Court Opinion

ID: 9832820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:13:35.117769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:53.318334
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee insists that we have not found' sufficient facts, and have found some incorrectly. We used the term “stove” in some places when referring to the place where the papers were being burned, but we should have said “furnace.” The word “fusee” was not used in plaintiff’s petition, but the things he charges were left in the refuse which he was burning were:
“What are called torpedoes and other compositions, the names and exact nature of which are unknown to plaintiff, but all of which are explosive and dangerous,” etc.
The witness, Dethlefsen, said the cut-off upon which he was working at the time of the injury was about 12 feet from the front door of the furnace, and that the cut-off was about 1 foot from the ceiling, and he had gotten upon a box in order to get to it. So he (Dethlefsen) was anywhere from 8 to 12 feet from the front of the furnace at the time of the injury.
Several witnesses testified, in substance* that they had kept a lookout for torpedoes when sweeping, but said they had not been instructed to look for them. Charles Stevens denied that he had ever found any torpedoes, but in answer to a question formed as follows: “Q. You always looked to see if there was any torpedoes?” he said: “A. Yes, sir: always picked them up; always have to see anything like that I always picked it up; always looked closely to see whether there was any there.”
This court is not unmindful of the seriousness of a reversal and rendition of judgment, neither is it unmindful of the serious and far-reaching effect of a court decision which would transfer a large sum of money from the railway company upon a mere surmise of wrong on its part. Appellee has had his case ably presented, and after two trials and two appeals it is not reasonable to presume that there are any matters of consequence which could be presented that have not already been developed. And with all this there is no sufficient showing that the injury of appellee was caused by the wrong or negligence of appellant. Since this is our view, the motion for rehearing is overruled*