The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-05-09

I've driven u sDuth sow,rda ~ eru,< a.
ne main ssep<. ard thervsy uerrr,<sss ~.
to escape through the Tan shsrt-
its continuous operation. had shs
49, aoeAied south Of the door. would
s meant csrfn1n death IA shas n wors,s
nAse drawn the namsn and srnpke "a rr.,r,
the mine SAs eAsA sIota
u - established beyond any 1o.,h. .n..
lEe company wanted the men 10 cssrr.e ,s..f
= tns mine. ard notified them 10 l~avs
r. ~ hkeuise appears that thay had am
sFs Who we're working sarsher nar,h "a
ene mine than the dsceased MAZE their
without difficulty Bat Puxh Ga
.'t ne~1 The warning given acd chox,
~ remain He voluntarily srwsrn@s wha.-
sef nsk vas connected therewsth. ara
re piainfl6s should Be held as bound
10y. II % ooutented that shere wxs
nosn1ns TO cause alarm In the IRE sssesf.
ana That there should have peer No dzn-
seF tnerefrom But that this cznuoe b
uus seems To ~ . seif-estiens propo<t-
Ion f11t, from the fact thar ther wers
ooand 70 know that the men oots,ss
might not know the location OF the frs.
sac - TO WHISTLER or not the tan should
oe. % could De. safely stopped depended
upon Us location Secondly, they must
Also have known that The large volume Of
smoke Issuing from the mine through the
ran house would greatly excite the men
thefe. and that IL wAs not safe 70 depend
upon them to do the right thing under the
circumstances. even u they knew the
ioosfion OF the IRE Their very situation
was warning Ia tsseif TO leave. They we're
~ Feet beneath the surfac> Of the earth.
Win nro raging near them which could
not have been other than . source Of
DANGER. They even failed TO take any
precautions for their safety BY rs mucn
A. notifying the men .; the top 70 keep
the IAN going.
Non-sust Granted.
II II contended by the plaintiffs that al
though Prgh saw AZ 70 remain In the
mine. his remaining there was not direct
or proximAte cause Of the result. But &c
seems To " clearly otherwise He had
no right 10 depend upon the company's
agents. or laborers. outside or inside. to
DO just what should be done under such
exciting circumstances. when he must
have known that Q mistake might Be Ia
tai to him. but should have left the mine
or at least have gone TO q place Of sn-
Questioned safety. II he had done in
Obedience TO the notice, IS his fellow
workman siev,ls did. hss life would have
been saved He did not do 80. and thereby
directly contributed TO the result. Even
though the Ian Was stopped by direction
OF Ramsey. and this would warrant a
charge OF negligence against the defend
ants, We are stiIi OF the opinion that the
motion for non-suit should have been
granted
The opinion was written by Justice
Scott. and concurred In by the full bench.
The order denying the petition for a re-
hearing was written By Justice Scott and
concurred In b. Justices Anders and Cor
don. In support OF the petition IL was
contended that the supreme court errone-
ously considered. Ia passing on the mo-
tion for q non-suit. testimony introduced
by the defendants after the motion was
made. Tho court says:
These related mainly to q description
OF the premises and To circumstances con-
nected with the opening OF the rock tGn-
mel door. None Of said fn&tters lnf.ueneed
the finding of tho court. from the plain
tiffs' case that Pugh was guilty Of cca-
tribntory negligence. He was an able
bodied man. In full possession OF his fac
ulties. II ia certain that he was notified
to leave. and that he started to leave, the
mine with Stevens Stevens kept on and
got out without difficulty. He passed a
dozen or so men who were lettering at the
fire. IL did not appear Clearly whether
Pugh stopped there or elsewhere. but
that was ifnmaferiAl- Two other men
made their escape after Stevens made
his The court was then, and Is now, OF
the opinion that the plaintiffs testimony
showed that Pngh had ample time within
which TO leave the mine and that in not
leaving he assumed the risk connected
Herewith. and the defendants were enti-
tied TO a non-suit. conceding that the
charge OF negligence against them had
been established
The case was tried twice In the lower
court. the Jury dissgreeing the FIRST time
The total costs taxed by the defendants
against the plaintiffs now are 3i.sGss