The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1893-02-21
THE ADAMS CASE FINISHED,
Tine Jury Render q Verdict for tho
Dsfendant--Au Important aud If
!. isrs.siinr CasH.


tcresting Case.
AZ soon as court convened yesterday
tho jury in the case VI
Adams vs.. Clymer were charged by
Chief Justice Robinson. He reviewed.
the testimony on both sides. and said
that 1T was evident thnt the relation OF
aud servant existed between
the plaintiff and Defendant, therefore
the latter must he held responsible for
that might happen to Ills
servant by defective machinery. But
in this case II has been shown tnat the
machine was In good order, and il Is
ALEC claimed that the plaintir was
guilty OF conirihutoiy neg iigence, by
not paying etrlct attention to his
work.
Another question Is. was the planer
safe machue2 Therb has been great
deal OF conflicting testimony on this
point. but IT. Is certain that IL anyone
would put "a child OF sever. years OF
age to work on one, he would certaiu-
ly t,e guilty OF gross negligence. This
being the case, the question arises.
was 1t safe to put u l6.year Old boy TO
work ON 1t? IL this is 80. ana that, as
has been ciuimed. the plaintiff was
guilty Of contributory nealigence, the
verdict MUST he for the defendant. rs
the plaintiff Is not entitled to reeoS or
for the consequences OF his own act.
But IL on the other hand, the Jury
should believe from tho testimony
that the machine was dangerous, or
that the defendant or his agent in
struoted the plaintiff to operate 1t in a
dangerous manner, then tine defendant
is liable. AMI the verdict must be for
the plaintiff. He closed by citing the
prayers Of the attorneys on which he
was asked to charge, after which THE
jury retired Mt o'clock.
The jury were out Is minutes. when
they returned with verdict In favor
Of the defendant.
This was not only an interesting but
an important case, as 1t fully settles
the relations of manufacturers and
thoir employees. The case may be
briefly stated as follows; The plaintiff,
Lewis q. Adams, who at the time was
but 10 years old, engaged to work for
the defendant, and it was alleged that
when he was asked, stated that he had
worked on pony planer in another
establishment. IL was also alleged by
the plaintiff that jacob c. Clymer. the
uperintendenr. had instructed the
plaintiff to work the planer in Il dan.
gerous manner, by reaching over for
the pieces that had passed through,
instead OF walking around the ma.
chine. But ON the other hand the de-
PENDANT produced several witnesses to
show that they had worked on ma.
chimes of this nature and that they
always reached over for the work, as 1t
was safer than walking around by the
belt.
The defendant also sho wed that ma
chimes of this nature were frequently
run by l6.year old boys, and furth er,
that at least 1850 men and boys, rang
ing in age from 90 down to 10 years of
age, had worked on this machine in
his shop, and that this was the first
and only accident that ever occurred.
1t was in evidence, that when the
accident occurred, Adams was look ing
out the window at some girls on the
street, and reaching over tho top Of
the machine at the same time.
These were tho main facts OF the
case, which WAS ably contested by ex.
| Mayor Austin harrington for the
/ plaintiff, with Il. G.. Bradford and l.. G.
| Nandegrift for the defendant. Before
half the testimony Tor the defendant
was In, it was evident to the careful
observer that the chances for the plain.
tiff were growing less AMI less. MIR.
Harrington probably saw this HIM
self, as he cross examined the defen-
dant's witnesses in Il mercilesS man.
ner. He however reserved his great
est effort for the closing argument to
the jury. when he mude It's best, most
forcible and eloquent plea that he evel
presented to jury, and proved Ills
right to rank with the leading orators
of the New Castle county bar.
Messrs. Bradford and Nandegrift
conducted their side OF the case In the
NEST able manner. and the charge oil
Chief Justice Robinson was remarka'
BILE for It's ciearness and strict impair
TALLY, which left no doubt IN the
minds Of the jurors in reference &c
the law. There was, however, sym
patty among the jurors for Adams, as
he is hopeless cripple for life. This
feeling caused the first ballot to stant
10 for the defendant and for tn,
plaintiff. Another ballot was taker
which resulted In II for the defendan
and for the plaintiff.
The twelfth juror then came to tn,
same conclusion as the others. tina
they were sworn to give a verdict II
accordance with the law and the testl
mony, and consequently whom tht
third ballot was taken 1t resulted In
verdict for the defendant. This will
not only deprive the plaintiff OF re
ceiyinR cent for damages, but will
also place upon him the costs or tn
cuse.
1t was reported that some time ago
MIR. Clymer offered the plaintiff larg
sum OF money to settle the case with
out siit but when he was aske
ABOUT 1t. he denied 1t, and said tina
under the circumstances by whic
Adams was injured, he did not fee
that he was called upon to pay him
cent
The result is of the greatest interes
to manufacturers who use machinery
as 1t Establishes the fact that where a
employe is injured through his ow
carolessness, in not strictly attendin
to his work, he cannot recover.
leading manufacturer who had after
lively watched the case from the con
mencement said after the verdict Wa
rendered that he had fully made u
L his mind had the result been dif1erer
to arrange to close his business 80 thu
i he would be free from yeNatious la
+ suits br ought without cause.