and four for plaintiff.
Monday the court went in at 2 p. m.
The judge changed the jury in Bridgman
VS.. Corey Est. (See ahove). The next
Case for trial was Harry Reed VS.. Interna-
tional Co. This was an action of case to
recover of the defendant damages for an
injury to the plaintiff, received in running
a splitting saw which he claimed was de-
fective in not being provided with guard
or spreader to prevent boards from pinch
| ing and being lifted by the saw so as to
be thrown by the saw injuring the
operator.
The first witness was the plaintiff, Har-
ry Reed, young man of 22 years, who
swore that on the 18th day of May, 1884,
he was in the employ Of the International
| Company. That the foreman Of the mill
directed him to take a pile Of refuse
boards, butt them, and split them into 4
inch box window castings, and plane them
| down to ! inch thick. After butting, he
took them to the splitting saw, and the
first board he attempted to split, when
through to about 6 or inches from the
end, began to pinch, was raised up on
the back Of the saw and pushed towards
him. While holding it, thinking what to
do, the outside piece split off, leaving a
cross-grained corner on the board. This
was caught by the saw in such manner
that the board was turned up edgewise
and his fingers caught and drawn into the
saw, cutting off all but the thumb on his
right hand near the joints joining the fin
gers to the hand, He was knocked doWr
by the board, got up, cried out and fell
was carried out by other mill hands an(
taken to DR.. Rutherfords and had hi:
hand dressed. Was out two or three
days after the injury, then was taken will
fever and confined to the house or eigh
weeks, paid the DR.. between $40 and $50
Time was worth $l.25 per day. Ha,
used the saw in splitting thin box stuff
short pieces. 1t pinched and threw stu
up and caused it to push back against tn
operator. Claimed that if a proper guar
or spreader had been on the saw it woul
e not have done so. Showed model of saw
Was an engineer. Had made or 4 Ell
gineS with the help OF a younger brother
| ic ipin hot bo
hammer and has had to give up engin
: business. Since injury have seen spreaC
Il er on this saw.
K The plaintiff produced much testimon
q to show that it was customary to place
''spreader" OF guard behind saws OF tn
character, and that when saws were Thu
% protected, accidents Of this kind cou
l. not occur. The defense produced lars
J. number of mill men who testified TIL
= they had not been in the habit of guar
, ing saws with spreaders, or of runnir
saws with this attachment upon theI
1t was also claimed that the accident w
~ not occasioned by the board having be,
thrown over the saw, but that Reed p
T. bis hand over the saw carelessly to pi
a. up silver or broken piece Of board th
,o was behind or beside the saw. The Ca
: was quite lengthy. In charging the ia
Judge Ross defined negligence as faiIu
1e to perform ones duty. The employ
r. owes certain duty to his employees.
so is to furnish them with suitable appliane
SIS to perform the duty required OF them, a
n Wv 30 ""N % ~
employees, to give them suitable instr
n' tions, and if there are any hidden dang,
u. he must acquaint the employees OF the
X. On the other hand, the employer nj
an use reasonable care and prudence, d