Transcript, no date

Misteted by me possible strylen vren over - phone for publicative way, as not published So far as we have been able to ascertain neither the manufacturers of such paint nor the pergon engaged in applying it, nor scientific men familar with radium had any idea that the hazard was involved in the application of paint to watch dials, until trouble developed among our employees in (1924). Some of the plaintiffs witnesses concede that they Innw nothing of any such hasard prior to the time when the trouble developed among our former employees. No instance has been cited of any such hasard being known by anyone prior to that time. Under the se circunstances we think that we wore not negligent in using the same method which has generally been employed by the trade, and had not resulted in injury to anyone 90 far as was then known. These facts will be fully developed in the course of the defense at the hearing. We think that we should not be asked at this time to go into detail, as yet, however the public has heard but one side of the case. We think that judgent should be reserved until the other side as been presented. It should be Born in mind that the plaintiffs hnd left our employ long before they became ill. Opinions may differ as to whether this illness is attributable to exposure to radium, but even if it is. these more unfortunate circunstances are due to a hasard which ha above stated was entirely unlmown at the time the risk was incurred. The Company has not delayed the trial of these cases, it has been ready to proceed, and has proceeded on every day on which they have been set dom for trial. Neither the Concany nor the Court has delayed the trial of these cases. These cases were set dow in regular course for hearing in the court of Chancery, and in fact were set down for a hearing at an earlier date than ordinarily occurs in Chandery cases, which require a long time for trial. The Company has not asked for delay, and the Court has expedited the case as much as was possible under all the circunstances. The usunl course was followed in continuing the hearing to September. The Court set the cases down for the first available date. It should be born in mind that the plaintiffs admitted that in the summer of 1925 they Inew substantially as much about their alleged cause of action as they know now, and yet they delayed the institution of suit for nearly two years after the time they concede that they had such lmowledge. Most of the delay which has occured, therefore, is to the plaintiffs and the remainder of the delay is unavoidable. The Company had its witnesses in court prepared to present its defense at the last hearing. The plaintiffs case however, was not concluded in time to permit it do do so.