Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1902-06-12
gress, and that his injuries resulted


state commerce. II, however, the car
being moved had come from n point
out OF the State, with freight 10 he
here delivered, and was then and there
IN course Of delivery, 1t would he NOV
| ing Interstate commerce. This would
be SO even though the car to which tho
tender was being coupled was not the
car used in interstate traffic, if the re-
| moval Of such car was II necessary stem
in getting at and moving said car.
Should you be satisfied that the
tender was so engaged in moving inter
| state commerce, you must be further
| satisfied from the evidence that it was
| not equipped with automatic couplers.
We may say to you that tho tender of
a locomotive engine, engaged in inter
state commerce. is II car within the
scope of tho act of Congress, which
uses the general terms, locomotive, car
| or train.
| Should you find that tho tender at
the time of the accident was equipped
with automatic couplers, but that it
was SO connected with tho bull nose
coupler that tho coupling with othcr
cars was not made automatically by
| impact, but so equipped that ii MADE
it necessary for men to go between the
ends Of the car to couple and uncouple.
then such coupling did not comply with
| the act of Congress and was unlawful.
| If the defendant was using at the
time OF the accident such coupler which
was prohibited by the act of Congress,
tho defendant was guilty of negligence
! per SO, and If the injuries complained
of resulted from such unlawful use
alone, then the defendant would be
liable. If, however, in using
such unlawful coupling, the plaintiff
contributed TO tho accident. by his own
cnrelessness, no cannot recover, not
withstanding the fact that the coupling
was unlawful
Ii the jury found that at the time of
tho accident, the company was not en-
gagged in moving interstate commerce
thon the act of Congress did not apply,
and the jury was to be governed by tho
general rules relative to master and
servant
The jury was out about two hours
When it brought in the verdict, tho
foreman's reply to the usual question
as TO the amount sounded like $1,000,
but when he repeated, the protnono-
tary found that the amount was -, COO.
Tho size of the verdict was rather a
surprise. Counsel for the defendant
company will probably ask for new
trial.
The case of Max Abramson VS.. Steve
or Stevenson Finn was short and
somewhat interesting, II talismen being
| required to ill the box. Two juries
were out at that time, and William
Lawton was the only man of the regu-
lar panel left in tho court room. So he
was called rs foreman. Sheriff Nc
Daniel summoned the following out of
tho body Of the county: Reuben Sat-
terthwaite, Capt. Philip Reybold, Will
liam III. Curry, James Il. Hawkins,
John Edwards, William Foote, g. W.
Walls, John Wann, Isaac Pyle, Charles
Is. Palmer and Clement b. Italian.
John i. Lynn represented Abramson,
who said he had sold Finn 1926 suit
and received only 50. Charles Il.
Curley appeared for Finn, who adj
mitted the purchase of the clothes, but
said he bought them under lottery
scheme, under which, if mans name
were drawn before the 25th week, he
had to pay only as many dollars as the
number of the week. His name was
not drawn in tho period mentioned,
and so the price was $50 He said he
! had paid 81 more than admitted by
| Abramson, Finn S assertion being that
he paid the money to an agent for the
clothier. The court ruled that no lot
| terry had been proven, and the jury gave
a verdict for Sl4 in favor of Abramson.
The third verdict was in the case of
Thomas j. Smith VS.. George w.
Phillips, for damages for personal in
| iuries. Smith was represented by his
brothers. Martin E. and Artemas Smith.
He testified that he called at the side
of the new powerhouse of the Whining
ton City Electric Co. to solicit insur-
ance, and Phillips asked him if he was
lone of Thorn - two cent insurance
men,, F." to which he replied: II am q
gentleman. More words followed and
| Phillips struck him in the face break
ing his nose he fell and became un.
conscious. He was laid up for foul
weeks and for 16 was unable to do his
former quantity of work. Other wit
nesses testified that Phillips struck
Smith after Smith was down. Phillips
was unrepresented, being said to be
outside OF the State The jury no.
turned verdict for 81, coo. ...
The trial Of the case of Joseph G.
Boyd VS.. T. Blumenthal e. Co., fol
$40, 600 damages for injuries to u hanc
in an elevator, was begun in Superior
Court Tuesday. Robert ii. Rich.
ards and Walter II. Hayes represented
the plaintiff, and William S. Hilles,
the defendant company. On May 18th,
1900, Boyd, who was taking an account
of stock, was using an elevator tt
move stock up and down. He had some
skins on u truck, and he asserted thai
| ~ n hot he haI T..
hold the truck. In jolt of the cage
his let hand became caught between
the truck and tho side of the shaft
Tho elevator could not be stopped al
once and his hand was crushed, beinl
hurt SO badly that he has had no use
from it since. His hand was dressed
by DIR. John Palmer, Jr. Before tht
accident he made IS week. After thu
accident he received 81 week fo
awhile, but quit work on the sugges
, tion of Foreman Frank Jones. Work
, ing for an insurance company, he haC
been making about Sc u week.
Boyd testified that about two week.
, before the accident he informed Mr.
. Jones that the elevator was defective
and Mr.. Jones had promised to have i
, fixed. Three days before the acciden
{ no said he again told Mr.. Jones, ant
, Mr.. Jones again promised to have i
attended to.
The plaintiff said the rollers of tn
[ elevator we're worn and the cage wob
! bled.
On oross-examination, the witnes
said he had used the elevator man.
: times. When he had two trucks on i
{ there was very little room to stand. ii
i denied that he told c,rtain person
> that no mad caught his hand between
; the two trucks.