The copper country evening news. [volume] (Calumet, Mich.) 18??-1907, 1897-09-25
The Supreme Court
Reverses the De-
CiSiOn
Of the Circuit Court Here.
u andrews Loses Eaer Case Against
the Tamarsck Mining Company
-uther News.

GRAY & Looney, attorneys Tor the
Tamarack Mining company. received a
telegram Thursday evening stating that
tho case OF Grace L. Andrews Va. the
Tamarack Mining company had been re-
versed by the Supreme Court. The case
was tried at the April term of the Hough
ron county circuit and the jury awarded
the plaintiff damages in the amount OF
s10 393. The case was shmeWhat GEL
ebrated one from being the first damage
suit against Houghton county mining
company 10 half dozen years and only
the second ever tried in the county. The
attorney for Mrs. Andrews was NJ. NJ.
Riley of the firm OF Sylvester, Scheibus
Riley & Orth of Milwaukee.
brief statement of the facts will be OF
interest. Plaintiffs husband was a
miner. He was killed Nov. IA, 1898, by
q fall of rock. Before beginning work
that morning the ground that afterwards
fell and killed Andrews had been tried by
miners Using two iron bars for prys. but
they could not move 1t and it was deemed
safe. Andrews sat looking on at the
time and made no objection to working
there at bis occupation, that OF hitch
CUTTER The mine OF the defendant
company is somewhat peculiar in the
fact OF its hanging wall or vein matter
being OF such character that it is liable
to and often does crack suddenly and fall
away. This was known to plaintiffs
husband who had worked for some time
in the Tamarack. Testimony was intro
duced regarding the ordering by Captain
Maslin of blasting in the spot where An
drews was killed. the day before, 20 that
a battery OF timber might be placed
there. Captain Maslin's testimony be-
fore the coroner's Jury stated that the
reason OF the order was because the cap
tain believed the ground TO be dangerous
and it was claimed that the defendant
therefore had knowledge of the danger
Jus VudIdCltE vi tuc pid'o. luC OuJSCb
OF Offering this testimony at the trial
was not To Impeach Captain Maslin but
to prove the substantive fact of know
ledge, and the court expressly received
the testimony for that and no other pur-
pose Captain Maslin testified on the
trial that he did not then believe the
ground to he dangerous but that il
would become 40 il further mining was
done before tImbering. There was no
testimony IN the case, except the bare
fact OF the falling of the rock the next
day, tending TO show the place to have
been dangerous at the time Of Captain
Maslin's Instructions or ct any other
time in his or the company's knowledge.
On the contrary the testimony showed
that so far as human attempt to make
the place safe could avail it was safe at
the time plaintiffs husband went to
work under it. About six years before
this tho company had begun to employ
hitch-cutter experienced miners tamil
'dr WIN the character OF the formation,
and Andrews was man OF such exper-
ence.
Andrews left a widow and fiyechildren.
tie had earned about 5000 year above
the cost OF his own living and his age at
the time he was killed wac 81 years.
From this was figured his financial worth
10 his family for the period OF his expect
ancy OF life.
The attorney for the defendant sent up
10 the Supreme Court a very exhaustive
oriei. The case is an important one in
Yoiving principle beyond the main issue
10 this particular case. The decision OF
the court leaves it open to the plaintiff
TO commence action again.