Weekly journal-miner., 1917-03-14
MRS. SWITENDICH GETS
 VERDICT FOR S22, 500
(From Fridays Daily)

Clara Switendich, widow, and ad-
 ministratrix of the estate of Alfred
 w. Switendich, is entitled to $22, 500
 for the loss she suffered when her
 husband was killed in the Blue Bell mine last June. Such was the verdict of the jury, returned in the Superior court at S:45 o'clock last night. Nine out of the l2 jurors signed the yer dict, the other three holding out for slightly less amount. but agreeing in finding for the plaintiff.
 On motion of George w. Nilsson, a stay of execution for ten days was granted. pending filing of possible appeal. It is understood that an ap- peal will be taken.
 Practically all of yesterday, save the few moments given by the court to passing on some minor matters, was given over to arguments and in structions by the court The defense was permitted to reopen its case for the introduction of the report of the State mine inspector on the Blue Bell shaft on May Is, little over a month previous to the accident, but the lug from which the bolt had become loos- cncd, thereby permitting the chute lip to swing out into the shaft, pro- duccd in court, was not permitted to come to the eyes of the jury. The construction of the lug was misun- dcrstood by counsel for the plaintiff, and, although constituting a minor point in the case, was the subject of much discussion. It was described as bar of iron. half an inch thick, and bored to receive the bolt on which the chute lip rcvolved.
 The accident was thoroughly re- viewed by both sides. F. s. Clark opened the argument, and spoke of the mass of evidence which had been introduced to prove that the shaft at the 600-foot level was unsafe, due to the position of the chute lip. He claimed that negligence regarding the defects in construction and repair of the lip was clearly proven. and that under any construction of the law, the plaintiff was entitled to recover
 LeRoy Anderson took up the argu- ment for the defense shortly before ? o'clock, and spent about an hour go- ing over the. case. He held that no direct proof had been introduced that Switcndich had been hit by the chute lip He denied that the company or any of its employees, including Switcn- dich had been negligent. He rcitcr- atcd the company's offer of S2,0O0, not as confession that it had lacked duo care. but as token of its desire to share the burden of hazardous cm ploymcnt with its men. He intimated that it would be better for the widow to accept the sure tender of this sum, than to attempt to recover some heavy damages, that in the event of big verdict, the company would regard a principle as being at stake, and would pursue the matter further, so that the plaintiff, if she recovered at all, would have to wait long timc Again he called attention to the keen interest | he declared Stoddard had taken in the | case, and charged that this witness | had been deeply prcjudiccd against the company.
 'Wc do not charge Switendich with | carclcssncss, and we resent being so charged, ourselves"
 F. L. Haworth summed up for the | plaintiff. He said that if Stoddard, the only living male relative of Mrs. Switcndich, was interested in the case, so were the company officials, all of whom were still in the employ of thC SOlSOhudtCu hiiZOhd, anu SOAiiN of whom owned stock in the corpora ton. He claimed that the facts prov ed that the company had failed to re- pair or change a piece of equipment that had several times been pointed out as dangerous, and that this clear ly constituted negligence.
 At the conclusion of lIaworth's argument, the court sworc a bailiff and sent the jury to its deliberations |