The Newtown bee. (Newtown, Conn.) 1877-current, 1889-02-01

Reuben Stowe: Travel road four to six
times week. This point is more fire.
quently overflowed. Raising road three
feet would keep back two-foot freshet.
In five years, average depth not more
than two feet. Wheeler was not alone
with Beebe. Heard Wheeler's story. He
told it always one way. Visited place
of accident. You couldn't tell there was
pond hole at the time, the water had so
overlooked. No tracks in lot.
Mrs Albert Wheeler: Mr. Beebe was
not alone with my husband while was
there. was with him constantly.
Martin Stowe testified substantially
same as John Stowe.
James Burr: Inspector of roads in
Monroe. Think there should be railing
at the place in question. Cross exami-
nation: Would put railing there to keep
carriage from drifting down stream.
Fred Gray: Am acquainted with road.
Travelled path six or seven feet wide.
Quite pond hole about so feet from
same. Don't think the road was reason
ably safe on the occasion. If was rails
ed three feet, the water would not over
flow it. 1t would cost 81 per rod to put
railing there. Need only rough pole.
| think if there was railing, travellers
would keep in limits of highway.
Stiles Loveland, George Smith, Fred
erick w. Curtiss, Charles Warner, John
l.. Lee, David n. Clark, George Tomlin-
son, Selah G. Brakeman and George Rob-
ertson, all having examined the road,
testified that in their opinion it was de-
fective and unsafe without railing on
the east side. Plaintiffintroduced copy
of the layout of the road dated 1898
and then rested his case.
The brief for the plaintiff was largely
prepared by E. l.. Staples, junior counsel
and ably argued in his behalf by Hon r.
E. DeForest and Judge Munger. The
position of the defense was clearly stat
ed by John w. Alling of the New Haven
bar.
The plaintiffs counsel claimed:
| l. That, by the default, the burden of proof
| was on the defendant.
| 2. That it was the duty of the town to keen
the road in such a condition that it would be
safe and convenient for public travel.
3. That it was defective in construction;
that it was out of repair; that there were OBJ.
structions on it and that there should have
been railing on the east side, as, without
such railing, 1t is dangerous and unsafe fol
/ public travel because of the deep water along
| side of the road.
4. That it is no defense that the railing, Il
erected, would be washed away.
| o. That, If the road is dangerous, the town
should give notice of the danger.
8. That the town authorities had notice
actual or implied, of the condition of the road
z. That, under the statute, railing was re
CURED
8. That it is no defence that the pond hole il
outside the limits of the highway, since it i
IN so close proximity as to imperii the safet,
of public travel.
9. That the water was defect.
i TO- That the plaintiff was not guilty of con
tributary negligence, either in driving int.
the water or in trying to get back to the road
H. That the injury was the combined result
of inevitable accident and tho defects in tn
highway and that, therefore, the town is Ii
able.
II. That it is no defense that the horse wa
momentarily uncomfortable.
ID. That the plaintiff is entitled to damage
: for all the loss OF property and pain OF bod
. and mind that he has sustained because q
the injury.
IA. That, if the plaintiff was guilty Of negi
gence, his negligence could not be imputedt
his intestate Harriet L. Beardsley.
The defense claimed
1. That Wheeler's sufferings were due t
| w nv ay.b liz frou 1,.,S Ia