The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-11-29

was killed, while at work at the mill
by the bursting of II fly-wheel, March
20. 1898.
The plaintiffs allegc that the fly
wheel was detective: that 1t did not
run true, was not properly fitted to tic
shaft. and that these defects We're
brought to the notice of the defendant
company.
The defense contends that the par
ents have no legal standing as Dlain-
tiffs, as their son was. admittedly, over
twenty-one years of age a. the time or
the killing: and that at all events,
there was no defect in the ny-wheel, as
alleged.
Young Davis was employed as roll
ers helper. 1t was his duty to drag
the heated bars from the furnace to the
rolls and in doing this he passed close
to the fly-wheel and than .COk a posi-
ton directly in front OF 1t, some fifty
feet away. While in this latter posi-
ton, on the day in question. the wheel
burst. at a time when it was going at
very high rate of speed, and a two
and ore-half foot section of the forty
five foot rim Weighing four hundred
pounds, struck him and killed him in
stantly, breaking his neck and crush
ing his body in several places.
PORTION OF RIM.
The other portion of the rim, with
sections Of the radiating arms at
tached, flew through the roof and
landed outside the works on a scrap
heap. There was full force Of men
at work at the time, but by good for
ne r, ott in, n
the flying debris.
1t was testified to on the plaintiffs
side yesterday that it was matter Of
general comment about the mill that
the fiy-wheel wobbled; that it was In
a dangerous condition. and that notice
of this was brought home to the COM
pany. 1t was further shown that only
one pin was used to hold the wheel fast
to the shaft, though there We're grooves
provided for two. Furthermore, it is
proposed to be proven that when the
mill was rolling three-eights iron. as
was the case on the day of the acct
dent, it was customary to weight down
the governors of the engine that it
might attain the highest speed 1t was
capable of. and that this thing was
done on that day.
To establish standing as plaintiff,
the father of young Davis AYERS in his;
declaration that he is old, decrepit and
unable to support himself and wife,
and that the boy who was killed was
the chief support of the family. In OPP
position to this the defense offered to
prove on the cross-eXamination of the
father that he was working at the mill
and receiving on an average of $1.40 a
day at the time his son was killed. and
that he had worked steadily during the
year preceding. Judge Edwards held
that this evidence would have to come
in when the defense was examining in
chief.
WILL TAKE An 1THER DAY.
The plaintiffs have not yet concluded
and Will probably occupy another day.
John r. s;cragg and Joseph O'Brien ap-
pear for the plaintiffs. The defendants
attorneys are Il. G. Newcomb and
Major Everett Warren.
In Judge Kelly's court is being heard
the case of the Borough of Jermvn
against J. d. StOcker and r. NJ
Stoukcr. Il suit to recover on munich
pal lien the cost of laying a sidewalk in
front of property on Main street
owned by the defendants.
In July. 1898. the borough council
passed an ordinance providing for the
laying OF fiagstone sidewalks on Main
street, with the proviso that If the
property holders did not do the work
within sixty days after the passage of
the ordinance, the borough would do it
ut the expense of the property holder
The Stockers did not comply with the
directions OF the ordinance, so the bor-
ough authorities proceeded to have the
work done and charge the cost against
the property in the shape of lien
The Stockers put in an affidavit If de-
fense to prevent judgment and this put
the matter at issue.
The defendants claim that there was
no notice given them and that no grade
was Furnished them, though they re-
peatcclI asl:el or it,
Tho p'a!ntlff. through the borough
councilmen, told of the passage of the
ordinance and that Mr.. Stocker was
present at the meeting. They admitted
that, although the grade was not fixed
till October II. they entered into con-
tracts with third parties for doing tho
work the very next day. This action
was excused on the ground that Mr.
Stocker had declared he would not do
the work until the borough had settled
with him for damages done to another