766 FEDBRA]:i BEPOBO'EB. �able, although the other t>70 parties were citizens of New York. These views apply to the original removal, as weil as to that attempted at the trial. �The case must, therefore, be remanded, with costs, and so mnst the other three cases. ���Hamhebgben V. SoEUBMEiEB and others. �{Circuit Court, D. Minnesota. June, 1881.) �1. CONTRIBUTOBT NEallGENCB. �Certain evidence set out in the opinion Jield to show contributory . negligence on the part of the plaintifl and preclude recovery for injuries received by the fall of an elevator. �Motion of Plaintiff^for a New Trial. �Tilden R. Selmes, for the motion. �Gordon E. Cale, contra. �Nelson, D. J. I have again carefully exammed tue evi- dence, and must deny the motion made by plaintifF's coun- sel. The plaintiff had been in the employ of the defendants for nearly a year previous to the accident, and had often operated the elevator in the mill. He was at work in the paoking room of the mill, upon the last floor to which the elevator descended, and was injured by the sudden descent of the elevator, while he was sweeping the floor just under the opening through which the elevator operated. The defendants were using it, and in progress of ascending, when it fell, and one of them had leaped to a floor above as the elevator was passing, and the other came down with it to the room it had started from. �The elevator was attached by a steel rope to a drum on a revolving shaft in the upper story of the mill, and could be started or stopped by throwing the belts from loose to fixed pnlleys, or from fixed to loose pulleys, on the shaft. An iron rod attached to the machinory, and running down near one of the posts on which the elevator moved up and down, was used ��� �
