The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-08-07

Smith. accompanied by John Treadwell,
the late David Ravekes, then a member Of
the firm, and Jacob Sperb. porter, stepped
upon the elevator and assembled to the third
story Of the building occupied by Whittier
Fuller 81 Co., at the corner OF Pine and
Front streets. TO make some purchases.
Having concluded them all took the eieya-
tor to descend, and in less time than it
takes to tell of il were precipitated in a
heap nearly 30 feet below IN the basement.
AS soon as assistance reached them il was
discovered that Messrs Ravekes and Sperb
were slightly injured, Mir. Treadwell more
so and Mr.. Smith SO much so as to be abSO-
lutely helpless and In great agony. At the
time of the accident Mr.. Smith was an
active, healthy and vigorous young man,
with good business and every prospect OF
a successful and happy life. In less than a
moment be became physical wreck, and
has ever since been crippled and disabled
and VIII so continue while he lives. lie
sustained, besides fractures of the legs, a
very serious injury 70 his spine. In speak
ing of the matter on one occasion Mr..
Smith said: 81 participated In 81 general
engagements in tue late civil war. In Get
tysburg fought in the brigade that re-
sisted the principal and heaviest charge of
Piekeu's division and was wounded at
Antietam. | feel inexpressibly bad TO
think that l should survive these engage
ments only TO be MANNED and mutilated by
detective freight elevator"
He was iBcspacilated for business for
years. His once thriving and paying bust
ness was in consequence destroyed and he
was soon reduced 10 poverty and want,
coupled with intense physical suffering and
agony.
Alter a lapse of nearly two years, having
received no settlement from Whittier, ful-
Ter q Co. Smith commenced the suit in
question for damages. asking the sum Of
S1o0.000 From that date up TO the termina-
ton Of the suit most bitter warfare was
waged on both sides.
Whittier, Fuller & Co. then sued him for
about $500. This represented the amount
charged against his account for goods pur-
chased, to which was also added the m aeys
they paid him for medicine, stimulants and
bedding procured and other matters.
The following shows the course of the
case in The courts: December 10, IsS0-Suit
commenced. August G, 1SS2-CaSe stricken
from the calendar 10 be restored on notice.
November u, 1SS4-Same proceeding re-
newed. September p. 1SSS-TTial COM
menced and lasted - actual days, Smith
being represented by K. II. Lloyd ana John
CARRIER and Whittier, Fuller " Co by ID.
NJ. Demas and 4. O. Booth. October g.
16SS-Judgment was rendered in favor of
Smith for $4,000 and costs. October g.
16S9-Appeal taken 10 the Supreme Court
from the Judgment. April %, IS90-Motion
for new trial denied. May %, 1s92-Argued
in Supreme Court March 3, IS92-Finally
submitted for consideration aud decision.
july Il, 1S92-The Supreme Court affirmed
judgment of the lower court for damages,
costs aud interest.
Ii viii thus be seen that this case was
pending for nearly IL years in consequence
of various LEGAL eomplica tons. John Tread
well, who was injured at the same lime,
though not so seriously as Smith. secured
judgment amounting to S13647 II, which
was paid 10 him on October 9, 1889.
Mir Smith was so elated at his success
that he had the check, which was drawn in
his favor by Whittier, Fuller 81 Co. to pay
the judgment. photographed and is present
Ing copies Of the same to his friends. over
the desk in his office in neat frame OF an
tque oak hangs one Of these photographs
The amount of this judgment has attracted
considerable attention throughout the
United States. 1t amounts in ali, including
costs and interest. 10 SIS, sos 81. 1t is one
of the largest, without exception, ever paid
IN the United states Tor damages awarded
for personal injuries
The issue tina: an elevator is a common
carrier was raised in this suit for the first
time in the United States. After vigorous
legal fight it was decided that an elevator
is common carrier" and has so beenisus-
tanned by our Supreme Court.
The suit that was brought by Whittier.
Fuller IL Co. against Smith was prosecuted
and won by them. This Judgment they re-
newed from time to time. until about three
months since, when it was figured I'D and
found to amount in all TO S5607 a. This
ambUHb WAS utuuCttu IIOiH the ETSL eneeK
sent by Whittier, Fuller 81 Co. to pay
Smiths judgment. The reduction, how
ever. was not allowed. Bv an oversight-a
very costly one-Messrs. Whittier. Fuller 81
Co. bad neglected in time 10 renew the
judgment dnQ AS consequence ii outlawed
about three months ago. Smiths Judgment
was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Mr.
Smith now takes advantage of his rights
under the statute CT limitations and refuses
to pay the judgment which the firm reeoy-
ered against him.
1t is said that the Fuller estate will refuse
to bear its proportion of the S5607 81 iudg-
mens against Smith. and possibly will refuse
10 stand its proportion Of the entire Smith
judgment as well.
David Ravekes, being a member OF the
hrm, had no redress in the way of damages.
and Jacob Speru, the porter. who was hurt
at the same time. compromised his case a
year ago for $500. The accident has cost
the firm about S65, 600.