The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1893-03-29
Washington County Court.

FRATERNI " CAsLINI.-The jury found for
the plaintiff to recover $1,000 and costs.
GEORGE w. BUCHANAN ". Town OF BARRE.
The plaintiff sought to recover damages
which he claimed to have sustained through
the negligence of the defendant in conse.
quence Of which negligence he ultimately
lost his hand. The evidence tended to show
that about January Is, 1890, the plaintiff at.
tended play at the opera-house in Barre;
that at the close OF the entertainment, in
coming out of the building, near the main
entrance, he slipped on the ice and fell upon
his hand in such a manner as to seriously
injure his wrist; that he had no exatnina-
ton made of the wrist and nothing done for
it, except application of lintment, up to
January %, when he started in company
with three others for Sioux Falls, South
Dakota, to go to work for the Sioux Falls
Granite Company, in pursuance of arrange
ment made previous to the accident; that
upon his arrival, his wrist was in such
condition that he could not go to work, and
that from that time to April II he " as under
a physicians care; that, his wrist continuing
to grow worse, he was advised to go to
Minneapolis and consult other physicians,
and he accordingly went there; that the
physicians whom he consulted, finding
blood-poisoning had set in, advised the am
putation of the hand and arm, iu order to
save his life. In consequence Of the losses
attendant upon this injury, the plaintiff
sought to recover damages to the amount of
$50, 600 AT the close of plaintiff 8 testimony,
the court ruled as follows: Il don't think
there is any difference between the liability
of the town in respect of this building and
the liability of any corporation or any pri-
vate individuals the liability, IL they own
property of this kind is the same as that OF
any other owner. Such are the cases that
you read Tplaintiff having cited some author
ities]. There is one in reference to a Penn
sylvania case, where the city owned a
wharf. Their liability would be the same
as any other owner OF wharf. II they kept
1t so neglgently that it caused damage to
any one rightfully there, the city would be
liable but think there is something beyond
that in this case OF course, under our law,
the town is not liable for any negligence in
respect OF the highways, and, as L construe
| it, that includes sidewalks in the same man
ner Some attempts have been made upon
common-law principles to make them liza.
| ble-One, in respect of the care that they are
| bound to exercise in the streets Il think
| Weller VS.. the City of Burlington), where
| they attempted to make it liable because the
| city neglected its duty in respect of its
streets and permitted persons negligently to
coast in the highway, so that the plaintiff
| was seriously injured in that highway; but
they held that they were not liable. In this
matter, | don't think the case stands any
differently from what it would If defect
existed in the highway away from the build
| ing and the plaintiff was driving to the build
| ing with his team for the purpose. of attend
| ing the opera, or whatever entertainments
| they have up there, and an accident had
happened away from the building This was
| upon the sidewalk, but L have an impress
sion that even in the case of a private owner
! of this building, he would not, under any
circumstances, be liable for an accident that
occurred upon the sidewalk. L shouldn't
object, personally. to seeing this defendant
| pay for any accident in connection with that
| building, for thought at the time that there
was some litigation about it, and that they
had no right whatever to have it and go into
the opera business but / believe the su.
preme court decided that they might want
an opera house fifty years from now to store
road-machnes in, so they held they had a
right to have the building. l thought they
had no right whatever to enter into real.
estate business in that way, so that, per.
sonally, shouldn't object to seeing them
made liable for anything in connection with
it, but think the law is against this case
so that, / am so firmly of that belief, l think
| should have to tell the jury so, if it came
to the point at the conclusion OF all the evil
dence, and | think might as we'll order a
verdict at this time as to do it subsequently,
as the instructions would be in effect order
! ing one"
LIQUOR CAsEs.-In the following liquor
cases set for trial Monday, the respondents
came into court and pleaded guilty State
V. Arthur w. Locklin, State '. Dwight
smith, state V. Martn Mansfield, State V
William Gordon. Sentences are to be pro,
nounced later.
BAR MEETING members OF the
Washington county bar met in the cour
room at eleven o'clock yesterday, and passed
a resolution to attend the funeral of Mr.. j
, "A, Wing, in body. A committee con
sist!ng Of Homer w, Heaton, j. P. LamsoI
and S. G. Shurtleff, was appointed to draf
resolutions on the death of Mr.. Wing; also
a committee consisting of j. Ii. Senter, w
p. Dillingham; and j. w. Gordon to arrange
for a memorial service to be held in tn,
court room during the present term of cour
in honor of the memory of Mr.. Wing.