The Portland daily press., 1869-04-10
Superior Court.

APRIL TERM-GoDDARD, j., PRESIDING.
FRIDAY.-No. 57-John Witham v. Inhabitants OF
New Gloucesl This case was tried at the Deem
Der term. There 20 witnesses and the trial last
ed four days, resulting in disagreement of the jury.
This there 81 witnesses; trial la sted three
days, with verdict. The plaintiffs case is this On
the 18th day OF February. 1867, while driving two
horse sled loaded with bolts from Shakers Hills to
Jordans mill, in New Gloucester. in the travelled
highway, near John Smiths house, he met with the
accident through defect in the highway. The de-
feet consisted holes made in soft and yielding
by watering at temporary collection of water
at the place, ON Sunday the 10th, which cold snap
froze up into traps for catching horses feet. The
damage was in catching the right hind foot of plain
tfs off horse in of the holes and in disocatng
the ankle or breaking the bone between the fetock
and hoof entirely off, In slanting direction that
the horse recovered and was killed by the
er fortnight afterwards, because he was not able to
raise himself upon his feet and was OF no value.
The defendants, while denying notice and want Of
care, rest their defence mainly upon single point;
that the horse not injured at the place. that hs
became lame afterwards, and that this claim was
trumped up against the town and made out of whole
cloth. Many corroborating witnesses were brought
up on each side. If the plaintiffs testimony was
true, the is fully made OUT i! the defendants
witnesses did not mistake, the defence perfect.
Numerous witnesses were brought to impeach the
plaintiff and the reporter notes contribution tor
public information to all who liable to be called
impeaching witnesses, that of this cloud of
impeachers after being instructed by the Court and
counsel could to understand, until after a ST.
we're drill how to answer the fundamental question,
"Do you know the reputation of the plaintiff for
truth and veracty?" This is the first question to be
answered. and unless answered in the affirmative
the witness is not allowed by law to give the
to the next question in order, "What is that reputa-
ton; !" but witnesses will not make distinction and
will not answer the first question which is put, but
proceed to answer the second question before 1t 10
put, and to the question edo you know the reputa-
ton," instead of answering yes no, they make the
objectionable, irresponsive 1t is good; or it
is bad. This mode of answering were it not for the
legal objection is generally desirable as gives sat-
isacton at once but lawyers in court want only the
information they ask for.
Question practice. Defendants counsel propos-
Cd the questionable you know plaintiffs general rep
utation for truth and veracity. Objection is made
that the inquiry should be limited to the neighbour
h0oa where he resides After consultation and argu-
ment the question was put in its modified form
This is capital case for disagreement were it not
important to the public and to parties that there
should not be multiplicity of jury trials in the same
case The JUSTICE at the close of his charge, remark
ed that tie number of witnesses the zeal OF parties
and the industry ability and faithtulness OF counsel
have exhausted the capacities of the and
probably their endurance.
1t does not probable that further light can be
thrown on this deceased animal by any number of
future trials His death has already cost the people
tne County at least three times the highest esi
maze Vi MS value while living His funeral has prov
ed an expense to the Community os mall nc to the
parties, whatever may be your verdict allude to
1t in the hope that you will be able tn mara an and
to the case now and here, by an agreement
Verdict for the plaintiff S11a.
strout & Gage. Webb-Haskell.
No. 133-Mary Ann Townsend e Henry Horr.-
Trover for $500 cigars; value $3.50. The case has