The Republican journal., 1872-10-31
Supreme Court, Waldo County.
BEFORE JUDGE DICKERsON.


jury on Friday, at twelve O'Clock, AND
after an hours deiberation they returned
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. assess.
ing damages at $4,000. Great interest
was manifested in the case by the public
and very large number of persons from
Stockton were in attendance. As the case
IS one of interest to every community
that has roads to maintain, we publish
full report of the charge of Judge
Dickerson, from the notes of j. d. Pulsifer,
Esq, the official reporter. 1t will be seen
that the defence relied upon two points
lst, that the accident happened upon land
outside the highway; ID, that the coach
was recklessly driven.
JUDGE DICKERsON's CHARGE.
Gentlemen of the Jury: Before you proceed
10 the CONSIDERATION OF your verdict, it is neces-
sary for you to understand distinctly the issue
between the parties. And who are the parties
10 the suit that you are trying? The parties are
Otis Black and his wife, and the inhabitants of
the town of Stockton. The action is between
Them and them alone, and not between either
1
now trying the stage company. 1t hy no means
follows that If you should render verdict for
the dett. that the stage company would be liable
to the pitts, II any action should be commenced
by them against the stage company. The allu-
sion to the stage company and to the persons
connected WIN that company can have nothing
to DO with your verdict, except so far as the
connection of that company or its members
with the accident may tend to affect their cred-
bllity, such OF them as have been witnesses
upon the stand.
The action Is between individuals and Il town
and you are to try it upon the same principles
of law, and give the same effect to the evidence
that you would if it had been between indiyjd-
uaS.
by statute of this State. towns are required
to keep their ways safe and convenient WAYS
highways, are established by various modes, A
highway may be established by being located by
the proper authorities, or by being dedicated by
the owner OF the land to the public, or by their
being used for highways for Il period of twenty
years or more; or town may be liable for in
Juries sustained upon way by reason of their
making repairs upon it within six years next
prior to the happening of the accident. Now,
it i not claimed by the pltfs. that the way, so
called, where the accident happened, was estab-
llshed by location by any municipal or other
authorities; but ii is claimed that it had been
travelled for period of more than twenty wears
and that therefore the public had a riebt to
that account obliged to keep it in repair.
In order to make a town liable to keen Il road
IN repair Ill consequence OF having been Travelled
for q period of twenty years or more, 1t is
necessary that such travel should have been
adverse; that is it should have been without
the permission of the owner of the land over
winch 1t passed, and as if the property itself
belonged to the public, and not in consequence
of any permission given by the owner to the
publlc to pass in that direction. And if it is
claimed that there was way by dedication, it
mus. appear aff1rmatlvely by evidence that the
land or the use of it was given up voluntarily
by the owner for the use Of the public, 9edi-
cated as it is called, and that there was an
acceptance of such dedication by the town or by
Its duly authorized agents.
Now, gentlemen. with reference to the claim
that there was right by prescription, the testi-
mony coming from various Witnesses, Capt
Isaac N. Hartman and others, is that the way
from Searsport to Bucksport passing the place
in question, had been travelled for very many
years forty years or more, and that the road
from Stockton to Bangor had also been Travelled
for more than twenty wears
Now, If the accident occurred upon either of
these thorOughfares as they have been Tins
Travelled, then the defts. would be liable to keep
those ways in repair. Then, how is it with
reference to the liability in consequence of the
way having been repaired by the town within
SIX years next p.iOr to the accident? The
statute imposes upon the town the duty to keen
the way thus repaired in repair, and renders it
liable for any injury sustained therein that may
happen under the circumstances to which may
call your attention. But how is it with respect TO
this fact! In order for the liability of the town to
attach is it necessary that the accident shou Id
nave occurred upon the place where the repairs
were made? Is the liability of the town lin tied
TO that condition, or may it extend not only to
the places thus repaired but TO places immedi-
ately adjacent? You have seen that it is claim
ed on the part OF the plts that this accident hap
pened within the limits OF the way as estab-
lished by prescription, vet if YOU find that the
town did put upon the way the repairs testified
TO, and the accident did happen Immediately adj
)acent to where the repairs were made, then the
town would be liable in the same manner that it
would if the accident had happened upon that
part of the way which had been actually repair
ed. This raises very important question of
law, upon which it is necessary that the court
should rule, and, in order that there may be no
upon this branch of the case.
shall give you distinct instructions, as follows
If the liability Of the town for the injury sus-
tanned by the plaintiff wife is predicaled upon
the fact that the defendants had made repairs
upon the way in question within six years next
preceding the accident, and such repairs were
made south OF and up to the iron bolt, or what
has been termed the stone monument, and not
north of them as testified to by Wilson Hich.
born, the surveyor; and the line of the high
way was not indicated or defined BY fence.
banks of earth, or other visible Objects and the
injury was received Immediately north of the
line OF repairs, and within the limits of the gem
eral course and direction of the travel along the
highway, where travellers were accustomed to
pass with teams and carriages, the town would
he liable IN the same manner as if the injury
had been sustained upon the part of the road
where the town had made repairs. If in such
cases, towns would protect themselves from
liability, they should indicate to travellers the
line OF the highway by such a structure OF it, or
IN such other manner, as would advise travellers
where the line of the way is.
Was the line of the way south of Roberts &
Hichborn's store thus indicated. Mr. Hich-
born testiies that the iron bolt was covered
with earth; and is there any evidence rs to the
precise location or the dimensions of what has
)een called a stone monument Of the travellers
who passed over that way, aohO have testified
hat they have noticed either of these objects, or
hat they were ordinarily visible to the casual
Dasserby: Did the accident occur within the
units and the general course and direction of
he travel, and where travellers were accustomed
o pass with teams and carriages? If it did,
hough it happened where the town had made
40 repairs, the town would be liable in the
'ame manner MS if it happened where repairs
we're made. On the other hand, if the injury
was sustained at the place aforesaid, where no
'epairs had been made by the town. but not
within the limits of the general course and d.
'ecton of travel along the highway, and not
" HCIC IldNtltIS were accustomed 10 with
cams and carriages, the town would not be
liable.
Were travellers thus accustomed to travel over
he place where the accident happened, and was
hat within the limits and general course and
direction of the travel along the highway? In
'ther words, did travellers, in passing along that
hOrOughfare nditferently pass over either part
If the road where the repairs had been made. |
II where none had been made by the town MS
hey might casually happen to do for the time
icing? Judge you, gentlemen, how this was |
rom the evidence in the case.
L have said to you, gentlemen, that the statute |
equires towns to keep their ways safe and con- |
'enient for travellers. And what are we to |
understand by this language? Not that the |
highways must be kept absolutely safe and con-
yenient, so that 1t is not possible for any amount
n skill or Ingenuity 10 put them in better state |
If perfection. But they are to be reasonably |
afe and convenient for travellers to pass And |
his reasonableness depends very much upon |
he circumstances of the case, The law REQUIRES
owns to keep their ways III repair safe and con-
'enient so as to accommodate the public travel. |
\ very much larger space would be required |
or this purpose in pOpulous village than in a |
emote and sparsely populated section of the
COUNTRY; here. for instance in Belfast than in |
ONE remote section of the country
Here IN our streets, you will observe that the |
Whole width from the exterior lines of the road |
8 kept open for the public-all of it used. So |
'ou will observe that this rule is to be con-
trued reasonably. If there is but little travel
lpon the road, you would hardly expect towns
ynull no rpuuiraI TO ut L., |