Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-12-10
Law Court Rescripts Handed
Down in Three Knox County Cases

Law court rescripts have been handed
down in three Knox county cases as
| follows:
Thomas II. Sullivan, Admir-, vs. Rock
land, Thomaston Camden St Ry., Per-
| Curiam;
| resulting in the death of Sortir Theodos
| the plaintiffs intestate. At the eonclu-
sion of the plaintiffs testimony, the pre-
| siding judge ordeEed non-suit.
/ Sortir was one of a crew of men who
| on the 23rd day of December, 1910, under
| the charge of William Walker as fore
1 nan, went to work for the defendani
| corporation diseharging cargo of Goa
! IL. the defendants cars at its wharf at
| G1eneove in the town of Rockport, Me
| The declaration is not before us,.oWe are
| therefore unable to determine precisely
| what the allegations in the writ covered
| but evidence was offered tending to
prove both the improper use of the
| tackle and the deeayed condition of the
piling, to which one end was at tia eo
scribed as follows: A guy Wire was
| used to support a pair of shears extended
| over the hold of the vessel for the pur-
| pose of dscharging coal by the use OIL
| tubs, weighing when filled from seven
| to eight hundred pounds. 1t was neces-
sary in unloading vessels of different
widths to adjust the shears by letting
them up so that the cable attached to
the tubs would come directly over the
hold of the vessel.
sThe guy wire was, accordingly. secure
ly fastened to the top OF the shears, ana
then run back to the end of a narrow
projection of the wharf there passed
saround several piling driven near 10
gether, and then brought back upon u
self and elamped to the guy py iron
clanp~ some witnesses say two, others
three About one-fourth of the distance
up the guy from its lower end, one emu
of the tackle was secured TO the guy,
the other end fastened to piling about
10 feet in from and somewhat to one SIDE
of the bunch of piling just mentioned
The object of this tackle was 10 ralse
and lower the shears for the purpose OF
adjusting them to the width OF the YES.
. sci being discharged. The lower END OF
the guy wire was securely fastened ps
the clamps to prevent the END Oh VIZ
wire which was clamped upon ltsell
from slipping and letting the sheaFs
fan. There is no complaint OF any dedect
in this part of the apparatus. lhe ONCE
of the tackle was TO hold the guy Nh vi,
while the clamps were being removed, OF
partially removed, for the purpose u
iengthening or shortening the guy wires,
as the case might requne. IN oloeF ~
adjust the tubs to the hold OF the YES
sell There is no contention that inns
tackle was ever calculated lor NOUNS
the shears with load upon tilein, a ~.
on the contrary, the plaintiffs testimony
clearly shows that it was not lhteHueu
for that purpose. Just before the acc
dent il was discovered that the tup was
coming in contact WITH the emu u ehS
platform so that some of the coal Iippsu
ont and the stevedore stopped the
operation of hosting, for the purpose %
letting out the guy wire ana opyta tl..
the difficulty discovered. The tackle was
used as it was intended to be- the
clamps were loosened, the tackle let out
and the guy wire heightened But pe
fore the clamps were again ,ishleieu ~
as to hold the wire from slipping the
stevedore directed the hosting TO pro
coed. for the purpose of seeing whetnef
the shears were properly adjusted Inc
attemnt to lift the loaded, tub from the
hold pulled the tackle from the piling
TO which it was attached, and secured
by a long spike of round iron. Whell
this happened the clamps, not pelhg Iast
upon the guy wire, allowed it to SLIP
the shears to fail and the tub to descend
striking the plaintiffs intestate, who
was instantly killed. A witness testlfeo
that the cap-sill was rotten where the
A careful reading of the testimony.
which it will serve no purpose TO an.
alyZe clearly shows that the accident
which caused the death of the plaintifi S
intestate was due to, or contributed 10
by "a fellow servant. There is no claim
in this case that the steyedofe was :.
superintendent of the defendant. n. lie
saws in answer to a question that ne
WAS working in the crew as one of the
crew" The only conclusion which can
be fairly drawn from the testimony Is,
that this tackle was intended Tor lhe
sole purpose of lengthening the guy for
the adjustment of the shears, and never
contemplated for use in hosting loaded
buckets from the hold of the vessel It
was also evident that tho attempt 70 Int
the loaded buckets was the proSimat
cause of the accident The order To MOIST
was directed by a fellow-servant, before
his fellow-servants had properly I'D
iusted the clamps upon the gNY ~-ss
after they were loosened, thefebS a-lo%-
ing the wire to slip and throw, lne 10 y
upon that part of the apparatus nof e8ls
culated to carry it. 1t is the opin.e'
of the court that the non-suit was p ep-
erly ordered.
Exceptions overrnled.