The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1874-12-07
Superior Court.
Superior Court.
DECEMBER CIVIL TERM, 1874, sYMoNDs, j., PREsID-

DECEMBER CIVIL TERM, 1874, sYMoNDs j., pREsID-
ING.
SATURDAY. Augusta M. Stimson VS.. William
Skillin and Jacob Clark. This is an action Of tres
pass Quare clausum for breaking and entering the
premises of the plaintiff and carrying away one hun
dred and eight cubic yards of granite in the blasting
of which the foundation of plaintiffs brick house
was badly shaken and its walls cracked and other
wise damaged. At the time of the alleged trespass
the defendants and one Andrew Low since deceased
were selectmen of Gray.
The plaintiffs house is situated on the old Port
land road Gray Corner about fourteen feet back
from the line Of the road. The yard in front of the
house was open and not fenced.
The testimony for the plaintiff was to the effect
that in front OF the house rock or boulder i'm
bedded in the EARTH the bare visible part Of which
extended into the wrought part of the road and some
six eight feet into the dooryard. 1t was foot and
half two feet in its highest part above the sur
face Of the ground 1t subsequently turned out that
the rock was about eight feet in depth, sixteen in
length and eight or nine feet in width.
In August, 1869, the defendants in their capacity
as selectmen went on to remove this portion OF the
rock above the surface for the purpose Of improving
the highway and benefting public travel. To ac-
eomplish this the defendants now admit that it was
only necessary take off about three feet Of the top
Of the rock But after removing the earth about it,
seeing its dimensions and finding it good quail
ity of granite, and would rift WE'LL they continued
their work and took out the whole boulder, contain
ing about 1870 cubic yards of granite. A small por-
ton Of this they use for the abutment to bridge
and the remainder for face wall to the cemetery.
The plaintiff testified that Skillin, of the de-
fendants told her after work begun the rock that
they were about to do little blasting and she better
open her doors windows to prevent tie breaking
glass, and that If they did any damage they would
pay for it; that they worked upon the rock about
two weeks, during which time they put in between
twenty and fifty blasts; that of them were very
heavy and shook the house fearfuly, throwing down
dishes in the pantry and bricks and mortar down the
chimney; that at one time just before blast Skillin
told her she better take the children and 60 out into
the she'd which she did that she noticed no particu-
lar cracks damage at the time except one day she
found the casing to the front door cracked of and
at right when her husband came home called his at
tentlon to it; the husband says that on the next
morning he told Skillin they blowing his house
all to pieces. This, however, Skilin denies. The
plaintiff testimony further to the effect that in
removing the stone they excavated and blasted with
in six feet of the house. and in doing that the ounda
ton of the house disturbed, the outside walls
badly cracked and many of the doors in the house
cOulQ not De clOSeu. Lie udmdSeS cldiueu arr Ouc
thousand dollars.
The defendants deny in the first place that they
caused any damage to the house whatever; that
there was no blasting sueh done; that this rock
was split up drilling small holes and using wedges;
after making the crack and for the purpose of OPEN
ing til. seam they put in powder at one end Of the
seam put little dirt upon it and exploded it, which
opened the crack about two inches; that they used
powder but six times, and in all about six pounds;
that the explosion each time was very light and they
took all the precautions necessary Skillin testified
that after each explosion he asked Mrs. Stimson II
any damage was done, and each time she replied
there not; plaintiff denied this. The defendants
deny that the rock was located in front Of plaintiff g
house or on plaintiff 3 land, but was further to the
north and laid parallel to the road SO that the exca-
walton did not come within twelve or fifteen feet OF
the house. Defendants also put in considerable tes-
tmony tending to show license on the part OF the
plaintiff through her husband, as her agent; that at
different times he had requested the selectmen to re-
move this stone and offered to bear part OF the ex-
pense at another time offered to take it out himself
for twenty five dollars to be allowed on his highway
tax and that at time soon after the rock was re-
moved he said he thought the removal OF the rock had
improved his property five hundred dollars.
As to the damage to the house defendants say 1t
was built on a poor foundation and the most Of the
cracks have been in the walls ever since it built
about thirty-three years.
Both the plaintiff and her husbind denied any Ii
permission their part to the defendants to
do what they did and say that whatever propositions
were made were only for the removal Of that part OF
the stone which projected above the ground and i'm
peded travel. The case has occupied four days and
the jury were out when court adjourned, having
been directed to seal up their verdict. ....t
Frank-Strout 8 Holmes for plaintiff.
tIrE WI vinton for defendants.