Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1897-10-06
Windham County Court.

CHARLES F. PERRY vs.. VERMONT FARM
MACHINE COMPANY.
This was an action of trespass on the
case to recover for injury rect ived BY the
plaintiff while operating for the defendant
company a machine alleged to have been
defective.
The evidence on the part OF the plaintiff
tended to show that on September 2, 1889,
he was in the employ of the defendant at
its factory at Bellows Falls, and was set to
running certain power press and die cut
ter; that it was new work to him and work
of a dangerous character; that he was not
fully instructed in the use of the machine,
which was operated by foot treadle, but
was told that placing the foot on the
treadle would set the machine in operation,
and taking the foot off the treadle would
stop the notion that he followed the dl-
rections given, but that while taking bis
work out of the machine, with his foot off
the treadle, the cutter came down catching
his right hand and taking off the ends OF
the machine was badly worn and defective,
of which fact the defendant had knowledge ;
and that defendant about the time OF the
accident purchased new machine OF like
character, which has since quite largely
taken the place Of the old one.
The evidence produced by the defendant
was to the effect that the machine was in
safe working order, although somewhat
worn; that plaintiff when set to work on it
was cautioned as to the dangerous charac-
ter of the machine and fully instructed as
to its use; that plaintiff was furnished a
hook with which to take the work out of
the machine, but used his fingers instead {;
that he did not remove his foot from the
treadle at the time the accident occurred j;
that his carelessness in running the machine
was noticed by other employees In the room
and that he was cautioned by them; that
the machine had been in quite constant use
since the accident, and was then and is
now in safe running condition with ordi-
nary care.
The defendant produced the machine
in the court house and the same was en-
amined in its workings by the court and
jury at the commencement OF the trial.
During the trial several machine experts ex-
examined the N achine Tor the plaintiff and in
rebuttal of defendants claim as to its condl-
ton testified that during their examination
it would frequently fail to stop its motion
when the foot was removed from the
treadle.
This testimony tended to confirm the
claim of plaintiff, or at least make it posi-
BILE, that when he received his injury he
had taken his foot from the treadle and
was in the exercise OF proper care, as he
had reason to think from the Instructions
that he had received relative to running
the machine that there was no longer any
danger To offset the effect of this testi-
mony Judge Read asked that time be
given the defendant to have an examina-
ton of the machine in its present condi-
ton made by experts with the purpose OF
showing from thsir testimony that no such
defects existed. IL was finally agreed
between counsel that the jury alter receiv-
ing the case for decision should make their
own experiments with the machine and
draw their own conclusions therefrom.
While the case was being argued the state
ment was made by plaintiffs counsel that
three of defendants witnesses ware then
down stairs oiling and adjusting the
machine in evident preparation for the
jury. The defendant promptly disclaimed
any wrong intention in the matter. Judge
Ross stated that after being put into the
case the machine should not have heen
meddled with The court charged the
jury to the effect that If plaintiff S carel S.
ness or neglect contributed in any degree
as the cause of the accident he could not
recover. The jury after being out an hour
and half returned verdict for the plain
tiff to recover 1922.