The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1895-03-18
BEFORE THE JURY,


hitOEurSN ~ ttuuPf fntunHe suit ttoso
1hcir Case.
The Huber vs.. j ickson and Sharp Com.
pany damage suit which has been in
Superior Court FOR uoa:ly two weeks. will
have reached its climax to morrow. This
morning both sidus closed their cases and
the attorneys were allowed three hours to
present their Jaw ahd their charges to the
Jury. This Will allow tie case to go to
Tie jury tomorrow morning. Mr. Bird
was willing To submit tho case without
any argument hut MIR. Higgins was not
The Court then sat the length Of time for
argument.
The iirst witness of the session wss
Francis NJ. Barney VINO is an employee OF
the defendant company and has been
wood worker there for the past eighteen
years. He knew Huber AMI on the day of
the accident warned him of working so
careiessly on the sticker sldo OF the uni
versai He did not see the accident. The
witness wne not examined as to the vlbra.
ton OF the floor. The crOss.examinatIon
revealed nothing additional.
Allan Siulth had 81 years experience at
wood working ana 50 years OF this period
he epent with the defendant company. lie
did not see tho accident. Mr. Higgins
changed from this lius OF defence to the
much testified to VIBRATION OF the floor
and the quality OF tho work turned out
under such circumstances II they existed.
The witness began py saying that hs nev-
Ell had any difficulty in turning out good
work. AT this point he was handed tho
ramp which Huber was working whom In
jured.
He considered the work rough. Mr..
Higgins asked him whether or not thu
vibration of the lloor could have caused
such work. the witness replying that 1t
could not.
what uoul have caused the roughness
OF the work. ASKED tne examining at.
torney.
1T could have been clused BY chip
getting under the ramp, the operator
ieeuing too RAPIDLY or tho curoles5neSs of
the operator OF the machine. Such WORK
could not DO turned ont il the rAmn was
held firmly on the machine. The joltng
OF the floor had nothing to do with It,"
Nj. Smith further sold there was no
more vibration OF tue floor OF the building
than that of any other building where
machines are running,
The cross-examnatiOn was very brief,
Mr. Gray only asking the witness his po-
sltiOn at the complnye plant.
II am stockhoider and a superlnten-
dent
THAT will do Mr. Smith" replied Mr..
Gray. and the witness left the stand.
William 1. Morris. general age Mt OF tt
Provident Accident Company was tue
next witness. lie testified 10 calling on
Mr.. Huber after his secoLd accident AMI
trying to get him Interested In insurance
work The conYeIshtlon then drifted to
the company and circumstances leading
to the accident. MIR. Morris asked IL he
had seen air. Jackson Huber replying no
but that he supposed Mr.. jackson know
Of his injuries. Tho Witness said hs be-
loved Mr.. Jackson would employ Huber
as a watGhman but the injured man said
he could not do the WORK. he being with
out fingers. MIR. Morris concluded his
testimony by stating that Huber had
said he had no claim against the Jackson
Sharp Company rs IL was not their rault
he was injured.
We rest here your honors" said Mr..
Higgins.
Mr., Huber. the plaintiff then took the
stand In reply and his testimony brought
out surprise Tor the attorneys Tor Tie
defense. lie denied point blank the te5ti.
mony of William f. Morris concerning
The statements maize Of he having no
claim against the company. or any testi-
mony concerning Mr. Jackson and the
possible appointment TO the position OF II
Watchnan.
From the testimony OF Morris. Mr.. Bird
turned to that of John Bennett who had
swarm he never received any money from
Huber Ia consideration oil his instruction
at the tine the plaintiff first entered the
compnEys employ. Mr.. Huber declared
lie had paid bennett 81 at two different
times BECAUSE he had instructed him
about the work on the universal machine.
Both sides then closed.
In his opening senator Gray stated five
propositions of Rw which he desired rdied
upon. They we're: First that 1t ls the
primary uuIy Oh n InthLhE 10 pTDNluo ltE
his servants Il safe place to work and thls
duty cannot be delegated to any one else
with view OF relieving min from respoG'
slbilitY Second, that the degree OF care
imposed upon tho iuu5ter In providing
safe place for his seryanLs increases with
aud Is III proportion to tue dangerous
character OF the machinery used by the
servant
Third, that where the servant has noilfi-
ed tho master that the place where he Is
working Is defective and dangerous ant
has received promises that The derec.
shall be remeded he shall be entitled to
damages irrespective OF auy clam OF con.
trbutoTy negligence on the servants
part II suit for such damages he brought
within given time.
Fourth, that II the Jury believe that
Glitter Huber or Beuue't or u foreman in
the shop or had charge OF or direction of
plaintiff or the machinery or shop in
which he worked or the liking OF his work.
notice to them OF the dangerous condition
oil the shop or any OF It's parts was notice
to defendant, anu defendant is responsi.
BILE.
The fifth provision was tho ordinary ono
that in the event of the jury finding for
plaintiff the damages shall DO liked In nc
cordHnce with the Facts brought our dur.
Ing the trial.
Mr. Bates cited his law and the argu.
ment began.