The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1912-02-29
Caused By Explosion of "SeIf-
shining Stove Lusta"
ACCORDING TO THE VERDICT
Massachusetts, Superior Court Awarded
$1,000 Damages to Husband of Won
an Who Died from Injuries Re-
ceived in an Explosion.

| Boston, Feb. 29.-Stores selling "6-5-
Self-Shining Stove Lusta" are liable for
damages to persons injured by expio-
sions, according to decision handed
down yesterday by the full bench of the
supreme judicial court. The ruling was
made in the suit brought by Matthew
y. Gately, husband of Catherine T. Gate
ly, against Joseph B. Hsylor, ct al, for
the conscious suffering of his wife be-
fore she died from injuries sustained
when the stove polish which she was
using on hot stove exploded The SUI.
perior court awarded Mr.. Gately a $4,000
verdict and the defendants took eXcep-
ton, claiming that the evidence did not
warrant a finding that they had sold
naphtha under an assumed name and
that they were negligent.
The directions on the can of polish
which exploded contained the following:
III great luster is desired apply when
iron is warm" Mrs Gately was using
the polish on hot stove and was
burned so terribly by an explosion Of
the polish that she died shortly after
ward The supreme court says in its
decisions:
The conflicting expert testimony left
to the jury the credibility of the wit.
nesses and the weight of evidence. and
they could accept the opinion of the
plaintiffs witness who positively stated
that it was naphtha with some pigment
and little thickening,' and 'notwith-
standing all that is said about qualifying
phrases it is naphtha just as half dol
lar is silver, rather than the conclusion
OF the defendants expert that it was
AN asphalt paint
''The substantial inquiry upon this ev.
idence is the construction to be given to
revised laws, chapter l02, section los,
making it penal offense to sell, offer
for sale or keep for sale, naphtha under
any assumed name
After rehearsing the history Of the
various statutes which are codified in the
chapter of the revised laws in question.
the supreme court goes on to say:
1T is not impossible to say that the
prohibition refers only to the sale OF
naphtha under the name of petroleum or
some OF its other enumerated products
But this would not reach the mischief
which the statute was obviously intend
ed to prevent. The designations under
which naphtha might be sold would be az
various as its fluid nature would permit
and the seller would not be subject to
the penalty.
"A commercial compound of which one
OF the substantial parts might be naph-
tina yet when combined with other in
gradients il became as a whole distinct
and independent product, would not come
within the statute. But il the con
tributed parts merely supplied coloring
to the fluid, with a slight thickening,
making the mixture adhesive when APP
piled, then the jury must determine
whether the article sold does not remain
really and essentially naphtha.
Section los not only imposes pen
atty, but under section l06. the defend
ants. if found to have transgressed, also
were made liable in a civil action for
any damage suffered by the decedent
from the explosion of ignition OF the
naphtha, Independently of any question
Of negligence on their part"