Слике страница

It appears from the evidence that the | Mr. Skinner said to you when he first came prosecu trix, with her husband and family, in there in the morning of the 28th day of resided in the rear rooms of a store build- December. A. When he asked me to go Ing situated in the village of Alstine; that with him, I said: 'No, I would not; I have the residence portion was separated from a man of my own.' I told him to leave, the store-room by a partition, through and he went home; and he was not gone which there was a door or passage-way home but a few minutes until he came from the residence portion to the store, back in the store-room. I was in there and which, just previous to the time the sewing, and he wanted to know where Will alleged assault was made, was open. It also was; if he had come back. Says I: 'No, he appears that prior to the alleged occur is not home yet.' I says: 'I want you to rence the families of the prosocutrix and leave me.' He made no reply, but just the defendant were on friendly terms; that stayed there. Then he turned around and the detendant had boarded in the prosecu- went out, and got on his pony. I went in trix's family at one time; had assisted her the kitchen to work again. He rode in the store; and that the two were fre- around to the kitchen door. I had the quently seen engaged in friendly conversa- door open. He rode up to the door, and he tion with her head upon his breast. At the says to me: 'When will Rogers want that time of the alleged assault the store was table?' I know what he wanted. I turned kept by one J. P. Smith, in which Mr. around, and left him standing there, and Smith was at the time. The husband, Mr. he rode away, and I didn't see him any Rogers, had gone into the country that more until dinner.

. . Q. Now, when day, which fact was known to the accused. did you see the defendant again that day, The plaintiff in error, on the day in ques

--on the 28th day of December? A. I saw tion, went into the store, where Mr. Smith him go over the hills, and he was gone was, and passed on into the room occupied about two hours and a half or three hours, by the prosecutrix and her children. We and then he came back at about half past quote the testimony of Mrs. Rogers, giving three,-just about that time, as near as I in detail what occurred in her room.

can tell. He rode up to Mr. Towles'store, "Question. Did you see the defendant on and tied his pony to the hitching-post, and the 28th day of December, 1888 ? Answer. got off, and came over to our place. Q. I did. Q. Where did you see him? A. He Where were you at that time when he came to my house. Q. Where were you came over the last time? A. I was in the at the time he came to your house? A. I kitchen. Q. Did he come to your door? was in the kitchen at work. Q. About | A. Yes, sir; he did. Q. Tell what he said what time of day was this? A. It was to you this time? A. And he came into in the morning early he came first. Q. the store first, and got some medicine; and What time? He came during the day then he came from the store-room into the again? A. Yes, sir; he came there about kitchen. As he came in he closed the door four times between eight o'clock that after him; and as soon as I could get to morning and ten. Q. Was any one with the door I opened the door, and I told him? A. No, sir. Q. Who was with him if he would please just leave the door you at these times on the 28th day of open; and then he flew back, and says: December that he canie there? A. There Can't I talk to you with the kitchen door weren't any one in the room with me but shut?' Q. State briefly what was said my children; but Mr. Smith was there in there. A. Then he came up to me, and the store building. Q. Was any one in wanted to have intercourse with me, and the kitchen with you? A. No, sir.

I told him, No.' Q. Now, Mrs. Rogers, Q. What did Mr. Skinner do and say to give the exact words that Mr. Skinner you when he came there first in the morn- used to you at that time,-just what he ing? A. Well, he came that morning, and said. A. Well, he says: "Won't you let me spoke, and said, 'Good morning,' to me. have it?' Said I: "No, I will not.' Q. Then he sat down by the store, and he | When he said this, where did hestand from asked me when we were going away, (we you,-how far? A. He stood just in front were talking about leaving.) I said I of me; just as close as he could possibly get. didn't know when we was going: and Q. Explain what he did to you. A. When then he began to inquire about a letter I told him, 'No,' he took hold of my arms, that we had got on the Monday before, and forced me against the wall, and said and be asked me what it was, and who he must have it. I told him 'No.' Said I: wrote the letter. I told him I didn't *If you don't let loose of me, I'll holler.' He know, and he wanted to know what was says: “If you do, we'll both die right here in the letter. I said I didn't know, and I together.' Heshoved his hand back where would not tell him what was in the letter; I seen a revolver sticking out of his pocket. and he wanted to know what he was go. He said: “Besides, if you tell it, he'll die ing to do about it. I said he wasn't going too.' He meant Mr. Rogers. Q. Just go on to do nothing. He said: 'Is he going to and state what took place. A. He says: leave you?' Q. Who did he refer to when If he opens his head to me, I'll drop him he asked you what he was going to do before he has a chance to do anything at about it? A. He wanted to know what all.' Q. Did he say anything about ofMr. Rogers was going to do about it,- ficers ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did he say? what he was going to do about the letter. A. He says, besides : The officers can never That was the matter. Q. Go on and state take me.' He says: 'I have already killed what was said. A. He says: 'Is he going three in my time, and I am good for that to leave you?' Said 1: 'No.' He says: many more. And when I told him I would • Won't you go with me?" I says: 'No, I holler he says: If you do, and they come would not.' Q. Mrs. Rogers, I wish you out here, I'll shoot them down.' Q. Good to narrate now what took place, -what I and state what he then did, and what you

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

did. A. Well, when I told him I would | Smith and two other men were in the holler if he didn't let loose of me, he let store-room at the time of the occurrence loose of me then, and I had been ironing, on December 28th; that the defendant did and I picked up the clothes, and ran out not attempt to disturb her clothing; that, of there, and went around the house, and when she told the defendant if he did not ran into the wareroom, and stayed there let go of her she would halloo, he let until I thought he would be gone. Then loose; that

the prosecutrix had never told I went into the store building. He had her husband or any one else of the first gone. I told Mr. Smith what had hap- alleged assault until after December 28th; pened, and he said, 'Yes;' he heard it, and that on a Sunday in December, after the he had gone home then. He hadn't been first and prior to the last alleged assault, homebut just a few minutes when he came the prosecutrix and her husband went carrying something over that he had bor- home with the defendant and his wife, took rowed of us. He came to the door, and dinner and spent part of the day with didn't want to go to the door. He asked

He asked them, and that the defendant stopped me to make up. I told him, “No;' I didn't overnight at the prosecutrix's on the 27th want to; but I went to the door, and he day of November, a few days after the first paid me for a jar that he had broken, and alleged assault. went out. Then he went home again, and J. F. Smith testified that the defendant I was in the kitchen working, and he came went into the room of the prosecutrix into the store again, and he came to my through the store on December 28th; that door, and wanted me not to say anything he heard some noise and some talking about this. He says: “Let us make up which was not very loud. friends, and not make any trouble.' * * We have given substantially all the tesQ. Has the defendant made any attempts timony contained in the bill of exceptions to assault you prior to the 28th day of De- in regard to the assault. Is it sufficient cember, 1888? A. He did. Q. When was to support the verdict? We think not. that? A. It was about four or six weeks In the case of Garrison v. People, 6 Neb. before this. Q. Now, just state the circum- 274, it was held that,“ to constitute an asstances of that assault,-where he was, sault with intent to commit a rape, there and so on. A. Well, it was in the same must have been an intent to commit a place. I was in the kitchen at work, and rape, and that intent must have been he came in, and said he wanted to talk to manifested by an assault for that purpose me, as we had always been friendly before. upon the person intended to be ravished. He talked a little while, and then he made Both of these ingredients are necessary to his proposals to me,-what he had come constitute the offense.” It was undoubtfor. Q: What did he say? A. He said he edly the defendant's desire to have sexual wanted me to let him have one.' That is intercourse with the prosecutrix. The evjust the words he used. Q. What did you idence fails to show that he intended to tell him? I told him, 'No; I would pot.' compel her to submit to his desires by force, Q. What did he do? A. I told him I but the entire circumstances establish that would die right there before I would do he expected to accomplish his purpose by such a thing as that. I said I would tell procuring her consent, and, failing in that, his wife; and he says: Why, you can't he desisted. The place and time of day make her believe it if you do tell it to her.' when the act was committed, the previous He says: 'I can make her believe any- acts of the parties, the fact that her clothes thing.' Q. Was there anything else said were not disturbed, that there was no inor done about the matter at that time? dication of violence on her person, and A. Yes, sir; and he again asked me, and I that the defendant ceased urging his solicitold him, “No;' and he took hold of me ta tions when the prosecutrix threatened to that time, and tried to coax me to. I make an outcry, indicate that the defendtold him I would not; that I would die ant did not intend to commit a rape. He right there. I told him to go. When he must have intended to use whatever force made the threats, I told him if he didn't go was necessary to overcome her resistI would call for help. There were some ance, and compel her to submit to his young men on the front step talking. I passions, to make out the crime of an astold him I would call these young men in sault with intent to commit rape. The evif he didn't go. He said if I did he would idence fails to sustain the verdict. The drop them right in the floor.

Q. judgment of the district court is reversed, Now, the last time you have just spoken and the cause remanded for a new trial. of, when did that occur? A. It was about The other judges concur. the 15th of November. Q. About what time in the day? A. It was in the morn

(80 Mich. 260) ing, about ten o'clock."

BOICK V. BISSELL. Cross-Examination.

# Q. What (Supreme Court of Michigan. April 18, 1890.) prevented him on the 15th day of Novem

NEGLIGENCE-EVIDENCE-QUESTION FOR JURY. ber in succeeding when he asked you about it? What prevented him from overpower

1. In a suit for damages for personal injuries,

alleged to have been caused by the negligence of ing you? A. I told him if he didn't leave defendant's driver, it appeared that plaintiff, a I was going to call those young men in. teamster, was standing beside his wagon, with his Q. You think it was that that prevented head down, binding on a load of lumber, when dehim from succeeding? A. Yes, sir; I do. fendant's truck, although there was ample room in Q. Did he attempt to disturb your clothes

the drive-way, passed so near as to catch plaintiff in any way? A. No more than taking

between the wheels, and injure him. Held that, alhold of me.

though plaintiff saw the truck approaching when The prosecutrix testified

10 or 12 feet distant, the questions of contributory further, on cross-examination, that she

negligence and negligence of defendant's driver was 24 years old at that time; that Mr. should have been left to the jury.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

3. It was error to exclude testimony offered on | Bissell's team to pass without injuring behalf of plaintiff to show that he was loading his plaintiff, and it would have done so, as wagon in the customary way in that passage, and plaintiff claims, if the driver had not that defendant's driver knew what was the cus-swerved from his course in towards the tomary way.

8. Plaintif having testified that I defendant's plaintiff. His foot was caught by the hind driver had driven in a straight line from where wheel, and he was thrown down between plaintif saw him he would not have touched plain the vehicles, severely injuring both legs. un, it was error to exclude the further question | The truck of defendant was not over eight as to how far, in such case, the truck wheels would feet wide. The hind wheels were six inches have come from his feet.

wider than the forward wheels. The plain4. The reputation of defendant's driver as a tiff testified that if defendant's driver had careful driver was immaterial, and testimony on driven in a straight line from where he first that bead was properly excluded.

saw him he would not have touched him. Error to circuit court, Wayne county: He was asked if he had so driven how far GEORGE GARTNER, Judge.

the truck wheels would have come from his Corliss, Andrus & Leete, for appellant. feet. He was not allowed to answer the Henry M. Du tfield, for appellee.

question, which was a proper one. It was

shown that the track of the truck wheels MORSK, J. This is an action to recover passed within from 6 to 12 inches of plaindamages for personal injuries to plaintiff tiff's wagon. The drive-way was planked alleged to have been received through the its whole width, and there were no obnegligent driving of defendant's servant. stacles in the way of Bissell's driver except The circuit Judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff and his wagon. defendant. This was error. The case The circuit judge, in his charge to the should have been submitted to the jury jury, stated that the defendant's driver upon the question of the negligence of de- might have left more space between himfendant's driver, and also as to the contrib- self and plaintiff's team." This is also eviutory negligence of plaintiff. No testi- dent from the testimony. The circuit mony was offered on the part of the de- judge further said the defendant's driver fendant. The facts, as shown by the plain-1 "might have seen him, (plaintiff,] and he tiff and his witnesses, were substantially might not have seen him. There is no evias follows: The plaintiff, a teamster, was dence that he did see him, or that he drove hauling lumber on the 17th of December, faster than men usually drive in that 1887, from the depot of the Detroit, Grand drive-way, or that he drove in any other Haven & Milwaukee Railway Company, way, or in any other manner, than a careat Detroit. Teams go in and out from the ful or prudent person would drive.. To my depot in a drive-way from Atwater street. mind there is no evidence in the case upon The drive-way is about 25 feet wide from which you could find negligence on the the platform of the freight sheds at the de- part of the driver." From all the testipot to the car tracks. The north side of mony, it appears that there was a clear the drive-way, adjacent to the tracks, is space of at least 14 feet outside of the devoted to the loading of freight directly plaintiff, in which the defendant's driver from the cars. The plaintiff drove his might have passed, leaving from 6 to 8 feet wagon to the north side of the drive-way, between his load and plaintiff. The plainoccupying a space from fire to eight feet of tiff had a right to be in the drive-way, and the same, and was loading lamber from was using no more space than he was enthe cars upon his wagon, which was about titled to. The driver of Bissell's wagon five feet wide. He had put on a small load was bound by the law to notice plaintiff's of lumber, and was engaged in binding his wagon, and to use all due diligence and load at the time of the injury. His horses care in passing, so as not to injure him. were facing to the west, and he stood be. It was for the jury to say, under the cirtween the hind and forward wheels, wind- cumstances, whether driving within from Ing the chain around the wagon reach, or 6 to 12 inches of plaintiff's wagon was orusing the chain for the purpose of lighten- dinary care and prudence, considering the Ing and securing his load, at the time he character of his load, and where the drivwas burt. He came around from the front er sat upon it. If his position was such of his horses to bind the load, and, as he that he could not look down and see Bo came around, saw the defendant's team where his wheels were going, it was the coming. Bissell's team was drawing a driver's duty to take space enough to prehea vy freight truck, loaded with from 40 vent collision, as long as the space was to to 50 bags of clover seed, weighing about be had. If he did not wish, for any rea180 pounds each. The driver sat upon the son, to take this space, it was his duty to top of the load, and in front. This truck keep his eyes out to see whether or not he was loaded upon the other side of the was going to run against or over plaindrive-way. from 75 to 150 feet away from tiff. 11, under the circumstances, he had plaintiff, and while loading the team was collided with plaintiff's wagon or team, laced to the east. When the load was com- his negligence would have been apparent. pleted, the driver turned bis horses around. As it is, his negligence is a question to be and drove out past plaintiff. Defendant's properly decided by a jury. team was 10 or 12 fept east from plaintiff's It is claimed by defendant's counsel that wagon when he first saw it. He stood,

He stood, the plaintiff must have thrown out his As it parsed, with his face to his own wag. feet after the forward wheels of defendant's on, and his back to defendant's truck, and truck had passed, and that such act was within two or three feet of his wagon, and negligent. Whether he did so throw out was stooping over, or hending forward, his foot, or whether it was negligence to engaged in fying his chain or in binding do so, is also for the jury. When there was his load. There was plenty of room for plenty of room for the defendant's wagon

[ocr errors]

ao me contract provided that planten hould do tionte No changes shall be made except by

to pass without touching the plaintiff, and tering of the five dwelling-houses, for the it was at noonday, and when, as plaintiff sum of $2,475. The contract contained this says, if the driver had kepton in a straight clause: "It is also agreed by and between course, as he was driving, he would not the parties that the specifications and have struck plaintiff, it was for the jury to drawings are intended to co-operate, so

say whether or not it was negligence in that any works exhibited in the drawings the plaintiff to turn his back to the road- and not mentioned in the specifications, or way, relying upon the course of the defend- vice versa, are to be executed the same as ant's wagon as headed, and upon the fact if they were mentioned in the specifications that there was plenty of room in which to and set forth in the drawings, to the true pass him without collision. The reputa- intent and meaning of the said drawings tion of defendant's driver as a careful driv. or specifications, without extra charge, er was not in issue, and was immaterial. and, should any dispute arise respecting Williams v. Edmunds, 42 N. W. Rep. 534. the true construction or meaning of the It was competent to show that plaintiff drawings or specifications, the same shall was loading his wagon in the customary be decided by William Scott & Co. and deway in such drive-way, and that defend- cision shall be final and conclusive." It also ant's driver knew what the customary contained the following: “The contractor, way of loading was there, as affecting the at his own proper costs and charges, question of his negligence in driving as to provide all manner of labor, materials, close as he did to plaintiff's wagon. The apparatus, scaffolding, utensils, and cartjudgment is reversed, and a new trial age, of every description, necessary for the granted, with costs. The other justices due performance of the several works." concurred.

The fifth article reads as follows: “Should

the owner, at any time during the progress (79 Mich. 607)

of said works, require any alteration of, HANLEY et al. v. WALKER.

deviation from, addition to, or omissions (Supreme Court of Michigan. April 11, 1890.) in, this contract, consisting of this agreeASSUMPSIT-CONTRACTS-CONSTRUCTION-QUAN

mentand the said plans and specifications, TUM MERUIT.

made a part hereof, he shall have the right 1. Where a contract by plaintiffs, for plaster

and power to make such change or changes; ing, provides that, before payment can be de

and the same shall in no way injuriously manded, plaintiffs must obtain the certificate of affect or avoid this agreement, but the difapproval of specified architects, their failure to ference shall be added to or deducted from obtain such certificate is a defense to an action on the amount of this contract, as the case the contract, in the absence of fraud or collusion

may be, by fair on the of the architects defendant.

2. A plaintiffs certain plastering, in accordance with certain plans

notice from and specifications, for a certain sum, and that de- be served on the contractor, subcontractfendant should pay them, as the work progressed, or, or foreman. No omission of work or on the certificate of the architects, deducting a cer- materials from the plans or specifications tain per cent., and that on the completion of the shall be deemed extra work if the same is work, and its acceptance and approval by the ar

necessary to complete said building in acchitects and owner, the balance should be paid.

cordance with the general design or purThe architects pointed out certain defects which plaintiffs claimed to have remedied. Held, that

pose for which the same is intended, and they could not recover on a quantum meruit with- the provisions of said plans and specificaout the architects' certificate.

tions, and no work shall in any case be con3. Defendant's taking possession of the prem- sidered extra unless a separate estimate, ises after plaintiffs quit work was not a waiver of in writing, for the same shall have been the condition requiring plaintiffs to obtain the

submitted by the contractor to the archiarchitects' certificate before they were entitled to

tect and the owner, and their signatures payment.

obtained thereto; and should any dispute Error to circuit court, Wayne county; arise respecting the true value of any extra GEORGE GARTNER, Judge.

work, or of the works omitted by the conWilliam Aikman, Jr., (Atkinson, Carpen- tractor, the same shall be valued by two ter, Brooke & Haigh, of counsel,) for ap- competent persons,-one to be chosen by pellant. John J. Speed, for appellees. the owner, and the other by the contract

or,-and these two shall have the power CHAMPLIN, C.J. The plaintiffs composed to name the third, in case they cannot the firm of George Hanley & Bro., who agree, and the decision of the two shall be were house plasterers doing business in binding on all parties, in case there be no the city of Detroit. In 1886, defendant was fraud or collusion." building brick dwelling-houses situated The specifications required the first, secupon John R. and Watson streets, in the ond, and third stories to be plastered with city of Detroit. They were five in number. two coats,-the first, of rich brown morOn the 26th day of May, 1886, the plaintiffs tar; the second, excepting coves and splays, entered into a contract with defendant to to be one hard coat white finish, with do the plastering in these houses according plenty of sand; finish composed of cold run to certain plans and specifications then putty and plaster of paris, well mixed and prepared for said work by William Scott put on,--troweled down hard and smooth. & Co., architects, which plans and specifi- They also require the contractor to put up cations were made a part of the contract. centers, to cost $15 net, in each house, to The plaintiffs were to furnish and provide be selected by the owner or architect. The all the good, proper, and sufficient mate- specifications also contained the followrials and labor of all kinds as should be ing: “Parlors, halls, sitting and dining necessary and sufficient for completing and rooms, to have plaster coves as shown in finishing the whole of thelathing and plas- | sketch, rough plastered, and set with peb

bles and shells, combed, as may be directed. | able to get his proper heating arrangeSecond-story halls, and two chambers in ments in shape, and he said he would fureach house, to have 9splayed angles, roughnish the coke if I would supply the salaplastered and coarse combed. Plaster to manders.

manders. He asked me if I could not run in beads on angles of all plastered make our mortar in the cellar, in order to angles, and finish and set ornamental protect it from the weather. I told him it brackets. The plasterer will remove all was not necessary; that we could do it rubbish occasioned by his work from the outside as well. He further testified premises, and leave the building broom that salamanders were fit only for use in clean: furnish and put up cotton cloth to drying out the brown coat; that it is not the windows, where required; pay for all usual to use them during the progress of broken glass while he is performing his the second coat, as it has a tendency to work; and furnish heat and labor for dry- discolor the work; and that he did not use ing the plastering."

them in this work for that reason. He The contructor was to be paid from time testified that the second coat was put on to time, as the work progressed, upon the after the first coat was dry. From the certificate of the architect, deducting 10 testimony of Mr. Hanley, it appears that per cent., until the whole job was complet- no modification whatever was made in the ed and accepted, when the balance and terms of the contract except that Mr. such percentage was to be paid on the ar- | Walker agreed to furnish coke for the heatchitects' certificate after the expiration of ing, which relieved Mr. Hanley of that ex80 days after acceptance and approval by pense. The other modification claimed the architect and owner, and the full, sat- | by Mr. Hanley to have been made was in Isfactory adjustment of all things pertain-reference to the manner in which the coves Ing thereto. The contract relatire to pay. were to be finished. The testimony of Mr. ment contained this proviso: "That before Hanley in support of this claim is as foleach and every payment is made a certifi- lows: "The cores were not put in accordcate shall be obtained from, and signed by, ing to specifications. They were finished in William Scott & Co., architects, to the ef- soap-stone, by an arrangement with Mr. fect that the work has been done, and ma- | Crittenden. I considered that Mr. Crittenterials have been furnished, in strict accord- den was acting for Mr. Walker in his abance with this agreement, said drawings sence. Previous to Mr. Walker going and specifications, and that he considers away, I had an interview with him, and the payment properly due. Said certifi- he said to me that anything I needed, to cate, however, is in no way to lessen the call down and see Mr. Crittenden, and, if total and final responsibility of said con- there was anything I wanted an explanatractor." No time is stated in the con- tion about, to come down there and have tract when the work shall be begun, nor a talk with Mr. Crittenden. He was in Mr. when it shall be completed. Two facts, Walker's office, and apparently in charge however, are suggested by the contract: of the office business,-book-keeping, or Fyrst. That the buildings were not then so something of that kind. I called Mr. Critfar completed as to be in readiness for plas-tenden's attention to what would be the tering. This is apparent from the fact appearance of the work if put in accordthat the contract stipulates that Hanley ing to specifications. So we finished the & Bro. shall build the houses, and furnish coves in soap-stone, according to the specall material therefor. But this is not imen furnished to Mr. Crittenden. * claimed, and explanation is found in the I told Mr. Crittenden that, while soaplact that a blank form of building con- stone was more costly work, as Mr. tract was used in making the agreement | Walker was away, I would not charge for plantering. Second. Thespecifications anything additional for the change.” On show that the plastering might not be cross-examination he testified: "Mr. Walkperformed until cold weather, as they pro- er did not say anything to me with regard vide that the contractor shall "furnish to Mr. Crittenden's agency. He merely heat and labor for drying the plastering. said, if I needed anything to go down and Hence it appears that it was in the con- see him. That was in the latter part of templation of the parties, on the 26th of November, as near as I can recollect; just May, that the work would be done when before Mr. Walker went west.” The dethe season would require artificial heat to fendant testified in his own behalf that he dry the plastering.

never authorized any change in the plans The plaintiffs claim that there were two and specifications. He claims that the modifications of the written contract: work was not done according to the conFyrst. On account of delay of the builders, tract. That the last coat was not hard finthe dwellings were not ready for the plas-ish, but would rub off when touched, leavterers until late in the season of 1886. The ing a white powder upon the hand, and plaintiff George Hanley testifies that they that the cove and finish was not in acentered upon the performance of the con- cordance with the specifications. On the tract about the middle or last of October; 23d of February, 1887, Scott & Co, archithat he had a conversation with defend- tects, served notice upon plaintiffs that the ant about the 1st of October, in which, plastering would not be accepted; that after mentioning the cause of delay, he the surface rubbed off : that there was some said: "We are into the cold weather and defect in the last coat, or the front had we will have to provide some means of touched it; that, in order to make a good heating:' and he asked me to suggest job, it would be necessary to calcimine the something to get over the difficulty. I entire walls. On receipt of this notice, told him that the only way we could do it plaintiff sent his men; and they sponged now would be by using salamanders and the walls, and claimed that they left them coke fires until such times as he would be in good order. They received another no

« ПретходнаНастави »