KINGMAN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, | applies to choses in action in determining a Plffs. in Err.,

situs for taxation.

In the absence of any statutory provision to William F. LEONARD.

the contrary this common-law rule would con

trol, and personal property be taxable only (.... .-. Kan.........)

where the owner bad his domicil.

Griffith v. Carter, 8 Kan. 571; Swallow v. *The statutes of this state do not pro- Thomas, 15 Ban. 66.

vide for, por authorize, the assessment and tax- The domicil of the owner determines the ation of judgments rendered by the courts of situs of choses in action (“credits”) for the this state in favor of, and owned by, citizens of purposes of taxation. other states.

Finch v. York County, 19 Neb. 50, 56 Am. (December 5, 1896.)

Rep. 741; Herron v. Keeran, 59 Ind. 472, 26

Am. Rep. 87; Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 42 Conn. ERR RROR to the District Court for Kingman 426, 19. Am. Rep. 546; Griffith v. Watson, 19

County to review a judgment enjoining Kan. 23; Ottawa County Comrs. v. Nelson, 19 the collection of a tax upon plaintiff's interest Kan. 245, 27 Am. Rep. 101. in a judgment. Affirmed.

The balance of judgment sought to be taxed The facts are stated in the opinion.

in this case is not secured by lien on real esMessrs. John T. Little, Aitorney General, tate, and being a demand for money it comes and C. W. Fairchild for plaintiffs in error. within the term “credit" when and where used

Messrs. M. D. Libby and P. B. Gillett, in the statute. for defendant in error:

Brown v. Thomas, 37 Kan. 286. All tax certificates, notes, judgments, bonds, Then, by the common-law rule, as affirmed and mortgages in this state are subject to taxa- by the statutes ($ 6854) and this court, the tion as personal property. The situs of such judgment in the case at bar is not taxable in property must be in this state;" but the stat- Kansas, but at the domicil of its owner in the ute does not mean that tax certificates, notes, state of Missouri. judgments, bonds, and mortgages, as such,

A judgment is the decision or sentence of shall be subject to taxation; the intent and the law pronounced by a court or other commeaning are, that the right, the debt (credit), petent tribunal in a proceeding therein. the thing of value, shall be subject to taxation,

Davidson v. Smith, 1 Biss. 351; Blaikie v. if “in this state.' “Tax certificates, notes, Griswold, 10 Wis. 236; Cooper v. American

: . bonds, and mortgages," as such, are tan- Cent. Ins. Co. 3 Colo. 321; Zeigler v. Vance, 3 gible — tangible evidences of the things of Iowa, 530; Bouvier, Law Dict.; Bl. Com. 395; value, and as such might be the subjects of Blood v. Bates, 31 Vt. 150. taxation (Mumford v. Sewall, 11 Or. 67, 50 The final determination of a right is not the Am. Rep. 462); but the legislature clearly thing taxed; it is the thing of value, the right makes a distinction between the evidence and itself, which the taxing power reaches for. the things of value thereby represented, as If the old maxim, Mobilia sequunter perproperty subject to taxation, for it is said, sonam, ever applied to intangible property, in "the term 'personal property' shall include the very nature of things it must apply to every tangible thing, etc.; also tax certificates, judgments. potes, judgments, Londs, and mortgages, etc.,' Story, Copfi. L. § 378; Broom, Legal indicating that the latter things, as property, Maxims, 522; Black, Law Dict.; Kirtland v. are intangible, and that the intangible—the Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491-499, 25 L. ed. 558 debt (credit), is wbat “shall be subject to tax. 562; Clereland, P. & A. R. Co. v. Pennsyl. ation, in the manner prescribed by this act,” | vania ("State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds), 82 when “in this state.'

U. S. 15 Wall. 300-326, 21 L. ed. 179-189; State v. Earl, 1 Nev. 394; Desty, Taxn. 330: Com. v. Cleveland, P. & A. R. CO. 29 Pa. 370; Cooley, Taxn. 43; Davenport v. Mississippi & Shakespeare v. Fidelity Ins. T. & 8. D. Co. 91 M. R. Co. 12 Iowa, 539; Cleveland, P. & A. R. Pa. 173; Orcutt's Appeal, 97 Pa. 179; CommonCo. V. Pennsylvania (State Tax on Foreign- wealth's Appeal (Pa.) 14 Rep. 183 ; Com. v. held. Bonds”), 82 U. S. 15 Wall. 300-326, 21 L. Standard Oil Co. (Pa.) 15 Rep. 59 : Com. v. ed. 179–189; Murray v. Charleston, 96 U. S. American Dredging Co. 122 Pa. 386, 1 L. R. 432, 445, 24 L. ed. 760, 763; Arapahoe County A. 237, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 221. Comrs. v. Cutter, 3 Colo. 349; Collins v. Miller,

By and of itself a judgment for money has 43 Ga. 336; Goldgart v. People, Goar, 106 m. po situs, no dwelling place on land or sea, but 25; Lanesborough v. Berkshire County Comrs. is a mere rule of buman conduct finally deter131 Mass. 424; St. Paul v. Merritt,"7 Mind. mined as between living persons and their rep258; Thomas v. Mason County Ct. 4 Bush, 135; resentatives, and apart from these it has no Falkner v. Hunt, 16 Cal. 167; People v. Park, existence in fact or law. 23 Cal. 139; Adam v. Litchfield, 10 Coop. 127;

People v. Eastman, 25 Cal. 603; Barber v. People v. Eastman, 25 Cal. 602.

Farr, 54 Iowa, 57; Smith v. Byers, 43 Ga. 191; The old maxim, Mobilia sequunter personam, People v. Worthington, 21 [l. 171, 74 Am.

Dec. 95. *Headnote by ALLEN, J.

The creditor who has debts due him from residents of another state than that of his resi-| located; but he shall list such property sepdence is not taxable in the state of the debtor's arate and apart from his own, specifying the residence; the credits, not the debts, are tax- name of the person, estate, company, or corpoable.

NOTE.--As to the situs of debts evidenced by The present case seems to be a novel one on the notes and mortgages for the purpose of taxation, subject of taxing judgments. see Boyd v. Selma (Ala.) 16 L. R. A. 729.

ration, to which the same may belong. All Murray v. Charleston, 96 U. S. 432, 445, 24 | toll bridges shall be listed in the township or L. ed. 763; Arapahoe County Comrs. v. Cutter, ward where the same are located; and if located 3 Colo. 349; Collins v. Miller, 43 Ga. 336 in two wards or townships, then one half in (promissory pote); Goldgart v. People, Goar, each of such wards or townships. And all per106 Ill. 25; Lanesborough v. Berkshire County sonal property shall be listed and taxed each Comrs. 131 Mass. 424; St. Paul v. Merritt, 7 year in the township, school district, or city in Mind. 258; State v. Earl, 1 Nev. 394.

wbich the property was located on the 1st day

of March, but all moneys and credits not perAllen, J., delivered the opinion of the taining to a business located shall be listed in court:

the township or city in which the owner resided This action was brought by the defendant in on the 1st day of March.” It will be observed error, as plaintiff below, to enjoin the collec- that the provisions with reference to what proption of taxes on the unpaid balance of a judg- erty shall be subject to taxation are very sweepment in his favor rendered by the district court ing, and that judgments, as well as other fornis of Kingman county. This judgment was ren- of intangible property, are not only included dered in an action to recover the amount of a within the general terms used, but are specificpromissory note, and to foreclose a mortgage ally mentioned as included in the term “pergiven to secure the same. The mortgaged sonal property.” Sections 9 and 10 of the act property was sold, and, after the application of require the owners of property subject to the proceeds of the sale to the payment of the taxation to make lists thereof and $ 10a projudgment, there remained a balance; and the vides that the statement shall set forth the balance remaining unpaid was assessed in number of the school district or districts in the city of Kingman, the county seat of King- which such property was situated on the 1st man county, for taxation. The plaintiff is a day of March. It is ably and earnestly arresident of Missouri. The question presented gued that the common-law rule embodied in for our consideration is whether judgments the maxim, Mobilia personam sequuntur, aprendered by the courts in this state in favor of plies with full force in this case, and that ponresident parties are taxable while they re- the situs ' of the intangible property evimain unsatisfied. There is no claim in this denced by the judgment is at the domicil case that the party against whom the judgment of the owner, aud subject to taxation there was rendered is insolvent, or that the valuation only. This rule of law is subject to so many placed on the judgment is excessive. Has the exceptions and limitations that it is quite as legislature assumed the power to and provided liable to mislead as to furnish a correct for the taxation of such judgments? Section guide, when considered alone. In the distri. 1, chap. 107, of the General Statutes of 1889, bution of the estates of deceased persons, it is reads: "Section 1. That all property in this generally, if not universally, given full force state, real and personal, not expressly exempt and effect, both as to tangible and intangible therefrom, sball be subject to taxation in the property; and, from comity, nations foreign manner prescribed by this act.”. In $ 2 tbe to each other generally recognize the law of term “personal property” is defined as follows: the place of the owner's domicil as controlling "The term “personal property'shall include in the distribution of the personal estate of the every tangible thing which is the subject of deceased owner. To questions of taxation the ownership, not forming part or parcel of real maxim has very little application. Every sovproperty; also, all tax-sale certificates, judg- ereignty asserts the right to levy taxes on perments, notes, bonds and mortgages, and all sons and property within its protection, and evidences of debt secured by lien on real estate; the ground on which all taxation is justified is also, the capital stock, undivided profits, and that it is a burden necessarily imposed by the all other assets of every company, incorpo. sovereignty in order to enable it to perform rated or unincorporated, and every share or its duty in protecting persons and property. interest in such stock, profit, or assets, by 1 Desty, Taxn. 59; Cooley, Taxn. 19 et seq.; whatever name the same may be designated: Story, Confl

. L. 543, note A, and cases cited. provided, the same is not included in other We think it now quite well settled that choses personal property subject to taxation, or listed in action belonging to a nonresident, in the as the property of individuals; and also every hands of a managing agent within the state, share or interest in any vessel or boat used in are taxable. New Albany v. Meekin, 56 Am. navigating any of the waters within or border- Dec. 522, note page 530, and cases therein cited; ing on this state, whether such vessel or boat 1 Desty, Taxn. 64; Finch v. York County, 19 shall be within the jurisdiction of the state or Neb. 50, 56 Am. Rep. 741. The power to tax elsewhere; and also all'property' owned, residents of the state on credits due from citileased, used, occupied, or employed by any rail. zens of other states is often upheld. Kirtland way or telegrapb company, or corporation v. Hotchkiss, 42 Conn. 426, 19 Am. Rep. 546. within this state, situate on the right of way And this even where it results in duplicate taxaof any railway." Section 7 of the same chap. tion. Dyer v. Osborne, 11 R. I. 321, 23 Am. ter provides where property shall be listed for Rep. 460; note to People v. Worthington, 74 taxation, and the part of the section material to Am. Dec. 95, and cases cited. The cases this inquiry reads as follows: "Every person upholding the power to tax promissory notes required to list property in behalf of others and other written securities held within the shall list such property in the same township, state, though owned by a ponresident, someschool district, or city in wbich said property is times lay stress on the fact that the securities are, in a certain sense, property, and are sub- must be taxed in the township, school district, ject to seizure for debt, and tbat a title may be or city in which it is located; and, to be taxable, made to the intangible debt by delivery of the it must be held to have a situs of its own. written evidence of it.

The authorities with reference to the situs of a We perceive no valid objection to the power judgment are not numerous, and no case is of the legislature to tax all judgments by called to our attention where the precise point domestic courts, and remaining unsatisfied, now under consideration has been decided in whether owned by citizens of this state, or an action where the owner of the judgment other states, or foreign countries, provided the resided out of the state. But, in cases where rate of taxation be the same as that imposed on the owner resided in the state, it has been held other forms of property belonging to citizens that the situs of the judgment for purposes of of this state. The question here, however, is taxation is at the residence of the judgment whether the legislature has expressed a pur creditor. Meyer v. Pleasant, 41 La. Ann. 645; pose to tax judgments in favor of a citizen of People v. Eastman, 25 Cal. 601. another state, rather than as to the power to W ben this case was first considered, the do so. Judgments are included, by the express writer was strongly inclined to the opinion provision of § 2, in the term “personal prop- that a judgment should be held to have a situs erty." Does this mean judgments owned by of its own at the place where the record of the citizens of this state, or those rendered by court rendering it is kept; but it seems quite courts within the state, without reference to clear that, if the owner be a resident of the ownership? In answering this question, some state, the situ8 is with him, at his place of weight, at least, should be given to the rule residence, and there is no purpose expressed by that credits are generally regarded as residing the legislature to give judgments in favor of with the creditor. The case of Fisher v. nopresidents a situs for the purpose of taxation. Rush County Comrs. 19 Kan. 414, is an If the legislature wishes to change the rule, extreme one, and has been criticised. A resi- and establish a situs for taxation for all judg. dent of this state may undoubtedly be taxed on ments rendered by the courts of this state, it moneys due bim from citizens of other states, ought to employ language expressive of its and this would be equally true after the claim purpose to do so. The natural implication is reduced to judgment in a foreign jurisdiction. from the language in fact employed would Under the provisions of $ 7, where the owner seem to be that, as to the situs of credits for of a domestic judgment resides in this state, it taxation, the rules generally recognized were seems clear that it must be tased at the place intende to be followed. of his residence, provided it does not pertain to The judgment is affirmed, a business located at some other place. Where the owner is a popresident, if taxed at all, it All the Justices concur.




S. T. McLAUGHLIN, Appt.,

people bave the right to go for work, business,


5. A man who comes in contact with an PANY.

electric-light wire on the side of a building

while climbing out of a window upon a cornice (........Ky.........)

while at work painting the building is vot guilty

of contributory negligence, unless in so doing he 1. A stockholder in a corporation which fails to exercise the degree of care which ordiowns stock in another company is disqualified to Darily careful and prudent persons usually exact as juror in an action against the latter com

ercise under such circumstances. pany. 2. The utmost care is necessary to keep

(November 25, 1896.) the insulation of dangerous electric wires perfect at a place where people have a right to go to work, business, or pleasure, although very

the Circuit Court for Jefferson County great care may be sufficient as to wires at other in favor of defendant in an action brought to places.

recover damages for personal injuries caused 3. The apparently proper insulation of by contact with an improperly insulated elecelectric-light wires on the side of a building is an tric wire belonging to defendant. Reversed. invitation or inducement to persons painting the The facts are stated in the opinion. building to risk the consequences of contact with Mr. Junius C. Klein for appellant. them, especially in the middle of the day.

Messrs. Gibson & Marshall, O'Neal, 4. The fact that the insulation of dan. Phelps, & Pryor, and Phelps & Thum

gerous electric wires is very expen- for appellee.
sive or inconvenient is no excuse for failure to
make such insulation perfect at points where

Guffy, J., delivered the opinion of the
NOTE.–For negligence as to electric light wires court:
in or on buildings, see Griffin v. United Electric It is alleged in the petition in this action
Light Co. (Mass.) 32 L. R. A. 400, and note.

that 'the plaintiff is and was on the 8th day of July, 1893, a painter by trade, and followed known under the circumstances was necessary the same for a livelihood, and was on the 8th to be exercised by him to avoid injury from day of July, 1893, engaged in painting a house said wire. Wherefore, having answered, de. on the east side of Fourth street, in the said fendant prays to be dismissed. The reply of city of Louisville, between Market and Main plaintiff traversed the allegations of the an. streets, and numbered --; that on said 8th swer. The jury found for the defendant, and day of July, 1893, and long prior thereto, the bis petition was dismissed. Appellant relied defendant, its agents and servants, had erected on these grounds for a new trial, viz.. That and maintained one of its electric wires, the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury charged with electricity, on the side of said as requested by plaintiff in instructions Nos.

house facing Fourth street; tbat the said wire, 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9; (2) that the verdict of the jury on the 8th day of July, and long prior thereto, is not sustained by sufficient evidence; (3) that was insufficiently, carelessly, and negligently the court erred in not excusing a juror, Willinsulated, and that defendant, its agents and iam Pryatt, for cause, he being a stock holder servants, were well aware of said want of in- in the Louisville Gas Company, and it being sulation, or could have been aware of same the owner of stock in the defendant company. by the exercise of proper diligence; that plain. The motion for a new trial was overruled, and tiff on said 8th day of July, 1893, while in the plaintiff has appealed. discharge of his duties as painter aforesaid, and The plaintiff below (appellant here) testified without fault on his part, came in contact with in substance as follows: "S. T. McLaugblin said wire, which at the said time was heavily testified: That he was twenty-two years of charged with electricity by the defendant, its age, and a house painter by trade; was a conagents and servants, whereby he was severely tractor in that line, and had a job in conjuncshocked and rendered insensible, and that tion with Asa Carr of painting the front of H. he remained insensible and unconscious for C. Green's hotel, known as the 'Fourth Avetwenty minutes and more; that he suffered Due Hotel,' and bad almost finished the work, severe pain, both physically and mentally, on the 8th day of July, 1893, when he came in by reason of said shock, and that the flesh contact with one of the defendant's electric on his left hand was burnt and blistered wires, near the side of a window, and received to such an extent as to render said band a shock. That defendant had two wires runuseless, and that ever since and now said ning from the west side of Fourth street in plaintiff is unable to use said hand in the per- Louisville, Kentucky. That these two wires formance of his vocation as a painter; that were fastened to brackets attached to the side plaintiff is rendered less able thereby to make of the wall between the first and second a living at his trade as a painter; that the said windows of the hotel, counting from the injuries received by the said plaintiff are per- north. These windows were on the secoud manent, and that his entire nervous system, floor of the building. The first floor was ocby reason of said shock, is unbalanced, caus- cupied by business firms. That these brackets ing plaintiff much and severe pain; that the said were fastened to the wall about 6 inches from injuries complained of herein were caused each window, and about 5 feet above the sill wholly by the gross negligence of the defend of the windows. That defendant had an iron ant, its agents and servants; that the plaintiff box, called a 'converter,' attached to the side had been damaged by reason of said injuries of the hotel building, midway between these in the sum of $2,500. Wherefore the plaintiff two windows. That this box was about a foot prays judgment against the defendant for the above an iron cornice running the full length sum of $2,500, and for his costs, and for all of the building, immediately below the win

The defendant filed a de-dows, about 6 inches below. That these two murrer to the petition, which was overruled | wires ran from the brackets to the top of this by the court. The first paragraph of the an- converter or box. That plaintiff was shocked swer substantially denies all the averments in by the wire next to the north side of the second the petition wbich show any right to recover. window, at a place where the wire was joined The second paragraph of the answer is as fol- together, and about half way between the lows: "Further answering, this defendant bracket and the converter. That this wire says that the injuries received by the plaintiff, ran down from its bracket along the side of and set forth in the petition, were received the window, and 6 inches from the window, wholly and entirely because of his want of for about 2 feet, and then turned over north proper care and caution in looking out for his to the converter. That the iron cornice was own safety, and by reason of his carelessness in about 12 inches wide; space enough for a man coming in contact with an electric light wire, to stand on convenieutly, and paint. That he which he knew, or by the exercise of ordinary and his men bad used the cornice to work care for his own safety could have known, from, as there were wires preventing the was then and there charged with a current of staging or swinging ladder from being let down electricity, making it dangerous to life for any between them. When he had painted down one to come in contact with the said wire. to the bracket and wires, be pulled the staging Defendant says that, by the exercise of ordi- up, out of the way, and painted around the pary care for his own safety, and such as cir- wires and the iron box, while standing on the cumstances and surroundings made it appar- iron cornice. The window sill was outside ent was necessary, the plaintiff could have about 5 inches by 5 inches, and rested on the avoided coming in contact with the said wire, iron cornice inside of the wood about a foot and could have escaped all injury therefrom. wide. That he had put several coats of paint Defendant says that plaintiff came into contact on the house, and was through, with the exwith said wires by failing to exercise that de- ception of touching up the right bind ear of gree of care which he knew or ought to have the iron box. That he was in the act of get.

proper relief.

[ocr errors]

ting out of this second window on the cornice, was standing on the first window, inside of to touch up this ear, when he received the same, stirring some paint. The work of paintshock. That he had taken his brush full of ing the building was finished with the exceppaint in his right hand, and nothing in his left, tion of a little space below the second window and was on the sill of the window, turning sill, and one of the ears of the iron box on the back out onto the cornice, when he used bis side of the house between the first and second left band to steady himself against the north windows. That McLaugblin got bis brush full side of the window opening, when his hand of paint, and was going out to paint this ear; came in contact with the wire, and he received and, while I was at the first window, be started the shock which rendered him unconscious, to get out of the second window, with his and be did not know anything more for about brush in his right hand. Had nothing left in a half an hour, when he was revived and his left. He had hardly gotten into the window found himself inside of the house, with Asa opening when I heard a groan, followed imCarr, W. J. Cody, bis employee, and Mr. H. mediately by a second one, and I then leaned C. Green, working with him to revive him. out of the window, and looked in the direction That his left hand was burnt and blistered on of the groads, and saw McLaughlin bave hold the 3d and 4th fingers, and at the edge of the of the electric wire between this iron box and palm, at base of small finger. That he suf- a bracket right on the joint of the wire. I fered a great deal at the time of the shock and quickly ran to the second window, put my long afterwards. That he went home and arm between him and the north side of the went to bed for a week. That he has never window out around his body, then reached out fully recovered the full use of bis left arm and over bis head, and took hold of the wrist of his hand. That he has not been able to work at left hand, and jerked it loose from the wire, his trade or calling on account of the weakness and lifted bim into the building, and laid bim of his hand. That he cannot properly bandle down on the floor. About that time Asa Carr the brush and ropes. That in his trade it re- came into the room, and then Mr. Green, of quires strong hands and arms to hoist and the hotel. We all rubbed him, walked him, lower himself on the staging. That he has and slapped bim for fully twenty minutes benot had any work at his trade at all. That he fore be was revived. Ai the time I pulled bis did and is working as a hand on the steamer hand loose from the wire, I received a shock

plying between Louisville and Cin- myself, but not enough to hurt me. Mccinnati; and has worked about two months. Laughlin, when I reached him, was doubled up That there was no sign or anything else to partly on the window sill, and one leg out on warn bim of a danger about or near those the iron cornice below tbe window. He suffwires.” On cross-examination, said S. T. Mc-ered a great deal; was unconscious for fully Laughlin testified: That no one warned him twenty minutes. Examined the joint he had at any time about those wires. That he did hold of immediately after we had got him to not know Squire Green, but did know Mr. himself. Found the joint very loose and rotGreen, proprietor of the hotel. That Squire ten. Ope end of the stuff used in wrapping it Green did not tell him to keep away from those was hanging down about 2 inches. The wires wires. Did not see Squire Green around the all seemed to be covered with insulation. The building the day before the accident. Squire place McLaughlin bad hold of this wire was Green did not offer to cut the wires if be very near the north edge of the north side of wanted it done. Nor did he tell Squire Green the second window. The bracket to which it that he could get along without the wires be- was fastened was within 6 inches of the edge ing cut. That no one told him that the wires of the window. These windows were about 3 were alive or dangerous. That he knew that feet apart. The sills were of wood and stone. electric wires were dangerous, but that be bad The stone was 5 inches wide and thick, and been working around the wires all week, and rested on an iron cornice, running above the all seemed to be insulated, and yet he was not storerooms on the first floor. This iron box or hurt. That he did not know electricity was converter was placed against the wall between turned on. That it was about noon of tħe 8th the first and second windows in the middle, and day of July, 1893, when he was hurt. That about a foot above the iron cornice. This wire he saw no lights about the building. That be entered at the top of the box at the side. The came up to the office of the defendant one Sup-wires come from across the street, from the day night; whether first Sunday after the ac- west side, and run over to these brackets, and cident or not he did not remember. Was then down to the box. Whenever we bad there because Mr. Smith had sent for him. painted to the top down to these wires, we Did not tell Mr. Smith or anyone else that he pulled the staging up out of the way, and was not hurt, or was scared more than hurt, stood on this iron cornice, and painted from and did tell him then and there that he was there. The cornice is 12 inches wide. Had burt, and showed him his hand, and pointed out worked around the very same wire several the places where it was burned. That he did times. Had experienced no shock, nor did he pot meet Squire Green every other Sunday notice anything wrong with the wire. All on Third and Jefferson streets. Witness then seemed insulated. Did not remember seeing showed bis hand to the jury, pointing out the Squire Green around there. Did not hear him only indication of the burn at edge of palm. or anyone else warn McLaughlin to beware of That what appeared to be a wart there was not a the wires. Nothing was said about the wires wart. It was not there when be was shocked. being dangerous." Other witnesses testified It came there afterwards, when it healed up. as to the injury.

William J. Cody testified: “Was working John F. Bunscomb testified as follows: there on the 8th day of July, 1893, the day on "John F. Bupscomb testified that he is an which Sam McLaughlin was hurt. That hel electrician. Have run similar plants to that of

« ForrigeFortsett »