The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1870-10-28

"orobEh iEkM-BARR0WS, j., PRESIDING.
IHURsDAY.-Alred Rooerts VS.. City of Portland.
LORI nr per-onal injuries sustained by reason OF
def ctiv, highway. The defect complained of was
that 10 the tall OF 1868 the paving taken up along
the line of Commeri. Al FIR the purpose of ex-
cavating drain. and the stones, together with The
rocks blown out of the ledge. were piled up IN tn
sidewalk and several wltnes testified that the
stones frequently rolled down upon the sidewalk and
were picked up by them during the day. The test-
mony was that TIE defect had existed there over a
month.
The 'aintf policeman of the city, whose beat
included this portion OF the street. on the night OF
the 18th OF October, 1865 very dark stormy night
there BENG no gas on the street, owing 10 some re
PAIRS going on at the gas works, coming up the
rect and ard the noise Of a ow upon the build
ing and believing il to be stone thrown against
Dulding and that he saw the often der, started H.
pursuit He knew of this pile IF rocks and tt stifed
mat no thought h was keeping out far enough to
avN them, but some of the n had rolled down on
to the sidewalk, and striking his foot against one
wa thrown violently upon this pile of paving stones
ana lie gs rock, ujuring his side that he had hem
orrhaee Of the lungs the next morning and was con
fined % his house tor MONTH
Plaintiff testified that previous to the injury he
had slight hemorrhage from the throat and thai
his father and brother died OF scrofula.
The doctors testified that the left lung of the plain
TIN is now comp etey sold led and that he has the
consumption, but there was much difference OF opin.
Ion among them as to the cause, nature and extent
OF the present condition of the plaln some taking
the ground that it tubercu Gus consump ion and
that thu injury had nothing to do with it; and 9TH
ers that it was not tu5ercular but inf atory and
that if not caused by the injnry it was the match
which kin llsi the q me.
The defandAnts rontendod fret That +1,o ,,J,;,t;a
han suffered no injury bv reaso of the defect and
secondly that if he had that he could not have been
In the exercise of ordinary care inasmuch as this
was on his beat, open and apparent, and had existed
for long space OF time t. his knowledge as he tes-
uned; and further that the ty ordinances require
and the police were required to report all dangerous
places on their beats to the deputy Marshals thai
they might pr perly guard a1ainst accident, by pac
ing gu ,rds or lanterns around the detect and that
he di not complJ with this Instruction it was cuIpa
Bile negligence and that he entitled to recov-
err The plaintiff testified that he did notify tho
Deputy M'rshals OF the cond ton things but the
Marshal and De tuties all denied that he ever did,
The presiding Jud e upon this point instruct ed
the jury f,r the purposes OF this trial that the fact
that the plaintiff member of the night police
and had in his possession the book containing the in
sructons to the police, and that the accident hap
pened wi hun the limits of his beat would not pre-
cl ude recovery by the plaintiff if he reported The
onditon OF the street to his superors 10 the depart
ment and they neglected o tase any measu- es to1
the security Of the public; and the plaintiff could
not by the exercise OF ordinary care and prudence al
the time of the aec4ent have avoided the conse-
quences OF that Detect and in other respects en-
titled to recover,
The jury after being out tour hou rs and half re-
turned . verdict for plaintiff for $1t50.
The following questions were pu to the jury both
OF which they answered in the affirm ative
l. Did or not tn plaintiff mott Ell her or both of
the Deputy Marshlls of the condition OF the street,
and talk with them atout it previous to the acct
dent?
2. did or not the plaintiff receive verbal ius true
ions w,sn the rest or the police tn regard to the
use IF the lantels at dangerous PAGES?
FRYE
Howard q Cleaves Symonds & Libby.