The Portland daily press., 1891-08-22
THE MATTHEWS SUIT.
A Non. Suit Ordered by Judge walton
Yesterday.

The trial of the suit of George II. Mat
thews against the County of Cumberland. to
recover $4,000 damages for physical inju-
ries alleged to have been sustained by reason
Of defeat In the easterly pier at the draw
on Portland bridge last April, was begun be-
fore Judge Walton in the Supreme Couit at
Bath Thursday afternoon.
The plaintiff was the master Of the tug
Salem, and on the morning of April Sth
towed the schooner Willie 81. Higgins, load.
ed with coal tor the Boston & Maine rail
road, to the pier on the east side of the draw
In Portland bridge. The pier is SO situated
that the only way of passing from the pier
to the bridge Is by climbing over the side of
the bridge and the railing, the height from
the surface of the pier to the surface of the
bridge being about 13 feet. After the schoon-
or had been made fast to the pier, before
passing the draw. the master of the schooner
not being quite certain at which berth above
the bridge the schooner should 20 to dis
charge her cargo. desired to go to the Boston
d Maine Office on Commercial street. t, as.
certain that fact. As matter of accommo
dation Captain Matthews accompanied him.
They left their vessels and proceeded along
the pier few steps, when Captain Matthews
as he stated, stepped upon decayed plank
which broke under him and let him through
the hole, from which fall he sustained se-
we're injuries.
After the evidence for the plaintiff had
been concluded, motion for non-suit was
presented by the counsel for the defendant
We understand that the motion was upon
the following grounds First. that the place
Of the alleged injury was not within the lin
its of the highway. and that the plaintiff, at
the time Of the accident. was not traveller
upon the highway. as he alleged In his decla.
ration. and therefore no statutory liability
whatever was imposed upon the County of
Cumberland to respond in damages for such
injury. Second, that If any liability what,
| ever rested upon the county f.r the condi-
| tion Of the pier In question. such liability
| existed only In favor Of those who we're ac-
tually using the pier for the purpose of max
| ing fast vessels on their way. through the
draw, and that the plaintiff. according to his
own account Of it, was using the pier as
place Of general travel, and not as place to
make fast his vessel or In any way for the
purposes of aiding the passage of the vessel
through the draw. Third, that inasmuch as
the place in question was not within the
limits of the highway, and as there is no
statute In his state imposing any liability
upon the county to civil action at the suit Of
an individual for injuries received by reason
OF defects in wharves or piers under the
charge of the county, mere neglect in the
performance of corporate duty would not
render the county liable to civil action at
common law, but that performance of duty
In this respect could only beenforced by in
formation or Indictment in behalf of the
public: that the right of action in such case
against county is purely creation of stat
ute and does not extend to any case to which
the statute does not In terms apply.
After full arguments the motion was sus-
tained, and non-suit was ordered by the
presiding justice.
Benjamin Thompson appeared for the
plaintiff, and Frank w. Robinson and Jo-
seph w. Symonds for the defendant.