Bridgeton pioneer., 1893-05-11

any demand upon him for money. Mr..
Shoemaker also detailed a converse
ton with Paxton shortly after the ao-
cident. This conversation did not
differ materially from that Mr.. Paxton
had given In his testimony. Mr.. Shoe
maker said that he did not know any
body concerning the oil plant. In an
swer to question Mr. Shoemaker said
he did not remember having said 'If
l had been thee I shouldn't have let
Paxton gone in the house, "a it was
dangerous"
Casper r Ware testified that he
made the diagram of the tank build
ings.
Samuel M. Bassett said he was a
director In the company, and mana
ger of the works. He hired Henry
Earle as night engineer, and had told
him whenever there was anything
wrong to send the night watchman for
him. Mr.. Bassett said he had never
given the engineer instructions to send
for anyone else. Mr.. Bassetts testi-
mony was not shaken upon cross ex-
animation.
o.. Frank Cox, stockholder in the
Cox Sons Company was called, and
produced the books of the firm, show
ing contracts such as has been made
by the Cumberland Glass Company.
The books showed that Paxton's
wages were now the same as before
the accident.
The defense then rested, and Mr..
Paxton was put upon the etand In re-
buttal. He said that Mr.. Shoemaker
had said to him the night he was hurt,
In the presence of several persons that
had he been there he would not have
allowed Paxton to enter the building,
for he knew it to be dangerous.
Col. Potter objected and asked that
1t be stricken out, but it had already
reached the ears of the jury.
This ended the case. It was half.
past four, and Judge Reed said that
he would adjourn Court until morn
ing, so that the argument of the coun-
sci might reach the ears of the jury.
THURSDAY MORNING.
After the usual formal opening of
Court, Judge Westcott by request of
Col. Potter, stated the law as he un-
derstood 1t, upon which he would
argue the facts as presented by the
evidence. He held that the defendant
company was responsible for maintain-
Ing the dangerous tank house; because
the company accepted the services of
Paxton and paid for them to his en-
ployers.
Col. Potter then began lengthy
and exhaustive argument in defense of
his clients. He addressed the Court
upon the proposition of law. He
claimed that the plaintiff must prove
three things.
First, the occurrence of the accident;
second, the injury to the plaintiff;
third, that there was neglect of duty
owed to the plaintiff by the defendant
company. He argued at length that
Paxton must have been trespasser
or licensee, and that Paxton come to
the works without authority from the
company. Earl, the engineer, the
Colonel claimed, was not an authora.
tive agent of the company. In fact
the undisputed testimony as that
Earl was strictly informed that should
any trouble occur, he must send for
either Mr.. Basset or Mr.. Shoemaker,
the managing directors. The Colonel
denied that the pay for Paxton's SER
vices bound the defendant company,
and then further denied that there
was no evidence to show that the SER
vices of Paxton had ever been paid
for.
For the purpose of argument, the
Colonel then admitted that the com.
pany did bring Paxton to the work,
and that after he came there at the re-
quest of Earl, he was the fellow SER
want Earl and 1t was the negligence
of Earl that caused the accident from
which resulted the injury. The speaker
was careful to say, however, that he
denied that Paxton was brought there
by the company, or was in fact a fellow
servant of Earl.
Very plainly and conclusively the
Colonel showed, as he claims, the con-
tributory negligence furnished by
Paxton himself. He argued the con-
clusion was irresistable, that Paxton
must have known the danger of crude
petroleum coming into contact with
fame and yet he goes into that tank
house with lighted lantern, finds a
valve and then turning the
valve thereby increasing the leak is
Injured by anlexplosion which follows,
and now asks for damages. It must
have been he knew! his danger, and
I'll