The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1912-06-14

Herbert w. Meyers. was given q
Jury verdict of tl2.26z.
The Little Word ANY"
on a motion for a new trial BY
the corporations attorneys. Judge
Hanfofd himself suddenly diacov.
cred that he had used the word
amy" In one OF the instructions err
roncousiy. Not even the corpora.
ton attorneys had at any time be.
fore that discovered this error
And thia word any" was the chief
reason assigned for ordering a new
trial which resulted Ia cutting Me
lochich'a damages To $4,000.
"A presented in the impeachment
complaint. the Melochleh case IL
set out aa follows.
Violation OF Oath Alleged.
THAT said Cornelius II Hanford
has repeatedly violated that portion
of his oath OF office. ITO do equal
right 10 the poor and 70 the rich;
that no IL tool Of corporate
wealth and privilege seeking cor.
poratlona, and looks with Hcorn and
hatred upon the struggle OF the
great masses of mankind for better
conditions and more equitable dla'
tribution OF this wealth which labor
by It's toll creates. and aa one Of
the many Instances OF such gross
misconduct and absolute unfairn~ss
II the case In said United States
district court Of k.ll Melocich. com
plainant. against the Stone.web-
kter Engineering Co. a corporation.
defendant wherein the complain.
ant. iaborer. lost hls arm while
working about the machinery Of
said defendant. and after trial the
Jury returned Judgment In favor
% the plain,lff In the sum OF tt1..
2sz 90.
Aanford's Words.
ON October 10. 1911. Mcssrs
Kerr q Mecord. business associates
Of said Cornelius ". Hanford.
moved TO set aside ths judgment,
Upon the argument Judge Cor
nollua II. fIanford used tho follow
Ing language.
~ do not wish 10 hear you
upon any subject except the
Use OF the word any Mr..
Meyers (attorney for complain
anti. u IN for you 10 show me
mat the word was properly
used
Turning TO Mr.. Kerr. Judge
Hanford said.
would not hesitate 20
grant the non-suls In thia case
were u not for the number Of
tirnes this court has been re-
versec by the court OF appesls'
Further the court said.
-'He (rsferrina to the plalnt.
~ was sbic bodied ard lost
his arm, u 10 true, bot IN keep
lrg with other causes. ia
GOT FIVE TIMES AS MUCH
as ne SHOULD. and the YER
DICT ~ unjust
And upon a petition for re-
hearing Judge Nanford used tbs
following language
While ~ 10 true that eases
Of THE sort must be decided by
Jury. nevertheless. when q
verdict 10 uroonscionabIc. the
court. IN the exercise Of dis
crction. may require that TWO
Isries may be given an eppoe
tvnity 10 pass On the case. The
supersfrueture is based on the
word any explained the
use Of tnis word any By THE
FACT THAT, FROM wEARl
NESS nv MIND WAS NOT
AS ACUTE AS fT SHOULD
HAVE DEEM AT THE TIME.
AND. ALTHOUGH NO ExcEp.
TON WAS TAKEN At THE
TIME, " IS A MATTER
THAT APPEALS TO MY DIS.
caETIoN. AND JUSTICE re.
ouiaEs THE GRANTING or
A NEW TRIAL
THAT the plaintiff in said cause
vas an able bodied iaborer.
capable ~ earning ~ a day at
manual labor. and In tho prime Of
his manhood: thss hia arm was
ground off In the cog wheels Of the
machinery completely up 20 his
shoulder. that the pain and torture
suffered was enormous. that Cot.
nolius II. Hanford was guilty of an
abuse OF his judicial power In set
ting aside said verdict on either
tho ground OF the use OF the word
any or on the ground that the
verdict waa He got five times an
much as no should"
A photograph Of ELI Meiocich.
showing his injury. Ia attached TO
tho impeachment complaint. aud Ia
made n part OF Il az Exhibit b."