Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1895-03-18
THE EVIDENCE is ALL IN
The Counsel In the Huber
Damage Suit Rest Their Case.
THEIJURY WILL NOW BE VICTIMS


ming Up the Afternoon.
The suit for SEQ 900 damages brought |
by Martin O Huber against the Jackson |
and sharp Company for the loss of his
baud. was resumed this morning In
Superior Court. and a very large audience
was present, drawn by curiosity mainly.
Francis M. Barney. wood worker for
eighteen years In the Jackson & Sharp
Company employ, was the FIRST witness
He said he had warned Huber OF his
carelessness on the day OF the accident.
Allan Smith, q stakeholder In the
company, bad been wood worker hfty
four years, thirty-two Of which were
spent in the employ Of Jackson aud
Sharp Company. He never had any
difficulty la turning out good work.
Willism 7. Morris, an accident insur.
aDcs agent, said he called on Mr.. Huber
after the accident. He sympsthizsd with
him and asked him II be intended bring
said be had no claim against the
company as 1t wasn't its fault
Witness suggested that the company
| might give him a wAtchman's berth, but
| Huber said he couldn't hold n revolver.
Witness then urged Huber to throw him
self on the generosity Of the company.
Mr. Bird cross examined and asked II
sympathy was not a part Of witness
| business to which he answered that IL
| was not He insured men in the
company's employ He hadn't read
In the paper that Huber had lost
both hauds or he wouldn't have
gone 20 see him on business He
heai OF a suit and unfortunately told
two parties Of the conversation, one Of
them, Mr. Reybold. Of Cspelle Hard
ware Company. and who he suspected Of
having told OF the circumstances which
led to witness being summoned
The defense rested at this point.
Mr. Bird recalled Huber In rebuttal.
lie said Norris came TO his house. rang
the bell and Huber went TO the door
Norris offered him an agency In bis
company which Huber declined as be
could not write. Nothing was said about
the Jackson & ShArp Company OF
damages.
He denied BENEFITS testimony that he
Huber. had never given him money FOL
lessons on the machine. He had giver
Bennett g. on two separate occasions HI
then exp aimed to ex Senator Higgins The
manner In which the knives were htteC
/
Both sides rested at IL 80.
I The counsel for the plaintiff was salts
! | fed to send the case to the j1ry withou
, argument, but ex Senator Higgi nj
objscted. Then Mr. Bird said 2 or
hours would be sufficient time,
) but ex Senator Higgins wante'
four. The chief justice though
B better speeches could be made IN tire
/ hours than In four and both side
finally compromised on three hours 70
each side
. Senator Gray then stated Eve PROPOSE
Z tlons Of law which lie desired rule
Q upon. They were:
First that it is the primary duty Of
A master TO provide for his servants
reasonably safe place to work, aud thl
3 duty cannot be delegated to anyone els
o with view of relieving him from II
sponsibility.
Second, that the degree OF care impose
:. upon the master, In providing SAT
place for his servants increases with an
is In proportion to the dangerous char
acter Of the machinery used by th
servant
Third, that where the servant has not
}. 6ed the master that the place where b
Is working Is defective and dangerous
and has received promises that thi
defect shall be remedled, he sha
be entitled TO damages irrespective {
any claim Of contrlbutory negligence o
the servants part, II suit for sue
damages be brought within a give
time.
Fourth, that II the Jury believes this
either Hume or Bennett are foremen
he shop or had charge OF or direction {
plaintiff on the machinery or she
in which be worked, or the fixing
his work. notice to them OF the DANCE
Gus condition of the shop or any Of 4
parts was notice to defendant an
defendant is responsible.
The hfth provision was the ordlnal
one that In the event Of the Jury hndlr
for plaintiff the damages shall be fixed
accordance with the facts as developed
Chief Justice Lore announced tbI
after consultation with his colleague
they had decided to extend the time f
each side TO four hours and ex s nate
Higgins thanked the court while IL
Jury seemed to look sad
Mr. Bates submitted several propos
q; tious Of law the material points Of whiC
~ we're that the evidence showed contrib
tory negligence on the part OF d
plaintiff; that when ne enterl
4; the employ Of defendant
d. assumed All the dangers connected Wi
the work that he should have exercise
reasonable care TO inquire and lsai
those dangers, and that not on
te he assumes them but the risk
es dangers not manifest; that the mast
40 has the right to assume that the serva
m knows the dangers aud will guard sgain
90 them and must abide
nt any accident that may come
~ hlm; that no master can
~ assumed to contract that his buildin
lls are safe beyond contingencies, or as sa
81 as his neiehbOrs, or that acciden
shall not result from risks whit
others may guard against mo
an carefully than he; that negligence do
IN not consist in putting buildings in pc
n fectly safe condition or In placlI
a. machinery thoroughly ga
'is position; that il the floor we
~ unsafe by reason Of the vibrati
"A OF Jar. caused by faulty construction
10 the building, the defendant is not he
ns unless the jury believes that col
plant was made 10 Hume and prouis
made 10 remedy IL; that Il Is q