Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1883-01-23
AsulRrLY rorCHE IS DE.InED

ASuARrLY FOUGHT CASE DECIDED
In March 1870, Oliver (. Cummings. al
ergiu.r- iu t-- employ ut Che CRANE.
Trr,E railway. was riding on tLt engine
ofthe regular passenger train from L,0
ton % Portland. When approaching ar-
mouth d. I.t "H..t Ol-' ue IN charge
ola Gle.-sa hy she llwe nc Ney--. srt =
collision erSuei. tn" morning was lo--Y.
and to- frs- notice Cummings had 81 -p-
preaching danger, was glm $50 %. ,le
SmoEtStack % Las CL-.Ee caj4.-- towards
him g.. high speed He '.i NOT mp, Ilt
stood 90 his post. reversed his engine.
whiSt'td down brakes. aud when be had
done az he cCGid % save tae dives 90 his
passengers, DC turned e. sS'c hn>-.- o1,
it wsS too late ard Pee w4, thrown CQou
The ground. crushed aUi mspglel hv the
collision. FOR nearly month he reHs.u-
ell G..irioU and after .S-- Illness par
TALLY recovered suI found tl-t us WIFE
who VS. ii. had i.-d from the shock she
had received. sUl 'ho' 10 could never be
ar entirely well man acliu. lie sued the
Grand Trunk and tls case was tlkru by
the railroad % zoe Circuit Court. Where 10
was tried and Cummings rerovcrei 4 YER
GIc. 20 aNctu thousand dollars. Judge
SLep,ey heard The arguments IN a motion
for utw trial, LC. d,ed before Ae rendered
a decision, ard tlc motion was again AZ
gurd before Judges CHORD and Fox who
granted new trial in an opinion which
was generally understood by the proirS-
sion - eadiug the case. Nothing diUnted
the counsel .1r Cummings hunted up new
testimony and again tried the case, a!leg-
ing that The corporation va, guilty OF d, =
ligence in sending out tue COliidiBg engine
without 4 su. table engineer ami cOuduC-
tor. and that the management had allowed
the rule requiring al engineers ~ yet or
derS az each station where thew stopped,
10 fall into disuse. ard further that NoyeS
had 10 experience 10 d. him 10 ruu
a wild" engine. and that these faults
were the acts Ofthe corporation. AMI not
merely the negligence OF "A fellow servant,
the risk Of which by law, Cummings a.
Sumed when he accepted employment on
the railroad. The Jury ssain found q YER
dict for Cunning for ten thousand seven
hundred collars a motion for new trial
was made before Jadge Lowell, aud after ar
guments overruled by him. The case was
then carrisa Nv the railroad N Washing
ton on questions OF law. and there srgued
by John Rand, esq, for the railroad, and
A. A. Sirout esq, for Cummings. A de-
ci>iOn has now been rendered the court az
irmiDg the Judgment OF the court below
In favor OF Cummings. II therefore APP
pears that Notwithstanding the rule that,a
servant cannot recover against ais employ
er for an injury caused solely by the fault
off fellow servant, vet ne msv so recover
where IN omission or fault OF the employ
er caused or contributed 10 cause the injury.
SOms interesting points OF practice were
also raised before she Supreme Court. The
case has been perSiSteutiy fought at every
step and now after nearly eight years, Cum
miugs has won his suit with interest and
costs MessrS j. and E. ". Rand appear.
ed for the railroad. and Messrs. ). c. An
drews, NJ. 7. Frank aud Strout Holmes.
appeared for The plaintiff Cummings.