The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1897-12-15

plosion. The presumption of law was.
he said, that Mr.. Kenyon did not con-
tinue violation of the law after
complaint had been made TO him.
Mr.. Shelton. in replying to Mr..
Forbis. said the evidence showed a
continuous act from the time Mr..
James spoke TO Mr.. Kenyon UP to the
time of the explosion.
Judge Lindsay overruled the motion
Tor non-suit as 10 Mr.. Kenyon, and
in doing so said: II cannot at this
time say that the testimony submitted
on behalf of the plaintiff is sufficient to
hold the defendant, w. r. Kenyon, per-
sonally liable. The evidence introduced.
however, is sufficient to justify the court
in allowing the question of Kenyon's
knowledge of the unlawful storage of
powder to be determined by the jury. |
shall sustain the motion for a non-sut
as to the defendant Connell and over
rule the same as to the defendant Ken
yon.'
The defense then put Mr. Kenyon on
the stand and he was asked If he knew
r. W. James. He said he had known
him for five or six years and had been
engaged in business together.
He testified said Mr.. Forbis, that
some time lin 1892 he came TO you and
informed you that powder was stored
in your warehouse; that there was
heavy hardware piled on the shelves
above the powder and that he told you
that If by accident some of the hard
ware should fall on the powder there
might be an explosion, and that you
answered that powder had been stored
there ever since Butte was town and
there had never been any accident.
What have you to say as to such a
conversation having taken placer"
Il never had any such conversation
with Mr.. James in the world" replied
Mr.. Kenyon.
He also testified that month or six
weeks later he again spoke TO you and
Mr.. Renish about the powder and that
you laughed at him and said he was too
timid. What about that?"
Il never had any such conversation
with him.
IF you had, would you remember
ito
Il would certainly remember it."
, Mr. Kenyon said he had not been in
the warehouse for six months prior to
the explosion and that the warehouse
had been entirely in charge Of Charles
circuit, an old and experienced ware
houseman, in whom he had the utmost
confidence.
Did you have any knowledge of the
fact that circuit stored powder in the
warehouses;
II had no knowledge of ii whatever"
Mr. Kenyon said his duties as man
ager We're TO look after the financial
part of the business, and that MIR. Rem
ish attended to the details.
On cross examnation by Mr.. Shelton
the witness said the Kenyon Cornell
company was organized in 1891 or 1892.
and that he was elected its general
manager
AS general manager you received
salary?"
Yes, SIR
How much?A
- A hnilt S10D a mont y
For which you We're to devote your
time and attention to the business of
the company"
Il suppose so.
And to exercise general supervision
over it?''
Il could If l chose"
Did YOU"
No; | let the details of the work for
Mr.. Renish to attend To. | was not ex-
pected to look after the details
THE warehouseman was subordinate
70 ~y yeas
{. who had the say as to what should
be stored in the warehouse-you or Mr..
Orcutt?"
4 gave him general control of the
warehouse
Mr. Kenyon said he had a contract
with Mr.. McQueeney, a transfer man,
that the latter should haul powder from
the railroad track out to the magazine
as soon as a car of it arrived.
Gould Mr.. circuit have instructed
Mr.. McQueeney to deliver the powder
at the warehouses;
He could, but / don't believe he
would have done So
Did you believe he would have
stored the amount that has been test-
fled to was stored there at the time Of
the explosion"
4 did not think he would. l did not
believe he would.
At this point of the testimony court
adjourned for the noon recess, and
when it reconvened, counsel for de-
PENDANTS asked leave to file an amended
answer showing contributafy negli-
gence on the part of Brinck. The court.
upon the objection of plaintiff, refused
10 allow the amended answer la be
fled the issues having already been
made up and the plaintiff having no
reason 10 anticipate the interposition
of such a defense.
The cross-examination of Mr.. Kenyon
was then resumed. He testified gen.
orally concerning the contents of the
warehouse, and said he was satisfied
that no powder was stored in the ware
house, because the warehouse was not
constructed for that purpose. Mr..
Kenyon was asked If il had not always
been his object TO conduct the business
of the company in such manner that
obtained. In reply he said that GER
tainly such was the object of conduct
ing any business. Mr.. Shelton then
inquired If it would have been less ex-
pensive to handle the powder from the
warehouse then from the magazine. and
the witness said he did not keep any at
the warehouse, that an open box Of
powder was kept at the store on Main
street to retail from.
Charles w. Elderkin was next sworn
on behalf of the defendants, and testi-
fled that he lived in Anaconda and that
he received a telegram from Mr.. Ken
yon asking him to come to Butte and
testify in this case. In 1895 he was
employed at A. j. Davidson & Co. 8
store, near South Butte. He knew
Brinck during his life time. Brinck
came to the store about two months
after the explosion and seemed then to
be in fairly good physical health,
though intoxicated Elderkin said
Br.nck was not SO drunk that he could
not stand up. but was pretty we'll under
the influence of liquor