The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-01-31
WE HAVE MOVED.
Second and Madison,
=RIALTO BLOCK
FREDERICK, NELSON 6 MUNRO,

while preparing their dinner. During this
tine no mlshap occurred Mr. Butler has
testified that al about O'Clock p n.
which was from Ave 10 ten minutes De-
fore ne injury to the AoeAanl. me Tore Tore
man being then between decks watching
the slowing Of the sacks in the hold, Mr..
(. Macavoy said rhat he vas going away 10
get a drink. and ne did go away. although
Butter protested. Butler then called TO
the foreman 20 come on deck. and inform
ed him that the man at the chute had left
his station. but the foreman remained be-
low until rhe injury happened. Butler
was in a position 10 knew. and he appears
10 be A more reliable witness than either
ShanaAan or Macavoy. No other teSti-
mony relating TO this part Of the case was
oneFed IN behalf OF the llbe4iant until after
his case in chIsf had been completed. on
the part OF the defense, Shanahan was
called as witness. and contTadicted the
statements or Butter. he claiming that ne
Was on deck and looking down the hatch,
and that Aacavoy was a. mis- station by
the chute. doing his work properly AT the
time OF the injury. In rebuttal. the libel
liant called Macavoy. WHO testified thar ne
was away from his station when the acct
dent happened, and explained his essence
by saying that he had gone 10 the scow
for the purpose Of cooking supper for him
self ana the foreman In his examination
in chief, and croSs-eXamina tfonn. although
questioned explicitly, he gave no inIima-
ton of any order or permission given by
the foreman for his going away 10 cook,
but upon redirect examination, the follow
ing questions and answers are found IN
the record:
20. You say Mr.. shanahan. was board
ing with your
"A Boarding with me, yes.
%. And what was the custom on Mr..
ShanahaRs part when you went down TO
prepare dinner?
"A Ii was customary for him TO come
there and take my place.
g. And that was the reason. then. II
you went down there this time he author
lied you. did he?
"A. He authorized me.
20. You gave him notice. and II he
didn't come and stand at your place IL
was not your fault. Did Mr.. Shanahan
take your place any that day?
"A. He took my place once after
breakfast, when / went 10 wash the
%. He took your place at IL O'Clock
that day when you went down TO get
the dinner?
"A. He did.
This is the only evidence 7 find tend
ing in the least to prove that Macavoy,
'eliow-serVant Of the libellant neglect
ed his duty or left his station by the com
mand or with the permission of any one
having charge of the work, and Yet upon
the argument Of the case. counsel Tor the
libeilant seems 10 have placed his entire
dependence for \ recovery upon the pr opo-
sitiOn that Shanahan. the foreman, was TO
blame for the accident. because he sent
Macavoy away from his station, and al
lowed the work to go on without man In
his place to regulate the speed of the
sacks This is mere trifiing. In the first
place, 1t is not permissible for the nbellant
10 prove the most important fact essential
TO his case by testimony given in rehuttal.
and in the second place the main fact IN
a case cannot be made out by testimony
extorted by such a glarng violation or
the rule against leading a witness. Mr.
Macavoy having failed TO make any such
pretense when giving his testimony IN
chief and upon REORGANIZATION, re-
fuse to believe him when upon redirect
examination he merely gives assent to a
statement of counsel that Shanahan au-
thorized him TO neglect his duty, ana
win not encourage attorneys TO Suppose
that they can win eases by testimony
manufactured in this manner.
'"rhe respondents cannot be held liaoie
10 pay damages without evidence 10 prove
that they Were In some way TO blame Tor
the injury TO libellant. and for the failure
of the Hbelant to introduce such testi-
mony. they are entitled TO have thus case
dismissed. / hold that they are nor nsole
TO libellant for the negligence or Mac
avoy.
Decree of dismissal
The blaine hank Case.
The other opinion was one in case
entitled Addie S. Bryant VS.. the Blaine
National Bank ct al. The action was
brought charging the officers with mis-
mans gemenf and conspiIfng TO defraud the
stockholders. The allegations We're rather
sensational, and at the time Of fling re-
ported In the Post -Intelligencer. Judge
Hanford's opinion in the case was as fol-
lows:
From the affidavits filed. | find that
the showing MADE by the complainant in
support of her application for the ap-
pointment of a receiver OF tbs Bkine
National bank. and upon which the court
did appoint r. II. Ross 10 be receiver
temporarily, until a hearing could he had.
has been completely refuted in every par
ticular. Therefore an order viii be en-
tered denying the application TO continue
the receivership, and directing Mr.. Ross,
the temporary receiver. to restore TO the
officers OF the bank all of its assets which
have come into his hands, and the entire
costs of this ease up 10 date, including
any allowance that may be made 10 the
receiver. VIII be adiudged against the