Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1871-03-15
U. s. Circuit and District Courts.

The case Of Smith VS.. the Grand Trunk r.
r. Co. being a claim for damages for injuries
received by the plaintiff was given to the
jury on Thursday morning last. His Honor
Judge Smalley charged first. that it was for
the plaintiff to show that he was legally on
the defendant S railroad, if so the law i'm
plies that he should be carried safely. 1t
was the duty of the defendants to provide a
coed and safe track, engines and cars, and
skillful and careful employees. There being
no question but that the accident alleged in
the declaration happened, the burden of proof
Is upon the defendants to show that 1t did not
result from the slightest negligence on their
part. If, however, the accident resulted
from some unknown cause, and without fault
Of the defendants they would not he liable.
Second, if the plaintiff received any injuries
from this accident, what was their charac-
ter Were they caused by the accident and
did the plaintiff contribute in any manner TO
them? Here the burden of proof is changed
to the plaintiff, and they should be satisfied
of these facts from fair balance of testimony
and not rest their conclusions upOu any the
DRY of possibilities. The jury after half an
hours consideration returned verdict in
favor of the defendants
Elisabeth w. Seaver vs.. the Travellers
Insurance Co. was then commenced. This
is a suit brought by the widow of John B.
Seaver of Stowe, t. recover the amount ola
policy issued by the defendants March %,
1866, on the life of J. b. Seaver, who died
Oct p, 1866, from injuries received while
driving in race on the MorrisviIle race
course three days previous. Messrs. II. II.
Powers and f r Hard for the plaintiff
Messrs. G.. Z. Noble and F. j. Phelps for
the defendant.
On Saturday morning Judge Smalley
charged the jury that the execution and the
delivery of the policy and the death of Mr.
Seaver was admitted, and that the plaintiff
must recover unless prevented by two provis-
ions in the policy lst, whether his death
was caused by violation of the law and
2nd, did the plaintiff expose himself to any
unnecessary danger or peril. The burden of
proof on these two points rested with the
defendant.
In regard to the first question, the law
fOrbids all persons racing for money All
species of gambling are prohibited by law
The plaintiff, at the time the accident oc-
CURED, was driving for a purse. Ii was a
question of fact for the jury to say whether
his death was caused by reasons of his viola
ton of the law, or whether it was caused by
Mr.. Gilman, the driver next to him, turning
in upon him Nth The intention of driving Mr..
Seaver from the track, and thus enable him,
U
which act was the collision of the two sui
kies, Mr.. Seaver being thrown to the ground
and afterwards dragged and killed. Ii this
last act was the immediate cause of the acct
dent, and but for this Intentional movement
of Gilman, the consequences of which Gil
man is presumed by law to know, the acci-
cident would not have occurred, then they
| should find a verdict for the plaintiff. The
language of the provisos should be con-
strued against the party using it as it
was their own. This suggests the in
quiry whether horse racing in the country
was viewed as an unnecessarily dangerous or
perilous act, and so to be included in the pro-
visio, especially when the defendant knew
through the application of Mr.. Seaver, that
he was by employmenta livery stable keeper,
and so was expected to be with and about
horses.
| The jury on request of the plaintiff were
instructed also to bring in a specialverdict on
the point whether from the evidences in the
case, after the collision of the two sulkies
took place, Mr.. Seaver jumped out and was
entirely free from the sulky and harness
that he spoke to his horse who Stacked his
pace a little, and then stepped forward a
few feet to regain the reins, he was caught
| in them and dragged till he received the in
jury from which he died.
After being absent for half an hour. a yer.
dict of $3,745 was returned in favor of the
plaintiff. They also found the facts a.
claimed by the plaintiff in their special yer.
dict
Eliza A. Parker VS.. William Joslyn was
then commenced. This is an action of as
sumpsit to recover 50, 1887. SIS in U. S. bonds,
7-3Os, that were destroyed at the time the
defendants house was burned in Vergennes,
Feb. 10, 1866. The plaintiff is the widow
of the late Geo. Parker of Vergennes, and
the bonds referred to are the product of the
sale of her dover interest in a mill in Yer
gennes. The defendant was administrator of
Mr.. Parker's estate, and as such had charge