The Somerset reporter., 1892-09-29
Somerset = j Court


Dana Piston, Hessenges
liz testimony tor rhc tIaiuiin in ia.
ri-e ii PerrN y. 6rcrus va. cont Hus4
Thursday morning. and NJ concluded
At hall pa-l tWo in the aiternoua. Nj
Tower ticu proceeded will n" opening
for the defense.
Dr. tternc VI -NarH and testified
that When called upon 10 attend tn in
Jury. lIe At iir.t declined. and suggested
than 1r Paul. Who Wa Perry family
ply ,ici.ul. he called: that it Wa fhrn
represented to lin thal Or. Paul WI
absent and il NE unknown ~ hen hc
would rrlurn. AMI THAI fhe Vmiuu girl
Ma suffering gfe1 pain AMI IL Nh not
known low extensive her injuries miyhi
he: that upon d ing urged by Mr.
Thompson. Al Whe-r haase the Injured
girl "a. lac consented Ia - aud relieve
her pain a. mtush l. possible. but decljn-
ed To Lake charge OF tho ease: thai he
found tie gil suffering from Il backward
di-locali6n IT the ulna aud ridiI., of the
left arm with possible fracture 81 one
OF the processes al the iuncturc will the
lulneiat- that he reduced ihrdi-hcaliou.
put on -plinl- and baudage-.1o hold the
parl> IN position. and told The pArlie-
HAT lie had only come for the purpose ui
relieving III" pain aud Ia send in the
morning for br. Paul. Who Na- the fam
lily ,,hs stefan and who Would take charge
Of :" and treat il a, he saw iii. a.
he, me. should not return. DR..
trcellf rthcr testified that the follow
ing mt ning he WAS again sent for to
visit The patient, bifl declined to 20 and
assisted the Perry boy. Who came for
him. II lind DR.. Paul. and that lac per-
>onaliY gave the ease 10 further atfen-
tion.
The defendant also introduced festi-
muny to show what took place al the
time OF hi- visit. and the testimony of
other physicians IL 10 hi method of
treatment. and eontrndcd that he did all
thai good surgery and good practice re-
qured. under the circumstances and that
HE present condition of the limb Ma
due 10 causes for WhchIhe was in no way
responsible.
The evidence in rcbultal WIS brief.
and 1T it, conclusion the court adjourned
until Friday morning.
The arguments occupied the entire
forenoon Friday. Mr.. Merrill presented
the case in behalf of the defendant. oc-
cupNing AN hour and twenty minutes.
and wa> followed by Mr.. Brown Who
occupied about the same length Of time
III his argument for IN" plaintiil N the
coming in OF court in III" afternoon. The
case WAS submitted 10 The Jury by Judge
II skell in an able and exhaustive charge.
occupying a little more than an hour.
the Jury then retired. and remained out
until saturday morning, WHEN they an
bounced that they We're unable 20 agree.
The court expressed regret that they had
not been able to settle the controversy
A. the parties had been 10 great expense
in The trial. and there was no reason la
suppose the case could ever he more
iihN l'if>'h'cu' or ever ne submitted u
jury more competent I" uerIue IT, ana
disagreement No'Ill ne ms p1ullt.
ms iloli"f requested ilein l" again re-
| lir' anu hliih' one more effort l" agree.
NItrf an h"lf d'liperdilpn lhe Jury
a%ai' reported INA! 'il'N coilli non agree
ne 'a>' WAS WIN urlWh' ana TIE luf-
"f> WIRE 'N'u>'a 'tn'l M"ha1N morning
Sa1ur,lov plfl, tlr. ra.e Jnla I,
Reed. ot Madison. ~ Ste,,Lru t,rrnp.
of oorl1illr was tried. mi. WA. an ,,..
tion nt ire, ~. in which fine plaintif
suuuht Ia recover $40 IN, .,I,,, nf IN,
trpr. cut and DESTROYED IN III. ,,l,iuiin-
land The defendant afl1ai,t,d lr,,ino
emf certain .tr,.,.. anon Tin nrru,i... I'M
claimed that they vrr. Included in II
trade which he had made Win the nIain.
tin' far 1ho down wood. The cnsr WA.
submitted tu The hlrv AT four o'clork
and thav rr,n9innd ont uutfl uino
n.rln.l, in Inc -,ye,iu~ bainq uu.l,l. Ia
tGr nortins and counsel Tho case MA.
then entered ,neithrr barry. and with
drawn from the iurv. Merrill 4 Go,yrt
for fine ploiutitt : L. Walton
for the defendant.
,rha ,n,, 49, ,.,.., ~, -, >ta,,l.,,.
,I,,,t I,,,.5 ~ N,1- ,,,I 80,
M'' t',at -! ''I I1,hor , i' " ',r
'''''',. -, 80. -,
,Ii'''ll9 a,d -, ,j',.ndan, t,,,,,, ~,
W''. 49,, a." i,,ia 1.nI ~. ,'lai,5t;n
claimed that he engaged for himself and
" itr to remain six months if he liked,
and il the defendant was satisfied: HAT
they remained two months. but that the
defendants wife was CONT! ually finding
fault, and having endured it a. long ~
they could. they left.
The defendant claimed to have en-
plovcd the plaintiff and his wife for :,
period of six months at S26 per month,
without any condition ~ to Il terminal
ton of the contract before thrcNpirafion
of that time. He said that The plaintiff :
work was satisfactory and that they
found no fault further than to request
the plaintiff Mt one til e To refrain from
the use of profanity at the breakfast
table When plaintiff left he told him
if he broke the contract in that manner
he should not nay him ANYTHING for the