The Anaconda standard., 1895-12-22


at least. II is not denied, said Mr.. For
bis, and in conclusion, he said he hoped
the jury would return verdict In ac-
cordance with their honest convictions,
and II the defense had failed to sustain
its case a verdict against them would
be accepted, but he did not believe the
Kenyon-Connell company was respon-
sible for the deaths OF those several
score of victims OF the great explosion.
Col. c. B. Nolan, leading counsel for
the plaintiff, made the closing argu-
ment and in opening said he would as
sure the jury that he would not treat
a single witness unfairly, but he would
hold the defendant company to a strict
accountability of its acts. IT cannot
imagine the spirit of money getting
that would induce any corporation, In
a populous and thriving city like this,
to store in the warehouse a quantity of
powder so infammable in its character
and so great that the company will not
throw any light on the quantity stored
there contrary to law. In view of its
admission that II violated the law. the
defendant company is not In condition
to ask for palliation or ask the jury to
look lightly on its acts" Mr.. Nolan
called attention to the fact that In his
opening statement to the jury, at the
beginning of the defendants case, that
as a circumstance, in locating the first
explosion in the Butte Hardware build
lBt
yon- Connell company carried the rab-
BILE heads. and that the Butte Hard
ware company had none. The DEFEND
ants principal witness, Mr.. Orcutt,
warehouseman for the defendant COM
pany, under whose directions maps
were made to show the contents of the
two warehouses. He saw and located
rabble heads only In the Kenyon-Con-
nell building. The position of the de-
fendant company is perfectly absurd:
In making its map of the contents or
the Butte Hardware building the coils
Of wire were placed in front OF the pow
der. SO that Ii could conveniently be
thrown where ii was found. But when
they located the wheelbarrows and the
shovels they seemed to have gone clear
mad and became utterly oblivious to
consistency. Their testimony was that
in the explosion there was pushing
back of the material in the building
and yet the shovels were located in the
opposite corner of the building and the
wheelbarrows In the east end. The
powder was stored in the northeast
corner but IL seemed to have an affinity
for the shovels in the opposite corner
and threw them In a northwestern d.
rection and the wheelbarrows were
thrown westward. Through the eccen-
tricities of the powder IL exploded for
the convenience of the defense. Mr..
Nolan said he could not agree with Mr..
Forbis that all the witnesses could tes-
tify as they did and testify honestly.
with such a disparity in the testimony
all witnesses could not testify honestly.
The evidence showed that the fire or
iginated in the Kenyon-Connell build
ing, that powder in large quantities
was stored there and that the firemen
were at work on that building. These
facts were not disputed and went TO
the Jury uncontradicted. On the other
hand, there has been no evidence that
there was any fire in the Butte Hard
ware building and no testimony that
there was a pound of powder in that
| building, and no motive whatever ex-
/ listed for an explosion there, ana yet
the defense would have the jury say
that the powder, surrounded by hre,
did not explode, but that the explosion
| came from a building where there was
| neither powder, so far as the evidence
] shows, nor cause for an explosion. Mr..
| Nolan said he hoped that Anderson
! and Genzberger, who were employed by
! the Kenyon -Connell company to collect
| evidence, had not received their money,
| but he would have to say that there
was either no evidence to be obtained
for the defense or that the two men
had not earned their wages. In con-
Guiding his argument. Mr.. Nolan said
| that no verdict could restore to Mrs.
| Goddard her husband of IL months, and
| the action of the defendant company,
| in endangering the lives OF the people
| or the city Dy Storing unldWlul qudhli-
| ties Of powder, was not In position to
plead for leniency. The evidence show
ed that Albert K. Goddard had an
earning capacity of $1,000 a year, and
that 81, 700 had an earning capacity OF
500 a year, which gave the jury basis
upon which to fix the amount of DANA
ges sustained by Mrs. Goddard.
| Judge Mediation, in his instruc-
tions to the jury. read the state law
which limits the storage of powder.
within half a mile of the city limits, to
| so pounds. The substance Of the in
structions were that IL the jury found
that the defendant had stored powder
in excess of SO pounds, and that the
first explosion occurred in the Kenyon
Connell building, and Albert e. God
dard was killed in that explosion. then
a verdict should be found for the plain
tiff, otherwise the verdict should be for
the defendant. The court also instruct
ed the jury that the city ordinance,
permitting a storage of $50 pounds, af-
forded the defendants no protection
against liability IL II were found that
the amount actually stored exceeded
the statutory limit of so pounds.
The case was submitted to the jury
at 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon, and al
| 8 o'clock they returned a verdict as