Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-10-25
ANDRoscoGGIN COUNTY.

ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY.
George B. Rogers VS.. Thomas Kelley
& Co. Per Curtain.
Motion for new trial by defendant. In
this case the plaintiff was a man Of near
ly 1s years experience in his opportuni-
ties TO observe the operation of machine
cry In cloth mills. He had been in the
mill In which he was injured four years
His injuries were caused by his opening
. door II by inches, for the purpose OF
cleaning the cards, and deliberately put
ting his hand into the opening. which
was perfectly dark, between two cylin-
ders, covered with wire teeth. one of
which was making 1856 revolutions min
ute. His hand was caught In the teeth,
And injuries were inflicted by which he
lost three Of his fingers. or parts Of them.
His purpose Of putting his hand into
this dark opening was to clean the cards
by pulling away the cotton that had &C.
cumulated between the large cylinder
and the small cylinder. both in rapid
revolution in close proximity to the ac-
cumulated cotton. To attempt to do this
with these cylinders rapidly revolving
must be regarded as an act Of gross i'm
prudence,-the very essence Of careless
ness, unless he can give some reasonable
excuse for so doing. This he undertakes
to do by saying that he saw one Of the
overseers do It. in the same way. with
instructions that 1t was q safe way. His
own version is as follows: Q.-What did
you see him doing? A. Just the same
~ / did. He took the door and put his
hand up this way. and pulled down the
cotton-iittle ball about that big-smaA
piece Of cotton that accumulated there.
I says to him. Don't you consider that
dangerous?" He says. cit In perfectly
safe. always did It," He says It was
protected by q screen. On cross-exani-
nation he shows that he knew all about
the machine containing these cylinders
and the manner Of operating them. What
their functions were. what the little
doors were for. and how the waste was
removed from these doors. His cross
examination also shows how little heed
he gave to what he was doing. @. Now
how far did you get your hand whom you
got hurt? A. I couldn't tell you. Q. II
was your left hand? A. It was my left
hand. q. In order to get your hand 20
1t would be caught at the top Of the
grid you had to lie down on the door?
A. Kneel down. Q. Kncel doyn on the
floor and put your arm In through that
hole,-that door? AsasYes. Do you mean
to tell the jury you could kneei down %
the floor and reach up and get your hand
around the end Of that card? A. I don't
know whether / could or not? Q. DID
you ever measure it? A. No. have
seen it. Q. You have felt 1t? A. 1 saw
it when I pulled my hand out. didn't
see how high 1t was. @. You would
have to do it. wouldn't you? A. think
80.
In other words, he had to lie down on
the floor in order to project his hand far
enough into this dark opening to bring It
In contact with these cylinders. and az
he says. did not then know how far in
he inserted it.
II will avail little to make further
analysis of the testimony. We are Of the
opinion that his own testimony shows
such carelessness that he cannot. with
any justice. hold the defendants respcn-
sible. The jury erred. A new trial
should be granted.
Motion sustained.
Received October q. 1915.