Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1871-06-17

SUPERIOR (CvIL) CoURT.-BRIGHAM, C, j..
Fitchburg, Friday, June 16.-Still on trial,
Charles b. Ford VS.. the Fitchburg Railroad
company. The following witnesses completed
the testimony for the plaintiff: D. P. Morgan,
machinist Of 10 years experiences Z. A. Hans
com, stationary engineer; S. Fitzgerald, fire
man for Ford on the Concord" when the
boiler exploded; Samuel Oliver, switchman at
Fitchburg; C. Damon, machinst in the Boston,
Clinton, & Fitchburg R. R. repair shop; D. T..
Davis, master mechanic of the Vt. & Mass. K.
R.. ]. Newhall, machnist in Haywood Chair
Co.'S shop. Their evidence was in general that
the locomotive was in an unsafe condition before
the explosion, on account of a crack in the
boiler, one or more stay rods or bolts being
broken, boiler head being bulged out, &c, and
that the master mechanic of the road should
have had it examined and repaired after his at
tention had been called to it by the engineer;
and that the corporation is blamable for not
having a skilled or competent mechanic or ma
chinist for its master mechanic.
The case was opened for the defence by Mr..
GOulding, the purport of his argument being,
that if there was any defect in the engine, which
they did not admit, it was latent and undiscov-
erable the defendants had exercised all due
care and prudence and had employed persons
qualified and competent to manage the different
departments of their road. That they had
done what was proper and right toward the
plaintiff, after he was injured, in the furnishing
of medical aid, and other assistance. That
the plaintiff was as much responsible for the ac-
cident which could not be ioreseen, as anybody.
If there was any defect shown to have existed
in any part of the boiler, before the accident,
the casualty did not occur in consequence of
said defect, but from some other cause which
could not be foreseen.
The Jury took view of the broken engine, or
that portion of it material to the purpose at the
freight station, after which the witnesses for the
defense were put on as follows: +. B. Child,
draughtsman, of Boston; +. A. Wait, machnist
on the Boston and Maine road; Benjamin W..
Healey, locomotive boiler maker, Boston; j. B.
Winsow, superintendent of the Boston and
| Lowell railroad; ii. L. Leach, superintendent of
| the HincBley and Williams locomotive works,
Boston; John Thompson, East Boston, master
mechanic; George Peabody, machinist, Boston !;
E. Appleton, railroad commissioner; A. 5.
Adams, of South Acton, railroad agent;
Oliver Aver, of Charlestown, machinist,.
the testimony seemed to be that the
master mechanic of the road was q competent
person to have charge of his department; that
if those defects alleged to exist in the boiler were
there before the accident, they were undiScover-
able; that the casualty did not result from those
particular de iects, alleged previously to have ex-
listed, although such defects if they were found
to be there should have been remedied before the
I engine was allowed to be used.
There are some twelve or fifteen more wit
nesses for the defence to be examined This is
the first case in this county Of suit against
railroad company by an employee for damages
for injuries. The plaintiff puts in his claim in
this case for $4,000, which of courseis no indi-
cation whatever of what the verdict may be.