The Sunday telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1914-1927, 1915-02-28
Carried Up from the Lower
Courts in Various Coun-
tiessof the State.

y $lAtSy 4upIeutc f~OurL VI hpVeul4 ~ cSr
day in cases carried up from The low
or courts in various counties oE the
4 state as foloRs: q Z:
Griffith w. American Goai CT.
AZ Mercer county; judgment Affirmed;
}by Judge Miller
SyllabJis--A count In a declaration
I Tor. personal injuries based Oh negiE-
Sgence II, employing q boy Under four
ltcen years OF ago In a Goa. nine. in
.l,btbtttd BY statute, IS, mol bad on de-
gmurrer, for failure 10 ii aeges ID. terms
that such illegal employment was the
5natural and proxiMafe cause Of plain
4 tttf's injuries It Is prinia facie neg
s1igsnce to so employ an infant With
Lin thecprohibited age Y :. z.
! X-ray photography or shadow pic.
/. lures ere admissible in evidence
when shown 70 sAnve been made witr
tt;rstworthS ms yttSnsnts and 4 i spe.'
" taken. in connection with the eyi'
dehee ofswitnesscs expert In the use
OF such instruments and skilled In
making, reading rand interpreting
\ such pictures.
Plaintiffs instruction TO the jury
number on The theory OF permanent
injuries, bodily pain and suffering en-
dnred by hini;f and likely to be Gu
sdured, and DISAGREEMENT, aud on the
theory OF decreased earning capacity
due TO such permanent injuries, II
not bad for lack OF evidence justify
Ing the same, nor as authorizing the
fury to include In their verdict dam
axes for decreased earning capacity
during plaintiffs minority, said In
Atruction In terms limiting all dam
ages ON account Of decreased Gamma
capacity to time. plaintif shall have
reached his majority.
On the trial OF such an action an
instruction to the jury proposed by
defendant. ignoring plaintiff $ theory
supported by sufficient Evidence, that
at the time of empl oymet,t and IN
Sjufies, he Was AN infant Under four
teen years; and; his employment u
legal and negltgent, is properly re-
ietted.
no sustain tic defense OF contrib,r
tory negligence In such cases, II mus,
il shown, not only that the entant EN-.
pioycc had capacity to understand and
appreciate his instructions and the
WARNINGS against the dangers incl
don't to his unlawful employment, but
that he in fact did understand them
and that his supposed negligent aci
Z was not such as the statute was in
tended to provide against, but also
that he was possessed OF such unusual
wisdom and sagacity as to take ninl
ont oil the class OF youths under four
teen years which the statute was IN
tended TO protect and instructions
nroposcd by. defendant in this cast
propourding "a different rule Of liabil,
ity were properly rejected u
So also, special interrogatories pro
nosed by defendant in this case, as.
suminS scertain facts, but not. comprei
hending All other facts necessary y
ssconstitutesa complete defense OF con;
tributory negligence; We're; properiy
denied.
On the trial of such action the &C
/. count socks oriother. books of a prac.
ticing physician or surgeon, contain
ing entries regularly made in due
course Of business, and VINO 5aftena Y
tho mother at the birth Of her chiiu
and the oral evidence OF such nrac'
titioner verifying such record, are
legal and, competent evidence to so e
the Jury on the question of the date
" the birth oM such infant emploTee
The discovery or such legal ant
competeht evidence after the trial q
This case, considered in connection
with, other evidence offered on thu
motion Of defendant for aiew trial
and considered also in connection With
me evidence adduced on the trial
{ and the proof OF due "a reasonable
diligence on the parton defendant u
discover such new evidence, as shown
Blythe record, constitute good ground
FOR setting aside tile verdict ane
awarding defendant new trial,
uti:on VS.. United states Coal y /,
Coke Company.
Mcdowell county; Judgment atiirm
ed; by Judge Lynch.
The duty imposed by Ian require!
master to warn and Instruct hi
minor servant OF latent dangers; ant
IL. in oheying the orders OF a genera
superintendent, he engages IN ser
vices other than those regularly as
signed to and performed by him, dan
ger from which the servant does no
comprehend or. appreciate because Jun
known To him, but OF Which the mas
!, ter knows or blythe excrcisn of rea
sonabel diligence ought TO know. he i
liablc for resulting injuries 70 scr
sant tree from negligence difectl.
Contributing thereto.
swhethe,. a minor servant, & owe
fourteen years. old, without warning
or instruction, understands ana ar
preclates dangers incident to Morl
not within the scope of his resula
duties, is a question OF fact for th'
Jury, under proper instructions from
the court trying the case. +,
d "A minor servant may. without as
sumption Of risk or waiver OF tn,
masters duty TO warn and instruct
obey the order of a general superin
stendent to perform specific work out
side Of his regular employment I'M
less, by reason Of his capacity an,
experience and knowledge OF III
hazards OF the work, ne futiy apprec
tates the dangers and the prope
means OF avoiding injury therefrom
Pr0k, Administrator. vs.. \. 4 w.
Railway COMPANY.
Mcdowell county; affirmed; b
Judge Poffenbarger.
Whether 1t is negligence on the par
of railroad company. to run q
Sf,1ey H,S1f.l