The Anaconda standard., 1899-11-18

engaged in demonstrating ana Femouei-
ing the building, and that the work OF
reconstruction and rsmooeiihs heeessi-
tated the taking away or removing ., the
partition in the center OF the iirst moor
that the plaintiff had khoWleuse OIL the
manner in which the work was pelns
carried on and conducted ana OF the e1-
feet of the work, and also to the effect
of the work upon the strength or the
building; he also had Il knowledge OF the
fact that the removal of the talse work,
or supports, in the first floor ana the re
moyal of the partition would OF necessl-
ity throw the weight OF the buliolng on
the girders in the center thereol winch
were connected with the l beam In 1ront
and supported by an IRON column, as
shown in the model and in the testimony,
and If the said building fell the 1all was
caused by reason of the manner III winch
the work was carried on ana was one OF
the risks assumed by the palntitt IN the
reconstruction of the said building and
in engaging in the work thereon ana the
said risk was assumed more especially
by reason of the fact of his remaining
in the employ of the defendant after haV-
ing knowledge of the manner III whlch
the same was being carried on ana con-
Quoted.
Further, the evidence shows conclu-
sively that if the plaintiff sustained any
SN'N>~
the manner alleged in his complaint or
otherwise in or about the York building,
that the injuries were sustained by rea'
son: First, of the carelessness and negll-
gence of his fellow-servants; second, by
reason of the fact that the work ne was
engaged in doing was of necessity or
dangerous character and tended to weak
en- the said building, and that such work
was liable to cause a collapse of the said
building if not properly carried on, and
that me manner in which the same was
being done was within the plaintif
knowledge, and that ne remained there
and continued to work upon the said
building and in the employ of the de-
fendant notwithstanding such knowledge.
and that he assumed all risk of the said
building falling. oa"u"
"Fourth-That they have failed to
make out a case against this defendant
of negligence, or to show any negligence
on his part or on the part of any per-
son representing him or standing in
the relation Of vice principal. the only
negligence shown in the case, if any,
being the negligence of the fellow-ser-
wants Of the plaintiff
In sustaining the motion the court
said:
THE testimony in this action shows
that the plaintiff knew the dangerous
condition of the building upon which he
was engaged. 1t is. of course, the duty
of an employer to provide reasonably
safe place for his employe to work, but
in this instance the danger was patent
and could not but have been observed.
1t has not been shown that at the time
the building fell the foreman of the
defendant directed the removal of the
support and that was unquestionably
the act of one who could not be consid-
cred other than a fellow-servant of the
rla int vic is bat nj Ia irtiff
contributed to the accident.
1.-The courts order overruling the mo-
ton for a non-suit in the Carder case
recently tried, was based upon an en-
trely different state of facts than here
presented. The court will be guided in
it's determination of this motion by the
authorities presented and as it under
stands them, and cannot do other than
sustain the motion for a non-suit.'