Delaware gazette and state journal., 1896-01-16
Court tools a reeess untlI 73O o'elocI.

y. ID.
The case was resumed at Tuesdays
session, the first witness being DR.. Wes-
ton d. Bailey Of the Hahnemann Hos
pital, Philadelphia, who attended
Wright. He called Wright's trouble
'EriCcson's disease caused by strain
on the spinal cord. lie could not say
that the arm would never regain its
usefulness. He had known recovery
in such cases. The only muscle that
seems to move any is tho shoulder
muscle.
On cross-examination DIR. Bailey
said that the disease might have been
caused by blow, but he saw no sign
of blow. Wright had told him Of
prior injury to his back, and Mr. SauS-
bury tried to show that Wright's
present condition was due to that prior
injury, but the doctor said that in that
case his lower limbs would have been
affected also.
DIR. William Z. Sherwood, a graduate
Of the Hahnemann College, testified
that he first saw Wright in April, 1850
He told Of the patients condition for
long time.
DR.. j. Paul Lukens testified to the
condition OF Wrights' arm.
Albert Wingate testified that he was
on the bridge at the time and he told
about the accident.
Elk Conductor D.. j. Lynch, who once
ran with Wright, stated that the frogs
and rails on the bridge were in bad
condition.
The case was in progress when court
took recess until 30.
With Tuesday afternoons witnesses
all the testimony in chief was completed
for the plaintiff Charles Govens, W.
Z. Govens and John II. Hooten teati-
fed to the bad condition OF the frog
and track on Eleventh street bridge.
They were examined by Artemas Smith
Of counsel for plaintiff. Counsel an
nounced that they had 20 or 30 other
witnesses to the same effect, but il was
not thought worth while to produce
them. The plaintiff here rested.
Mr.. Salisbury. for tho defendant,
asked for continuance untilWednesday
morning, when he would be ready to
go on with the case, and court ad
iourned until 10 o'clock Wednesday
morning.
Willard Salisbury, attorney for the
company, made his opening speech when
court conventd. Tho company produced
wooden track. 1t was very complete
representation of car No. 81 and cars
Of that class, with the exception that
omitted. Mr.. Salisbury gave the
theory of the defence in regard to the
accident. 1t was that Wright had one
around the thumb lever, when the car
stn,,nIr "a r;an fro,,, 4ha hri1ra IN fhn
stone abutment which caused the
iarring of the brake lever; then the
lever was thrown forward and Wright's
arm was injured.
Il. Il. Rice, the first witness for the
defence, produced plot of the Eleventh
street bridge and the tracks
Edward Schlipf, dispatcher for the
railway company, testified that he heard
Of an accident TO car on Eleventh
street bridge by telephone. When he
saw Wright, Wright told him that
something about the brake had broken
and hurt his arm.
James f. Taylor, foreman of the
blacksmith shop of tho railway COM
pany, testified to building tho model.
The car was put in evidence, no OBJ
iection being made.
Taylor said that if tho motorman
had proper hold upon the top of the
lever he could not possibly have had
his arm iammed between the lever and
the front of the car. He admitted,
however that under certain conditions
shock of tho kind detailed by the
plaintiff might throw the arm between
the lever and the car.
Walter Craig an employ OF the com
pqny's blacksmith shop said he ran the
car on which Wright was injured back
to the stable. Wright told him that
he had his arm around the brake lever
Witness remarked to Wright that it
was foolish thing 10 do and the plain
tiff replied that he knew it was but he
had often done IL before.
Alfred A. Danenhauer foreman of the
trackmen who were making repair5 to
the track at the time of the accident,
stated that the frog was broken in two,
and three bolts were holding down
both pieces. Only one bolt had been
taken out before he left to get longer
bolts to replace the old ones. He
thought the track was safe for the cars
to go over.
On cross-examination be said he had
heard complaints about the noise made
by the rail. The bolt that was removed
would tend to give more playsto the
rail.
Thomas Harrington, another employe
of the company, gave with detail an
account of his movements at the bridge
where he drove out the bolt that was
removed. He saw tho accident. The
car was half on and half off the draw
at the time of the accident. Witness
did not hear any groan.
Harrington said the broken frog re-
mained at the bridge two months after
the accident The car did not jar
back and forth two or three times.
Witness did not see Waitey beckon to
Wright to come on.
Court took recess until 2 o'clock.
IN CHANCERR.
Several Answers Filed Before Chancellor