Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1893-02-23


fingers became eutanglcd in the planer.
The defence had shown that the pony
planer was a perfectly safe machine and
safe for anyone of ordinary caretulness to
operate. Mr.. Nandegrift, in conclusion,
asked the jury not to be influenced by the
fact that the plaintiff was injured and
manned for life, which was a most UNI
fortunate affair but to take into consdera-
ton the evidence in the case and render a
verdict accordingly.
MIR. Bradford of counsel for the defence,
then began addressing the court on the
points OF law in the case, during which he
had occasion to refer to 81 case in which
the person injured was young girl who
got caught in some machinery. While
Mr.. Bradford was reading portion of the
courts charge in the case Mr.. Harrington,
for the plaintiff, took occasion To remind
the Learned counsel on the other side
that "the girl recovered 5000 for her in
jurlcs, when Chief Justice Robinson re.
marked THAT has nothing to do with
the law in the case Mr.. Harrington ad-
mittcd that it had not
Mr.. Bradford claimed that the plaintiff
was the only person injured by the ma
chine, although il had been shown that
fully 100 persons had operated the planer
without injury. Several planners were III
use in the Philadelphia House of Refuge
and no accident had been reported incl
dent to the operation ofthe machines there.
At ll.5O o'clock Mr.. Harrington began
his concluding argument to the jury on
part Of the defence, lie began by saying
that he did not ask for verdict Of sym
rathy in the case, and thar he would not
ask a cent for sympathy. He was willing
TO rest upon the. merits Of the case, and if
the Jury could not find verdict
as result of the damages, he
would ask for no verdict Of sympathy. As
to the planer, Mr.. Harrington did not CON
tend that it was necessarily dangerous
machine when properly operated, but he
did contend that the manner in which
Mr.. Clylucr instructed the plaintiff to
operate the planer in reaching over the
knives was most dangerous operation
and il was in this manner the plaintiff
was injured.
Court adjourned at 10 o'clock until go
p. NJ.
III superior court, Monday afternoon,
Chief Justice Robinson charged the jury
in he case OF Adams VS.. Clymer action
for damages. He clearly reviewed the cir
cumstanCes of the case and quoted from
the testimony OF witnesses on either side.
Adams, in his testimony, stated that he
told Jacob H. Clymer hat he had no cX-
pcricnce with machinery, while Jacob I.
Clymer testified that Adams had told him
he had had experience. Adams claimed
that his hand was caught i'll operating the
DlHCnliltt Wllllt, according To lllt testimony
Of loguc, Adams was looking out Vi the
window at some passing girls when the
accident occurred. Tie Chief Justice
dwelt upon the relation Of master and ser
want ana stated that the master must pro-
vide a reasonably safe place for the servant
to work in, and the master should see thai
the servant has had sufficient experience
To enable him to operate the machinery in
his charge. The case was one for the Jury
to decide and upon them rested the resi- pom
| sibility in the matter. The jury retired at
3u5 O'clock and ut 3.ij returned With YER
/ diet for the defendant.
III the case of George Seymour vs. Geb
| hart DIETRICH, William ). llilleS, counsel
| for the defence, stated that OWING to the
| present condition of the roads, the sheriff
| was unable to summon the witnesses IN
| the case. 4 rostponement was granted
| until Wednesday.
Court adjourned at $50 O'Clock until 10
| O'Clock, Tuesday morning.
When superior court convened Tuesday
! morning, u Jury was drawn to try the case
| of George seymour VS.. Gebhardt DIETRICH,
action IN rcplevin brought by the plaintiff
to determine the ownership Of bay mare
| and colt. seymour is miller in Christana
| hundred. while DIETRICH is a farmer in the
same neighborhood. Liburne Chandler
appeared for the plaintiff and William s.
Hilles for the defence.
In April, lSDl according to the allega.
ton Of the plaintiff, ne had a mare for
sale and DIETRICH came to see ii. He subse.
quently agreed to buy the animal for $50
cash, or give note with approved security
| provided the mare proved satisfactory. Mr..
Seymour allowed DIETRICH to take the
mare a week OH trial, and in the meantime
y young colt was born. DIETRICH declined
to pay for the animal or allow MIR. Sey.
mour to have the mare and her offspring.
Mr.. seymour then took out "A writ Of re-
pleyin on which the sheriff seized the
mare and colt and returned them to the
owner.
George Seymour, the plaintiff, testified
that he lived ut the hillside mills in
Christiana hundred. lie said he did moi
tell DIETRICH the mare was sound, but told
him he might have her week on trial
and if not satisfactory the animal NIGH
be returned, Witness offered to let DGtt
rich have the mare on a six months not
with approved eudOrscr. DIETRICH agreed
to accept the terms and took the mar,
away. In few days DIETRICH declined t.
give Il note for the mare, but offered Il Gov
and two calves as security. which witness
refused to accept, The mare was subse
quently repleyined.
George Murray corrohorated the previou
witness.
William Jarvis testified that he sold thu
, property 10 seymour.
Mrs. seymour testified that when sh
went to see DIETRICH about giving SOM
security TO her husband, DIETRICH rcplict
that he had the mare and intcndcd to keel
{ her. Mrs. Murray testified that she wa
present at the conversation between Mrs
Seymour and DIETRICH.
Charles II. Simmons, deputy sheriff
. testified that he replevned the bay mar
and colt and returned them to seymour
The plaintitf here rested.
Mr.. llIltes said the defence Contende
that the sale was not a conditional one
i that the plaintiff had promised and di
+ sell the mare to DIETRICH on Il SIX months
, note,
{ Mr. IIilIes called the defendant to III
stand, who testified that his understand
Ing with seymour vas that he Was To hay
l the mare on u SIX months note, which Il
c gave To seymour.
I. seymour then came to DIETRICH an
: stated that lac wanted additional security
1 whereHpOn DIETRICH agreed to Civ
i seymour note for five months and Il 90,
g and twO heilcrs. Seymour would not agre
!. to this proposition. MIR. Chandler tie
ook the witness and the first question Ii
: asked Him was
c 'DcttriCh, where lid you get the good
/, you Ind u Jimmy AllCorn's Barn n
o Mr.. Hil!cs was upon his feet in an il
slant ana objected TO the question, BIT
c subsequently allowed the examination t
/ proceed,
4 Chief Justice Robinson cautioned tb
d witness that he need not answer any que
tiOns that would tend to eliminate himsel
a The witness then said he moved the thinl
l. to Allcurn's barn
c Mr.. Chandler desired to know whethe
e or not the witness had taken hay an
fodder from susan Pierce's barn ana sol
|. it to gypsies.
n Mr.. llillcs again objected to the que!
i ton, and again the court cautioned iii