Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/876

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

M'GOWAN V. LA. PLATA MINING & SMELTING 00. 861 �the complamants in allowing reasonable delay for the purpose of suitable preparation on the part of the real defendant, whose inter- e ts are distinct from those of her husband. �It 18 therefore ordered that the hearing of the application for the appointment of a receiver be continued to the third Monday of Fovember. ���McGowAN V. La Plata Mining & Smelting Ce. �(Uircuit Court, D. Colorado. January 11, 1882.) �1. Mastbb and Servant. �A master is bound to inform his servant of facts within his knowledge afiect- ing the safety of the servant in the service to be performed, wheu the ^atter is igaorant of them. �2. PiiBBUMPTIONS. �The law will not presume that men of ordinary intelligence know the explo- sive power of hot slag whenthrown into water. �On Motion for a New Trial. �J. D, Murphy and T. A. Green, for plaintiff. �J. F. Frueanff, for defendant. �Hallett, d. j. That a master is bound to inform his servant of facts within his knowledge afifecting the safety of the servant in the service to be performed, when the latter is ignorant of such facts, eeems to be conceded. �A lot-owner employed a carpenter to build for him, but did not inform the carpenter that his title to the lot was contested. The car- penter, pursuing his labor on the lot without suspicion of danger, was attacked by the parties claiming adversely to the employer, and se- verely injured. On this the employer was held liable in damages for his omission to notify his servant of the danger impending. Baxter V. Robert s, U Cal. 187. �A miner employed to sink a shaft was not informed of a crack or opening in the side of the shaft, of which his employer had knowl- edge. The shaft caved in and injured the miner, and his employer was held liable for his negligence in not giving notice of the crack in the shaft. Strahlendorf V. RoRcntkal, 30 Wis. 675. �But it is contended that the rule cannot be applicable to the case at bar, as it relates only to facts withheld from the servant, and not to instruction in the principles of natural philosophy. The water in front of the furnace, and the act of overturning the hot slag, may ��� �