Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1894-06-07

on top the stringers putting the belt on.
On one occasion when Chielinsky was
getting down from the machine Helmsley |
Wilson was just coming in the door. |
lie did not reprimand Chiclinsky for |
going up to put on the belt, the witness |
said. The witness never knew of any |
verbal or written notice to tho boys not |
to put tho belt on, although there were
written instructions not TO clean the
machinery while in notion.
Court adjourned to 10 o'clock, Mon
day morning.
In the superior court on Monday a
jury was drawn to Try the damage suit
of Benjamin Mills vs.. the Wilmington
City Railway Co. William S. Hilles
represents the plaintiff and Willard
salisbury the defendant company. The
following jury will try the case: J. H.
llossinger, William Miller, j. Frank
Reybold, Charles Walton, Thomas l..
j. Baldwin, John Nevin, Frederick G.
Sutton, w. II. Danzenbaker, John II.
Hartman, John q. Mahoney, George II.
Cleaver, John Hamilton.
The damage suit of Herman Chielin-
sky VS.. the Hopes d Townsend Co.,
for $4,000 for the loss of an arm, was
resumed at 1890 o'clock. Mr.. Bird
called Augustus N. Southland, engineer
at the city mills. He said that shatting
in motion was dangerous.
Are the dangers connected with
shafting obvious or are they latent, in
volving certain degree of risk2" MIR.
Bird asked.
Mr.. Spruance objected to testimony
of this character, on the ground that it
was . mere psychological question
which the witness was not expected to
answer.
Mr.. Bird stated that Southland had
been called as an expert, and that the
testimony was competent. The court
ruled that it was a matter for the jury
and the witness replied that there were
certain dangers incident to the operation
of shafting which were not obvious to
the average workman.
A. V. Hysore, whose experience as
millwright covered a period of over 20
years, and Charles Heinel, who learned
his trade in Germany, and has an ex-
perience of 35 years, testified to the
danger of shafting while in motion. The
witnesses were not cross-examlned.
Walter Applegate, boy of 10 years,
testified that he was employed by the
defendant before Chielinsky was in
jured and saw the belts fly off almost
daily. When Mr.. Bird turned the wit
ness over to the defence, MIR. Spruance
asked him:
"Walter, why did you leave the
Hopes d. Townsend Co. ?"
81 was flred," was the frank reply.
The witness answered the question
before Mr.. Bird got a chance to object.
He contended that the cause of the boys
discharge had no relevancy to the case.
Mr.. Spruance held that if he could
show an animus on the part of the
boy toward the defendant company the
matter of his discharge would be ma
terial.
Mr.. Spruance then asked that the boy
be allowed TO leave the court room
while the question of the admissibllity
of the evidence was being argued.
"Now," said Mr. Bird, approaching
counsel for the defence after the boy
had withdrawn to the grand jury room,
"what would be the objection to the
jury Withdrawing to the judges
parlur?" A ripple of laughter followed
this little bit of pleasantly.
Mrs. Chielinsky, mother of the
plaintiff, swore that her son had no
means of support since he met with the
accident and that the boys father was
without real and personal property or
other means of subsistence.
A tilt between counsel ensued at this
juncture over tho production Of q Ger.
tain paper.
Mr.. Bird stated that he had given Mr.,
Spruance notice to produce the paper
| u L. L., % L. .
be heard upon his reasons for asking
for il.
Mr.. Spruance drew from his pocket q
letter and began: "lf it Nease youl
honors--"
"The court has seen the letter." inter
rupted Mr.. Bird.
Mr.. Spruance-( Handing the letter tc
the court.) "Well, l want them to see il
again"
"The notice." went on Mr.. Spruance
"does not state what is wanted, sub
NIT that if this matter is to be argued
the jury should retire."
Mr. Bird thought it enough to try the
case with the jury in the box. "rher,
is testimony before YOU" he continued
"that this company was negligent-nt
doubt about it. Unless that neglgenc,
is dissolved the defendant is liable, j
the jury believes the testimony. l wan
to see that paper TO sec how far th,
|, defendant wes relieved from liability
to what extent; because il they wer
, entirely relieved they don't care hoy
/ far they were negligent"
"If it please your honor" interrupted
Mr.. Spruance again, "before this goe
any further think the jury should
, withdraw"
Mr.. Bird-"On what ground"
i Mr.. Spruance-"On the ground tina
it is calculated to prejudice the mind
Y of the jury"
. The jury was conducted to an ante
q room by Baiiif Raney.
q Court took u recess until $50 O'Clock
v The defence had its innings in tn
3 suit of Chiclinsky in the afternoon
The plaintiff rested its case shortl
s before adjournment for tho noon hou
4 was taken, and then Mr.. Spruanc
called Albert D. Marks TO the stanc
l. The latter is employed in the capacit
!, of time-keeper by the defendant con
o pany. He testified that he had trequeu
occasion to enter the nutting room
r where the plaintiff WIS employed, bu
e during his visits he never saw the be
N thrown off by the shafting. He wa
asked by Mr.. SpruaLce whether or nc
+ the plaintiff was continued on the pay
0 roll of the company subsequent to til
n accident and Up to May, 1898.
q Mr.. Bird objected to the question o
e the ground OF immaterialties and tn
n court sustained the objection. M
I. Spruance noted an exception but b
L got the testimony in few minutes late
IS however, by asking the question in