The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1915-08-12
LATE COURT DECISIONS
OF UNUSUAL INTEREST
UPS AND DOWNS OF MINING LIFE
IN NEvADA-REsPoNsl5lL-
ITY FOR EXPLOSIONS.

Case and Comemnt is authority for
the following:
When this suit was commenced"
said a counsellor of the Nevada bar,
"the Silver Mining company was
great corporation. Its stock sold on
the San Francisco stock board for $500.
a share, with dividends of $40 a
month. In its mansion its directors
had champagne and terrapin dinners
every Saturday night, and, after din
ner. through the moonlight, midnight
and until the hush of the Sabbath
morn, they played draw poker, with
blue chips, and the ceiling for limit
They had United States senator and
an ex-United States district Judge for
TIE company lawyers, and the stock
holders walked along snuftlng the
stars.
Nov. gentlemen of the jury, how
arc the mighty fallen, tempora inu
tsntur nos ct mutamur in ills, which
may be literally translated, Former
ly IOIuly ldIC llOAoCB hOW q WOCb
packing jackass' The stock has fall
en- to Sc a share, and there has been
no dividend declared since Inc dawn
of creation The menu of the direct
CHS dinner is pork and beans ani sour
beer. They play poker with white
chips, with bets limited to 10 cents,
with every player squealing Tor sight
all the time. They have struck hot
water and desert sand In the mine,
end come down to this jack-legged,
cock -eyed, ragged breechel spawn of
the devil for a lawyer"
Negligence in Care Of Explosives.
The decision of the supreme court
of Washington in Mathis VS.. Gran
ger Brick and Tile company holds
that grown persons as well as children
are not responsible as to the handling
of dangerous agencies left exposed
where the dangerous properties of the
agencies are not known. The facts
show that two boys went upon de-
PENDANTS premises, where they had
found dynamite caps insecurity guard
ed that is, they were in clap pit
covered by wooden door, which was
not locked. One of the boys puts one
of the caps in the pocket Of his over
alls where 1t was found by his mother
in removing trinkets from his pockets.
She noticed the cap because sit was
bright and new and something out of
the ordinary" but did not dream 1t
was dynamite cap. She placed 1t
with other things on desk, where her
son found it. In his attempting to
pick 1t with hair pin it exploded and
caused injury. The court held that
none Of the intervening things inter
Irupted the chain of causation and that
the question of the defendants negli-
gence was properly presented to the
jury.
Jurors Use of Liquor.
All the courts express strong dis
approval of the use of intoxicating
liquors by jurors, and regard such use
as misconduct which is censurable or
punishable, but, with a few excep-
tions, the cases do not regard the mere
fact that juror has INDUCED in the
use of intoxicating liquor during a
trial as, in itself, ground for setting
aside the verdict. While a few cases
seem to adopt the rule that any use
Of intoxicants by a jury will vitiate its
verdict, and others adopt such a rule
when the liquor was used while the
jury was celebrating, the general rule
is that new trial will not be granted
because Of misconduct in this regard,
unless because of the quantity used or
of its noticeable effect upon those
using it, prejudice may reasonably be
presumed. When 1t appears that any
of the Jurors were visibly affected by
the intoxicants taken the verdict will
generally be set aside, unless the use
was at such time, as during a re-
cess of the court, that 1t would not be
likely to impair the Jurors ability to
give intelligent consideration to the
case. The case of Meyers VS.. State, l..
r. A. 1915 c, SO2, holds that the con"
sumption by 10 of the IL jurors sitting
in criminal case which results in
conviction of 61s quarts Of whisky
during the little more than az days
that the trial lasted is ground for new
trial, although there is testimony that
none Of them were intoxicated and
that the liquor did not influence the
verdict.
Were you ever arrested .before7"