Show BILES IS REVERSED I lIt I Hew Trial Is Ordered In the Hand ley Damage Salt I DALY JI1MMJ CO IS HEFUMMST llttniJl p Was Hurt In ths llnlr Mlna lu ISJj nod Miiil for 15000 Uomoe The Supreme court handed down an opinion today In tbo cite of William It llaodloy va the Duly Mlnln company com-pany vacating end letting atlde tha ludgmeut I of Ibe court below and granting the appellant a new trial The opinion It written by Justice Miner and concurred In by COld Justice Jus-tice 7 mo and Justice Dillon Thla caso was an tcllorl brongbt by Handloy an employo of t the Daly Mining company In February 1890 to recover 15000 l at damages for Injuries received by him while at work In Ihe defendant company mine on the fill of December 1S93 The complaint alleges Ibat early In Ibo morning ot the day uimed plalutlQ atdeicendlng the mine to the 930 fool level All at once the cage came lo a sudden stand tllll throwing plain Mil rliiht over OD his face Injuring bla knee bick and hip joint fbu cause of lbs accident Is I attributed to the In competency of lbs engineer named Adamson The aniwer ol the Dily Mlulnz company denied specifically every allegation al-legation named lu Ibe complaint At lbs trial which was bad bi lore Judge Ullli ou the Hill day 01 Juuo IStO at l < rlc City testimony woe Introduced lending to bow ibal lbs accident wuulJ not b aveercu red had Ibere been a competent com-petent engineer In charge and that Adamion < had bad teveral 1 accidents before resulting In the death of Iwo or lObes mlneii and hut betn laid oa t for accldentt ooLurring On the otber band testimony wat also Introduced te ding to contra Jlot Ihie Alter the evidence was ail In the our Instructed the Jury lo bring In a verdict for the defendant de-fendant mpauy Ilaintld appealed ap-pealed claiming he wai eulltled to judgment btciuse the testimony showed Atiamton Incompetently and that the defendant ootbl to ba made liable for lit negligence In employing him himrue rue court bold that the evidence I went to thaw Ibt the Injury plain I j tin would not 1 have happened but for h tl la f duolr t the negligence of tho aUlion lender tu leaving tIme chalta la tbe ihalland ot 3 Atamion lu not discovering itiThet I oslo two ode Ibe court says oontrlbuUJ to cause Ibe accident The opinion further fur-ther readi 1 lan case tbe Injury li ciuted ly i = re acclJeut and tbe defendant negligence r II r 1 negli-gence concuri lo the extent that tue I accident would not have boppeoed but I lbli for soleD negligence bo It liable J for tbe i comequences Ibedlitlnctlon between concurring oauiei and Intervening oauiei lies not so much lu Ins character 01 the act done or omitted but ill eflect upon t tbe resull tbe difference between cat tnbutlou and abed and lo this II mutt bb dad that Ibo concurrent or eucceedlng negligent mutt break the tiquence of evinti 10 make the cause of Intervention Ihe only available test Jr did the In lervintug cautr whetber mole or Inanimate break lbatequuac100f 01711 10 It li a case 01 Intervening legllgonci otntrwlt a case of 03 operating negligence uonourrlng or contributory If me negligence In Ibis caie the court sys too lu Ihe delendaal keeping JamsQU in lie employ after knowing ho was Incompetent While Ihe OUr expresses no opinion upon lb a weght to be given this testimony II holds that undir all Ike ICII InlroJuied at Ibo trial be cma mould have none lo tbe July and henoa tools the appeal ana old etessoo w trIal Brown Henderson act King were Homey fur plalntlll and appellant Moll Bennett Hark De and BiaJtey and 11 JDinnluy for the defendant oDd repoudenl |