Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1876-02-09

rover guage. he understood that Massachusetts
had come down very much in the amount of CAPT.
tai stock required first to be subscribed. ard il
seemed to him that to require $4,000 per mile to
start with would have the effect TO defeat the
construction of competing railroads.
MIR. ANDERSON opposed the amendment This
| subscription is the basis of the building of roads.
No road in this state of the guage of 4 feet 10
inches can be built and equipped for less than
900 per mile, with the probabilities in favor Of
It's costing $4,000 per mile. The result of Sc 900
per mile to commence on will be to have roads
commenced which will be uncompleted for want
of means.
! Mr.. POWERS advocated his amendment. He
sand his proposition was to fix $4,000 per mile as
the minimum amount Of capital stock to start with
The Aroostook River Railroad already chartered
under the bill, would have to raise a million dol
lars; uLder toe amendment, 5000, 900 as the min
mum amount. II gentlemen did not want to
smut the door to competing lines, they would not
make 1t an essential prerequisite before the COM
pany can organize and commence to construct
road, that they shall get capital stock 50 large
that 1t will be impossible to obtain it.
Mr. BASS favored the amendment. The most
OF the ia.tua Is TO be built hereafter are branch
lines, aud the result of the bill without ndment
would be TO almost prohibit them For the infor.
nation of the House he stated that the directors
OF the Pscataquis railroad have just contracted
for the extension of their road the contractors to
prepare it for the rolling stock at SIS 900 per mile
| to be first class road.
! The amendment offered by Mr.. Powers was
adopted
The vote was reconsidered whereby the House
voted TO take the vote on the bill at II o'clock.
| The bill was then put on Its passage to be en-
crossed as amended, and ordered to be printed on
motion Of Mr.. PowkRs.
Bill an act to amend sec. 65 Of chap. Is of the
revised statutes, relating to damages on WAYS A
amended by chap. 2l5 of tine public laws of 1874,
was taken from the table on motion of Mr.. Bass
the question being on passing the bill to be en-
| crossed.
Mr.. BASS deemed the matter of great impor-
lance for a small matter. He explained that the
law of 1874 divided that parties injured and claim
ing damages on account of defects in highways OF
cities and towns, should notify said cities and
towns of the injury within sixty days after the &C.
cident, neglect OF which was bar to their &C.
| ton. The bill proposed to leave out that impor.
tant pr revision, aud he said it was evidently done
to take care of two or three cases that attor
neys wish to get into court. He said there was no
need OF bis informing members how many fraud
ulent claims for damages are presented against
cities and towns on account of alleged defective
highways, and to remedy in measure the evil,
notice of the injury should be required within
reasonable time And he moved to amend SO a.
to require notice to towns of injury within 80 days
after ITS occurrence stating the nature Of the inju
~, and the nature and location Of the defect.
| Mr.. EASTMAN opposed the amendment. lie
thought it was defective for the purposes of the
mover, IN that 1t did not require the person injured
| to furnish list OF his witnesses. BY looking back
he found that formerly the limitation for this class
of actions was six years. Under the exigencies of
suits, from time to time, it had been reduced Ito
four years, to three years and to one year. the on
~ class of cases he thought on the statutes books
which is limited to one year, where no willfu neg
lee, or malfeasance is charged upon the party
against whom the action may be brought. He
hoped the bill, without the amendment, would
pass. The amendment meant bar to the action
itself, without any regard to its merits. Its effects
would be in favor Of fraudulent claims, to the
clusion of meritorious ones. Because man who
is really injured does not think of suit the first
| thing. But man who is disposed to present
fraudulent claim is posted as to the law and COM
plies with its provisions in regard to notice.
| Mr.. Bass, by consent amended his amendment
so as to require notice within SO days.
Mr.. LYNCH opposed the amendment. He ad-
mired the zeal with which the gentleman from
Bangor (Bass) guarded the interests of his city.
But in his zeal, he was d;sregarding the rights Of
individuals who live in that city. lie considered
the statute which requires towns TO keep their
ways safe and convenient for travellers, meant
| something, and that people should have some
rights under that law. If it meant nothing, then
it should be stricken from the statute book. If it
was to remain, then members should see that it
had some effect. The restrictions thrown around
this class Of cases were greater than those round
! any other class of cases that he knew. And vet
| it was proposed to 60 further and say that per-
son injured in highway and claiming damages,
shall give the defendants notice of the place where
/
jury sustained, and everything entering into the
case and within 80 days, if the gentleman (Bass)
could have his will. When an honest person re-
ceNes an injury upon highway, he does not first
think of his right of action against the town. He
waits 10 see the result of his injury before taking
his legal remedy. All persons are not familiar
with the law, and their right of action is barred
by trap before they are aware of it. A dishonest
against it. lie commended that the amendment
was wrong in principle and would defeat the OBJ
ject for which members were legislating. All
asked is one year in which to give notice. He had
had experience with this class Of cases, and had
never found them profitable or easy. Nobody
| fights like a town. They organize, matter
whether it Is mcritorous case or not that is pre-
sented against them, they satisfied at once
that it is fraudulent claim, and they fight it with
greater zeal and relentlessness than will his
| individual case.
Mr.. PHILLIPS had not proposed to say word
on the bill. He agreed in part with the remarks
of the gentleman LYNCH but not fully. While
lie (Lypch) had been jealous to maintain the char
acter of the legal profession he had been very
liberal in his condemnation of the poor selectmen
and officials of towns. Did the gentleman sup
pose he could spread his reflections broadcast
without word of condemnation He (Phi!lips)
was not Of those able to plead the cause of u
client. but he was one of those unfortunate ones
who have tried to stand between his town aud in
| dividual claims. He had discharged his duty
, faithfully, regardless Of the simple pay he re-
celVeu, ana ne dlu not ike the reuectl0nS cast up
on the heads of members by the gentleman. In
reference to the merits Of the bill, he favored the
amendment, regarding it reasonable and just.
| Towns want to settle up their matters annually,
! and they do not want lawsuits hanging over their
| heads from the want OF notice.
| Mr.. LYNCH disclaimed any intention of casting
reflections upon the officers of towns generally,
and said the gentleman (Phillips) had no right to
give an impression that he had done SO. He did
not intend his remark to apply generally. 1t is
only once in while that careless official in the
matter of repairing highways is found,
Mr.. FRANK opposed the adoption of the amend
ment. just claims would be cut Oft by techni-
cality. lie was not an attorney for any body in
the matter, but spoke for the interests of the reo-
pie. He gave an instance of how the amendment
would result in doing injustice, and said that there
was no more reason in giving town such oppor-
tunities to eyade just claims than any other cor.
poration.
Mr.. BASS closed the debate on his amendment,
contending that towns and cities must be protect
ed in the matter He did not believe an honest
claimant would suffer by the adoption of his
amendment. He was inclined to think there was
cat under the meal and that the bill was intend
ed to effect some pending cases.
The amendment was adopted.
No e.. Ax.IL IL