The Portland daily press., 1882-02-01
THE VERDICT
Which the Jury Found in the
Boston & Maine Accident.
THE BRIDGE FAULTY IN MATERIAL
AND CONSTRUCTION BUT NO
BODY BLAMED.

KENNEBuNK, Jan. 31.-The coroner's jury
which recently investigated the recent accident
on the Boston & Maine Railroad has returned
the following verdict:
At an inquisition held at Wells, and by ad-
journment to Kennebunk, both within the
county of York, on the Sd, 9th, 9th, 7th, 10th,
18th, 10th and 21st days of January, A. ID.
1882, before Jefferson w. Sargent, one of the
coroners of said county, upon view OF the body
of James G. Hodgdon, then lying dead, by the
oaths of Addison E. Haley, Marcus Watson,
John Cousens, Joseph Parsons, Henry 4. Cur
tis and George Varney, good and lawful men,
who, being charged and sworn to enquire for
the State when, how and by what means said
James G. Hodgdon came TO his death, upon
their oaths say that the said James Y: Hodg-
don came to his death on the second day OF
January, A. d. 1882, at SAID Weils on account
of injuries received that day, occasioned by
the car in which he was then and there being
conveyed by the Boston & Maine Railroad fall
ing with other cars of the train through the
bridge of said railroad at said Wells, spanning
the highway from Wells to Kennebunk, called
Boothby's bridge. The broken bridge was an
askew structure placed on stone abutments and
was composed of iron, which, having been
tested since the accident, showed quite a per
cent. of crystallized iron, and some portions of
said iron SO tested did not stand the practical
tests it was submitted to by certain iron ex-
We find that said bridge was composed of
iron of quality originally too inferior for a
structure of that style or dimensions, or that
its quality had become deteriorated by use or
other causes Scientific evidence before us
differing as to whether crystallization OF said
iron pre-existed or was produced by use and
other causes, we express no opinion as to which
view is correct
We further find that the breaking of said
bridge was caused either by the weight OF the
engines attached to said train and the concus-
sion produced by the speed of the same over
said bridge, or the shock caused by the baggage
car of said train being possibly derailed and
running on the seepers of said bridge, which
fact is questioned by a part of said jury at
least but either or both of which causes, in
our opinion, said bridge should have been suf-
ficiently strong to have withstood, there being
no evidence in our opinion, sufficient to justify
a belief that any part of said train came in
contact with the truss of said bridge before it
gave way.
We further find that said corporation has
used all usual diligence in the inspection and
care of said bridge. and find no occasion OF
censure in that respect We think it apparent
that any overhead bridge spanning roadway
as did the bridge in question and placed on
abutments at an angle other than right angle
is relatively weaker and its life much shorter
than one spanning such roadway and placed on
abutments at right angles, but the right to de-
fleet such roadways to facilitate the crossing
overhead by railways being in the County
Commissioners or municipal officers the jury
suggest that such questions might more fitly be
determined by the Railroad Commissioners OF
the State, they constituting court OF more
special knowledge and experience, and that a
change in the laws applicable thereto is desira-
BILE.
We hereby commend the spirit of fairness
manifested and valuable assistance rendered
us by said corporation through its counsel,
Gooroa q YA2t0u ES0.. during this iuYeStlqa-