The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1892-10-25
THIRD EDITION.



THE WORTH OF A HUSBAND.
mrs. Harbins Awarded $1,000 Dana
ses in the United States Coart
The case OF Mrs. Maggie Harkins va.
The Pullman Palace Car Company to
recover damages for the death Of her
husband, was again taken up in the
United States Court, before Judge
Wales, yesterday, The plaintiff was
represented by Levi Q. Bird and An
drew E. Sanborn, and the Defendant
company by George Ii. Bates of tn is
city, and John S. Runnells OF Chicago,
the general counsel for the Pullman
Company.
The case was first brought in the Su.
perior Court OF tue state OF Delaware
in and for New Castle county and was
thence transferred to the United States
Circuit Court for the District of Della
ware, upon the application OF the
defendant, the Pullman Palace Car
Company, 1t being foreign corpora.
ton Incorporated under the laws OF
the stale of Illinois, and us such,
under tho provisions of the law oil Tie
United States entitled to have the case
removed.
The facts were that Michel Harkins,
native of Ireland, having been in
this country only about seven years,
and being entirely ignorant and mex.
perienced In the use and operation Of
machinery, was employed 10y the Pull
man Palace car Company as com.
mon laborer about the LIST OF ,ianu-
airy, 1891, and was killed on the eighth
day of the same month by having his
clothing caught by the end of re-
volvlng shaft at the Pullman car shops
In this city.
He was first put to scrubbing. or
pumice-stoning the sides OF the cars,
at which he worked for six days. On
the afternoon OF January Z, he was or.
dered with u gang of men to move
some heavy ioists into Que of the de.
fendants' shops. The next morning
he was set to work with three others,
to raise one of these heavy joists,
about 20 feet long, and llx3 inches, tC
Aplace on the second floor.
10 do so 1t became necessary to as
cend u ladder and stand upon n rail
road track upon girler near the side
OF tho building about fourteen feet
from the ground.
While the men were standing upor
this glrder. and were eudeayoring tC
place the ioist In its proper position
Z sARrkinS' clothing was caught by the
end of II piece Of slIafting IN rapid mo
ton, and was hurled over the shaf
and almost Instantly killed No warn
ing OF any kind was given him OF hi!
proximity to the shafting.
1t was claimed by the plaintiff tina
the defendant was guilty Of gross
negligence in not stopping tho ma
chinery, while the work was going on
and also In not warning Harkins o
the danger.
The defendant claimed that Harkin
WINS guilty OF contributory negligence
iE not having seen the shaft or hear,
The noise made 10y II and In not guard
ing himself against contact with it.
The charge was delivered by Judg
Wales. who said that the relation o
master and servant existed bctwee
Michuel Hariins and the dcIendan
company.
That one of the primary duties resi-
ing upon the defendant as master wa
10 provide for its servant teusonabl
safe place in which to work, and thG
this being primary duty devolvn
upon the muster could not be delega
ed by 1t to any servant or agent. hin
or low, so as to relieve it from respoI
sibillty for Its negligent npn.pe
foImance.
The opinion held that Michael IIa
kins, the plaintiffs interstate. havin
been proved to he a man inexpeI
eneed and ignorant OF the danger COT
nected with the use and operation
machinery, 1t was the duty of the d
fandant either to have boxed or pre-
tected the shaftinE or to have stoppe
The machinery, Or warned and instruc
ed the plaintiffs intestate as to u
danger OF coming in contact with I'll
Bhaftng, or to have adopted such re
sonable precautions as REASONABLE
prudent man would have adopted al
der the particular circumstances
the case. to prevent the accident.
The court held further that the ma
Ter and servant do not stand upon I'll
same footing with respect to the
dangers which may be avoided by Il
master by the exercise of reasonat
care and prudence. The court left
TO the Jury to say whether, under
the evidence iii the case, the deiendn
was guilty OF negligence, and whctll
the plaintiffs intestate was guilty
cOntrbutury negligence.
The delivery OF the charge consun
ed about one hour and twenty mi
utes, the Jury retiring about o 'clnC
After being out twenty minutes TIN
returned with a verdict Of $1,000 III
Vol OF tho plaintiff,
This case was hotly contested
both sides, and the result is regard
as great victory lot the plaintiff
ing nearly the entire amount elaine