Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-11-12
THE UNITED STATES COURT
Suit of David F. Craig VS.. r.
Blumenthal & Co.
AN ACTION TO RECOVER DAMAGES
Plaintiff Sueing for the Loss of
an Arm.
The Arm Amputated In Consequence OF In
jnries to "a Hand--PiaintiT Injured vt the
Defendant Company's Factory Many
Witnesses for the Prosecution.

Federal building on Tuesday, Judge
Wales sitting. The case of David r.
Craig vs. +. Blumenthal u Co., an
action for damages for the loss Of the
left arm, on November 9th, 1895, was
called, and The following jury was sum
moned: William M. Pyle, George w.
Baker, Samuel White. William 4.
Anderson. Benjamin Benson, James Il.
Crossan, Willard s.. Meredith, Jabez
Jenkins, Joshua Bennett, James +.
Sutton, Andrew ID. d. Taylor and
Giles Lambson. Levi @. Bird and
Andrew E. Sanborn represented the
plaintiff and Hugh G. Browne and
Walter ii. Hayes appeared for the de-
PENDANT.
The plaintiff called David F. Craig,
Thomas Haffner and Charles Gibbons,
who testified concerning machine,
which caused the accident. The evil
dence was to the effect that Craig lost
his arm by having it caught in AN
alleged defective machine. The amount
of damages has not been stated, but it
is believed the amount desired is
$40, 600.
1t is likely that the case of Tinsley
vs. Blumenthal may be settled. The
jurors in this case we're discharged
until Monday morning.
Tho damage suit of David f. Craig
vs.. f. Blumenthal 6 Co., in which
the plaintiff seeks to recover for the
loss OF an arm in an accident at the
defenant compuny's factory, was re-
sumed in the United STATES court on
Tuesday afternoon.
Moses Blair, the first witness called,
testified for the plaintiff. Flo stated
that he worked about year among
the flushing machines at the Blumen-
thai factory, and that he had worked
two weeks ut the machine at which
Craig received his injury. He said
that at tie time the machine broke he
notified Foreman Webber and told him
it should be fixed. He asserted how
ever, that the damage was not repaired
until after the accident to Craig. He
made the point that the boys. hand
could not have been injured had the
machine been in proper condition. The
witness and Craig were working
together on tho same machine at the
time of the accident. Blair was feed
ing the machine and Craig was catcn-
ing the skins, and, according to the
witness, the boy was attending to that
duty when he was hurt, although
i'iuI dChuoWleuBtu budt ue uhu biBDoil
an affidavit half an hour or SO after the
accident to the effect that Craig had
reached too far over. This was rather
conflicting, but he explained that he
was excited when he took the affidavit.
The crosse exam ination was conducted
by Walter ii. Hayes of counsel for the
Blumenthal Co., who brought out the
statement about the affidavit. In reply
to Mr.. Bird, Blair said he was called
into tho office about half an hour after
the accident, and in the presence Of
number of foremen, the paper was there
written. He swore to its contents
short time afterward ut the Office OF
Magistrate Sasse. When Mr.. Bird began
to question the witness concerning the
contents of the paper, Mr.. Hayes
objected, but the objection was not
sustained. and in reply TO questions the
witness said he was afraid of losing bis
situation when he swore to the state
ment in the paper.
Norman Blackwell, a lad from the
Ferris Industrial School, who worked
at the Blumenthal factory at the time
of the accident, gave similar testimony
to that of Blair. He said he knew the
machine, after it had been broken, was
dangerous.
Harry F. Quashman, who was also
employed by the defendant company at
the time of the accident told of the
accident.
Henry II. Huze, who works for the
American Leather Co.. and who has
had seven years. experience with
machines such as the boy was working
on at the time Of the accident. gave
expert testimony. In his opinion, an
accident could not happen with the
machine in good shape.
Draper Bell, who worked in the
morocco business for nine years, testi-
fed in a general way concerning flush
ing machines.
Dennis Raney, aged 16 years, who
worked at the factory about the time of
the accident. testified as to the con-
dition of the machine at which Craig
was hurt
James M. White stated that after the
accident Manager Patzowsky and Fore
man Boyle operated the machine, and
on the following day the broken part
was repaired.
DIR. Joseph p. Py.e, who attended
Craig after the accident and ampntated
the injured arm, stated that amputa-
tion was necessary. rs
SOurl duJOurnou uHlll ~ o CLOCK yes
terday morning.
The case was resumed yesterday
morning, in the presence of many spec
tators, who are taking deep interest
in the case.
George Watson, the first witness for
the plaintiff, who had worked for three
years on u machine similar to one on
which Craig was injured, knew but
little concerning the case.
James Watson, saw Craig at work and
saw the accident. He had known that
the machine was out of order and had
heard Foreman Blair inform Foreman
Boyle concerning the machines con-
dition. He also alleged that he had
heard Boyle swear at tho boys for
allowing the skins TO wrap on the roll
John j. McQuaid, practical
machinist, considered it unsafe to
operate flushing machine with
broken slat. John Blair did the re-
pairing to the woodwork on the
machine.
Attorney Cochran OF New York was
called and asked in reference to the
defendants, III, in case the verdict
should be against tho company would
they or an insurance company pay tho
money. The question was ruled out
The plaintiff rested and Walter ii.
Hayes, OF counsel for the defendant,
moved for non suit. on the ground
that the boy Craig was cogni2ant of
the condition nf tha machine upon