The Portland daily press., 1870-12-16
superior Court.

DECEMBER TERM-aoDDARD, j., PRESIDING.
TaURsDAY.-Joseph Estes vs.. Grand Trunk
Railroad. Action Of tort to recover for damages to
plaintiffs horse, pung and harness on the 1st OF
March last, alleged to have been sustained by reason
OF tho careessness the part Of defendant Company
In running their trains Commercial street in this
city. 1t admitted, the part of the defendants
that If they liableior anything they liable
to the full vaue OF the property as claimed by the
plaintiff, vz $3.50. The facts in brief. stated by
the plaintiff, are these:-He was on his way up Com
mercial street to the Office of James g. williams
when he saw train coming; he Immediately crossed
the track and continued his way up the side next to
the wharves; the train passed him and he drove up
to the door OF James & Williams office, looked
around and saw, he supposed the train on lis way
east; he got out, leaving is horse unhched, stand
ing within thirteen feet Of the track and went into
the Office and was proceeding TO the transaction Of
his business when he heard the train ON its way
back he rushed 10 the door in time 10 see his horse
dashing along side of the train as 1t was running
down on to Sturdivant's wharf, and Immediately
after horse pung and harness were piled up on lot
Of ship knees. lie thought the train consisted of
eight ten AMI running at the rate Of ten
or twelve miles an hour. Other witnesses for the
plaintiff testified the speed was eight miles hour,
and one put it as high as sixteen. There was one
WltneSS WHO tc6tlutu tudt uc saw Tue dcClueuL anu
that the engineer blew the whistle just previous to
the horse starting.
The employees and others testified that the whistle
was not blown that afternoon; that the train con-
sisted Of five cars in front OF the locomotive and was
not running over five miles an hour. Defendants
commended that the accident occurred partly IL not
solely, by reason of the carelessness of the plaintiff
In leaving his horse within thirteen feet Of railroad
track unhitched, where he knew trains were con-
stantly passing and repassing.
The presiding Judge among other things, instruct
ed the jury that the question as to whether or not
the plaintiff in the exercise of ordinary
for them; that ii they found he was not in the
exercise of ordinary be could not recover unless
they found that the servant of the Company blew
the whistle wantonly and for the purpose Of startling
plaintiffs horse, and that the accident was occa
stoned by such whistle, in which case he would be
entitled to whether he in the exercise OF
ordinary care or not.
The jury returned verdict for the plaintiff for
$780, and found specially that the whistle of the To-
connective was blown in the immediate vicinity Of
plaintiffs horse by the engineer, and that the acci-
dent was occasioned by such whistle. Tho question
to whether not it was blown unnecessarily and
wantony and for the purpose OF startling the plain
tif's horse the Jury did not answer. Defendants
hled motion for a new trial.
Waterman. Bradburys.
This being the last case for the jury they were dis
charged finally.
The following assignments of justice trials have
been made:
FRIDAY, DEC. 16.
213-Atwood et al. vs.. Rawson.
202-Trath vs.. Pennel
303-Libby ct. al. VS.. Gilman.
3W-Same VI. Plummer.
3b2- Harmon and wife vs. Farwin.
S26-Dow vs. Mains.
Sib-Smal ct al. VS.. Boyer.
264-Mattocks VI. Stebbius.
46o-Cloherty, appellant, VS.. Flaherty.
SATURDAY, DEC. II.
67DCoburn VS.. Bearce ct al.
14t-Frank, administrator, VS.. Trasor.
12-Same vs.. Same.
202-Mountfort VS.. Webster.
209-Russell W. McDufie.
210-Same vs.. Same.
237-Sheehan VS.. Parker.
246-Cardif VS.. Jennings ct al.
ze1-Latham vs.. Thompson.
26e-Maybury vs.. Lombard ct al. ~