Evening journal., 1894-06-01
MERE QUESTION OF CUSTOM.
HEARING OF TESTIMONY DELAYED
BY LENGTHY ARGUMENT.

No Witnesses Heard Since Mr.. spruauce
Objected Yesterday-AIr. Bird Must
Connue His Questions as 10 Custom
to the Time the witness Was En-
ployed.
When court took noon recess yester
day Mr. Spruance had objected to a
question propounded by Mr.. Bird to the
10 year-old plaintiff in the case Of Her
man Chielinsky VS.. the Hopes and Town.
send Company. Toe question was whether
Herman had ever been warned Of the
dangerous character of revolving shafts
When court recOnvened at . 30 o'clock
argument on this objection was resumed.
and, at its conclusion Mr.. Bird withdrew
bis question, but later in the examina-
tion the boy ssid he had never been
warned. He said that on the trst afternoon
he worked for the company the belt
which ran his machine came of the
puleys He got upon girder and by
lying fat on the beam was able to replace
the belt. just as he had seen other boys
do. He operated a machine for screwing
nuts on bolts
On the day he was hurt he was run
ming a machine which vas ordinarily
worked by q colored man named Wilson
He was putting on the belt when the
set screw Of the pulley caught his shirt
sleeve, and, as a consequence, his arm
was drawn in, and was so badly crushed
that amputation was necessary by DR.. j.
P Pyle.
Under cross examination by Mr.. Spru
ance the boy said that Boss Wilson told
him not to put the belt on until another
boy named VIII lam Brown showed him
how to do it. The boy denied that he
said a few minutes after the accident
that he was not careful in replacing the
belt
Robert Marks presented a model of the
pulleys and explained it TO the court and
jury.
William Brown, a colored boy, testified
that the belt of his machine often came
off and he put IL on by climbing to the
girders and catching it When Mr.. Bird
asked him If he had ever been warned
Of the danger from revolving shafts. Mr.
/ Spruance again objected, an argument
and citation of authorities on the objec-
tion lasted until 30 oclock when court
Adjourned.
This morning, by a vote of z to g. the
| jury decided to hear the case to morrow
instead of going home
Mr. Bird then resumed his argument
for the admission Of testimony going to
show the custom of the shops as to re
placing belts which had slipped from the
pulleys. He produced authorities iu
support of the admissibiltY of the testi
mony. in which the court ruled that tn,
custom Of a company was admissible.
In reply to this Mr. Spruance said thai
the testimony was not competent anC
that the custom" should not be allowe,
to 60 in by the court He said that Mr.
Bind could call it "custom" if he wante,
to. but it would bs preposterous for tn
plaintiff to attempt to prove "custom
throughout the whole establishment
while he was in chat littl
room. 1.-THE object Of all this /
TO divert the mind of the jury from tn
true question, said Mr. Spruance, Fan
to smear il all over with matters of
long antecedent period and get into thei
minds the idea that this company wa
reckless as to the safety Of their EN-
ployes
The question was argued untill12. sc
when the court ruled that whateve
could be proven as to custom during th
time he was there, whether by order Q
by permission, was admissible, but be
: yOnd that it was not.
Court then took recess until 3 30.