Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-11-19
! $4,000 DAMAGES.
A Verdict for David Il. Craig Against the
BlumentIpl Co, :.

A Verdict for David II. Craig Against the
Blumenthal Co. :.
The damage suit of David f. Craig
vs.. f. Blumenthal & Co., in which the
plaintiff seeks to recover for the loss of
an arm on November 9th, 1895, was
resumed in the United States court
Wednesday afternoon.
Julius Jadicker, d machinist at the
Blumenthal plant, said the machine was
not loose and rickety at the time of the
accident. The slats, one of which was
broken, were on the machine for the
purpose of keeping the liquid from
Bplashing On the men and otherwise
protecting them.
Richard Patzowsky. manager of the
factory, stated that the rule at the
works at the time of the accident was
that the machine operators were re-
quired to stop the machines when they
found the skins wrapping on the rollers.
II they did not stop the machines in
such cases they were running them at
their own risk. He had operated the
machine himself after the accident, and
said it was then as safe as any other
machine in the factory. On cross
sci for the paintiff, Mr.. Patzowsky said
diU hob hhoW WHY buu blohoh oiup
was replaced on the following day.
Andrew Z. Sanborn, Mr.. Birds COL
league, quoted the law concerning the
relation of employer toward -employe.
He dwelt upon the point that the
master should warn youthful employees
of any danger to which they might be
exposed. He held that the particular.
defect in the machine should have been
pointed out.
Mr.. Hayes, for the defense, claimed
that the plaintiff assumed all risks,
knowing the machine was dangerous,
and if he was injured while working at
the machine, was guilty uf contributory
negligence.
Mr.. Sanborn opened before the jury
He reviewed the evidence at length and
asked for a sufficient amount of dam
amges to compensate the lad for the
loss of his arm.
Court adjourned until 10 O'Clock on
Thursday morning.
When court reconvened Hugh O.,
Browne, of counsel for the defendant.
opened before the jury. He was followed
by Levi g. Bird OF counsel for the
plaintiff, who asked for S12, 600, SO that
the lad, who lost an arm, willbe enabled
to properly educate himself.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Bird'a re-
marks Judge Wales charged, the jury.
He instructed the jurymen that if they
believed that the boy could not have
been hurt with the slat brokenAb of
the machine. and il the broken slat
was the cause OF the accident, and
that the boy did not appreciate the
risk, to find for the plaintiff, but, if
| they believed otherwise, to find for the
defendant. II the accident was caused
by the negligence of the foreman, that
was no excuse for the employer. He
warned the jury, in case they should
decide in favor of the plaintiff, not to
fix the damages too high or too low.
| They must consider, with other things,
the value Of the loss of an arm. They
were instructed not to give way to their
sypathies, but to be guided by the
evidencesand their best judgment. The
judge also read the prayers OF de-
| fendant's counsel, some of which were
I approved and some we're not.
been delivered Attorney Browne, for
the charge.
The case was given to the jury at
| l2. 20 O'Clock.
In about an hour the Jury returned
with verdict of $1,000 for the plain
tiff. The Jury was discharged until
Monday morning.
In the United States court on Mon
| day the damage suit of Mary E. Tins
| ley Va. f. Blumenthal g. Co., was called,
but on motion of l.. @. Vandegrift,
who had Just been retained by the
Blumenthal Co.. for the defence, the
case was continued until January 9th.
Levi @. Bird and Andrew Il. Sanborn
represent the plaintiff, and Hugh O.
Browne is associated with Mr.. Vande-
grift, for the defence. Mrs. Tinsley
claims $40, 600 damages for the loss of
her husband, who died as the result of
being caught in belt at the Blumen-
thai factory about year ago. After
the continuance of the case was agreed
upon, the jurors were paid off and dis
charged until January 9th.
Mr.. Vandegrift asked that the time
4 for filing exceptions to the judge's
! charge to the jury in the case of Craig
vs.. Blumenthal, and also for reasons
| for asking for stay OF judgment, be
4 continued until next Thursday. Mr..
Bird contended that the motion for u
stay of Judgment should have been
| made at the time the verdict was
rendered, but the rules were consulted
and it was found that four days were
allowed, and it was fiually decided to
argue the point to-day.
Il