Evening journal., 1893-02-20
STRONG TALK IN COURT.
Bradford, Vandegrift and Har-
rington Argue All Morning.
END OF THE ADAMs-oLYMER CASE

Attorney Bradford Contends That the
PIaintiT Was Lazy and CaIeless-At-
tornev Harrington Says That II He Was,
He should Have Been Fired" Long Bo-
fore His Right Hand Was Torn on In
Such a Machine.
When the Superior Court reconvened
this morning, Bradford q Nandegrift
resumed their closing arguments before
the Jury in the case of Adams VS..
Clymer. In this case the plaintiff sues
for damages for the loss of his right
hand, while in the employ Of the de-
fendant, $4,000 being the sum de-
manded
Mr. vandegrift concluded his unfn-
ished argument to the jury, talking for
fifteen minutes He said that the evil
dence produced by the plaintiff, TO the
effect that the machine was a regular
imam eater, had been so expressly con-
tradicted and counterbalanced that the
original testimony had no weight in the
case whatever.
Laziness and Carelessness.
Mr.. Bradford began his argument by
citing, TO the court, dozen cases where
minors have sought to recover on similar
grounds and failed In his address TO
the jury, he said
"The defendants treated this youth
with good deal of consideration. They
found that he was lazy and careless
that they wanted TO get rid of him; that
they sent him away because of his lazi-
ness. He cane back, saying that he was
the only one In the family employed and
he was taken back. From time to time
he was warned to be careful. He was
kept at work until the morning
in question. That very morning he was
cautioned twice by Mr. Richard Burton
SO that, on the eve of the accident, this
youth. who admits that he knew what
danger there was in the machine, had hi
attention called to the risk he was run
ming by carelessness.
Every Employer Liable.
"Now, gentlemen. is it possible that
you intend, upon this flmsy evidence for
the plaintiff, to establish precedent by
which every manufacturer, every busi-
ness man, every farmer who uses ma
chinery-whether run by power or not
will be held responsible for any accident
that befalls a careless workman. l can
not conceive of a more unjustihable de
mand than that made in the case O.
Adams VS.. Clymer
MIR. Harrington Wakes Warm.
It was II 40 when defendants counsel
Austin Harrington, began his argumen
to the Jury He declared that IL was no
sympathy that caused him TO come befor
a court of justice and twelve responsible
citizens with boy who has had hi
right hand torn of. IL was solel
Justice; what the law allows; and no
sympathy that was wanted. Mr. Har
| rington became warmly interested. II
said This defendant had no right
! after putting this boy Of 10 years a
/ SO. so per week TO do the $l2 and 81
work which men Of skill and experienc
are usua ly required to do, TO come her
d and say that he was lazy. Nov
! you cannot judge as to tn
: nature or extent Of his work
We have proven that he was pushed be
4 yond measure; that the cautions he wa
continually receiving were that If b
: didn't hurry up" he would have TO qui
, the place. You haven't got the frs
I iota Of evidence that the Clymers eve
q gave the boy any encouragement. No
/ what did he care all be would do was
' rush the boy continually. making hiI
+. do a mans work, and be dld it; he did il
4 Expert Testimony Shows It,"
[ These men who have sworn TO you tbs
. this machine was dangerous aud. upo
& no ndition would they put their me
h to work a pony planer in this way. tha
q it surely meant doctors bill, had n
K interest in this case. Indeed we ha
!. hard time to get them here for the
v have charge of hundreds Of men VIII
d themselves have to be carefully guarde
4 and instructed They would not perm
q an experienced man to work pom!
D. planer this way. Now is there shop
Is the world where any employer has I'll
right to put an employe to work at
Ie machine where there is not momeI
IS allowed for the natural inclinations (
human nature.
II "Can you permit gentlemen, your oatl
TO be thwarted by my learned frien'
d coming TO you and charge me first wit
sympathy and then say that you, you
q. selves, may be sued if you bring in
r verdict for the plaintiffs No; am ful
L. content that this legal oratory will n
le influence you in your finding.
at The Jury was discharged until
re o'clock this afternoon when the cou
al will charge it, Light damages, it
thought, will be awarded the plaintiff.