The new North-west., 1888-04-20
KELLEY VS.. THE CABLE COMPANY.
An Important Suit for Damages by Accident

The most important civil case SO far tried
at the present term of tho District Court has
been that Of William Kelley against the
Cable mining company. The action was
brought to recover damages in the sum Of
$50, 200 for personal injuries sustained by the
plaintiff while working as . carman In the
defendants mine. The cause was tried at .
previous term of this Court in which there
was judgment for the defendant, but the
judgment was reversed by the Supreme
Court Of the Territory on account of conflict.
ing instructions given to the jury and the
case remanded for new trial.
The facts as we get them from the record
of the Supreme Court and the evidence are
that ON or about the 18th day of July, 1884,
the plaintiff was employed by defendant and
in its service in its mine, as common labor
or, removing ores and dirt, filing the cars
with the same and running such cars, and
that the plaintiff was then and there at work
in said mine; and that the plaintiff, at the
said mine, was ordered by the defendants
foreman, then and there in charge of said
mine, and under whose control and direction
the plaintiff was bound to work, to 60 to
work in a certain cross-cut in said mine at
the work aforesaid; and that the plaintiff, in
obedience to such orders, went to work as
ordered to do, and while at work therein
that he was injured by an explosion without
any fault on his part, and that, previous to
the explosion, the plaintiff did not know,
and had no means of knowing, whether or
not there were at said place charges not shot
of, and could not have discovered the fact
owoau% hv Ioin n ~ inf nj khoroof
It appears from the evidence that it was
the plaintiffs duty to shovel and load into
the cars the rock add debris blasted by the
miners, and to transport the same to the mill
and the dump; and further, that the plaintiff
worked on the night shift, and the miners
who did the blasting worked on the day
shift, the plaintiff and others being required
to remove, during the night, the ores, etc,
which the miners had broken down and
blasted during the day; and further, that
while the plaintiff was at work during the
night of the 10th of July. 1884, an explosion
occurred in the cross. s.cut where he was work
ing which resulted in the plaintiff receiving
very severe injuries, both of his eyes being
injured so that he became blind, his head,
face, neck and chest lacerated and his hear
ing destroyed in one ear; that the plaintiff,
under orders, went to work at o'clock p. m.
one hour after the miners on the day shift
had quit work. The blast had been fred at
about o'clock in the afternoon. The plain
tiff was working at the .cross-cut as directed.
where he had been working the night be-
fore; and during the night, between II and
o'clock, while he was loosening rock and
debris with his pick the explosion took place,
and he was hurled eight or ten feet against
ear and was rendered senseless for some time,
and injured as already stated No warning
had been given the plaintiff of any danger
existing in the place where he was sent to
work, from ''missed charge" or otherwise.
On previous occasions he had been warned
by the foreman to look out for "missed
charges" The foreman, under instructions
from the Superintendent, had always made
it his business to examine whether or not all
the charges in the blasts had been fred, and
when any had missed had been particularly
careful to warn the plaintiff and others to
look out for these "missed charges"
1t is disputed question whether the ex-
plosion was caused by charge of powder
left in hole unexploded, or piece of loose
powder which had been accidentally dropped
or otherwise misplaced or thrown out by a
blast and then exploded by plaintiffs pick
among the ore and debris. On this question
vast amount of additional testimony was
given by both sides on the trial at the pres
ent term.
The plaintiff claimed that it was the fault
of the defendant in that the foreman and the
| day shift did not notify him when he went
to work of the 'missed charge" which he
alleges was there and struck by him. The
defendant claimed that the injuries we're the