The Portland daily press., 1882-04-21
THE sTRoUT CASE.
THE SECOND DAYS PROCEEDINGS IN
COURT.
Testimony of the Plaintiff to be Concluded
To-Day.

The Supreme Court, Judge Symonds, came
in yesterday morning at 10 o'clock, and the
case was continued by the introduction of fur.
Their testimony for the plaintiff. There was a
crowded court room all day.
Oh. Wardwell, member of the freshman
class, testified that he roomed in Appleton
| Hall: that Clark, one of the defendants, came
to him on the night of the assault, and told
him and Butler, his room mate, that unless
they put out the light the windows would be
broken. They refused and few minutes af-
ter the window in his room was broken. He
heard the noise of crowd about the college
grounds
/ w. R. Butler, a member of the freshman
| class, testified that he saw Clark that night.
| Clark came to him and told him that unless
| the light in his room was put out the window
would be broken. The light was not put out
and the windows were nearly all broken out
| with bricks and coal. There were half bush
| ell of bricks thrown into his room. No one to
! his knowledge was in the room at this time.
| He could not swear that Clark was not the
one who told him that his windows wonld be
| broken.
Thomas Lee was recalled. He testified tn at
on the night of the Thornton affair his win,
| dows were broken by the crowd. lie was told
| to put his light out. He did SO but the WIN
| doWs were broken. He had no knowledge that
| any one of the defendants threw anything at
| his window that night.
j. b. Thornton, former freshman, testified
| that his windows were broken. He was Sit
ting at his desk studying when party OF
| students went by his window. There was q
cry of flights out" He paid no attention. In
few minutes he was strucktby missile and
o11,J; ,,rav in
afterward and asked him why he had not put
his light out Three panes were broken In
each window. Dunning put out the light
He lighted it after they left. He had no
gagged in the affair. He could not judge how
large the crowd was.
George W. Parker, deputy sheriff, testified
that he served the writs on the defendants la
drug store, on the Sth of November, he over
heard Clark say to a friend, II expected to
have been arrested to-day. We were out haz-
ing the other night and injured Portland
lawyers son and they have been in town all
day." He went to Brunswick at the request
of Mr.. Gage who was also there at the time.
Mr.. 81. w. Gage testified that he was in
Brunswick at the time Mr.. Parker was there.
He went there in relation to the hazing affair.
He requested Mr.. Parker to meet him there in
case there were warrants to be served.
Charles A. Strout, the plaintiff, testlfie ed
that he entered the freshman class in the fall
of 1881. He left college the 10Th OF October.
He roomed in % Appleton Hall in the south
east corner of the building. He occupied two
rooms, sitting room and bedroom On the
south end of the building there was door.
His room was on the left of the stairs. The
plan of the grounds was then shown and the
exact position of the room was testified to.
Measurements were taken in the locality where
Strout saw man standing on the night OF the
assault. On that night he spent the evening
in his ROOM Whittier his roommate was with
him. They had been studying. He was in
jured about 10 o'clock. He went into the bed
room. There was no lamp in the bedroom but
the door between the sitting-room and bed
room was open. There was no curtain in the
bedroom He was standing near the window.
He heard person outside which attracted his
attention. He looked out OF his window and
saw some one make motion as If to throw.
The next instant he was struck in the eye by
piece of coal. The person stood about three
feet from tree, whose position was described
from the plan. He saw the form OF the person
rather tall and he had on round top stiff
hat. He put his hand to his eye, and got
looking glass to see if an. glass from the win
dow had struck it. Soon three of the de-
PENDANTS came in and some others stood at the
door. Not one of them asked what was the
matter with his eye. They did not say any
went out He then suffered great pain from
his eye. He then described how he dressed
the wound and how it affected him the next
day.. A physician examined his eye the next
barely distinguish light and shade. When he
came to Portland he consulted DR.. Holt. Dr.
Gordon was called in twice and he went to
New York to consult DR.. Agnew. Young
normal condition. He had had trouble with
his eyes before the injury. He was not near
sighted but has been since the injury. He is
not able to go on with his college studies. The
effect on his general health has been debilita-
ting.
In the afternoon the examination of young
Strout was finished, without eliciting anything
of Importance additional to the previous testi-
mony.
The cross-examination was devoted to ques-
tions with regard to the health of the plaintiff,
and the past and present condition of his eyes.
Morrill, Goddard, f. S. Strout and Charles A
Strout identified the lump of coal with which
the injury was inflicted upon the plaintiff.
f. M Whittier, young Strout's roommate,
testified to the circumstances connected with
the injury to young Strout's eye, substantially
the same as the other witnesses.
j.. B. Thornton was recalled He identified i
the brick bat with which he was struck.
S. G. Strout ESQ.,, the father of the plaintiff
testified in relation to his sons health prior to
the injury. Young Strout from his boyhood
had been very strong. Some four or five years
before he contracted what he (his father sup
posed to be q habit of straining the eye open.
Dr. Ralney examined his eyes and fitted him
with pair of glasses, which he wore short
time He took his son before DIR. Holt the
Goth, after tea. For two or three months there
was an entire change in young Strout physi-
callY. He seemed to have no energy After
two weeks apparently his vision was return
ing. His sight then steadily declined till in his
left eye it was nearly gone. He took is son to
consult DR.. Gordon. About Christmas the
boy, accompanied by his mother, went to New
York to see DR.. Agnew.
DR.. Erastus E. Holt testified that young
Strout consulted him on the evening of Oct.
Goth. Examination showed bruises on the
struck there was no appearance of injury OF
other structures of the anterior part of the eye
and its appendages, the cornea clear, iris
normal and pupil responding slowly to light.
With the ophthalmoscope he found the
vitrious clear in every direction. The arteries
were somewhat small and pale. The boy had
only perceptions of light, and couldn't dis
tinguish an object held before him. He order
ed to have leeches applied to the temples.
This was done several times. November 10Th
he read 90 minutes, but felt pain. A relapse
took place soon after this The doctor ex-
pressed an opinion that Strout would not at
least for year or two be able to use his eyes
much.
Dr. Gordon testified that he examined
Strouts eyes. His statements accorded with
DR.. Hollis in all respects.
Counsel for plaintiff stated to the court that
probably their case rested there, but wished to
reserve the privilege of introducing more testi-
mony in the morning.
Court adjourned.